Leaderboard

Added Excell on first pages with ED and 3rd Party projects and released modules, campaigns and others.

Use a collective (or even throttle) with a 2-axis mini stick. That way you can use the mini-stick for the VIVIANE while maintaining helicopter control. It is also possible to fire the HOT3 on the move, so you don't actually need to hover. Run in, pop up, launch, maintain guidance, then break off the attack. Speed is life. No need for a second crew member or auto hover.

When setting up the tanker, especially the recovery tanker it would be nice to be able to limit how much fuel the tanker will give each plane. For example one Tomcat taking on fuel while in the holding pattern completely drains the S-3 when all it needed was a thousand pounds of fuel to keep from crashing before landing.

I tested a couple of helicopters like the AI Ka-50 III and the Ka-27. Had them land and take-off from the back of the Gorshkov. No issues. Any particular situation I should test? Send me a miz.

That might very well be in the plans. I might do, thanks for the suggestion. Cool, thanks for the info. Wasn't Eightball making some sort of buildings like this? Strange, I'll take a look. Well, I've configured the units with the specs publicly available. The rest is up to DCS AI. And these configurations might give you different results depending on the type of testing you do. It's things like spotting the target, targeting the target, reloading, max shooting speed, turret traverse and elevation rate, different ammunitions etc. Thanks for the info!

The United States has changed plans for the modernization of the tank Abrams The US Army announced the development of a new tank upgrade under the M1E3 Abrams index instead of partial improvements under the System Enhancement Package 4 (SEP v4) program. The new version of the E3 tank should radically change the ability of the combat vehicle to conduct anti-tank combat and be relevant until 2050. The development of a new modernization plan aims to reduce the mass of individual components in order to increase armor, improve driving performance and firepower. The initial operational capability of the M1E3 is expected in the early 2030s and should replace the M1A2 variations in the military.

the one described on page 2-7 of the TO 1F-15E-1CL-1 manual, I summarized it like this, as some items cant be done on dcs https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ai6cuX3YQI26iopz6QRNMFpHZ4vS5w

I really don’t know, just like to follow the real procedures as much as possible … I even edited my own cold start mission, as the built-in one didn’t include all details:

The sound file I ended up using was this one pictured here in the attachment. Just copy the AV8B sound file shown to your C101 sound directory and rename it "TFE731_growl.wav". You can rename the original growl sound to something like Growl_O so you can undo it later if you wish.

Can we get an update on how Beta testing is going? Any chance we might get Vulkan (as preview) in 2.9?

Okay, so the clear stiff up as its already going in the weeds unnecessarily. The stop trans is to check internal feeding to make sure the feeds and both wings xfer properly. Also, wear and tear on the CFT xfer pumps. That’s it in a nutshell. In the DCS world, all of that will always work and nothing goes bad. Choose to do it or not based on your needs to imitate real life.

Bumping this. I think additional options within the “refueling” advanced waypoint action would be the best here. Would also be nice to have an F10 option for clients to request set amounts of fuel, say 2,000 lbs, 4,000 lbs, 8,000 lbs and topped off.

i would like to see official support for axis binds for radio and asp sight controls etc.

Agree, and it is so simple to use that I can fly on it whenever I want, without having to re-study it, unlike more complex jets:

Feels nice. Very capable for recreational flying. Especially in such a nice ambience!

Issues fixed with the upcoming patch Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

Interesting reporting, added to our bug tracker. Many thanks Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

Thanks, we will have a check. Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

Thanks for reporting, as per our code the HSI shows the magnetic direction but most probably there is some other hidden bug. We will have a check. Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

Two things: Any updates? I'd love to use these on an amphibious invasion scenario of the Sinai Map Second, are you gonna release those soldiers as separate entities? they look amazing and it would be great if they could be used as infantry

We require a short and concise track to see exactly what you are doing to reproduce these bugs, in many cases this can be very important to resolving the bug if there is one. As well this is not the only bug report or communication we are dealing with at any given time throughout the day. Creating a track fast tracks your report to getting looked at rather than us setting it aside to have time to try to reproduce and hope we did exactly what you did without knowing for sure. Thanks. This is what we have done, and continue to do. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/

Version 1.4.3 - Functional Update - 20230907 The temperatures where I live show no sign of relenting, so my terrace and grill are eternally beckoning. But I'm a geek, and I revel in coding challenges - and @Thunder Chicken22 managed to sneak one in by posing a great question that should be simple to solve in DML but wasn't: use airfield ownership in modules to drive action. Yeah, the solution that I came up with wasn't looking convincing to me either. So I went back and, with some help from a little known Spanish wine yard in the Rueda region, pondered better alternatives. This update contains a much better, and hopefully universally accepted, module 'airfield' which attaches itself to the nearest airfield (or FARP), generates signals when the airfield changes hands, and - much more importantly - can force ownership of the airfield any time you need it. Oh, and it provides the currently owned faction of the airfield as an output that you can feed directly into a cloner so that the cloned units belong to the faction that owns the airfield. The results are impressive indeed: The rest are minor changes under the hood, with the most important one being cfxZones picking up the ability to handle the <coa: flag/unit/zone> wildcard. Since it's the "zones" module that received the update, messenger and most other 'talking' modules (e.g. Valet and Recon Mode) inherit that ability as well. Changes in Detail: Manual Main - Airfield (new) - Changes to modules - No Gap No Problem demo - No Gap No Glory (update) - Airfield Mine demo Quick Reference - Airfield Demos - No Gap No Problem (update) - No Gap No Glory (update) - Airfield mine (new) Modules - Airfield 1.0.0 - Initial release - cfxZones 4.0.3 - process dynamic coalition wildcard - cloneZone 1.8.2 - Quad zone support - dcsCommon 2.9.3 - filter airbases according to category list Enjoy, -ch

The setting is named "TGP switch ON/OFF"

Happy anniversary and congratulations! Sim player since childhood in 80s with 8-bit. Had I a chance to stumble upon the Flanker 1.0 I'd probably stayed with it. Trying LOMAC back in the days it was too realistic to handle for me only to come back later on. DCS player since 2017.

By the manual only the CAS warning displays and terrain following coupling are not yet modeled.

Yeah, this would be really nice to have!

у людей с волосами на голове свои проблемы

C-101 The others are already in the hangar... But if it wasn't for the sale and the 339 still not ready for service, I would've contained myself...But here we are...

Sorry, aber mit diesen dürftigen Info-Häppchen wird dir hier kaum jemand helfen können. Du müsstest uns mal im Detail erläutern wie deine gesamte Startup-Prozedur aussieht, bzw. noch besser: mal ein Track Replay davon posten, damit wir wirklich sehen was du da tust und wo du etwas falsch machst.

Indeed. And you did not purchase your computer based on DCS's requirement specs. I believe your's to be the "correct", sane approach. Other people seemingly stipulate the reverse, that some individuals may base the purchase of their PC and VR on DCS's system requirement, a line of thinking which I find difficult to believe that it exists in the real world.

Finally got a reply. End of October.

It actually IS a thing on many airframes. Fuel tanks have a mechanic to handle/compensate for pressure and temperature changes by venting. When your fuel tanks are filled too far (or are constantly re-filled from your external tanks to the point where they just can´t hold any more), some fuel may get "vented" also I first didn´t realize they simulated this.

Do those people really exist? Who buys a computer and VR set based on the recommendations of a game that they read about or just downloaded for free? That seems an excessively academic case; it may be imaginable that such a person exists - but I assert that it is highly unlikely that they do in reality. I would wager that someone who buys a VR set (which by itself is by no means cheap) puts in some thought, time and research for the headset alone. Then figure out the computer and GPU to match on grounds of principality, not a specific game. What's more, at that point we have definitely crossed into four digits (likely even mid four digits) USD territory. Such a purchase based on the blurb of a free download off the internet? I think that very few people would be that inconsiderate. I posit that people first set their computer requirements and assemble their rig, and only then see what can run on it. And yes, when they run DCS, even then they may be disappointed (which, I think and based of many comments here will happen anyway, no matter what they purchased). So my question is: did anyone here ever base the specs of the computer they purchased (a multi-k expenditure) on the 'recommended' specs of DCS?

Thanks a lot, folks. Very illuminating, love learning from this forum, priceless !

F-4 is Heatblur exclusive, I doubt anyone would encroach on their turf. I don't think it's the Thud, either, though it's a possibility, I guess. Would be nice to have the Super Etendard, though it only served in France and Argentina (plus Iraq, briefly).

At my age? That would probably be fatal. I'm going to get my controls set up and find out...there are worse ways to go! <edit> Mission Report: The OP was blonde or brunette, and I have to say the blonde, but that might be because I rarely fly soviet...aircraft. I've probably been in the MiG-21 a little, I flew the MiG-19 a bit when it first came out, but I have several hundred hours to one in western style aircraft and had the most difficult time with the L39. I'm sure some practice would iron that out, but there were also some really strange graphics issues with it that were extremely distracting. Nothing in the F2 view so I suspect a problem elsewhere. The Blonde is a little underpowered, even for a blonde, and the differential breaking took a little practice, but it was a lot of fun to fly. Once you get her up to speed, and that takes a gentle touch, she'll get you where you're going. Landing was a breeze and she tracked right down the centerline. As a bonus I took the redhead up as well. I have a thing for redheads anyway, and in fact I'm married to an ex-soviet redhead. In some ways the blonde was more fun, but that fiery redhead gets going a lot quicker and the steerable nosegear gets her going in the right direction right away. A little bit more dancing on the landing; anti-skid was on but the brakes put her into a skid anyway. That could easily be operator error. Since I already have all three I don't need to choose, but I'd need more time to pick between the blonde and the redhead. The brunette will probably be relegated into the hanger with the other 'soviet' style aircraft and might not get much time in the air. To answer the original question, C-101 for me. Might be the western bias, but it got the most time doing laps around Tel Nof.

Oh man, this is sad to hear. I'm not sure what the deal was with that partnership, but it honestly seems like you ground yourself out with this project. I lost a few hobbies doing this, so now I'm trying to go slower. Best of luck with whatever you are taking on next. I don't think you will be able to keep those levels of creativity at bay for long time

Yes, its to prevent CG changes before the take-off. In flight, all external tanks are pressurized and can transfer fuel. On the ground, since external wing and centerline tanks are depressurized, no fuel will transfer from those tanks. However, the CFTs can transfer fuel on the ground since the CFT electric transfer pumps operate continuously. Fuel transfer sequence within the CFT is designed so the CG moves forward as the CFT transfers fuel, so it is best to prevent fuel transfer from the CFT until you are ready for take-off.

Sure, although I'm not sure what I know will fully help you unless you are already familiar in getting a DCS data export into your chosen device (arduino or StreamDeck etc) as mI don't fully understand that level. If you're going to build a display I can recommend searching around for DCS-BIOS (flight panels fork might be best) and DCS-Export on github and this forum. GitHub - DCSFlightpanels/dcs-bios: DCS-BIOS Flightpanels Fork I use DCS Export Scripts asherao/DCS-ExportScripts: DCS World Export Scripts (github.com) Simple Explanation: This script file enables the export of data from DCS and is focussed on cockpit controls and gauges. In the F-14 the ILS selection dial is mainpaneldevice argument 912. DCS sends all these as a value usually between 0 and 1....and as there are 20 channels it works out as a value of about 0.05 per channel. So if the switch was set to channel 7 the value would be 7 x 0.05 = 0.35 In the LUA script that formats these export values you can run all sorts of functions and formatting, so you would reverse engineer this value to output the channel number in a readable format (if the value from DCS is 0.70 then divide that by the 0.05 to get channel 14. More Complex: But it's not quite that simple, the selection knob has no 0/off position so when DCS sends a value of 0.0 it means channel 1 but the above simple math would tell you channel 0 - which does not exist. So we have to get the best approximate value and formula that works which works, so we set 0.0 value to equal channel 1 (by adding 1 to whatever we calculate the control position to be) and then split the value range of 1 into 19 (not 20) which is 0.0526315 This formula can be used to get the channel number from the DCS value: (VALUE/0.0526315) + 1 but you'll then need to round it to a single whole number to be readable in a display. Here is my LUA code I use to do this: channel = Round(mainPanelDevice:get_argument_value(912)/0.052) + 1 And the Round() function I'm using in that is: function Round(num) -- Rounds UP/Down to Nearest Whole Number return num % 1 >= 0.5 and math.ceil(num) or math.floor(num) end -------- How this is done in DCS-BIOS I have no clue, but I hope it gives you a good idea of what's needed.

Same issue here: built a test mission with multiple air-start jets. Tester 2-1 is loaded with two 2xGBU-10 on each CFT. Tester 2-2 is 4xGBU-12 on LCFT, 2xGBU-10 on RCFT. Tester 2-3 is the mirror of 2-2, with 2xGBU-10 on LCFT and 4xGBU-12 on RCFT. As shown in the track, the known issue of no armament initially showing up on the LCFT when 2xGBU-10 are hung appears, and I manually loaded the PACS to reflect the loadout. With 4xGBU-10, everything works as advertized, and same with the mixed load putting the GBU-10's on the RCFT. But when 2xGBU-10's are loaded on the LCFT and 4xGBU-12's on the RCFT, in addition to the no-armament -in-PACS issue, the ASL for the GBU-10's deviate significantly, with no TREL indication on the HUD, only TTGT. I also made the HUD IN CMD to illustrate the CDIP pipper, in level flight the pipper is reverse of what is expected, and turning makes it appear to be even with the horizon. I can confirm that being an air-start jet has no bearing on this, as the same behavior is displayed when copying the loadout of Tester 2-3 to a cold and dark jet. GBU Testing.trk

Cool, will have a look at all that new info at some point

All resistance is futile. We're all addicts. Realization of our problems is the first step onto the path towards healing... So when are we going to take the 101 for a spin? And when are you going to get the L-39?

I agree, that's indeed something that is missing and should get added.

Hi @currenthill, I had some problems with two of your mods, first with Project 22350 as i tried to land a chopper on it and i fell though the deck every time....with 2 differents helicopters (KA50 III and UH60) Second with SA350, when put in a mission, when looking in their direction or looking at the LN assets, my FPS are dropping from 60 to 20....don't know why... By the way, wery impressive mods, all of them

In nighttime navigation lights should be visible by enourmous distances; it's actually way easier to spot something at night with navigation lights on than in daytime, it's litelly a beacon in the dark. I'm talking about almost 20+ nm. While in game they immediately disappear, it is often easier to see the plane rather than the lights.

How does force correlating work in this case? It works great on the A-10 2. I've played with it on the 16 but never really got it down. I just don't want to spend my time on a module that's constantly being messed with and broken in new ways. That said, the 64 and 15E are the ones I've wanted the whole time, and they're really in the same boat but I hope to a lesser degree. They are still pretty early but missing a boatload of stuff. The 16 is inexcusable. I would fly the 16 over almost every other module if it were somewhat not bugged and incomplete as it is. It's a mess and it's been almost four years since I bought it. What am I getting for my money? Something that is just broken and never fixed after four years. It's really bad but it's the truth.

If anyone is interested how it was done in real life, the video below gives an interesting inside look at these things. Of course, the mission at hand was not of a very heavily defended airspace, they made the attack at medium altitude, etc. But the interesting part is that F-15Es work along HARM capable aircraft, like F-16s. What they do in the end is working in coordinate fashion, with the F-16s doing the SEAD part, and in the window between a HARM launch and impact, the Mudhens go in and bomb the site, doing the DEAD part of it.

I am not! My profile can be found here: All the 3D models of TheSimNet・Cults (cults3d.com) @thesimnet