Leaderboard

My new DIY Apache Collective!! I'm so happy about it Since I'm stuck with the TEDAC, as I'm waiting for some SMD diodes I need (freaking long shippings from China), I decided to focus on the other build I had half done and finish it, and it's finally done!! at least 99%, as I plan on printing a counterweight box. But it does feature a friction ring, so I can actually tighten that for the time being so it stays in place. The pictures are from yesterday. Since then, I've raised it a bit so it will sit at a small positive angle (in the pictures you can see it drops a bit too low). It features an adjustable friction ring, all fully functional buttons, triggers, 4 way switches, thumb joystick, and even a two way switch + push for the nose switch and a limit switch to activate the Jettison cover action. It also has an analog potentiometer as well as a hall effect angle sensor, so you can chose which one you like better (personally I like the analog one better), and a front USB type B female for easy removal when not using it. I'm stoked about it! Yes, I know the CHOP and Jettison covers are not the correct color. That will come at some point later.

A couple of RAF A330 Liveries including the Current RAF VIP, Current Falkland Island Airbridge provided by AirTanker and bog standard Voyager, plus a fictional light Voyager. None of these are proper in game tankers, the Mod does not support that as far as I am aware. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sqqf31bsrrqjfny37fugk/CrazyEddies-A330-UK-Military-Liveries.zip?rlkey=hy1h4gs047v1f257iin00am2f&dl=0

Congratulations, you just wittnessed the AI in its full glory. By the way, go try against a MiG-21 at the same skill level. It will 2-circle rate you at 8.5G and 480kts without ever losing speed. Any questions? Right… So Pepin, you are around the forums long enough to know such stuff. It is definitely not an OP F1 on steroids but definitely an AI problem. The F1 FM is just fine and any (human!) self-respecting DCS F-16 or MiG-29 pilot will eat the F1 alive in ACM. Any day. Period. To wrap this up here is a final question from me because you were not clear on this. Do you even own the F1? Did you even fly it? If so and you have any doubts about what I just said I suggest you join a very well known dogfight server, hop in a F1 and go enjoy the experience against human pilots. Then come back here and tell me if you still think the F1 is OP. Thank you.

Yep, thanks. It's been reported and I have fixed it. But I wanted to add something more before I released it. Hence the mortar team. The reason I miss the textures in some releases is because I reuse a lot of the textures between my assets, and I don't notice it missing since it automatically gets loaded from another asset in DCS (in this case it could be the Swedish infantry or the HIMARS etc).

Very nice. If you get the authorisation, just send me a PM and we'll add those to the base mod.

Why not th SU-24 FENCER. !! More bombers Please.

Gute Nachrichten für all die harten Jungs Hubschrauber flieger da drausen. Aktuell haben wir alle 12 Missionen der neuen UH-1 Kampagne STORMFRONT für ED zum testen bereitgestellt. Nicht destso trotz Testen und verbessern wir weiter. Der größte Brocken an dem wir noch arbeiten ist nun die Dokumentation. null Diese soll nicht nur hohe Stanards erfüllen , sonder auch in allen drei Sprachen von Beginn an zur verfügung stehen. Dies bedeutet noch einiges an Arbeit, solange uns aber nicht der Himmel auf den Kopf fällt sind wir guter Dinge alle Arbeiten bis ende Oktober abschliessen zu können. Wir halten euch auf dem laufenden

Not that simple for many reasons let me try and explain. I have done lot of 3d modeling in this mod to make the SU-57 as close as possible to that off Serial production. My cockpit is the only cockpit model to simulate that of a serial production, one piece MFD and other areas. Weapons models also made by me , there's lot of work and years out into this. In the programming side things get even more serious in terms of time and research put into this . The SU-57 progress continues privately with me and I can't release it open source for many reasons as mentioned above. Anyone could go and sell 3d models specially the cockpit progress and external and weapons and so on. Or as seen here many times someone will say they made it and so on. In terms of programming I want people to learn and break their heads like I did , took me about 3 weeks to figure out Thrust vectoring and Vtol for my projects. If I release these people will not learn but copy and paste instead again as proven here before. I just don't have to time to keep updating old builds and Build 5 the standalone project is years away, I need more research. I am busy studying and training for Military Contractor and at this point in time I just can't continue the SU-57 publically . As soon as I get my certifications and finish my tactical training and the studying goes a bit down il release Build 5 when it's ready.

As far as I know the feature is the same for both MP and SP and is equally broken for both. And apparently it’s a lot of work to fix. Yeah otherwise it would be great if it actually worked.

I am going to second this request. I am sure it's at the very end of a priority list, but I can't imagine it would take that much work to implement the "multiplayer" track recording option for single player. I may be wrong in that assumption, but please consider it. Thanks.

I do not have a date to share currently, please keep an eye on the patch status post linked in my signature below. We continue testing 2.9 for now, when we have news we will share it. thank you edit: threads merged

В первый раз что ли? Через годика 2 может выйдет в ранний доступ, в релиз может вообще никогда не выйти)))

The AI is known to disregard physics and thus shall NOT be taken as a benchmark for the aircrafts performance.

v1.4.0 After longer absence from DCS(6 weeks) I resumed work and are happy to announce a new release with some features that were missing from SharkPlanner. What's Changed Implemented experimental entry of target points into ABRIS Implemented configuration option panel SharkPlanner has now it's own configuration file located here: %USERPROFILE%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\SharkPlanner.json (the file will be generated on first run) Improved Logging facilities. It is possible to change verbosity of SharkPlanner.log in runtime Bugfixes Fixed issue with ABRIS and Ka-50 BS2 by @okopanja in #69 Fixed issue where Logging would not filter out messages based on verbosity level Entry of targets points With 1.4.0 experimental entry of target points into ABRIS was added but is disabled by default. The target entry into ABRIS has following limitations Since it is not possible to distinguish the targets from existing map objects, entry will be skipped if existing map object is very close to target. You can address this by using ABRIS itself to remove existing object. The entry of targets is not 100% reliable. In some cases the entry will switch ABRIS into wrong sub modes. It is not clear why this occurs and weather it's possible achieve 100% reliable entry. If you notice odd behavior you may need to reload mission or reslot. Configuration panel allows you to disable this feature, but I kindly ask you to test and report problems. When reporting problems I kindly ask for following information: Short description of a problem If you are able please record a video and upload to e.g. youtube Attach configuration file: %USERPROFILE%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\SharkPlanner.json Attach log file: %USERPROFILE%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Logs\dcs.log Attach log file with DEBUG output enabled: %USERPROFILE%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Logs\SharkPlanner.log Options dialog Options dialog can be access in following way: Activate SharkPlanner with CTR+SHIFT+SPACE Inside the control button area locate and click the following button Options will appear. Use the buttons to navigated to each section where you can modify options Each time you modify %USERPROFILE%\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\SharkPlanner.json in Config folder will be saved Full Changelog: v1.3.0...v1.4.0

Thanks for the nice words everyone! I would also like to give a special thanks to all of you who have donated. You are the ones making all these assets possible. Every received dollar goes into models for new assets. I happily spend my time making assets, but I ask you for continued support since I'm a one man operation. Thanks! Edit: And here is a sneak peek of the next US Infantry release.

Hi, I recently purchased a WW f-16ex stick with mfssb base. In the past I used real simulator FSSB r3, I got rid of it only because I fly many aircraft. But winwing came with a way cheaper solution which for less then the price includes also a very good grip (RS comes at 650 euro base only including shipping and taxes, WW with the new EU store 450 euros all included). The winwing solution is quite good honestly, and theoretically it could also be converted into a traditional joystick which moves, but in comparison to the realsimulator it still lacks some solutions, some could be software solvable, others needs hardware solution. I would like to know if someone came with some interesting solution here. I applied my previous knowneldge learnt in my RS user experience...so I did setup different forces for left/right roll (from a famous NASA study it is 8lbs/6lbs so a 133% difference) So I applied the values visible in the picture below: I also removed the default settings for deadzone, as I find that the DCS F16 has already a built-in dead zone simulated in the FCS, 0% deadzone would be ideal, but then the axis were not centered anymore, so I found that 5% deadzone is a good compromise as it leaves a good sensibility around the center, but the axis are always centered. Now, what is missing. - An easy one fixable by software (@winwing is someone from you in this forum) is the 12° rotation of the axis, in fact due to ergonomic reasons in the real F-16 the sidestick is mounted straight and tilted forward, but the axis are rotated 12° towards the right. Other MFSSB users, with the stick mounted as sidestick) will confirm that if they "move" the stick without watching they will end applying also indesired roll motion (for example when trying to apply full force backward). Realsimulator added the possibility to shift the rotation of the axis, so I think it should be easy for winwing to add. - the second thing is an hardware limitation, I am talking about the forward tilt and in the past people with thrustmaster warthog/cougar grips came with the solution of a 3d-printed tailpipe for the stick. Realsimulator also offers such a tailpipe for their grips. A solution would be to mount the base on an inclined plane but probably it would falsify axis readings... So Is there some genious here which came with some solution to this? I leave here some references: NASA flight simulator study https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88752main_H-2512.pdf Topic on the 12° rotation https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=24779 Pictures My settings: Nasa Flight sim gear Motion forces (break out should be a sort of dead zone) Sidestick diagram

Being able to set up which MFD pages appear when toggling to each Master Mode is awesome, but when you start in the air a lot it's a bit of a pain to have to set them up every single time. Could we have some defaults built into air-start A/C please, or perhaps be able to set them up in the Specials menu?

In the bast I 've asked about a mod manager, and there is a DCS page on the Nexus Mods which no one is using. https://www.nexusmods.com/dcsworld

After reading up a bit on ECM jamming, its clear that ED's modeling of it in game is still extremely simplified. For instance, fighters with noise jammers, such as the F-16, the FC3 aircraft, the Jf-17, the M-2000c and the F-14, can jam the entire operational radar spectrum with seemingly unlimited power as there appears to be no limit on how many radars can be jammed at once. This would seem to suggest that ED has implemented an unrealistic form of "barrage jamming" for the jammers of these airplanes. On the flip side, up to this point, jamming of surveillance radars (such as the ones found on AWACS), appears to be impossible making fighters with DL nearly immune to any loss of SA. The only airplanes that seem to model ECM jamming in more depth are the Hornet and Viper which appear to use deceptive jamming tactics (i.e. RGPO, VGPO, etc.) to break radar locks. However even this seems to greatly simplified as regardless of the victims radar power, the burn through range seems to be set at a static value of about 20 nautical miles. Additionally once the deceptive jammer is activated, it appears to act as a noise jammer for any other radar pointed at it. Are there any plans to change/improve the modeling of ECM in DCS or this the best we can hope for? `

On the Aero, it is probably 15 deg less than the G2. The Crystal is probably an improvement of and additional 20 deg over the G2. Yeah I agree not my favorite idea. But with the addition of a second cable and QC3.0 charging block you get infinite battery life. One side benefit is the battery works really well as a counter weight.

I'll add my my voice to requesting the track record/replay system gets fixed. Surely this is a fundamental core part of any flight sim.

Yes very interesting, the tanks are engaging outside a reasonable range for sure. I took control and while I could hit a tank... not easily, the AP did no damage as expected, the HE seemed weird, if it hit the ground it exploded as normal but if it hit the tank it didn't seem to explode, I am not sure it would be effective but it should still explode as normal. It's not far-fetched to expect a tank to work in a mobile artillery role, but not against other tanks. So I will report the engagements outside a viable range. I will wait for that to be looked at before I report the interception range as that might be messing it up. Although worth testing with other units until then. I will ask about HE rounds seeming being duds if they hit a tank at long range. I need to test further. Bonus report, I do not like the Binoculars 1) have all that fancy modern stuff in WWII tanks 2) seem to not remember where they are looking when I switch to the gun and back. I'll leave this open for now. Also if you go into CA, and use the target help, it says the enemy tank is in range, I would think this should not be the case.

The Achilles of the Aero is the Vertical FOV. It does take a bit to get used to. The Clarity and performance is amazing. If you are struggling with the Aero I would highly suggest you consider the Crystal. It gives you all the clarity of the Aero, a bit better colors, better blacks with the local dimming and much better Vertical FOV atm. There are wide FOV lenses coming in Oct that should give us an additional 15% of Horizontal FOV which will make the Crystal the clear choice with a Horizontal FOV of 118 deg or so. I've owned most of the top high end headsets and I would give the Crystal the edge as the current best simming headset with the Aero in 2nd place due to the performance and clarity. But I will say the huge advantage the Crystal has in Vertical FOV is something I don't ever think I could give up now.

They were all stolen, smuggled and installed in areas covered now by Normandy 2 map . That's why there's a crapton of them over there and none over here.

Ace level AI fly where ever they way however fast they want. I've flown the 16 against Ace Mig21's and always lose in a vertical fight because they're using a Saturn V engine apparently.

Thanks for such a quick response to this request. Looking forward to giving it a go from the back seat.

It is best to wait and look at the patch notes for added features, as things can change during testing. For now we keep testing 2.9, and as soon as we can give you all a date for the next patch we will. thank you

(RAZBAM answer) ASL is wrong in presence of INS drift, but not enough to be stuck on the side of the HUD as you experienced. This is fixed for next release. It works fine if you are using EGI (mission date set after 1997). But it is unlikely the cause of what you describe, which looks like user error. By purchasing an Early Access module, you had this information: Writing here that you are disappointed is fine, stating this is "fraud" is not.

Not sure if this has been linked before, but this may help someone Cheers Les

Or open source it for others to take on?

Went back to the workshop tonight to drill out the forward windscreen attachment brackets out. This was a little easier said than done and It took turning the entire forward structure upside down to get clear access and managed to burn through several good drill bits removing the fixings that held them in. The aluminum castings attach to the windscreen hoop frame and tie the structure into the main fuselage cockpit and are integral to the overall strength of the cockpit hoop. Without them, if you hang on the hoop frame lowering yourself into the cockpit, they're likely to move and fatigue crack. When we removed the forward structure of the aircraft we salvaged the brackets as the ones on the production spare have been cut through. We have now discovered that the brackets are hand-drilled at the factory and do not line up! NO jigging is a PITA. I have taken some photos comparing the silver (one recovered from the aircraft) and the green (one from the production spare). Interestingly the part numbers are not the same either. Am going to do some research to work out why that is. Once the salvaged brackets have been cleaned up, we will have to blind rivet them and hand-drill them to match the holes in the production spare frame to get everything to fit. More work... who said building a sim pit out of 100% original aircraft parts was going to be easy!

Managed to get several coats of matte black paint onto the gun-sight HUD frame and accessory brackets. Once these have cured overnight, they will be given two coats of clear to protect them and to make future cleaning easier. Without the clear layers, over time cleaning can erode the surface layer paint, so the clear helps provide some longevity.

The right wing tip is the fuel dump, the left wingtip is the overflow vent. Dump switch only puts fuel out the right wingtip. The left wingtip only vents fuel when an overpressure or overfueled condition exists. Not controllable by the aircrew, completely automatic. Unlikely to see it happen in DCS.

No, I understand. I had exactly the same concerns with the vertical FOV coming from a G2. All I can say is I was prepared to sacrifice it for the increase in clarity and the ability to use my eyes again rather than having to move my head. And ultimately I don't even notice it now. Thing is, I had a G2 and went Pico for better fov and better lenses. The lenses in the Pico are incredible, they are enormous and clear from edge to edge. However I was definitely being overly critical on the Aero at first. I recall the first few times I used the Pico I was horrified by the compression but then I came to appreciate its strengths. Same thing happened, I was focusing on the Aero's weaknesses instead of enjoying its strengths. The clarity is truly insane and at 90 FPS to boot. I was flying along in the F-16 today and realized as I was gazing out to my rear that I could read the serial number printed on the side of my AIM-120. I burst out laughing and said to myself "ok. this is definitely better." Still crave more FOV in 2024, but the Aero is nice.

Is there any chance you are planning to give us some more content. The free campaign is nice even if short and a bit repetitive, but there would be opportunities to add super cool content like Falklands or Al Fursan themed campaigns.

Well, mod is dead

Go to Waypoint is a bit different than following a route. The AI will try to directly drive to that point and ignore any waypoints you have setup. If you ditched the go to waypoint task and told AI to use off road to their destination you should see the exact same behavior as with the go to waypoint. Since they need to cross a river the AI will find the nearest point to cross that is valid for the group contents. The Bradley could "wade" through the river, but the bridge is the closest so it chooses that instead. I moved them just a tiny bit north and you can see the change that had. https://i.imgur.com/EEvdb4x.mp4 If the river is more substantial then it will need to be crossed via bridge unless the unit is amphibious. This is closer to what you are seeing in your mission where the AI choose to use a bridge, but less than ideal behavior occurs. In your case they get stuck. In this case it looks bad. Either way it appears the AI drive to the start of the bridge without caring how to actually drive across it. I would need to double check to see if there are any existing reports on this. https://i.imgur.com/YQQYjF7.mp4 Thats normal, the group always faces their next waypoint. Suppose its a weird quirk, but it is relatively minor. edit; need better embed support on the forum.

Yeah, that's true. That's also regulated via the ACM-cover. Easy to forget as that normally doesn't really matter for the intended use. Thanks!

Just a gentle reminder that Su-17/22 is not 4th generation fighter, and that this goes outside of the topic...

Yes please! Considering the PG is one of the most used maps the lack of Iranian Assets really sets it back

I don't get it. Unless you live there where your action is taking place (i.e. on one of the maps), whatever use is live weather to you? I prefer the ability to set the weather on-the-fly when starting the mission without having to go into Mission Editor. But live weather? Whatever for? Especially when it probably means IMC for 50% of the time. I fail to the the added value of that. Historical weather, maybe. Live? No priority for me.

Nevermind, I've just bought The Channel. It's just too good to pass on! Thanks to the trial mode I did several hourls of sightseeing prior and got hooked. Worth every penny, even though I'm going to use it for leisure flying only.

I give you an A+ for the ingenuity of your method for finding information about the AN/ALR-56M.

Here's the OG Picture Cobra posted on Discord.

Cockpit building!

@CH4Pz there is no bug and simply user error. I understand you are new to the ME so to help you out, I have attached an image that explains exactly what the "CONDITION" settings in DCS actually represent. I hope it helps for your future mission builds. Cheers.