Leaderboard

From MilTech-5 Discord From RAZBAM discord: RAZBAM Discord Mig-23

From Razbam's Discord, English version of the MiG-23

Hi, this has been discussed in-depth before. Essentially the current behaviour is approved by SME with thousands of hours in the plane and verifiable by the performance data. Some errors here and there might still be present (and the behaviour at very high AoA and with asymmetric payloads will be reviewed). But, especially for subsonic speeds, we are confident that the model is very accurate. Some tips/clarifications: the F1 can carry a lot of fuel for its size, so I'd recommend not dogfighting unless you're below half full. It also likes to stay fast. It's possible to outrate other contemporary fighters but only with low fuel and keeping the speed high. Disengaging and extending to search for more favourable fight conditions also works quite well.

There was no issues with english language. THere was issue with bug reproducing. It's not enough (absolutely) to copy-paste forum post into our internal bugtracker, this way is very easy and wrong. The main question is bug reproducing here - programmers can't work with such bugs (or, more precisely, they forced to work in 'blind mode'). Further, testers have no possibility to check fixes. That's why I asked details. Thanks again for answers and comments, fix planned to release in the next sheduled update.

Thanks, Citizen. Livery complete for Russian destroyer Nastoychivy.

I can’t comment on the realism here, but in general you can do lots of stuff in DCS that would violate mandatory safety margins in RL. You don’t need to fear for your life and more importantly, you don’t need to account for the holy fury of the maintenance department. So ….. there you go.

Hey Toni, there is a good Farragut 3D model out there. If I get enough donations and or coffee donations I will purchase and create it. Hello, everyone I have sent out the Russian destroyer Admiral Ushakov for testing. Once testing is complete I will release her if there are no major issues which there shouldn't be. Since there are only two of them in Service. I will see if I can create a livery for the Russian destroyer Nastoychivy. Hull number 610.

It has a relatively high wing-loading and it has roundabout 80%'ish more internal fuel than a MiG-21. It also has about one ton more thrust at military power and roundabout the same thrust in burner as the MiG-21 (emergency regime not considered). At 8000RPM (that's roughly 95%) and clean'ish you'll hit roundabout 600KIAS on the deck, which is insanely fast. You'll scratch the Mach at >7500RPM at high altitude, clean. Keep your speed above 450 KIAS/ Mach .9 and try to sustain energy. It's not a one-circle fighter like the MiG, but you can usually scissor pretty well in it. As long as you baby the engine. The turn-rate is relatively constatnt throughout the envelope, thanks to the combat flaps. You can also pull the other guy into the sight pretty well for a snap-shot. It's an easy jet to operate, but it's probably the hardest jet to fly well. Yet.

Is a Spanish Marine Infantry version possible with an MG42?

Oh weh...ich wünsch MilTech das deren Projekt mal einfach so dahin plätschert. Ohne Probleme. Hat es mehr als verdient. Und ich hoffe dass es dadurch nicht zu einer all zu langen Verzögerung kommt. Bin mal gespannt wer nun künftig die Programmierung übernimmt...

Сияние "бриллианта" пилотажной группы Ми-8МТВ2

From the manual of the real F-15E: "Baffles in the feed tanks provide limited fuel supply for the left and right main boost pumps during negative g or inverted flight." and "NEGATIVE G FLIGHT Negative g flight is limited to 10 seconds at all power settings,"

So this is a bit misunderstood. There are two general families of sidewinders, the Navy versions. 9B/D/G/H, developed by China Lake, which starting with the D were gas cooled from bottles in the pylons. And then there were the Air Force models. The 9E/J/N/P etc. These starting with the E were peltier cooled. I.e. Electrically, these missiles were not China lake built, rather Ford Philco and others. There are however other differences, for example the 9G/H could use SEAM modes and could be pointed by radar. Whereas the 9E/J/N/P could not, though these missiles could accept an "uncage" seeker command that is independent of the firing switch. The 9L, which was ordered by congress to be "common" was developed from the 9G/H "DNA" by china lake. As such it has SEAM compatibility, and its internally cooled by its own gas bottle. I believe Iran was slated to get the 9G or 9H sidewinders with the F14, but never did. So they somehow would have had to adapt the pylons that were designed for the navy missiles to work with the AF missiles they had for their phantoms. Certainly not an insurmountable task as they managed to do it. But for example the 9J/P that they used would not have access to SEAM. The Falklands adaptation of the 9L was mostly good luck on the brits part as the 9L used the 9G/H "DNA" and thats what the RN harriers used, so it was backwards compatible aside from the 9G/H rail had to "modified" with files. Also I recall reading that Iran had to adapt their AIM 7E-2 to work with the F14 like the AIM 7E4. Though perhaps they did have some AIM7-E4's delivered. So hopefully your guys IRAF F14 will have 9J/P's that work like 9J/P (no SEAM).

I like to create inmersive enviroments in my missions, most of them to be played with helicopters, and DCS has a lack of civilian personnel. Would be great if someone create: -A man/woman dressed with a suit to have a VIP. -A man/woman dressed with typical white 'coat' of ingeneer/doctor/scientific. -Civillians of any kind. It would be great to rescue civillians, or only as atrezzo. -DCS has no 80s soviet soldiers but summer dressed paratroopers? :_( I have look for all this things and have found nothing Thank you very much.

We have been seeing/hearing about these updated models for 2 years+ now and yet are never included in the updates... this community pumps out an amazing new model every day/week it seems....

WIP.

A lot of players have issues with air-to-air refueling. I suggest implementing the task on Iceman/Jester Menu. Then, when air refueling is needed, the player can jump to Jester's seat and through the menu ask the pilot to make the hard work.

Seen this in the Mi-24 simulator video posted on the Hind part of the forum, the effect is great. With the new clouds system coming I think it will be a great improvement in immersion. Will really love to see soaked runways and tarmacs as a weather option.

I'm not sure too if the Hornet have a Sun visor, but as MAXsenna pointed out if the chat is dimmed it's a game issue indeed, are you running the latest drivers and did you deleted fxo and metashaders2 folders in your saved games? (If you already did all of that then I'm kinda out of solutions I'm sorry) It's a very weird thing, and maybe there is an issue in a very specific situation that the auto exposure of DCS break... I hope we solve this issue, I can understand it can be very frustrating.

В будущем патче это будет поправлено.

I've had the problem I described for quite some time. Yours just sounds like the same thing only it's not as a result of switching views. I'm trying to wrack my brain for things I tried. I am in VR too, but it sounds like you are not? That would rule out all the VR settings right out of the gate. I fly A LOT of night. When I run my server it's called "Cold, Dark and Miserable", so It's kind of my thing. 99% of DCS online is daytime flights. This is under the radar because so few people are seeing it is my guess.

I don't own any modern DCS planes, so can't check the replay track. After watching that short hoggit clip though, I think the problem is possibly related to the infamous auto-exposure adjustment introduced with DCS 2.8, messing up internal-vs-external lighting when looking / zoomming around cockpits of all modules in the game nowadays. Many threads on the subject have been posted. It's "only" pretty annoying during sunny day missions, but might be gamebraking during night ones if other factors align "the wrong way" (cloud coverage, moon phase etc.). I don't fly night missions so haven't noticed such extreme example, but that's my guess at the moment. The bad thing is - the exposure "feature" can't be disabled, nor does it seem to be considered a bug by ED. Have you tested other aircraft and cloud and moon conditions?

Ok thanks. I will try that. Appreciate it. Cheers,

Yes, I agree. Based on what I've read, I believe correct behavior should be: Guns, Missile and Camera Switch set to OFF or CAMR ONLY - No growl under any circumstances2. Guns, Missile and Camera Switch set to GUNS MSL & CAMR: SELECT JETTISON Switch set to OFF: EXTERNAL STORES Selector set to SAFE: Left AIM-9 growls if present, regardless of selection3, but can only be fired if selected4. Right AIM-9 will only growl, and can only be fired, if selected4. EXTERNAL STORES Selector set to BOMB, RIPL, or RKT/DISP: Left AIM-9 growls if present, regardless of selection3, but cannot be fired unless DM/DG mode is activated5 and the station is selected4. Right AIM-9 will only growl, and can only be fired, if DM/DG mode is activated5 and the station is selected4. SELECT JETTISON Switch set to SELECT POSITION or ALL PYLONS: EXTERNAL STORES Selector set to SAFE, BOMB, RIPL, or RKT/DISP: Left AIM-9 growls if present, regardless of selection (conjecture based on the behavior above) but cannot be fired under any circumstances6. Right AIM-9 does not growl (conjecture based on the behavior above) and cannot be fired under any circumstances6. The MISSILE VOLUME Knob should be effective at any time the growl is audible, including the unselected left missile1. The source states that "The audio tone cannot be manually turned off." 1T.O. 1F-5E-34-1-1, Figure 1-28, #1 2T.O. 1F-5E-34-1-1, Figure 1-28, #4 3T.O. 1F-5E-34-1-1, Figure 1-28, #5 4T.O. 1F-5E-34-1-1, Figure 1-28, #6 5T.O. 1F-5E-34-1-1, Figure 1-28, #9 6T.O. 1F-5E-34-1-1, Figure 1-29, #3

I'd be all for maintaining the SnapView system so you can define different zoom levels in different aircraft (though I disagree with your strategy, you're making apparent size of objects different in different aircraft - but yes, you should be allowed to do that but not expected to do that). There should be somewhere we can set the value that aircraft spawn with, instead of whatever is determining it now (I assumed it was hard-coded in but I see from posts here that different systems get different values - perhaps it's affected by screen pixel dimensions? I can't see why it would be but I can believe anything at this point). And no, it's not a matter of seconds to edit the SnapViews.lua (which is already a power-user move that many users won't feel comfortable doing). Before you can edit it you need to create a record for the given aircraft. That means spawning into every aircraft you own (taking several minutes each time), making sure you don't move your head position (so, remembering to disable your head-tracker before you do it) and then saving the SnapViews with RAlt+Num0, THEN going into the SnapViews.lua file and finding the default zoom records for the pilot positions (and you can't easily use a global replace because they won't all be the same and there's also default zoom records for other positions as well) and editing each one to the particular zoom value you want. That's exactly what I did do, but I wouldn't call it "a matter of seconds". Anyway, leave all that capability as-is. It would just be nice if that currently uncontrollable zoom value at spawn-in time could be defined somewhere by the user and is then only overridden by the SnapViews if that record exists. (So then you can still use NumEnter to get back to normal zoom at any time, even without having to define all the zooms in the SnapViews.) Make sense?

While we're at it, how about getting rid of the need to hit NumEnter at spawn-time entirely? (And, even better, a single default zoom setting that applies to all aircraft. I wouldn't even touch the SnapViews system if only we had that. We already have an option for defining external view default zoom. Interior should be the same. Why would we want different focal-length eyes in different aircraft?)

Its an interceptor, not a dogfighter… use it on BVR, not at close range.

Out of Contest I leave in user files my version of the 379th.BG, 525th.BS Lead Assembly Ship "Birmingham Blitzkrieg". Those units did a capital role assembling the massive amount of planes needed in those gigantic missions over occupied Europe. Due DCS limitations we only have available the G version of the B-17 (Thanks God) cause IRL this role was done by older E or F models, with no gun turrets and extra fire power. This game limitation doesn't mean we have to restrict "content creators" due historical-hystherical reasons... all the opposite. Generic paint Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332702/

Here’s a final list of all the aircraft I am submitting to the competition. They have all had their roughmets (speculars) updated this week and final tuning done to any diffuse files. 43-37907 “Carolina Moon” 42-40003 “Ol Gappy” aka “Topper” 44-8846 “The Pink Lady” 43-38412 “Webers Wagon” 42-30431 “Kwitchabitchin” 42-31143 “Satan’s Lady” 42-106992 “Baby Lu” aka “Grin N’ Bare It” 42-97976 “A Bit O’ Lace” 42-85784 “Sally B” 42-31863 “Miss B Haven” 44-6009 “Flak Eater” 42-31043 “Hells Belle” aka “Elsie Mae” To round out the bakers dozen, this last one is NOT for the competition. It is a bare aluminium & a bare olive drab aircraft. I thought these might be of use for people wanting to fill spaces with aircraft of no description. Hopefully ED could find them useful as well. The fictional aircraft is one I did a while ago, it’s from the 379th BG – 527th BS. It’ll fit in with all the other 379th BG aircraft that have been produced I hope. B-17G Bare Aluminium & Olive Drab + One Fictional

Thank you' the paint kit yes of course. Rafale_Paint_Kit.zip

НАР С5 и С8 предназначены для поражение площадных целей, таких как скопление живой силы, легкобронированые и небронированые автомобили и тп. Основной поражающий фактор НАР это осколки и фугасный эффект. Осколков в дкс нет, а с фугасным эффектом не понятно. С8КОМ хоть и имеют кумулятивное воздействие, но вероятность поражения одиночной цели достаточно не велика. А вот по колонне на марше есть смысл работать. Иными словами работу НАР можно сравнить с работой РСЗО. Прицел играет роль, но при работе НАР нужно учитывать элипс рассеивания. Для поражения одиночных целей используются другие вертолёты. У вертолёта Ми-8 основные задачи в армейской авиации это транспортно десантные, рэб, вкп.

На глаз сравнивать траектории не самое правильное занятие.

This is a great tutorial on this subject:

A fix is in the making.

Make it cosy.. , Light poles and light added...

From Polychop Discord:

in this video it happens to be when I tilted my head down. But it can also be when I'm already heads down, heads up looking through the HUD, or just looking around outside with/without NVG's. I'm not aware that the Hornet has a sun visor. Ok that's probably my bad about the track file, could have grabbed the wrong one or it's bugged because I had the same issue. This was my first time trying to use a track file, while I did look up how to do it, I could have done something incorrectly or grabbed the wrong one. I'll try and post an updated track file this evening, but I'll be out of town starting this evening until Saturday evening. That's a good point about the text chat, I didn't think about it. So that's good to confirm it's not a local system issue. That's what I was thinking as well, along the lines of exposure or contrast or something within DCS. But yes, this does happen on various aircraft. It's the worst in the Hornet at night (but i fly it the most so that's where I notice it the most), but it has happened to me in the F-14 and the Apache. The Apache is normally fine if I'm cruising over ground with the FLIR vision (forgive me for forgetting the actual term...), but if I cross a small section of water where the "ground" essentially becomes completely black at night then the same bug occurs in the same manner. Correct, I'm using TrackIR5 with the "pro clip" on my headphones. And I actually don't mind flying at night and would do it more often if I could at least reliably see the instruments haha

No, unfortunately it just happens when I'm in the cockpit. Alternating views from F10 map, to F1 Cockpit, to F2 External view doesn't seem to affect it. It typically happens when I'm just in the cockpit. I could be heads down, looking at the HUD, or looking around outside with NVG's and it'll happen. It seems like some sort of contrast adjustment issue, like the game(or my PC/system, idk yet) is having a hard time with the brightness of the instrument lights vs the darkness of the exterior of the jet. A buddy I fly with says it happens to him, but less frequently. he plays in VR though. Also, here is a video on a Reddit post I made in Hoggit a while back

I´m no expert on this, but wouldn´t that also open up a possibility for exploit through VPN ? I know that for example on steam, there´s a lot of key resellers who buy cheap keys and sell them in other markets. On topic: I can understand that people would want to save money wherever they can. But on a personal level I agree with the initial statement. I probably spent like 10 times more on hardware than on all my DCS modules. So I sometimes can´t really understand when people get upset when they only get a 33% discount instead of a 50% discount or stuff like that.

Cool. You must've gotten that express permission that I was talking about. Usually, us Aircraft Handlers have to wait until we can put the safety lines up, much less, raise or lower. God forbid riders! Maybe the reserves got lucky that day (in the video). Riding the elevator has many associated hazards when it is lowered. People and equipment have been swept away. There's lots of unseen with this video. I've seen this video and it's not from 1999. I give it, mid to late 80's. There's A-7's and A-6's and the birds (Tomcats) are in low holding overhead a Forrestal class ship. I'm assuming the person in the cockpit riding the elevator is from way back in the day, as is this video! The pilots and aircraft appear to be from VF-301, disestablished in 1994. Before we invented safety, maybe it was a thing. Top Gun and Hollywood have people thinking it's the norm. There are family day participants that have more rides than I do (former Flight Deck Chief) as that's the time it's most reserved for people. You're welcome and BTW, I lost my tact 25 years ago. I think it's still on the ship. Just giving it to you straight!

We believe you, but I've never heard of any other user with a similar problem, and that makes me pretty positive it's a local issue on your system. Can you borrow another screen to test? Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

nearly 650mb for a couple bug fixes.... I wonder what snuck in under Gary Burghoff... (like if you get it)

Hi brems, It will be available soon. You will get some more news and probably be able to take a look at it very soon!

First time I played in a Harrier in a very long time, damn it looks good, to bad my landing was just a 9/10 and not a 10/10

Are you asking about accuracy, or balance? They’re not the same thing. Balance in a game is about whether two items are similarly capable. From that perspective, you’re not wrong, the 105 is an utterly awesome weapon and definitely gives the F16 and F15 a real edge over the F18. The core point here is that DCS is not about balance and never has been. It’s about accuracy. Historically, most air combat was not “fair” or balanced. Typically, one side had better aircraft at a singular point in time, whether that’s the Zero in 1941, the Corsair in 1945 or the F14 in the 1980s. As for the F18 and not using the 105. That was just the choice of the USN. They clearly didn’t believe that it was necessary for whatever reason. Maybe their targets in the last 2-3 decades have generally not included armoured vehicles, which is what the 105 is for.

What if you want to fly a heavy, and have your friends escort you? Then drop cargo into a hot LZ end try to get away evading incoming fire? Do the products from MS or Laminar provide that? People fly DCS for various reasons. I think it would be best if we try not to tell them how to have fun. Flying a military transport plane can be fun, especially in missions like Foothold where it can really make a difference to supply an airbase via a successful transport mission. I'm seeing very, very interesting mission mixes ahead when we get access to Hercs, and I think it is to the betterment of the entire game.

Thanks alot, and Thx to @OnReTech for chiming in, i wanted to ask you some questions anyway. So far this is all work in progress. Later we could think about some ideas. I think we could make a "lets try" it project out of TelNof Airbase to see whats possible with DCS. Regarding Aircraft I think DCS is allready oversaturated so I think looking at the Maps is much more important now. I hope we get a Nevada 2.0, Syria 2.0.. and so on in the future. Anyway back to topic. There's a lot that could be erased from TelNof Airbase and replaced by stuff that is actually there. but i gone ask you about it in a privat message or following messages of this thread here @OnReTech. Next: Many of the Shelters are protected on at least one side. I checked in on youtube and Bing maps and kinda found it. I think that's important because it will protect the Aircraft much more. The Problem is i cannot create a damage model because the KI is pretty "scared" and will not taxi out of the shelter because the object is too close. it would need to be part of the official map to make it fully work, otherwise it's only nice eye candy but will miss it's effect of protection. Without a collision shell it works as a placeable object..

You and Heatblur are golden with your communications to the community. Keep on doing great work. Thanks!