Leaderboard

Heatblur Simulations: have you selected your WSO yet? It's tough work in the Phantom! Part of our polishing process is making sure multicrew works great on day one. It's tough work; but expect a solid and smooth experience from the very first minute flying together.

Check Six Australian assets pack KC-30A

Aerges Mirage F1BE new screenshots:

Development screenshots from the 8th posted on the Orbx Discord, just in case anybody hasn't seen the post on the unofficial roadmap thread:

Hi All, Over the past few months we have been working tirelessly to try and improve the performance in the most heavily populated areas utilizing the latest block technology we released a few month ago which basically replaced every city with brand new models and new POI models across all areas of the map. We are excited to share with you some video tests and would love to hear you feedback. As a reference we used YoYo's performance video "https://youtu.be/6zi44Us3xC0?si=kt7Jrk3JUNT_4LZD" as a baseline In general we are seeing over 200 fps whilst still keeping all that great eye candy, which is paramount IMPO when flying low in a helo. Simple test of FPS Starting at Punta Arenas Airfield and moving south across the large city Simple Test of FPS starting at Rio Gallegos (which is the largest city in the map and most populated) airfield moving across the city at various angles Performance Settings used

COMING SOON In this DCS: F/A-18C video, we’ll look at new features coming to the datalink capabilities of our F/A-18C. As many of you already now, data linked flight members are limited to the same four-ship group as set in the Mission Editor. With this update, it will now be based on Source Track Numbers, or STN. This will allow you to set aircraft outside a group to your Team of aircraft 1 to 4 and even change this while in a mission. You can also set up to eight donors. Let’s get started. Let’s start in the Mission Editor to see how we now set up the F/A-18’s datalink. When selecting an F/A-18C Airplane Group, you will now have an additional tab called datalinks. We’ve also added some new functionality to the Aircraft Additional Properties tab that we’ll look at first. Along the bottom, we now have three new items under Datalink. The Voice Callsign Label, Voice Callsign Number, and STN are identifiers used when setting up the network. You will probably want to set the Voice Label and Voice Callsign Number to match each aircraft’s callsign. It’s important that each STN be unique within a Fighter Channel and the STN must be entered as an octal, i.e., only values of 0 to 7 are valid. The Tactical Net Datalink, TNDL, tab as two sub-tabs, one for Settings and one for Network. Your Voice Callsign will be auto-populated here and everything else cannot be edited at this time except the Transmit Power. The Network sub-tab is the meat of setting up the network. The top portion lists up to four Team members that can exchange data and target assignments over the datalink. Although these can be assigned in the Mission Editor, they can also be edited while in flight using the Situational Awareness, or SA, page. We’ll examine this a bit later. Along the left side of the team member number that is auto assigned. To the right of that is the Pilot Name and to the right of that is the Voice Callsign Label and Voice Callsign Number that we discussed earlier. Next is the member’s STN number. The rightmost column can be selected to remove a member from the Team. If you have open Member slots in the Team list, you can add an entire Group or add an individual aircraft. Below the Team Member list is the Donor list that can have up to eight aircraft. Like the Members list, each row displays an aircraft with its Member number, Pilot Name, Callsign, STN, and delete option. Also like the Members, you can add Groups and individual units to the list. What is also very important to note is that any aircraft with a TNDL STN can be added to the Member or Donor network, not just other F/A-18s. We’ll get in the air now and look at this in action. Looking at the SA page, you can see that I have my three Team members off my right wing, four F/A-18 donors off my left wing, and four Viper donors ahead of me. I also see four other F-16s that are not assigned to my team or donor list. Remember that team members will have an alphanumeric letter and donors will have a dot on the left side of the icon. We can place the TDC over a contract and see it’s information in the bottom, right corner. Using the SA page, I can remove and add participants to my Team and Donor lists. For example, we’ll place the TDC over one of the F/A-18 donors and we can see that it is a donor. By selecting the DONOR label, I can remove it as a donor. I can now place the TDC over the second F-16 flight and select DONOR to assign that aircraft as a donor participant. You can do this with all networked aircraft, and it allows you to dynamically configure your network during a mission. I hope you enjoyed this explanation of expanded datalink functionality for the F/A-18 and recognize it as a major advancement for DCS in general.

Thank you Ian. We keep working and it won't take long until you can enjoy the BE version.

thank you. This is still coming together, but more is done everyday. My discord is where I post progress pic more often, if you are into that sort of thing... https://discord.gg/DR2k7ng7NP Today's progress, I extruded the wing sections out to the start of the ailerons and did up the bolt covers that cover the bolts attaching the wing center section to the outboard sections, I also mangled up some objects that made fairly convincing elevators.

You can actually please both simultaneously by having a livery manager that leaves things as is by default (i.e install all default liveries, that way the ones who want the most liveries don't have to touch anything), but lets users uninstall liveries if they want to. This exact system is already present for our modules and terrains, so why is it so controversial to do the exact same thing with liveries? The DCS repair utility is already able to scan for and redownload missing liveries, so the basic functionality is something that already exists, all it would need is a way to specify which liveries it should and shouldn't download. If it's going to be problematic for multiplayer, the liveries can be added to the integrity checker at the server host's/mission editor's discretion.

New training mission(s) incoming in the nearest patch for DCS F-15E:

I would just like to say that I LOVE this module. I wasn't sure about it at first but it has really grown on me and I love all the little details and capabilities. A definite classic and I'm looking forward to the B version this month too. Great Job AERGES!!

Hi Admiral189, I like realism, so i decided to update / create the Wake files of two of your ships, the "Tarantul corvette" and the "USS Bainbridge CG-25". I intended to update some more, but i read that you are in the process of updating your old ships (USS Constellation and USS Kidd), so tell me if you prefer doing it yourself, or if my (little) work will let you gain time. Tarantul_Corvette.lods.ship_wake USS Bainbridge CG-25.lods.ship_wake

Hi, must be installed in the C:\users\"your name"\saved games\DCS (or DCS openbeta)\mods\tech\ And for those who are interrested in realism I updated the wake files (to put in the "Shapes" folder of the mod). Iowa_1950.lods.ship_wake Iowa_1980.lods.ship_wake iowa_1980_global.lods.ship_wake iowa_1980_rq_2_pioneer.lods.ship_wake

Yeah, they do look very nice and I'm somehow getting even more excited for this map. My only gripe so far is that the mountains look fairly angular, but I'm sure that'll be cleaned up on release.

If a third party wanted to do any aircraft and they have access to unclassified public data we are happy for them to approach us with any potential project for consideration. Regarding free speech, this is a discussion forum for DCS and the rules can be found at the top of the page, as long as you stick to them the thread will remain open. Again, stay away from politics. thank you

Exactly what I think! But the German Navy 104s also looked great in their early Luftwaffe sheme.

It also affects Mk-82 and possibly Rockeyes, though that's harder to test. Bump because not being able to use Harrier's iconic feature of accurate dumb bombing with ARBS for months is really not cool. The gun is also inaccurate and consistently falls short (when in range), by the way.

The maps are just getting better and better Imagine getting the Caucasus map in this quality...

Contrary to many’s opinions the main job of air power has often been the breaking of logistics trains, or support of them. Your enemy can’t fight without beans, bullets, bodies, and most importantly in the modern era fuel, and nether can you. CAS is flashy logistics wins wars. Also cargo ops are combat ops. also aircraft like this are likely to pull people from the civilian flight sim community to DCS. More players is always better.

We have done some housekeeping: new download link: https://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=download&downloadid=507

Yes, 3D modelers have been working on updating the model, no timestamp yet on when they'll be finished with it

I've been engaged for a long time, a lot of times, using an aim-120 and I've noticed a strange phenomenon a few months ago After a particular patch *I don't know exactly when* As soon as the AIM-120 looks at the ground, it loses its target tracking or gives up tracking at all and falls to the ground. In most situations, there is a distance of more than 20,000 feet from the ground! It only needs a very 0.5 second or less BEAMING moment.Or not at all From what I've seen, the seeker on the AIM-120 doesn't filter out any ground clutter It doesn't head to the expected position, and there's a ferocious charge as if there's a target on the ground If you simply go down in a semicircle, you can avoid the missile And when this is combined with the DCS's notching decision In almost every situation, you can crash a missile into the ground Even if the target and missile are less than 3nm away If you place the M mark on the RWR in the direction of 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock, most of them will not be hit. Missiles without AIM-120 logic appear to be relatively less prone to this phenomenon. 8/3 8.3.mp4 9/7 9/7 here is TRACK 8/3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KDK1qNTB7fS-1NwsBpR7mXtRfh7fumJp/view?usp=drive_link 9/7 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U0OzoZ3yfEprHYG3oQZFU5CI4xOLsG2c/view?usp=drive_link 9/12 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oz5o84KLRPQsdqd3jQ7dg-osGS66RsFC/view?usp=drive_link THANK YOU

No problem, I had to remove the direct links since the bandwidth required for all the downloads forced me to be switching between hosting providers very frequently. And it became too much work to update all the individual links every time.

If beta games are not for you that is fine. We have a stable version that has longer update cycles. Open beta is and always will be a public test build, if you want to use it and even help us with bug reports, then great. But it is your choice. thanks

And maybe the 21FL, which was the first version with the big tail, but still without SPS and a fixed gun (GP9 gunpod-capable, though). The FL also (later on) got the additional outboard wing-stations. null null

obviously sacrificing the chicken worked ...

Contrary to your yet another rant on the very same subject (samo old, same old in the next thread, broken record at this point), each OB release nowadays is polished enough and works good enough for most players - otherwise they would indeed not use it and stay with Stable instead. Even "shiny new toys" factor would not be enough to draw people to OB if OB was THAT buggy. But the fact is - it just isn't. And a couple of extra bugs each OB patch always brings (noone denies that), is offset by more fixes of old bugs. That's why I stick to it at least. I pretty much don't buy new modules nowadays, but fixes and new core features are always welcomed. At the same time it's been years since I last encountered an OB bug which forced me to revert to previous version number or return to Stable (I recall it was inop airplane trimmers in one of 2.1-2.2 patch releases). If you're stumbling upon so many issues in current OB as you claim, well, either you're just extremely unlucky, or bent on exaggerating / noth telling the truth. I think I know which is more probable. Why ED keep the Stable goin' then? I don't know, BN basically hints they want to keep it just in case. If such business model works for them for the time being, then it works for them. They won't change it because someone's grumpy about it. Be happy that you've got enough SSD space to have both versions on your PC. I used to do that in old days as well until Stable slowly fell into disuse. Having that flexibily was good though. Keeping separate folders in Saved Games is also a good idea I'd say.

Looking a bit more closely at it... It gets depressed if switching to the engineer seat (and probably happens with the gunner as well). So it's the AI that presses it and doesn't release it!

Honestly most of the aircraft I wish for on here is more aimed at the third party. I love the ED modules sure. But I would rather ED focus on the core of DCS. Let the third parties make fantastic modules for us to fly. Only ED can make the world for us to fly them in. That being said i’m buying that chinook. Unfortunately all the big third party developers have their hands full at the moment. But maybe one day we will get the Foxbat with multiple versions for its multiple missions. If we ever got a full world map, the fox that would really shine as an interceptor. With the map skills we have now don’t feel like you could really appreciate how important it speed was.

A slow progress night tonight, with work continuing on the removal of the forward windscreen structure. Unfortunately, all of the attachment hardware is considerably corroded and proving to be extremely difficult to remove, which has slowed down progress enormously. We have managed to get half of the right hand side unbolted and hope to have the entire forward windscreen structure removed by Saturday afternoon. Have included some photos of the structure showing how corroded things are.

Because most people want to use the new stuff as soon as it becomes available and not wait for several additional weeks (or sometimes even months) before it becomes available to the Stable. Also, OB has been running pretty well in recent years, so it's not really an issue at all. Also, and this might be a surprise (well, not really), OB gets bug fixes SOONER than the Stable, so it's often the case that issues that are still in the Stable have already been fixed in the OB.

Looking awesome on every screenshot.

Update: I tried disabling Hyperthreading in the BIOS, it made it a lot worse. Then I tried to set preload radius to max, and surprisingly, the initial spikes were gone...weird...

Hi @Devil-101 The RPM must reach above 20% to move the throttle to idle. The best procedure, however, is when it goes above 20% look below to the annunciator panel and check when SEC light goes out and then move the throttle lever to idle. If you do that before the SEC light extinguishes, you'll have a hung start. If you still believe there is an error in the logic, please create a small track for us to observe what you are doing.

A country with thousands of laws and legislations and you ask a fellow to do the hard research... in Russian Language. Put it this way, BS3 has planned features missing, Mig-29 haulted, their Mascow and Minsk studios canceled, no one is working with Russia to develop modules currently. Tale is that as long as you develop software of military equipments of RUS with any linkage to foreign parts, arrest with simple process and ambigious name of crime. Not working with oem and design bureau? Ok, remember how awful when the mirage2000 initially was, how razbam guessed everything basically wrong.

When the potential risk of "trying to get things done" is an unpaid vacation to a Russian prison, it makes sense why people tend to be more cautious. If the Russian government does not allow the Mig-25 to be modelled, trying to find a sneaky way around it is not the ticket to a long and happy life.

This is looking terrific and off-the-chart. Very much looking forward to this map release. Thanks for sharing. Sent from my XQ-AT52 using Tapatalk

I would be thrilled to know those 70s coldwar eagles are delivered. Yet no, they are not in development, not even in announced plans.

Oh, hell no for the navigator 3D model from my perspective! Il-2GB already shows why it's a terrible idea - not only he's just as functionally not-there in that other sim, but also blocks a lot of view from 3 to 6 o'clock. In DCS we can at least look around easier and spot incoming fighters quicker. An optional pilot's and navigator's body, however, for those who don't mind being handicapped? Sure, why not. As long as it remains optional. Somewhat functional AI crew member on the other hand, I'm all for it. But let's be honest, in typical SP or MP missions without any flightplan or waypoints whatsoever there's really not much to do for the navigator. Reflected's workaround in V-for-Victory only works so well because of how tightly scripted his campaigns are. Petro and George at least have weapon systems to manage, so they are much more needed in their respective aircraft. I'd hazard a guess that's why there's more ED development going towards them instead of Mossie, at least for now.

I would suggest continue to wait as we have INS improvements planned for a future update. thanks

Yup, so if you set your doppler to a point, or use F10 bearing, it will fly you perfectly along a true heading bearing as long as it works correctly. I love having it set while e route with speed and altitude hold and being able to get a snack!

This has also been my observation from many comments I have read else where. Some of which are by actual airline pilots.

Hello there @IronMike Trying to get my muscle memory back, i plugged in the Dragon's Tooth instant action for the F-14A today. And i got my butt royally spanked. No matter what i did, it seemed like i could only beat the 4 Flankers with sheer luck. Then i loaded the mission in the mission editor and noticed (that probably as an artifact of olden times), our 2 Alpha Turkeys are packing Alpha Phoenix, Foxtrot Sparrow and Lima Winders, while the 4 Chinese J-11's are wielding mid to late 90's ordnance, among others, R-77s. So we are not just outnumbered, but outgunned to boot! So, i gave out 2 ship a more contemporary loadout of Charlie Phoenixes and Mike Sparrows and Winders. Et voila! Bagged 2 Flankers each on the first try! And here's a vid to prove it: My proposal, can we actually change this instant action and include it to the official release? I've already done the changes myself and will attach the mission here free of charge of course! What say you? P.S. Alternatively, we could have a retro version of the mission, when the early F-14A comes around, with the same loadout, but against older bandits? F-14A_IA_Marianas_BVR_JA11_AIM-54C.miz

Of course, but I'm glad that something has started to happen with the topic of performance on this map . Looking at the counter, it looks promising, but for full praisning I'll definitely wait until it comes out in a patch for testing . Fingers crossed! Btw. I'm also curious about what has been improved from a technical point of view. This information will be useful in the future.

That's it. Sweep the hangars, keep the kettle hot, fresh paint all around the airfields. We're all getting ready.

Not to be "that guy", but one of the first things that happened in the most recent conflict this planet has been closed to was the destruction of one of the biggest logistics aircraft ever built. Blowing up, capturing, or cutting off warehouses, factories, depots, etc have been some of the most important missions to be undertaken in any conflict. If you're one of the people begging for a dynamic campaign, then you know it's not very dynamic without moving all of the equipment.

Dumb bombs (Mk 8x series, M117 and numerous cluster bombs), guided bombs (Paveway I and II with self-designation capability, GBU-15 on the later DMAS Phantom), AGM-65A/B/D Maverick, AGM-45A/B Shrike. There are numerous delivery modes, (dive-toss, dive-laydown and laydown, probably others I'm missing), the later DMAS Phantom will have CCIP capability. These methods will be more involved that what we're probably used to in the 4th generation modules. For that self-designation capability, the DSCG Phantom will have AN/AVQ-23 Pave Spike (TV (day only), direction-stabilised (no point or area track), no derotation device EDIT: this is actually mistaken - it does feature point stabilisation with help from the aircraft, but tracking targets is still something you'll have to do manually, it does have a derotation device, but it only compensates for pod roll (so when looking behind, images will appear upside down), with a 12k ft rated LTD/R. The DMAS Phantom should have AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack (first gen. FLIR, similar limitations to Pave Spike (though does have "computer rate aiding", though AFAIK it's still direction stabilised) Pave Tack doesn't appear to have a derotation device at all looking at footage online, there is computer-rate aided point-stabilisation by the looks of it and like Pave Spike moving targets have to be tracked manually. Unlike Pave Spike though it does have additional pointing modes).

Sincerely these screenshots look great, beautiful 3-d model and textures, will love to edit missions for it once its released ... in the meantime I will edit some using the Mosquito as a stand-in