Leaderboard

Hi folks! The following guides just got updated: FW190A-8 Changelog (20/09/2023) Complete Overhaul FW190D-9 Changelog (20/09/2023) Complete Overhaul Bf.109K-4 Changelog (20/09/2023) Complete Overhaul P-47D Thunderbolt Changelog (20/09/2023) Added bomb fuze section P-51D Mustang Changelog (20/09/2023) Added bomb fuze section Spitfire Mk. IX Changelog (20/09/2023) Added bomb fuze section DH.98 Mosquito Changelog (20/09/2023) Typo corrections Mi-8MTV2 Changelog (20/09/2023) Added multicrew section

Here's the OG Picture Cobra posted on Discord.

Dear Michel, Our current rules restrict the discussion of politics in these forums. There should be no talk of current affairs or geopolitics. Any discussion like this in ANY section of the forum by ANY member should be reported either using the report function or you can even send me a direct DM. That said... Profile pictures are a personal representation of that person, and we will not restrict the usage of country flags in their pic. I am a proud Canadian and if I thought it was important to me at some point I might use our flag in a profile pic. Using any country's flag is a choice, as long as its a current valid flag and not some sort of symbol of hate or such. What we do not allow are political or racial symbols be it flags, symbols etc. that are related to politics, hate, or violence and the kind, things as the swastika, the confedirate battle flag, the Z and more. Yes, it can be a fine line at times, and I am happy to review any concerns you have, be it posts, images etc. by any user or even Team member, ED, 3rd Party or otherwise. As suggested it's a balancing act and I am learning new things about different cultures all the time, if I am missing something, let me know. Thanks!

I really get the frustration that comes with the reality of development, but at the same time I would like to carefully add that this kind of assessment is a bit on the unfair side. I can only tell you from our own experience that ED is tirelessly working on improving DCS, and the scope has gotten as big as we all wished for and continue to wish for, and more and more features need to be developed as the entire ground continues to shift, so that we all can continue to have a great, contemporary simming experience. I see simming like yourself, and I am sure so does ED, where additional features like CSAR, etc add a ton of fun and immersion, but the bottom line remains that the Huey is a rock solid simulation of this fine helicopter, developed at a time where the technology we have at our disposal now was still in the making in parts. There are few games that survived this long, without remaining as they were 10 or 20 years ago, that continue to improve, while in the meantime tons of new features and improvements have been added by ED, ever growing and evolving the DCS universe, from weather to multithreading to small improvements all across the board and so many more still to come. While I absolutely do not intend to speak for ED, I can assure you that it is not easy to just add what everyone wants, with so many different wishes. And most importantly, if I may kindly remind: this is not the sub forum and place to discuss non-SC related issues, while I am sure that ED will be happy to hear your feedback. Personally, if you allow me, I would just like to add that we're all in it for the long haul, that we want to fly in DCS many years from now, and that I think a very bright future lies ahead for all of us. I remember still how mind blown I was when I first started up LOMAC. If I started up DCS today for the first time, in comparison, I think someone would have to pick me up from the floor, and I ofc do not mean that as self praise, but as praise for ED. They truly deserve it, and we're all quick to forget, when this or that thing we want the most still hasn't happened, while missing the bigger picture. Thank you for your kind understanding, and I truly hope that you don't lose yours and stay with us for many years to come.

Thank you @NineLine - to add to this both sides are also aware of (and working on) all the other outstanding issues regarding the Tomcat - which have been tracked on both sides. To everyone, rest assured that both parties are committed to bring a complete SC experience with the F-14. Thank you for your very kind patience.

Grinnely Designs F-100D develop news.

So, you're saying you don't want bring politics to forum and in this same sentence you demand political censorship. Bold move...

Dear all, I just heard from our testing lead that director routing is being done with the F-14 in mind as well. So as it stands now this should work with the F-14 upon release, another promising note is that it fixes some issues with blocked CATs as well. Thanks

I made a diagram which shows all available transitions between radar modes in search and designated-target modes. I arranged the modes in how they are related by auto-aqc switch direction, so it's more of a map than just a table of state transitions like the manual provides. Inop modes are colored yellow. I also made a plot showing the azimuth-elevation profile of all radar modes. These should be accurate to the degree, with the exception of maybe the boresight mode where I had to interpret "4 degrees circle" as an azimuth/elevation rectangle. Source diagrams.net files are available upon request. Note: Plot azimuth scale is 2.5 degrees per grid cell, and elevation scale is 1 degree per grid cell. This skews the representation of angular area (solid angle) subtended by each of these modes. Supersearch (SS) and Boresight (BS) should be square in shape.

This one might be too easy, so I require the correct name of ship class and missile type.

New Campaings.

On my view, I don't agree that just showing a flag can be considered as a "geopolitical view" ... a view needs words to express it, just a flag is not enough. I agree on keeping political discussions out of the forum, but censoring the avatar images is too much (in my opinion, of course) ... don't see how the Forum could be considered "democratic" with that kind of censorship.

CH, can you add Russian infantry in green masks?)

Yeah! So open the miz file in your choice of archive editor (I use winrar) and change that Mission.file to Mission.lua. Go into the mission editor and get the X and Z coordinates for where you want to put the object and override the existing one in the lua file! for your viewing pleasure. A sea tor!

LOL, as long as your pilot is doin' the "pilot shidd" perfectly fine and you have exactly NOTHING to do back there, everything is fine. KOLA is highestly appreciated to become available very soon. Better today than tomorrow!

My guess is the sale was extended in order to keep the children quiet while the next update is being prepared.

This guy actually gets on my nerves somewhat, he is way too excitable and virtually every headsest he tests is the "best headset ever", until the next one is sent to him free-of-charge (with affiliate code).

Can someone help confirm or inform me whether the P-47's ammunition load is correct? I noticed the P-47's firing time seem abit shorter than my experience in other games, so I did a test in singleplayer. The guns (for all 3 variants) last around ~23 seconds with Tacview counting only 2,400 rounds fired instead of the advertised 3,400 rounds. I've attached the tacviews here, but haven't gone round to recording a trackfile (note that Tacview makes no distinction between the variants and label them as "P-47D"). I also used two different belts of the regular '44 (API_M8 in Tacview) and the '44 strafing (APIT_M20). The manual states 425 rounds per gun and a fire rate of 800-900 rpm, which should have between 28-32 seconds total firing time. I suspect there was an error where they mistyped 3 as 2 and causes the missing 1,000 rounds. The fire rate appears to be correct at 800rpm (2400/8 = 300 rounds per gun, 300*60/800 = 22.5 seconds per gun). I would also rule out gun jamming from overheating (if it was even modelled) as it is coincidental for all 8 guns to stop firing at the exact same time and all 3 recording tests counted exactly 2,400 rounds fired. Tacview-20230910-001352-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20230910-001249-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20230910-001146-DCS.zip.acmi

Just a short review on the new PTO 2. The thing that first pops out is that it's larger than the original...about a third larger overall. The case is made of plastic with brass inserts in the back for mounting. I like the look, especially the quality of design and placement of switches/levers. The switches feel more positive and easily identified due to the differently shaped switch levers. The gear and hook levers are now pull before actuation. I really like the panel and will be incorporating it in my pit very soon. I'm not going to go into the pros and cons as this is very subjective and I'm sure they will be more in depth reviews in the coming days.

P-47 should have 3,400 rounds total, but currently the game only has 2,400 rounds (300 per gun). English manual pg. 46 states 425 rounds per gun with fire rate of 800-890 rpm which should have a firing time of 29-32 seconds, but current it fires for only ~22 seconds. This affects all three variants (D-30 early, D-30, D-40) although only the D-40 is used for the attached report. Attached files contain the following: P-47D-40 gun count 44 strafing.trk - track file of singleplayer mission on Caucasus Tacview-20230921-172412-DCS-P-47D-40 gun count 44 strafing.zip - Tacview file of said mission Screen_230921_172456.jpg - in-game debriefing dcs.log - per requirement for bug report Of note are items #2 and #3, with the Tacview showing exactly 2,400 rounds were fired while the image shows debriefing of firing stops after 22 seconds. Steps to reproduce (formality's sake): Create singleplayer mission with any P-47. In-air or ground start doesn't matter Fly to altitude to prevent ground safety Hold fire button until empty. Note down duration of firing P-47D-40 gun count 44 strafing.trk Tacview-20230921-172412-DCS-P-47D-40 gun count 44 strafing.zip.acmi dcs.log @razo+r made a post in the discussion thread of the game file, which shows the "count = 300," confirming that there is only 300 rounds per gun. Image reattached below, credits to razo+r

After working on the B-17G Livery Competition I noticed that several of the other WWII AI aircraft were very lacking in regards to liveries. I decided to work on the A-20G first. The Ju-88 also needs some love but Warlord64 (keefyboy) has already done a few and also has a template posted: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313581/. If anyone want's my template for the A-20G (it's a bit of a Dog's Breakfast but functions) please post in this thread and I'll provide a link. Anyway, Here's "Little Joe": *UPDATE* 26 Sep, 23: Moved underwing Star and Bar rondelle to correct position on Right wing. Added a generic skin with Bort letter enabled (I kept the skull over the guns since several other planes used it in the Pacific theater. Skin title: USAF_389th BS Pacific Generic Presentation Livery represents Douglas A-20G Havoc “Little Joe”, bureau number 43-21475 from the 389th Bomber Squadron, 312th Bombardment Group United States Army Air Force,1945.US A-20Gs were used on low-level sorties in the New Guinea theatre. An A-20G 43-22200 , bureau number is displayed at the USAF Museum painted in the markings of "Little Joe". This aircraft is in much too clean a state however. I would imagine that the original "Little Joe" would show much more wear and this skin is representational of that. I also altered the normal map to represent what appears to be black rubber (leather) coaming around the gun turret. Aircraft History Built by Douglas Aircraft Company. Constructors Number 21122. Delivered to the U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) as A-20G-40-DO Havoc serial number 43-21475. Disassembled and shipped overseas to the South West Pacific Area (SWPA). Wartime History Assigned to the 312th Bombardment Group (312th BG) "Roarin' 20s", 389th Bombardment Squadron (389th BS) at Gusap Airfield. Assigned to pilot 1st Lt. Leonard W. Happ with crew chief SSgt Thomas Dobrowski. Nicknamed "Little Joe" with the name painted in white in a cursive style on both sides of the nose. The front of th nose cone had the skull and cross bones motif. On the left side of the nose was a scoreboard with bomb markings indicating missions flown. Tail letter T was painted in white on both sides of the tail. On April 16, 1944 took off from Gusap Airfield piloted by 1st Lt. Leonard W. Happ with gunner Sgt Nathan B. Adler on a strike mission against Hollandia. Returning, the formation experienced a severe weather front including severe thunderstorms and clouds. This aircraft managed to spot a hole in the clouds revealing the Ramu Valley and was able to land safely at Gusap Airfield but ran out of fuel on the runway. During June 1944 operated from Hollandia. During November 1944 operated from Tanauan Airfield on Leyte. On January 7, 1945 took off from Tanauan Airfield piloted by 2nd Lt. Thomas H. Jones on a low level strike against Clark Field on Luzon. Inbound to the target, the formation flew near the U.S. Navy invasion fleet off Mindoro. In late January 1945 operated from McGuire Airfield (San Jose) on Mindoro. During February 1945 operated from Mangaldan Airfield (Honey) on Luzon. In April 1945 operated from Floridablanca Airfield on Luzon. In August 1945 operated from Yontan Airfield on Okinawa until the end of the Pacific War. Fate On September 30, 1945 this A-20 condemned as obsolete and scrapped. Uploaded to User Files. Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3333030/

Hey, Kronenberg from vCarrier Air Wing 17 here. In this post I want to rant a little about the state of Supercarrier, about the changes that are coming, and give concrete suggestions on how to improve that module for us. To start off, here is a little bit about us as Carrier Air Wing 17. We have been around DCS since 2021 and nowadays we are an airwing with roughly 30 active members equally split between VF-103 flying the Tomcat and VFA-34 flying the Hornet. We try to simulate US Naval Aviation as realistically as possible in DCS and we strive to find a good balance between "milsim" while doing things that actually make sense in DCS. This means we're not super big on roleplaying and we will omit real life procedures if they do not make much sense. We often fly strike packages with 16 Aircraft and over 20 players. This means we will all load up into the mission, spawn aircraft on the carrier deck based upon our LSP (Launch Sequence Plan) and then, on event time, launch those aircraft. We simulate Cyclic Ops, meaning all event aircraft will recover together on the carrier deck after the Cycle has been completed. Another point before I start with my ranting: We understand we fill a niche in DCS, and that we are not the entire community (although there are other groups like us). I will talk about a lot of things that make sense for us and balance that with things that the rest of the community does. There are two things I'll talk about: 1. Ongoing bugs/Issues 2. Future features. So with 16 Aircraft that want to launch one after another will cause a huge amount of issues. First, we cannot even spawn 16 aircraft on the carrier at the same time reliably. While there might be enough spawn slots on the carrier, as soon as there are more than 4 aircraft spawned into the carrier we cannot reliably spawn in anymore. That means we need to re-spot the aircraft that are already spawned in. One of the bugs that we encounter a lot is when the catapults break in launch operations, or will no longer accept an aircraft. Also the JBDs can get stuck while extended. While recovering, the crew will return to the LA or catapults while other aircraft are in the system and on approach. This means if I taxi to CAT 2 to park I have to avoid the CAT1 or 2 JBD because the SC module will trigger the JBD. However, I will say: the catapults are better and have not been breaking as much since the last time I ranted (see this video). When it works we also love the catapult crew. It's a nice feature to have and it's really cool for immersion. Which is why it would be nice to be able to control all this as an option or menu item. Here you might say: "Okay guys, just spawn in start up and take off immediately - where is the big deal?" Well, that's not how carrier ops work IRL. We want to simulate proper launches and recoveries within a set amount of time (a cycle). It is our identity and seeing as it is literally how carriers have always operated IRL, we should be able to do it. We obviously realize that not all communities operate like that. But a good part of it wants to be able to simulate real life procedures. On to future features, and here is something that actually really scares us: The plane directors, specifically the new feature. They are obviously a really cool feature, but it is highly likely that they will not work for 16 planes. A lot of people bought SC thinking we can simulate realistic carrier operations. Instead we are getting “Super Carrier - The Animation”. If the Plane Directors are a feature we cannot turn off in the mission editor, or cannot control, we will not be able to use the Supercarrier module anymore. We want to be on CVN-73 not the Stennis and benefit from what works. Otherwise, our choices are to uninstall the Supercarrier in the wing or use the Forrestal and that would be awful. Here are the features we actually want in the Supercarrier. First, please give us custom spawn slots/positions (like takeoff from ground on an Airfield). This would solve a lot of issues we have with spawning in. We could put all our Tomcats at the stern of the boat, all the hornets in the Sixpack, no respotting needed. We just spawn and launch on time. Then you might say: "hey our AI routing would not work with that" - and sure that’s true, but the solution is make it an option in the Mission editor so that we can choose. We do not use any AI at all for our missions. Please give us the option to have custom spawn slots, and the people that do not want to have that, just do not tick the option in the ME. The next thing goes hand in hand with the spawn slots: give us an overall "Manual Mode" for the carrier. We have human controllers and LSOs every time we fly and we do not need the AI comms at all. It is beyond frustrating not being able to turn on the deck lights on without calling into the aircraft carrier with the AI comms. Or when the AI starts to talk after people bolter and then anyone else just gets talked over. In general the AI comms are just not useful to us, because the AI just talks on top of us. Basically, a manual mode for the SC features would be best. Custom spawn slots/positions (like takeoff from ground on an Airfield) and give us the ability to turn off the plane directors. This way groups like us can choose to work the Supercarrier on our own and without too much interference. Don’t get me wrong, we love the module, but I just want to put into perspective what is actually important. Primarily, we are just requesting features to be handled by ourselves so that we can choose to use the module in a way that makes sense for realism-focused groups. Overall we are just frustrated with some of the features that we have and that have been promised. And looking forward it does not seem like any of these issues are going to be addressed. Thanks for your work ED! TLDR - Here is what we need: Reliable Aircraft Spawn Slots: The ability to reliably spawn 16 aircraft on the carrier at the same time for realistic launches and recoveries. Custom Spawn Slots/Positions: Provide custom spawn slots/positions on the carrier deck, similar to airfield ground starts, to facilitate smoother operations without the need for respotting. Manual Mode for the Carrier: Introduce a manual mode for the Supercarrier, allowing human controllers and Landing Signal Officers (LSOs) to manage carrier operations without AI interference. Option to Turn Off Plane Directors: Allow the option to turn off the Plane Directors feature, which might not be practical for use with larger groups of aircraft, such as 16-plane operations. Fix Catapult and JBD Issues: Address bugs related to catapults breaking during launch operations and issues with the Jet Blast Deflectors (JBDs) getting stuck while extended.

Hi all, I've never worked with a JTAC who didn't provide MGRS Grid, Square, and Coords for every position, be that friendly, enemy, or the boundary of an area to search. They always pass the Grid, the Square, and then generally will inform you of how many characters they are about to pass by saying 'Eight to Follow' or 'Six to Follow' depending on the accuracy of the position they have for you, before passing the coords. This removed confusion as to whether the transmission had been clipped after only receiving so many numbers. Can we change that? Also, I've never heard one use the phonetic phrase 'N/A' for Lines 1,2 & 3. Rather they would state the full phrase 'Not Applicable' if that were the case. Lots of people seem confused as to where to find the Grid, so this would help them, and it would also add realism. Cheers, Dr Spankle

It was our bug. This should be fixed now. Please check it out.

Flawless victory! You're too good at this. Not necessarily, if I remember correctly the Sovremenny use the older 3S90 Shtil, not the newer 3S90M Shtil-1 used on the 11356R.

I decided to try the Next Level Racing HF8 haptic seat pad. It works out of the box with SSA and I am very happy with it.

@KetchupWarthogMind you, according to real manuals from B- to N- variant, 425 rounds per gun was "maximum" load, while "desirable" load was listed as 200, 267 or 300 depending on gun configuration (6 or 8 ) and on... manual you choose to follow. I guess ED decided to choose 300 as best compromise option. Still, logic suggests that ammo bar in the editor set at 100% should yield max physically possible amount, so 425 I'd say.

The GPWS (TERPROM) is not specifically developed for A/S mission roles. It first and foremost provides ground proximity warnings and is a general terrain awareness tool, improving flight safety. As it had been on the Typhoon from day 1, it should also be part of the DCS EF module.

At this time we do not have a date to share for the next patch, we are currently in a merging and testing cycle to prepare for the next patch. Please keep an eye on the patch status forum post linked in my signature. thanks

I turned on loud AB sound in the options. That really helps, because you really notice when the AB kicks on.

So that you could have an online scenario with a Hornet without JHMCS, GPS, and advanced datalink

Some pics of 956 project! Engine smoke and northern fog!

I think there's a false assumption that 2FA is about stopping abuse of multiple accounts for trials. It's not. It can't be. It doesn't work like that. It requires the clock on your desktop to be accurate so no more going back in time to prolong the trial. But the risk of abusing multiple accounts ia still there. This, in turn, can be mitigated by using a hardware-based checksum.

Or as Ylvis said: «There is no bad weather, only bad cleather»

Thanks, Slyfa, yeah I see I added one too many zeros. Distance is actually 30 km at Mach 3. Please try the attached update below and let me know what you all think. PM me your thoughts. Thanks. Project_956_Admiral_Ushakov SA-N-11 Update 1.0.1 https://ln5.sync.com/dl/f79b603f0/j5ybxcvd-9ucwqeut-iy85d54s-j7g2gee2

It's up to the 3rd Party if they want to support these features. It requires them to add or update any of these features. As they have their own carrier now they might only want to support that. We do not have 100% access to their modules so if anything needs to be done on their end we rely on them. While new features are developed we must concentrate on the module we have full access to and add beyond that afterwards. We are full willing to make the F-14 work with it if its in HBs development plans to do so, this is why I suggested asking them, they are more aware of their plans than I am, and if they have discussed or started working on this.

I'm sorry, neither are abandoned. CA is feature complete and recieved fixes from time to time as well as new units to control etc. The Supercarrier module is getting major feature work done and we just shared info on some of this recently in the newsletter. You can be frustrated by development speed I understand this but please do not make false statements when we just shared an update on progress recently. Thanks We are working through some issues with the F-14 along with Heatblur, but as it's their module they need to be involved and have a full plate as well. As for new features it might be best to ask them what they plan to do or if they plan on supporting new features. Our focus will be first on the F/A-18C and as above work with Heatblur may be needed for F-14 support.

Yeah, but again, unlikely to happen. Best I would hope for would be a "kuwait" map, mostly on a N/S axis to cover iran/iraq border and ending E/W at the big cities so they wouldn't have to be modeled. You could do iran/iraq, DS1, and DS2 in that area pretty well. I'm honestly both amazed and appalled that its not a map yet.

Yup I agree fully. Honestly the core game mechanics need some serious work too, the way SAMs work currently in DCS is just bad. Yeah, I mean if the PG map actually stretched to Iraq we would have a decent setup with the Mig21,23 and F1, add the 29 for an honorable mention at the end, vs the F4/5/14A-95. In alot of ways Iran or Iraq as good/bad guy makes a decent sense from the plane mix.

I get frustrated too, but as a gamer who spent many years playing and following development of many games, i know how complicated and long term it can become. Like Star Citizen, they promise you so much, but they just can't deliver. ED have +100 workers, and they are doing in my opinion great work. I mean, just look the graphics. They have so much tasks to accomplish, just look at the roadmap. I need hours for making one wallpaper, imagine how much they need to implement new systems. We, including me often think, they have a magic stick and they just publish it. Everything have its own time and DCS is about high fidelity aircraft Sim. This is just my picture how I see this.

You would know better than me! Thing is with Varjo, it seems that at least they are constantly improving.

Thanks for the quick response! Now all that's left is fine tuning:) If you place a land Buk and a ship nearby on the shore and launch a target towards them, you will notice the difference. Sea Buk is still very strong. It attacks high-altitude targets (22 km) with a stated maximum altitude of 15 km, and also attacks low-flying targets (anti-ship RBS) flying at an altitude of 6 meters, with a stated lower limit of 10 meters.

Razbam: another Smart Weapons Test:

В голосовой чат имхо мало кто вникал просто, пользуются по инерции срс. Нужно подробное пособие (в наиболее популярном сейчас формате видео) как этим всем пользоваться и какие возможности это все дает - и тогда популярность войсчата вырастет. Свой нативный срс - наоборот крайне нужная фича, вот бы еще нативный LotATC сделали.

The Larnaca industrial area is back in ED internal build. It should be there with the next OB update.

The Admiral Kasatonov asset were renamed to Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov Class Frigate a while ago, the latest release is 1.5.0. If you still use the Kasatonov (which is just an older version of the same asset), you will of course get conflicts that makes DCS crash.

Roller Coaster Tycoon.

A few things there. 1. Left brake is constantly at 50% (use your heels to control rudder, not the ball of your feet) 2. Hard landing (aim for around 500-700fpm) or risk blowing a tyre 3. Do not brake on landing just let it roll and use rudder to counter any lateral movement. Spoilers should be armed, air brake should be out, so just pull back and let the aero do the braking. When it has slowed down significantly (around 60-80kts) then apply wheel brakes. When you've slowed down blow 80kts (I tend to go less than that) use the nose wheel steering.

"Each BLU-97/B CEB consists of a shaped charge, a scored steel casing, and a zirconium ring, for anti-armor and anti-personnel fragmentation and incendiary effects. Each CEB is designed to fragment into 300 fragments. Given the top attack angle of the weapon, the CEB can be effective against the generally light armor covering the top of an armored vehicle such as a tank." I wouldn't really class 10% damage on a direct hit to a tanks roof as effective, this is not correct as is.