Leaderboard

I am nearly 50, live in the now, enjoy the moment, enjoy what we have already, less stress

Testing the next asset...

Good stuff; I'd like to suggest 2 vehicles though: Updated Skyranger 30 and the Sachsen Class air defense frigate

Hi, please be patient we are working on new effects for helo's thank you

Here's my stab in the dark: Vulcan - Unlikely - I would have thought Vulcan would be a significant version such as 3.0. DLSS - Hopeful. I say this because I recall the 2023 & Beyond video mentioned "Made with DLSS". So I'm really hoping that this (and some other GPU enhancements) will be here, even if not Vulkan. But then I'm reminded that some other & Beyond video's had some units that we didn't see at all that following year, so don't know. I know it's been a focus. Supercarrier - Likely. I think in a recent thread there were requests and concerns about the supercarrier and upcoming features of more deck personelle. IIRC - BigNewy said to wait and see what was released in 2.9, so my guess is that it's very likely we're going to see something new hear. Briefing room and elevators maybe, or maybe something else? CH-47 Chinook - Likely. Oh, this would be amazing, but I'm joking. I think this is Unlikely, but my ever-ending hope goes "Maybe ED don't want to give discounts for this one and will bypass the pre-order sale and release it directly". My pragmatic logic then hits me around the head until I'm nearly knocked out and says "Don't be stupid". Plus, Wags hasn't released any video's, and that would go against their SOP. C130 Herc . Same wishful hoping as the CH-47 Chinook that there would be a surprise announcement, but all things tell me the F4 is probably coming first. But, unlike the CH-47 which is ED's pet project, we have nothing to go by on how the C130 company operates. Maybe they do things differently to others and it will just be a sudden "Here it is - Christmas in September". F4 - Not Yet - but I think it might be close to release. Maybe 2.9 has things that the F4 requires before release and as soon as 2.9 goes out we'll see pre-orders available? That's my guess. There's possibly a push to have it released for Christmas, so I could hazard a guess that maybe 2.9 may have something to do with it's features. Dynamic Campaign Engine / Mission Enhancements - Maybe? This would be sweet. There was a video of Wag's back quite some time ago that appeared to leak an additional 'menu option' in it that may have been related to the Dynamic Campaign Engine. However it's gone very quiet since. Being more realistic - I'm really hoping if we don't get the DCE, that we at least get some features that would be working it's way towards the DCE that we can use now. My desire to spawn FARPS in dynamically wherever the players may build them, and have dynamic spawn points being able to be created through script on the fly has been a dream. However there's been no chatter of this, nor DCE, so I think this might go back to my pragmatic consciousness taking another batman-slap at my hopeful face. Weather - Hopeful. There's been no hints here like DLSS or SC, but it's been a while since I think we've seen any updates with the weather system. Thunderstorms would be fantastic to have - as would different weather over different parts of the map, such as a weather front coming through, or similar. Return to more regular Stable Release cycles - Unlikely. What I'm suspicious of regarding our observations with fewer SR and OB releases is maybe ED throwing their hands up in the air, and going "if our customers don't understand the difference between BETA vs a Stable release, and treat Beta expectations as Stable with Stable expectations - then if we can't beat them, we'll join them. And... they've just changed their logic so that OPEN BETA's release cycle is held back until more bugs have been fixed frist. They then maybe release a handful of stable releases for the "Very Stable". Thus Open Beta has become the equivalent of what Stable used to be, and Stable has become less of a release with the hope for it to be more stable than before. Full Globe / Earth - Unlikely. I see this is as been a 3.0 major release, or if not, a 4.0 release. However - there may be more pressure on with this. In the past there was a handful of terrains available and I think the majority of multiplayer users probably owned most if not all. (After all, it was only NTTP and Persia). With the significant increase in more MAPS, sales could be waning due to too many selections, and groups going "Well, less than half is willing to buy <xxx> map, so there's no point creating a mission for it". Having full earth would mean that us server mission creators could create these, and go "everyone can play". Those with the map get nice pretties, and those without can fly it with bland scenery. The simple fact that those missions would be up may encourage more people to fork out $'s for those new terrains. Hidden Easter Egg for Christmas. -Possibly. (Or maybe it's already been there and I missed it last Christmas)? What else could there be to make it significant enough to call it a more major 2.9 release?

Folks keep the discussion civil. AI is not a third party issue, we are already working on the new GFM for AI so you need to be patient. thank you

You can always try to contact fl0w and see if anything from his and his buddies abandoned MiG-25RBT project could be reused.

What? Not quite multirole, but multipurpose. It was an interceptor, that could also drop a couple of bombs. Not neccessarily during the same mission. It's more useful than being a single-purpose jet like the Tu-128 or Su-15, though. I like the Su-15 better, because I like the aircraft better. That hardly makes me a russophobe. But if you want to play the victim-card here, go ahead, whatever you say. The MiG-25 couldn't intercept the SR, because it evidently didn't. Had they been able to squash a Blackbird, they'd done it and we'd know about it as they'd have run the propaganda game, thumping their chest over that achievement. There's only two reasons why they'd not shoot somebody down: 1) They legally couldn't. Ask KAL how well that rule turned out. 2) They physically couldn't. Like Mr. Rust in his R172, who wasn't shot down because "he wasn't deemed a threat" and yet PVO proceeded with some personnel-shuffling in the aftermath. Everybody who wasn't in their airspace by invitation, got an explosive memo. Intercepting an enemy with an aircraft that's slower than the target and with missiles that are only for a fraction of their flight-time faster than the target itself isn't quite a child's play. It requires an orchestra of GCI and command-control assets to work just right. It only takes one person to mess up and the intercept goes to hell. Just look how much of a clusterduck the KAL007 intercept was - and that was a plain vanilla 747-200, not trying to evade anybody, jamming or chaffing.

Wags videos are usually a good indicator for new features, especially if it says COMMING SOON https://www.youtube.com/@MattWagner/videos

BAAS Dynamics who made the SK-60 is working on a really nice looking Draken. https://discord.gg/8cxEZDpUpf

We will share more detail when we are ready, hopefully something for the newsletter.

... and it would require multiplayer, a segment that is lamentably small (I read something around 5%) and inside that segment those players who actually fly formation with each other (that's probably 5% of 5% = 0.25%. And it would always (during the entire flight) burn the reverse kinematics performance required to animate the pilot body's skeleton for those gestures. Don't get me wrong, as a fellow VR pilot I love the idea. And I do fly with friends, although very seldom in formation where I can see the other pilot up close (for the simple reason that I'm not good enough a pilot), good and long enough to communicate via hand signals. Hand signals would be a great thing to have. And it's *way* down on my list of things that I would prefer to see before that happens. Not because I don't like it, but -- to egotistical me -- it's such a rare occurrence to be usable. So, yes please, but only after we have a host of other features like better ground AI, better naval unit AI, an undo feature in Mission Editor, the ability to spawn damaged units (both player and AI), or change time of day and weather in a mission on the fly. To name just a few

Yeah I hate that, they can't just pick a convention and stick to it. Lots of toggle switches in lots of aircraft go in random directions too.

I play as a GCi quite frequently and I find it very difficult to read the numbers alongside the ruler, at least in VR. The numbers often mix with the background (map). Maybe increasing the font size AND adding a solid background to the numbers, like a small square to contrast with the numbers... that would be very useful.

@Iron_Man I am down to help out. I’ve put in the work for the F-105. I’m sure I can help here. I wish I could model for you but I am a Tool Designer and I used CAD and ASYS. I do however have SolidWorks 22 with Flow Simulation at home. Maybe I can do Aero studies for you with .STEP files?

Lots of diminishing rhetoric here. A myth? Are you a community myth buster? Clearly you are trying to dissuade us all here. What’s at stake? Are you afraid that some third party developers are going to read that and may be interested in one of the redfor planes, God forbid the MiG-25! Oh no! Come on, take it easy

ok andre! thanks! i started a thread for this issue in the module's corner i cant DCS without simshaker! i hope the output for hind doorgun shake can be addressed by the right ppl.

I managed to solve the problem and I will explain how I solved it so that people who have the same problem in the future can solve it, I have an RX 590 8GB and I use the adrenalin drive, what was causing the problem is that the AMD driver was not recognizing the DCS multithreading, I went to the driver's games list and saw that it only had the normal DCS, I had to add DCS multithreading to the list for the driver to recognize DCS multithreading, and I had a problem that wasn't letting me add DCS multithreading because of it have the same name as the normal DCS executable, so I had to change the name of DCS multithreading to DCS MT, after that I managed to add the game to the game list on the drive so the drive recognized it, and when I went to run DCS multithreading it gave an error because his name is DCS MT, so after I added him to the adrenalin driver game list I had to change the name of the game from DCS MT to the name it was previously (DCS), I hope I can help someone who is having the same problem.

I have a copy of that same book sitting on my shelf. It’s system’s description is very basic in terms of how stuff actually works. With that said, it’s not always going to be correct on how things actually work.

С радаром придется подождать. Над остальным работаем

There is plenty of appetite for REDFOR aircraft in DCS. The Mig-19 and Mig-21 show that, and the WIP Mig-23 is highly anticipated. So, if a developer believed they could produce the Foxbat at the level of quality required AND that it would sell enough to be a worthwhile return on investment (I think people forget this part), they would do it. Plain and simple.

My guess is the main update for 2.9 will be MT becoming default.

The SR didn't stop because of the Foxbat. It stopped because better assets vs. cost vs. risk were available. Sending an SR meant also sending support aircraft like KC-135Qs with the special JP-7 fuel. If anything, the Foxhound put an end to the SR overflights. Even that jet had low chances of killing a Blackbird unless you're sending an entire PVO district going after a single jet. The U-2 was a comparatively easy target for any M2.0 class interceptor. Not really. I'm arguing that trying to shoot down a target that comes over the horizon at up to Mach 3.2 to 3.5, above 80000ft, is excessively hard with the assets at hand. Doesn't matter which colour your air defenses are.

First post updated with new sandown link.

Ah yes... always love how these threads tend to de... eeerr I mean evolve

Согласен. Многие жалуются что их мутит от VR, а я тут не так давно с трекиром полетал и словил помутнение из-за рассинхрона поворотов головы и глаз)

TigerViper love

Design of front left panel is completed as well as one and two dial instruments. The only thing that is stopping me from making it real is that I lost access to my 3d printer, so it will have to wait a little bit longer. I figured out the mechanical part of this design, now is the time for some electrical, and here I must ask for some help. My only experience in electrical is that i changed light bulbs few times . Every stepper motor has its driver incorporated into the design of the instruments. I plan on running everything on ardurinos, and here is my first question. How to manage that? How many ardurino boards can be connected to a computer, how to managed all that? Maybe best solution would be to get some knowladge on custom PCB design and making? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm also including a blueprint of US-1600K altimeter as a reference.

Operación Dardo en marcha!!!!!!

Amen. (48 btw.)

Sweet and thanks.. Can't blame a bloke for trying. I realise for decades now (ever since I was no longer a kid), Christmas has lost it's edge when it comes to "what's coming'. I haven't really had that sort of excitement until I started getting involved with DCS. You guys have brought back my childhood experiences. (And yes, I was one of those kids that would go and lift and shake his present to try and figure out what it was).

Ага, по кругу и по максимуму - наверное в этом смысл их названия. Веселая контора печет шлемы как пирожки толком не доведя до ума ни один из них, прям финансовая пирамида какая-то

Good to hear it is better, it looks like the issue is resolved now. thank you all for your patience while we investigated.

This is sooo recognizable Good to hear from you again! That FCC R4 is looking good . Also good to see that you are making it standalone (I have 2 Cougar bases sitting around, but both PCB's seem dodgy). I know it's still early, but what price tag are you aiming for?

It depends heavily on the developer. Flying Iron and Got Friends are the benchmark now for WWII planes. Modern jets I would go with IndiaFoxtEcho. All the others are purely deception. There are lots of reviews of MSFS aircraft on YouTube, if you have any questions about a certain plane, it is probable that someone somewhere already reviewed it. I do have Flying Iron's P-38 and Hellcat and both are amazing. Also have Milviz Corsair but it was pure disappointment. Like @Gunfreak stated: there is no curation or care from MS or Asobo to what is sold and run on their platform. Anything goes. It is up to the customer to search and know what they are investing their money and time on. Also, as @Art-J said, in MSFS they don't need to be that detailed. In DCS, on the other hand, taking from many sources, the developer must reach some standards: 1) have the documentation, 2) making sure that said documents are not classified (or at least not classified beyond a certain point), 3) having a decent 3d model, 4) having a decent systems model (ED's or proprietary), 5) having the commitment to maintain the product up-to-date with ED's new software. That takes time. An average time from a DCS module announcement to release (in early access) takes about 5 years. And companies like Flying Iron's do take their time to make things for MSFS too, because they have this concern to make a good product. Others churn out so many WWII aircraft because they just port FSX/P3D old models into the new game, add a new cockpit (or worse, use the cockpit of some default aircraft), slap a price tag on it and sell. It is a wild jungle out there in the Marketplace.

А можно по тем же просьбам сделать "болвана" отключаемым, раз отменять не будут? В качестве подкрепления просьбы: попробуйте в VR, с места пилотов попользоваться наборным устройством Р-863. Работать с АРК тоже удобнее с места бортинженера.

Said tool is out now: Home · mbucchia/OpenXR-Eye-Trackers Wiki (github.com) Install side-by-side with Quad-Views-Foveated (current version works with it). Yes this is spread in two tools, because eye tracking support isn't specific to Quad Views, and some people may want to use eye tracking for other stuff.

People think that, because thats exactly what ED did with the Ka-50 and the Su-25T. And what Deka will do with the J-8PP. So its certainly within the realm of possibility for DCS.

Code and font files attached. Written for Arduino Uno and 3.3 inch TFT shield. NOTE: It is NOT EVEN REMOTELY finished. There are test strings and some things don't work. IIRC, the conclusion is that it may require special code to make it work properly. It's NOT nearly as simple as the CDU. DCS_ARC210_3.3TFT_Test.zip

I've been wanting to post an update for almost two weeks now, but my kids and then of course the whole family had an especially nasty case of the Kindergarten flu. I swear Kindergarten/ preschool is actually some sort of government funded bioweapons factory, every germ that gets out of there is ten times worse than anything you could ever pick up at work... I've made a new batch of CH sensors and have three 12 Bit CH upgrade mainboards left. I think I'll pull the CH mainboards from my portfolio as they are a bit of a hassle to solder and interest has slowly faded over the years. I'll keep the CH sensors though so people can always find spares for their ageing CH devices. Actually I've just tested a new type PCB with an SMD mounted trimpot instead of the large blue trimmers for the CH sensors. Definitely more complicated to calibrate initially, but it results in a significantly smaller sensor. Third pic also shows the new PCB + ALPS 9-way switch for the replica F-16/ Mason/ OTTO trim hats. I haven't printed the F-16 trim hat & case yet, as I need to adjust a few dimensions from my experience with the replica T4 Mini hatswitches. Last time I forgot to mention that I also considered the "classic" force transducer layout for the FCC with cutout tabs (such as used in the FSSB). I ran an FEA stress simulation on this and found no real benefit over the more sleek looking plain plate. Yes, the stress is isolated in the cutout tabs, but other than a minimal reduction in signal amplification there is not much difference. Arguably axis isolation/ crosstalk seem to be worse as torsion forces are also concentrated in the "inactive" tabs perpendicular to stick input. Although that's a bit of an academic discussion and in reality it's basically negligible in both types. That's why I chose to go with the imo visually more pleasing plain plate. Here are a few pics of the finished FCC R4 with the Warthog mounting plate. As you can('t really) see the "FCC controller" is doing its job in converting a Warthog base to a force sensing base. I won't show off the FCC controller yet as I am still missing a few LEDs indicating when the axes are centered and a few SMD elements for ADC filtering. Just to clear things up, the FCC controller is a completely optional mainboard that makes the FCC R4 work as standalone unit, eg in a simpit. However, the FCC R4 will also work natively with a Cougar mainboard and mounted in a Cougar base! I will explain all of that in detail in the next update. Thank you so much for the kind words! 1) Since the 3 4021 shift regs in TM sticks support up to 24 buttons but only 23 are used, it should be possible to add 1 more button. I just don't know if TARGET will be able to recognize that. I'll give that a try when time permits. As mentioned above my trim incl. push button will be finished soon, now that the PCBs arrived from the fab. 2) The F-18 TM 5-ways are much larger in diameter than the Cougar/ Warthog hatswitches. The trim will fit into the Castle no issues with an adapter, but the other way around is problematic. But I can simply pop the castle hat to my 5-way trim and it should fit. Overall absolutely solvable I'd say! Yeah, I dislike them as well! They imitated the tactile OTTO T4 Minis in a needlessly large footprint and used some new cheapo rubber buttons instead of the tried and tested OMRON buttons. Not a fan at all! Does anybody know if the real F-18 stick uses the tactile hatswitches, I know for a fact the F-16 has the standard T4 Minis!

This is a true statement. I fought for the 105.

New simulation game available: CH World

RTX also owns 80+% Marketshare.

US Infantry (USA) version 1.3.0 released! Changelog Version 1.3.0 Added M249 missing textures Added M120 Mortar team

Most wanted to least wanted: Su-15TM (for people who like the Foxbat, but who also know how to use a fork and a knife) MiG-25 (for the rest) MiG-27 (because BRRRRRT!) Su-25 (it's already there, but clickety-click) Yak-38 (meh, lots of work for an aircraft that's mostly gonna be shnizzeled)

Early WIP from 3 years ago @2:00:33

And the new:

Just for transparency and not to seem like we are removing a post because its negative towards us, the OP has a total of 4 accounts, the extra 3 will be banned and the original account warned. This is clearly stated in our rules. We have very dedicated people working on the AH-64, and while it might not be perfect yet, when we are done it will be easily the best representation of the AH-64D you can fly on your PC. Thanks all, and sorry about the drama. Any questions on this, feel free to PM me.

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

I dont expect new weapons, the intended changelog for the Strike Eagle is: Added: TFR Added: modifiable steerpoint MEA in UFC and Mission Editor Added: Delete steerpoint by selecting "0" steerpoint on UFC Added: INS based wind estimation Added: Any waypoint (Routes A/B/C, offsets, base, bullseyes, avoidance, mark, list) can be added in ME Added: List points can be bound to steer points Fixed: markpoints starting at M0 Fixed: active route display on A/G radar map Fixed: bug where TWS freezes the radar in presence of AoJ returns Fixed: TWS struggling to convert a HoJ track into full track in some cases Fixed: Pressing PB1 on SP edit page past last route point Fixed: Blank steerpoint (zero coordinates) showing on maps and selectable on sensors Fixed: TSD route switching Fixed: ASL wrong with INS drift Adjusted: INS drift rate Improved: BOT aiming Fixed: WSO LANTIRN TGP HOTAS Fixed: RWR Volume control not working Fixed: A/A TACAN distance readout shows two decimals (X.XX) Fixed: Missing hyphen in HUD bullseye Fixed: HSI ground track diamond is cyan, not amber on the MPCD Updated: ILS volume set to OFF at mission start Even so, I'm happy with thr changes