Leaderboard

RWR and HARM ID version 1.2.0 released! Changelog Version 1.2.0 Added Project 20381 Steregushchiy Class Corvette Added Type 022 FAC Added HQ-22 SAM

New shots from Milteh-5/PD as well:

Any chance that we could get some more liveries from around the world? Countries which I would like to be included are Czechia, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, and Belarus. Any chance we can get these added as official liveries?

No, they are not compatible with Skynet IADS... Not much support from these devs. However, all CH assets except this new HQ-22 are compatible with MOOSE MANTIS, which is similar to Skynet, maybe even better if you ask me. flightcontrol-master.github.io/MOOSE_DOCS_DEVELOP/Documentation/Functional.Mantis.html

Nevermind... im an idiot... Helps if you turn the radar on first

That's not a challenge, that's part of the normal development of our module.

(Edited 9/1): Shortly after I posted this, @IvanK came through with some original EM diagrams for the F104G. Please see his post later in the thread. On the plus side, it turns out my sketchy linear fit got within 4% which is about as good as I could have hoped for. The conclusions remain the same, but I've updated the graphic below with the real data. For a comparison to other cold war fighters, I've taken a graphic I was working on to compare official data for the F4E and Mig-23ML with existing 70s jets in DCS and replaced the F5E with the F104. Hopefully the format makes some sense. The result is pretty much as expected, but it's nice to have a direct comparison instead of trying to eyeball charts in different formats, at different weight and altitude. F-4E is just better at anything in the horizontal, but it's a Phantom after all (I will not shut up about F4 maneuverability). Against the Soviet fighters, an F-104 can technically match their sustained turn rate, but its extremely restrictive instant turn envelope would make that very difficult to use. Overall the F104G is the one opponent where a pre-MLD Flogger might want to take a subsonic fight, however the Starfighter still destroys it in subsonic climb rate and acceleration so even then maybe not. The drastic drop-off in turn performance with the flaps retracted at M0.85 is also going to be a major issue. How much of an issue depends on how flap damage is modeled. There is a NASA document (TN D-6943) investigating F104 handling with the flaps deployed up to M0.94, and anecdotal evidence of an F104 pilot accidentally leaving takeoff flaps extended while supersonic without severe consequences. Ideally Aerges finds a compromise that encourages players to fly realistically, without imposing an arbitrary and non-physical limit. Not exactly, if I understand your question correctly. That sustained turn is only for the flaps deployed below M0.85. Without flaps the sustained turn will be below the maximum G for a while longer, but I don't have any information available to extend that dotted line below M0.85.

I strongly dislike your wish to implement some real time performance indicators. You have plenty of indicators in the game that will tell you when you are about to approach a stall. And if you don't yank on the stick like you are used to, you will even experience most of them, including the buffeting. You have the airspeed to work with, your attitude, the responses of the aircraft to your input, your input itself and in case of the P-51, even a G-load indicator and it produces a sound that depends on your AoA. So I don't really see the need to implement those indicators that will tell you how exact you are flying to peak performance. Learn to read the existing signs, especially if you make the transition from FBW protected jets to Warbirds. For example, speed. Appart from looking at the airspeed gauge, you will also be able to judge it by looking out the window. Where's your nose pointing at and where is your aircraft flying towards, how much power is set and most importantly, how much deflection do you apply on the stick and how much of a change in attitude does your aircraft make? It will take some time to learn but eventually, you'll be able to quite accurately guess your speed by simply looking outside, even without diagrams. Same goes for turning/stalling. With sufficient experience you will pretty much exactly know where you are standing and how much more you can pull before the aircraft departs. You cannot expect to know all these limitations after lets say 5 hours after coming from FBW jets. So in the end, all you need to confidently fight in a Warbird is knowledge and experience, not diagrams. Even in a computer simulation/game, there are currently plenty of indicators showing where you are standing in terms of aircraft performance. You just need to be willing to read those indications.

Some sort of spray-effect from tyres and the engine during take-offs and landings on runways with standing water would really push up the atmosphere and immersion: Tyre spray on a Dash 8: Water spray on an A319 - mostly due to the exhaust jet - during take-off: On a borader scale, some more humidity-related effects would be cool, like spray during reverse thrust. Note the condensation over the wings due to the high relative humidity level and the vortex created on the cowl-strakes ofthe engines: Also note the vortex at the wingtips and flap-tips - this is fairly common and would create additional immersion: Not sure if the latter effect now does consider relative humidity and vortex core pressure, or whether it's just a static effect related to some sort of aircraft-parameter (like AoA).

I stitched together screenshots on my 5120 x 1440 monitor to create a relatively high-res blank map of Normandy 2.0. I use this image when creating missions. If you think you might have a use for it as well, I've attached it to this post. Enjoy.

It will come [emoji6] Next patch we will give you some fixes like the nose wheel one and later we will start to fill this options. Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

Wished they had fleshed out ETO more before diverting off the PTO. Better to complete one task before starting another one to be partially implemented.

RAFALE PACK EVOLUTION II UPDATE DESCRIPTION : https://www.mediafire.com/file/fyqd8jkqie8oywt/EVOLUTION_II_UPDATE_DESCRIPTION.7z/file VOILA POUR LES NOUVEAUTES DU PACK

I find those lights either too small to see, or perfectly placed behind the crossbeam of my planes. Would it be possible to create something like the FLOLS overlay so I can actually see the lights?

The manual will eventually get a more detailed explanation on the parallax effect and how it impacts this function in the F-16, but @QuiGon hit the nail on the head. This is a physical limitation that exists in real-life when multiple sensors are mounted in different locations on an aircraft, and the degree of parallax varies with distance. But this is why a Manual handoff mode exists, so that if the Automatic mode cannot achieve the AGM-65 lock on the intended target, the pilot can still manually initiate a track using WPN as SOI. (I think even if the Automatic mode fails to achieve a track, the pilot can still DMS Down to make WPN SOI and initiate a track. It's been a little bit since I tried it, but I think this is still possible to perform without toggling it to MAN) The only difference between AUTO and MAN modes is that after handoff in MAN mode, the pilot must initiate the track using TMS Up-Short when the WPN format is SOI. In some cases where the parallax is more severe, a small pressure adjustment to the CURSOR/ENABLE switch may be required to move the AGM-65 seeker slightly left or right to get it on the intended target prior to initiating a track. This will all be explained in the manual down the road, but a distance value will not be specified for the reason that @QuiGon stated. The implementation of the parallax effect in DCS F-16 is not an issue, but rather ensuring the correct handoff mode is used as needed due to the limitations incurred by the effect. There are times where I have not had the time to find an adequate location to boresight my 65's before proceeding to the target area (or I simply forgot), and I'll just use MAN mode. It works like a charm.

The following is not my work, but should be pretty accurate: I hope this helps. If you have more specifc questions just ask away. I've digged quite deep into the Falkland Conflict and have quite a bunch of hard copy sources for it as well as contacts to ask around

We are on the verge of September and there has been no news on the WW2 Asset Pack... I think we will get to January 2024 and if this continues, there will be no WW2 roadmap either... not to be pessimistic but there should have been some news on this by now.

First of all, nice to see you finally reacting on this ICYM my post on the previous page, I would like to reiterate that this is not just some annoying performance dip, but a rather huge FPS drop, down to unplayable values. It occurs whenever I look at any big city, even from 80.000 ft.

This is going to be a long post because I need to explain the basis for the chart I made, so that no one is confused where it actually comes from. Normally I only trust direct turn-rate or time-to-turn charts from official documents, however that doesn't seem to exist for the F104 anywhere. Even the sustained-G charts in the F104 manuals, which could be converted to turn rate, start at Mach 1 and 35000ft. There is a good reason for that, as neither the USAF nor Lockheed wanted to encourage F104 pilots to make sustained turns while subsonic. However this is a flight sim forum and lets be honest -- if/when the module releases most of us will immediately drop the takeoff flaps and pull to the aoa limiter to see what the airframe can really do. At least once anyway. Sadly the TAC report for the F104C I mentioned before didn't work out. The Ps vs Mach curves there cannot be converted into sustained turn at a fixed altitude because they don't intersect Ps=0 below 5G. Without multiple data points for Ps=0 I can't even try to build a trend for sustained turn vs. airspeed. In the picture below it looks tempting to extend the lines down to zero, but after some more investigation that won't work, so we are back to square 1. The good news is that @Bremspropeller pointed me towards another possible source for F104 subsonic maneuverability. Lockheed had a series of lectures for F104 pilots called "Project SURE", and one of them includes a plot of constant-G contours vs Mach and Altitude. With that I can record the intersections of a constant-G curve with a fixed altitude, and fit a trend to those points to estimate what a sustained-G curve would look like at a constant altitude. From inspection of charts for similar aircraft (Mig-21, F-4), they are usually nearly linear up to about M0.85 where transonic drag spikes. Conveniently the flap limit for the F104G is M0.85 anyway, so I don't need to be perfectly accurate above that point. Mig21 as an example to visualize what I am trying to construct: Here is the result: Real aerospace engineers may be horrified at this point, but the fit was good enough that I decided to continue. With the hard part done, I can enter the results into a spreadsheet I have been working on to scale normal acceleration for gross weight, and interpolate to a constant altitude for comparison with other aircraft. Filling in the instantaneous turn rate presented a small problem as well, because the V-n diagrams I would normally use (like what the OP posted) are for flaps raised and don't specify an exact weight. Fortunately there is a stall speed chart for different conditions (flaps up/down, and different stores configurations) at known weights in the F104G manual which I can use to calculate Cl_max with takeoff flaps. Because the F104 has an aoa limiter, that Cl_max should scale well to higher speeds. A sanity check against the V-n diagram shows this is a reasonable assumption. Here is the result. To be exact it is only the shell of a doghouse plot and not really an E-M diagram, and the data basis is pretty sketchy, but I think this is better than nothing. The reason for the 1000m altitude is to enable comparison with other cold war fighters more easily, which I will add soon.

Personally I like the West German Navy Starfighters with their dark grey upper colour and the white noses missing the anti-glare panel best: And I hope the TF will follow – even more elegant lines than the single-seater: (My pics from 1986 – long, long ago ... )

So from our testing with our own systems in VR we are getting better FPS that there was before. for the buildings we have included some key details like window surrounds, window sills IMPO this make the buildings look more realistic rather than just a picture of a window stuck on the side of a building (like some other maps) I am a helo guy and want to see as much detail as I can What I will take a look at are the LOD values of the other lods because there maybe something that can be done there by reducing all of the models to their most basic forms thanks Specter

Haha, thanks for the deep insight regarding my process. Unfortunately you couldn't be more wrong, and I'm not a big fan of assumptions to be honest. There are a couple of main reasons why I can release assets at a high pace. The fact that I buy the basic 3d mesh isn't the secret sauce. The main reason is that I prioritize the release of new AI assets, which (understandably) ED don't. They are a company and need to make money to keep running. If ED wanted to release AI assets, they could release them in numbers that immensely would surpass mine. But in order to do so they would more or less have to shift all their business priorities. Back to my process, here is an overview from the FAQ on my site. HOW DO YOU CREATE ALL THESE ASSETS - DO YOU MODEL THEM? It's a combination. I first try to source a suitable model (checking format, vertices, quality of the mesh etc). But even in the best case scenario where I find a really nice model, there's a lot of work that I need to do with the mesh. I restructure the model, group objects, split objects, rig it for animation, create uvs, add missing details, add additional objects, replace stuff that doesn't look good. I then either increase of decrease the amount of vertices. Lastly I animate it and export the uvs to SP and continue with creating the textures (I make my textures from scratch). In some cases where I really want an asset and there's no suitable 3d model available, I make it myself. But since I have bought a fair share of models and already created a lot of stuff I can often put stuff together with what I have. That's what's good with the military stuff, there is a lot of standardization going on. And that really makes my life easier. So while the work on the model (mesh) is a lot of work, that's just one part of the process. I also model more or less every missile/projectile myself. Here's a quick overview of all the steps involved: 1) Research, 2) Mesh, 3) Uvs, 4) Animations, 5) Textures, 6) Code, 7) Sound, 8) Destroyed model, 9) Collision model, 10) Testing, 11) Documentation, 12) Publish, 13) Support I have created a very efficient workflow, which relies on me being the only developer. But as I mentioned in the forum thread, I cut some corners since I do this as a hobby and do not work for ED. For example, at the moment I don't create several LODs, and I don't spend too much time on optimizing the model (mesh and textures). This makes my assets pretty heavy to run. But these are cons I'm prepared to accept to keep getting now assets released. But that is all I'm prepare to accept, I really try to keep the quality high in regards to realism of the weapons, I make every ammunition and weapon type myself so that I can tune and optimize their performance. I add all the details like small detailed animations on the assets, custom sounds etc. I'm not interested in creating the same assets with different 3d models. And as to the part of a "bit of coding", I don't copy paste code. I have written and maintain almost 100 000 lines of code for my assets at the moment. Another thing that takes time is R&D, since I have to invent new ways to emulate modern weapons in DCS. A lot of my weapons or systems doesn't have an equivalent or template in core DCS to use. And finally, in regards to AI aircraft. ED hasn't released the new AI flight model (General Flight Model, GFM). So until then, all AI aircraft share the same basic flight model (SFM). The SFM configuration doesn't become more advanced because an ED employee enters the numbers.

DCS Screenshots

We already have a few. Galinette from razbam did a fantastic job on the M2k and SE. I'm sure HB has a good coder too. I look forward to adding Aerges to the good radar model list.

It´s a known thing and I´m sure it´ll get fixed eventually. Until then try re-designating the target (maybe more than once) until you get an ASL line that makes sense - works for me.

Hello, setting microswitch to off doesn’t stop your problem, becuase it defaults to heading hold. So since you have yaw channel of autopilot on, it is trying to hold heading and trimming your pedals to maintain heading when the difference between current heading and heading it’s trying to hold is more then 9 degrees Basically if this happens press trim reset to undo pedal trim. And to prevent either never turn yaw AP on unless you explicitly want heading hold, or have the specific microswitch bind activated while AP is on so it enters a “coordination” mode that stabilizes you but won’t fight turns or trim you or hold heading For micro switch there is both a hold button and a toggle, I just use the toggle and make sure I hit that toggle Atleast once at startup before takeoff. This way I am sure when I turn on yaw autopilot it won’t trim me or hold heading There is also a special options setting you will find in Mi-24P section that is called “Pedals auto move,” making sure it is not checked will stop the yaw autopilot from trimming you. However it will still hold heading in heading hold mode, just with less authority. I find it has plenty of authority anyways, so I think it’s always a good idea to make sure it’s off Here are my settings, I do use force feedback stick so that’s why my trim settings are the way they are

If we get a C then we must have white walls null

Thanks, added to the bug list. Priority - medium

From official newsletter, NVIDIA DLSS 2.0 is coming to DCS World. It was also the very first shoot of the 2023 & Beyond video: It's also mentioned that they will take a look at AMD FSR just after put in place the DLSS, but it's not really a planned feature so far, we need to wait further confirmation on this.

Small, deliberate movements. Slow, rather than fast. Put an Apache on an airport, with an empty ramp and space around you. No weapons, 60% fuel. No enemies and a slight breeze of no more than 5kts. Remember to hit the pedal brakes once to unlock the parking brake(!) and then pick up the helicopter into a hover. Try to accelerate forward slowly(!) and keep the altitude at 100-200ft. Speed up to 60-70kts and decelerate again to 20-30kts. Slow and deliberate movements of the stick. Practice this transition from hover/slow forward flight through translational lift and back to a hover again. Add gentle turns and try to keep your altitude from oscillating. Slow and gentle, don't try to rush. If you get more and more comfortable with the coordination of cyclic, collective and pedal inputs, you will notice muscle memory building. Movement and coordination just happens and you will be able to pay more attention to things beside the instruments and your immediate surroundings. Don't worry if you have moments in between, where you feel like you are all over the place like in the beginning, that's totally normal. For me muscle memory usually "clicks" after a couple days to a week and a half of training every other day. If you don't use an extension on the cyclic set curves so the center has more granular control. You rarely use full deflection on a helicopter. Curves are not ideal, but it helps with fine control you need to counter the small drift movements. Things to keep in mind, the Apache is heavy, so despite being pretty agile and maneuverable it has mass and declaration/stopping takes time! If you want to stop into a hover, plan ahead. Rushing at tree top height with 130 kts and trying to get into a hover behind a tree line some 1800m in front of you won't work. If you get close to a battle position or a cover you should have decelerated, already. At 40-60 kts it is way easier to slow to a hover, than 90-120 kts. Slow and deliberate.

Or, you put it on your desk with your hand way up in the air and fly it like a "chopper". (I know, that was bad.)

Please note we will have a second downtime. The scheduled maintenance of our primary server, the DCS website, Module Manager, and Multiplayer (master server) services will occur on Tuesday the 29th of August at 04:00 UTC and will last for two hours. Our apologies for the inconvenience.

I think night visibility also depends on the screen we're using, so we may not be seeing the same thing.

Cockpit shaking is not visible in VR, when your head is outside the cockpit padlocked on a bandit. This is where the audible feedback in the F-14's cockpit shake is invaluable, and I wish we had the same in the warbirds. In the Mustang you can somewhat gauge things by the loudness of the screaming gun ports, but at high altitudes where your stick is on a hair trigger the evolution from steady pull to an uncommanded snap roll is measured in millimeters and milliseconds. The "it's not realistic" rebuff is absolutist hogwash, as it's not realistic for us to be unable to feel stick forces or G telling us where we are in the performance envelope. Make it an option in special settings. If you don't like it, don't turn it on. Rebuffing an optional feature like that is gatekeeping: "I learned how to feel my virtual plane so no one should be allowed an easy mode to get up to my level." Get a life.

F-104 made never a kill. Not with AiM-7 nor AiM-9 or Vulcan. They were used in such way, that it made it impossible. Then were they quickly replaced by F-4. It doesn't mede Vulcan not important. Exploitation of F-4B/C/D proved that 20mm cannon is necessary. F-104 wasn't a turn and burn type of plane. It was last B&Z fighter. He could accelerate, climb, dive and zoom climb better that anything else in '60.

I thought if the server was down, it gave us a 2 day 'grace period' from when we last authenticated correctly. I'm not sure, but my first 'guess' is that maybe because you were already in the game when the server went down, the 'kick' it gave you has trashed the grace period somehow. If this is indeed the case, and users already logged in are unable to use their product if they're kicked like this - I would like to see this 'tweaked' so that in future, once you're authorised and in-game there's no kicking out. Or - if you are kicked out and attempt to get back in, you get the standard 2 day grace period like we normally do if the internet connection is down, etc.

Привет. Всё просто. Заходишь Твой диск:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Scripts\Speech и открываешь блокнотом файл "Speech.lua". Внутри ищи строку: ['J-11A'] = nations.CHINA и меняй на RUSSIA. Будет говорить по русски как в СУ-27. Можно еще приколоться и заменить кабину на русскую и внешний скин.

Rudel, you have a lot of awesome stuff in 'User Files' that has really enhanced my enjoyment of DCS over the years. Including the content listed above. Thank you very much for creating it.

Well hopefully your joy can somehow raise the amount of explosive in them otherwise…you might be disappointed. And she not fat. She not even big boned.

that’s a gross over-simplification… full fidelity is much more than just a clickable cockpit, it has systems close to the real thing and each aircraft has its own controls, while on FC3 all aircrafts share the same controls.

Hi @currenthill, I've been a fan of your work for a while now and just wanted to know if there were any plans for some more British assets on the horizon, either naval (Type 22 frigate, QE class or modernised Invisible class), aerial (Tornado GR4 & Harrier F(A).2) or ground forces (Ajax, Boxer or Warrior WCSP). I know some of these are already available in game through other mods but most lack the kind of quality and attention to detail found in your assets. Either way, can't wait to see what you have in store next.

I don't think scraping was a major issue, but what limited their use with some operators was their negative effect on stability. I think there was also some concern about damaging the seekers, which were close to the nose tyre, but those concerns may have been mostly theoretical, since the cat config was flown at least into the 80s.

Ensure the battery switch is set to MAIN PWR.

Respect! For me, the F-15E is my baby. A big fast heavy hitter with nice tech toys - my Space Shuttle of Death. But it needs more weapons. No doubt about it. The GBU-28 is a must. This plane is screaming for beeg badabooms!

МО РФ под санкциями

We like challenges.

No "S" please. No F-104 without M61A1 Vulcan. J/C/A/G but not S please. Especially C would be interesting since it's (correct me if I'm wrong) the only variant with air refueling probe.

This will be an absolute insta-buy!