Leaderboard

COMING SOON In this DCS: AH-64D video, we’ll discuss the laser warning system and how it warns the crew of threats that are lasing the aircraft. It can detect laser threats from 360 degrees around aircraft, just like the Radar Warning Receiver. When a laser strikes the laser warning sensors, the laser is categorized as either a rangefinder, a designator, or as beam-riding guidance. The laser warning system is integrated with the RWR as the combined “RLWR”, or “Radar/Laser Warning System”, and laser threats are displayed as “snowflake” symbols along with the radar symbols on either the TSD page or on the ASE page. When a laser threat is displayed, audio alerts will also warn the crew of the laser threat type and direction, just like the RWR. • Rangefinders show as a snowflake with a box around it • Designators show as a snowflake with a box around it and a dashed line to the ownship • Beam-riders display the same as Designators but with a flashing box Since the RLWR is limited to just 7 symbols of the highest priority threats, the laser threats will be prioritized along with the radar threats so that the most critical threats are displayed to the crew. This means that if a tank is lasing the aircraft with just a rangefinder while several radar threats are locked on to the ownship or launching missiles at it, the rangefinder may not be displayed if the number of higher priority threats is 7 or more. A few more points before we see this in action: • Rangefinders are considered Acquisition-level threats • Designators are considered Track-level threats • Beam-riders are considered Launch-level threats This is how they are prioritized along with the radar threat counterparts. We also understand that many of you are looking forward to the Fire Control Radar, or FCR, for the AH-64D. This is being done in parallel by our radar team, and they are making great progress. In fact, I’m sure most of you have noticed the previews. While it is not planned for the 2.9 update, it will not be long after it. We will first release it with Ground Target Mode, or GTM, and this will allow you to detect, track, and engage units. It will also tie into datalink capabilities of sending and receiving Priority Fire Zones and No Fire Zones between Primary members.

I've been busy researching flight dynamics and constructing a document regarding the DCS huey's flight model and its critical glaring errors that have somehow gone unchanged for an entire decade. However, I am going to take the time to simply say this. If you think the new huey performance model is overpowered, you are wrong. In cruise above around 90knots, the new huey performance model is still UNDER performing. It should actually be going faster at any power setting at these speeds at any weight than it currently does. Once again, the point being made isn't the speed the module can reach, the point being made is the engine power used for any specific speed/weight combination. If you think the problem right now is speed, you fundamentally misunderstand the problem. As it stands, the engine is almost correct, it just lacks power at high throttle settings the actual main performance problem is the lift provided by the rotor being entirely wrong.

Но модуль на данный момент имеет расхождения с поведением вертолёта. Вот в чем проблема. Понимаешь, да? О тебе в принципе речи нет, потому что ты врядли сам лично кого-то интересуешь, речь идёт о модуле Ми-24, и если кто-то считает, что ты не прав, то так же высказывает свое мнение.

I've just spent the last hour with my Q3 and DCS. Yep. Definitely a nice leap over the Q2. The pancake lenses are as good as everyone makes them out to be. There's no small sweet spot anymore and everything is in focus from the centre to the corners. There's a nice increase in FOV and it definitely seems a bit brighter in display over the Q2. You can't really see pixels anymore, but you can see anti-aliasing/jaggies. I have a 7950x3d and 4090 so no slouch and was getting 65-72 fps on Persian Gulf in the FA/18 ready on the ramp. Obviously need to tweak it but everything was set at maximum DCS graphic settings and 1.3x scaling at 72hz in the oculus control panel. I think it's now quite telling that you can actually notice lower res textures on some of the models. The biggest QOL feature is the colour passthrough. As a glasses user, it's just so handy to be able to double tap the side of the headset and you can see your surroundings. No need to keep putting on and off when you need to see something in the real world. Just leave it on. Sure, it's not super high res or anything but more than usable to put the headset on and startup your game etc. The straps seemed comfortable and were a nice snug fit on my head. You probably won't need the 3rd party halo strap anymore as the headset seem light enough and doesn't want to droop down like the old Q2 and strap did. If only the PC app supported hand tracking. That would literally be a game changer. Yes, you can use a leap motion but honestly, it doesn't work that well. On Q3 native, hand tracking is fantastic and the ability to click on things without the controllers is so good.

Тоже лично моё скромное мнение: то как летает и ведёт себя вертолёт, аэродинамика, управление, работа всех систем - это база, это DCS. А кто там как привык нагибать, на каких педалях, с какими петровичами, птурами в грузовой кабине и так далее - дело десятое. Почему не сделали раньше - главное что делают а не кинули как есть. p.s PilotMi8 маячки в многопотоке не забыты ? такая мелочь, полгода уже

Чего ныть то непонятно, если неправильно однозначно надо делать как надо правильно, работы ведутся. Модуль не заброшен и это главное. Могли ж оставить как есть и так бы схавали

M10 LT (USA) version 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version

New dusk and grass effects. TRF show targets,

A save option, so when I get toasted 90 minutes into a campaign mission I don't have to start over again. Or more likely wait for my next 120 minutes spare. Yes I have a job, family and all of those other things.

Let's be fair. The old flight model had small weaknesses and it is actually commendable that ED is not satisfied with it and always continues to work on improvements. However, if you notice that you have made a mistake, from the customer's point of view, and then let it stand and ignore it, is not understandable without more information. Why does one not go a step back to the best flight model in simulations ever, make it better and avoid such discussions. BUT. ED works at the same time on large conversions in the core of DCS and bundles its forces with security rightly. Also it is important not to waste time on things that may become obsolete with 2.9. It is possible that the Huey will get a much bigger update in the future than we can imagine now. ( No I don't know about anything, but hope is allowed ) And yet disastrous mistakes happen again and again in the communication, which are absolutely unnecessary and incomprehensible.

With the Chinook coming out, Kiowa, and already having the Syria and Sinai map, when are we getting a proper insurgent/terrorist AI pack? I know I am beating a dead horse but is there any details on the future of ground AI assets, specifically for the time periods and regions we currently have? I would like to see some Al Quida, Isis, Hamas units along with maybe some different vehicles. Proper detailed weapons such as RPK's, AK's, and RPGs. This is a must for the Rotor pilots. Especially when the Kiowa comes out and is working tandem in multiplayer with the Apache. We need proper enemies. The same could be said about period specific allies including US Army troops in appropriate uniforms, special operation command to include Sela and SF AI units, and even Marine Marsoc and Airforce PJ's. We need some love on the ground to flesh out what is coming and what we already have. Really hope to hear back on this one. Seem like this topic has been running silent for years and eightball is the only one who has made a mod. Not knocking it but it does not do justice to what we need in DCS. Better than nothing, but looking forward to seeing some better AI units on the ground.

Following on from this: - https://forum.dcs.world/topic/319474-diy-mechanical-cyclic-trimmer/ Whilst the last iteration worked nicely as a trim mechanism, the range of movement of the stick whilst trimmed was only a couple of inches which wasn't really enough - it should be full range of motion but sprung. Inspired by the stupendous mi24p simpit by @molevitch, who fortunately assisted on the bits I'm too thick to work out myself Also inspired by the cyclic mechanism made by @yoreh, which I originally saw linked to by @bradmick in discord. I set about designing an electromagnetically locked trim mechanism with the intention that it would be mostly 3D printed where practical and be a bolt on to a stock warthog stick/base with minimum of modifications. I intended to reuse the trim lever, gooseneck extension from the mechanical trim. I sourced a bunch of cheap 300kgf security door maglocks on ebay with the intention of using one to lock the axes when force trim is released, I also wanted to eliminate as much slop in the mechanism as possible so opted for linear bearings for the spring units, oilite bushes for the spring rods, rod end bearings for the linkages and ballraces for the bellcranks needed to translate the motion. Threw all the bits togther in solidworks and after a few weeks of thought and design iteration this is the result! null The maglock is mounted behind the stick base, spring units and linear bearings on a 50x8 aluminium strap to resist the forces to be applied. The bell cranks are mounted onto the triad ring (reused from the mechanical system) clamped to the top of the stick base, each crank has a pair of ballraces to keep everthing smooth and tight. The original printed bell crank supports weren't stiff enough so I cut the half moon braces from the same 50x8 aluminium, the lower is bolted through the base plate (the only modification I've had to make to the stick base) and M8 all-thread tapped and locked into position. The original springs (shown) didn't have a high enough rate to resist the weight of the heavy grip sagging when not centralised so they have been replaced with some much heavier units which work well enough. The springs have adjustable preload by winding in the knobs at the back - in reality I have these wound in fully so largely pointless now but they aid assembly. The through rod on the spring units are running on the oilite bushes so as to not bind at all. The original armature plate for the maglock was obviously not suitable so I cut some 5mm mild steel plate at work and spent a couple of hours draw filing to ensure that they were as flat and smooth as possible. Air gap is the enemy of electromagnets so it was essential that these were flat enough to attract with enough force. The maglock needs to be energised when the force trim control is inactive and de-energise when holding the force trim, I had previsouly used a tact switch wired into a cheap USB controller board for the mechanical trim and it worked very well. The maglock needs a 12v supply so obviously power needs to come from somewhere else, additionally the normally open tact switch wouldn't be suitable for switching the maglock whilst still connected to the USB board. I used a 5v relay (the blue and red thing) set to normally closed operation to keep the maglock energised until the tact switch is depressed; this also required a 5v feed in addition to the 12v. I sacrificed a power cable for my PSU to supply both 12v and 5v using, extended and braided the cable into a loom to so the stick is constantly plugged into the computer PSU - peak current draw is about 6w at worst and almost zero once the maglock is energised. The physical manifestation! Video evidence! https://photos.app.goo.gl/86ew3K5fVxanxFrf6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/eXPQEFSnvz1uyw3R6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/Rtuwt5BKyfoG5cvf6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/HNatykyBPiv4YQFe7 I had to tweak the balance point of the gooseneck to stop some sagging on the pitch axis in certain trimmed positions (damn that heavy metal grip!) but it's all good now. The total weight of the joystick is now around 6.3kg. I also replaced the original warthog gimbal with this as the stick is over 10 years old and had developed a bit of rotational movement which would only be exacerbated by the offset spring loads applied by the linkages. The switch to a full ball race gimbal is nice although I did need to reinforce the prints with some 1.8mm stainless rod to keep the strength in them. I retained the original warthog spring to apply a slight passive centring force so that it's easy to refind centre if need be - the length of the extension means it can be overcome by the weight of the grip alone. In use the stick behaves exactly as I intended, pulling the trim lever de-energises the maglock and it becomes light as a feather, essentially a floppy dead stick, releasing the trim energises it and locks it into position. Whilst trimmed there is a fairly soft return to the trim centre so the stick doesn't significantly osscilate but it's enough to give a definite force so you know you're flying against the trim. Very pleased with the result, it's become something of a monster project and has become a little more involved tooling wise (beyond the 3D printer) than I'd like but it's doing exactly what I set out to do. If flying fixed wing then I just leave the trim lever alone and the stick behaves like a normal sprung centre joystick. If anyone is masochistic enough to want to make one, I can let you have the STLs for printing and generate a set of drawings for the other parts to be made - it's obviously designed around my specific gooseneck but it should be pretty simple to redesign the linkage base to suit a stock warthog or extension. Why? Because I like to tinker, does it make me a better pilot? Absolutely not but it's fun to use!

Define fully loaded. Do you believe 9500lbs is ACTUALLY fully loaded? Because the real thing can hover at over 13,000lbs at sea level 2ft off the ground. The 9500lbs MTOW is not the weight at which it can no longer hover and take off at, it is the weight at which the engineers are confident with what the airframe is going to do during maneuvers. Also, what are the conditions your claims are being made in? At what temperature? At what air pressure? At what altitude? External stores or just internal cargo? Is it raining? Is there icing on the rotor? How high are you pushing the torque? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, because as it stands, the huey is significantly UNDER performing in a hover. As per the data recorded by real pilots and flight engineers, and I trust their claims far more than I trust yours. The data I have been working with is from our exact model of huey, The WSPS from 1979 The new particle separator from 1988 The new rotor blades from 1989 Yes, our huey is from the 90s. No, the new performance model is not perfect, it has some big issues. However, the old performance model was worse overall. Just because you LIKED the old performance model and got used to it over time, does not mean it was realistic. Enough of this. I have documents to look through.

Don't look for problems where there are none. Going back to the old flight model is a simple and viable solution. Personally, I fly with the new model and live with the limitations.

I may be asking too much but undo/redo button and drag select in the mission editor.

It can be disabled … I tried the 2FA on DCS for a couple of months, found it too cumbersome having to use my phone everytime I wanted to access the forum, so I disabled it with no difficulty The 2FA is used to access the ED websites, not for playing the sim.

As already mentioned the phone is not a requirement for 2FA.

AFAIK, it'd be only to access your account on the webiste, not for logging into the sim. And, yes, you can disable it, from your profile page on the website.

Apparently I'm a little behind the curve; I can't fly more than one aircraft at a time and I don't fly any of them to their limits, so I'm a lot less concerned about models and a lot more concerned about the world around them. Weather, because every time I start a mission the same cloud is in the same place every time. More targets, regardless of fidelity, because the idea is to blow them up. At that point I don't really care if the wire harnesses are laced or zip tied Less detail in modules, because see above. I have quite a few hours in the Ka-50 III, and none hours staring at the playboy centerfold behind the access panel. When I see developers proudly showing off cartoon Amphenol connectors on cartoon avionics behind cartoon access panels I start to wonder what cool things that might actually be visible could have been done with that time Better maps, because I do see the terrain I fly over and I'm bloody sick of desert Dynamic missions, because that's what I do when I'm not just flying 1v0 or landing practice or improving consistency to burn off a bit of stress If they made modules out of some of that; real time weather, for example, I'd be happy to pay for it. Object bundles with ground equipment and personnel. Dynamic missions. Those are a lot of work and I don't feel entitled to my lunch for free.

Many people though seem to like these threads or not recognize them as "strange", as we seem to be near page 2 Edit: Hurray! I made it go to page 2

In general more historic assets. I would love to see a bunch of WWII and Korean era Red assets that could be used with i-16 and MiG-15 as both are in an asset desert. I also want more naval assets. We have two Normand maps but we don't have the overlord invasion fleet. Then the Marinas need both the WWII fleets as well as more modern ones. We have a decent 1970/early 80s carrier airwing planned but a 1990s carrier battle group. So more and better naval assets Also better infantry. Then I also want airborne drops and the mechanics for an amphibious assault

Revamp of ground/ship accuracy. Realistic ship damage modeling. A full rich ww2 environment, with lots of AI aircraft type. Correct full fidelity late 43/mid 44 aircraft (109Gs, P51B/C, Razorback P47)

Hey! Thank you for your report. I tracked it internally as DCSF14-528 for the team to look into

These are the options that I get in oculus PC desktop app.

I can do this in max easy. But at very high altitudes, they become difficult to see in sim, unless you fly to them. I started with them at four time this height, and then lowed them, after looking in sim. Need to look at the code to see if it can be done via lua edit. Will post these soon in a new thread. I have a few more to add first. The ISS for one!

Honestly most of the new radar updates sound like ED catching up to HB and Razbam, then adding a few new core elements. It will be nice to have everyone on the same playing field for realism.

Goldeneye in orit Space X Starlink Space Station Tiangong 1 Took all of 1 hour to create. 10 meters in leanth Small targets at this height!

Once again, that is correct!

Gentlemen, I am seriously jealous of the your pit Mumbles! That beast is absolutely beautiful. I'm trying to talk my wife into letting me do that but she wants children... I don't think she understands... this is my baby! This forum keeps me motivated and I really love seeing the photos of everyone's work. Anyways. I know from the photos that it doesn’t look like much has changed but pretty much everything is different. I made it to v25 before I realized a mistake that pushed me back to v3. Derp. Anyways, I’ve hit roughly a 95% solution in modeling. At some point I’ll model the “REMOVE COVER FOR SWITCH ACCESS” cover, throttle position covers, flaps and friction position cover, but not any time soon. This has been a lot of work. I’m leaning towards not modeling the lettering on any of the handles (ie flaps and throttles) because I’d like to laser engrave those instead of 3d printing them. I modeled brackets for the Dzus rail because I want to build a sim pit and sliding this bad boy in there would be the crown jewel. That means I’ll be modeling the throttle arms with an angle offset at some point in the future. That shouldn’t be too much work (haha). Some changes have been made. The friction brake… it actually works.. finally.. The last photo is a little shot of the friction brake and all its bits and pieces. However, due to the friction brake being a dick, and the circumference of its parts being too large.. the flaps, right throttle and left throttle bearings have been changed from 603 2RS ball bearings to 6203. The 6203 has a larger center hole, which accommodates the size of the friction brake assembly. The emergency wing sweep bearing is still a 603 2RS. The emergency wing sweep arm articulates up and down and locks into place and the push button actually acts as a release! It has a tiny litlte spring inside and fiddly bits that are probably going to drive me bonkers during the assembly but at least it looks nice! That ended up being a lot of work but a very cool exercise in how parts move in relation to one another. I moved the Arduino. It can fit inside the throttle quadrant but because I’m in the process of sourcing/modeling/building rudder pedals and a stick, I’m considering having a stand alone box and wiring everything there with mini din connectors from each of the 3 devices so I can do a quick disconnect. I’d be happy to model mounts and holes inside the box if anyone needs. The stepper motor that drives the emergency wing sweep has been upgraded to a Nema 17. All told there are roughly 60 screws, 10+ buttons and switches of various forms, 4 hall effect sensors, washers, nuts and well over 200 parts. I think I’m going to take a few weeks off from this before I start 3d printing. This has been a lot of fun to do and I’m excited to bring this baby to life! Let me know if you guys have any questions!

I'm working on a skin pack (i'm aiming for 5 different serial numbers, nothing accurate) for the 159th Fighter Wing, 122nd Fighter Squadron, Louisiana Air National Guard. I took some liberties with the coloring and markings. Let me know if you have any suggestions. I am finally moved in, unpacked and my wife didn't kill me in the process

you can download here the new TFR update https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/f4b/kx2ch5ix0ilve964dr5u1xbik4u2ekvn/DCS_F-15E_Manual.pdf thx BD...in the next OB!

Hi This is a link to my Template for the A20G. A20G DCS V2 15/10/23 Added VVS Layers to represent aircraft from 48, 452 and 640 bap (skins posted in User files Section) Added wider Red Walkway makings, corrected to compensate for skin warpage on inner wings Improved chipping and weathering to walkways Improved worn anti slip walkway Added shading to leading edges of elevators, ailerons and rudder I started out with the intention of adding layers to Vonrd’s template but as things developed, I ended up building something completely new from the base Alpha and UV grid. Many of the layers are from my previous projects from this, other sims and also from around the internet. Whilst I’ve spent hours editing and fitting these to the project, I cannot claim ownership of the original work in many cases. About 50% is mine, 50% not. Ive only produced the Diffuse layers. I found the Normal and Roughmets from the stock fine for me and, to be frank, I do not understnd roughmets yet and didnt want to learn right now!. If anyone wants to produce their own I have hopefully given them enough layers to do so. Any of these layers will work with Vond’s template and vis versa. Add and detract as you wish. Its all about personal preferences. SKINS The following skins can be found in the User Files Section USAAF ETO users, the 409th, 410th and 416th BGs. There are skins representing each group’s aircraft in pre-D-Day, D-Day and Post D-Day markings. 409th BG https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3333210/ 410th BG https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3333211/ 416th BG https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3333212/ VVS Skin Pck for 48, 542 and 640 bap. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3333348/ For info, The 409th (denoted with a Yellow Rudder) consisted of the following Squadrons (Codes on Brackets) 640th (W5) 641st (7G) 642nd (D6) 643rd (5I) The 410th (denoted with a Black and White barred rudder) consisted of the following Squadrons 644th (5D) 645th (7X) 646th (8U) 647th (6Q) The 416th (denoted with a white rudder) consisted of the following Squadrons 668th (5H) 669th (2A) 670th (F6) 671st (5C)

Yeah the whole DCS FLIR "model" is just bad. Like the ground has variable contrast depending on time of day and so forth, while in DCS its pretty static from what I can tell. Also, vehicles in general should have different contrast regardless because they are made of different material with different emissivity and so forth. IR is not some simplistic "predator" model, what something looks like is a combination of emissivity and reflectivity of the material, as well as heat. I've repeatedly shown images here of stuff at the same exact temp that show up entirely differently in FLIR. The idea that some object will magically disappear if it becomes the same "temperature" as the background shows how badly ED misunderstands FLIR at a basic highschool level. Moreover basic sensor principles don't seem to exist. Like there is no detection range difference between first gen pods like LANTIRN, and later 3rd gen pods like ATFLIR/Litening, whereas IRL there were major differences in detection ranges between those systems due to how much more sensitive the latter pods were (which amusingly became a problem because issues like veiling glare on the battlefield, but I digress). I mean if more people understood it they'd be up in arms if the mig21 radar performed like the AWG-9 as an example. With regards to modern pods like I said, alot of the actual technical information you'd need to model them well is either unknown or very well obfuscated. Or even the case of basic stuff like "digital" zoom on the Litening pods which I'd hope guys that code things like graphics should understand its not even modeled. But the fact of the matter is at best we have one "model" working in the LWIR part of the spectrum, and most of the modern pods working in MWIR part of the spectrum.

Dear SMH, while I understand your frustration and what you have deemed as issues with the Huey improvements, as BN said you have to have patience. We have real helo guys on staff, including an AH-64 guy. None of these guys on staff let our devs off the hook easy either, and if they feel there is an issue they will push as hard as anyone to get it resolved. That said, please try to remain constructive and mature in your feedback. The AH-64D is still in early access and like all modules in this state can have good and bad months. It's part of being involved in Early Access. The Huey, while fully released, received major changes and tuning and bug hunting are ongoing. We know it's never fast enough but the team is working hard to check and address any issues. We have not lost anyone from the dev team, that said, we have very talented people on staff and, they can also be stretched between projects when needed. As you can imagine talented people like we have are hard to come by or train up. And, as always, it's much faster to find an issue than to fix it in most cases, again pointing back to the talent on the team and the complexity of these flight models. We will see if we can get an update on these reported issues, but while patience is hard, being constructive is not. Thanks.

I think the best thing DCS could do for the community is develop a REDFOR aircraft that is in the same category as the F-18 or F-16. I know, I know....."we cant do that because we don't have the technical information". We don't have the technical information on the advanced AIM-9X or the advanced AIM-120 either but we somehow manage to model them. We dont have the specifications on the TOR or the NASAM but we model them in DCS. We are constantly making improvements to radars and missiles on the BLUFOR aircraft. Does that mean we got better info? Then how did we model these thing when they first came out. Did we guess at the performance based on available data? Why cant we guess at the performance of an R-77-1 or a PL-15? We can't guess at the performance of the REDFOR aircraft and missiles because it would make BLUFOR's life harder and BLUFOR aircraft are the ones being developed for future sale. There are no real REDFOR aircraft being developed. The F-4 may see REDFOR usage... maybe, but nothing made in this century! I know that I am not the only one. I like DCS a lot but it is becoming a PVE game! Sorry about the rant!

Mig-29A or a later red peer fighter. This is for everyone that likes a duel. All The Good Things that were started, to be finished. This is for common sense. Things like Clouds, weather, modules. For myself; in the order, of an FRS.1 circa 1982, an FRS.2 with Blue Vixen circa 1993, and failing that, a Harrier II + with aim-120 and harpoon or penguin (use the Spanish one if there's issues) A Sheffield class type42 AI.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/f4b/kx2ch5ix0ilve964dr5u1xbik4u2ekvn/DCS_F-15E_Manual.pdf TFR - Chapter 8.20 - Page 271

I agree Dcs Could be working on larger things we know nothing about for the Huey. We have seen New Helicopters of New never before in game Helicopters announced. All New makeovers of old now new versions of in game helicopters Refreshed updates to in game Helicopters and then the Huey the one Helicopter in the game that is my love and passion to fly and I feel like I have to travel to the U.S. Air forces abandoned desert Graveyard for retired aircraft and pull one out of mothballs to fly it with the engine out of a old ejection seat sled found from the 50's at the same yard. The Huey fans are Awesome people. If you need lessons on how to Wait, How long to Wait, and how not to give up hope come talk to us While all the other High Def models fly over the field waving good-by to us. Lol I can paint a good picture in my mind can't I? The reason for this is because I am 67 Years old and I honestly think I will be Dead before ED gets to the only Helicopter left in the field of updated models in DCS. The Huey. Best Dang Vietnam Helicopter in History.

As much as I'd love to see these units added, in my opinion AI and static units dlc asset packs would be a bad way forward for DCS. Sorry for potentially turning this wish into yet another "asset pack discussion". Everybody can wish whatever he/she wants of course, but as a DCS enthusiast (and wishing for DCS to further improve), I just feel the need to express my personal opinion regarding this wish

According to multiple statements here in this Forum, YES. If it is worth the expense depends on your budget. You can offset the expense by selling your 5600X

Ditto! And nobody can whine "Early Access" at us this time! Yes it does but it's still a bit overpowered. But it's not just about the aircraft you're flying. People are expected to fly AGAINST the "Super Huey" too! Wrong is wrong and it doesn't belong in our supposedly high-realism sim.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3333176/

I believe we’ve all been patient and at this point the delay on fixing this module is downright offensive. I would have expected a fix within 1-4 weeks maximum, given that a fix could have constituted a reversion to the prior state until fully corrected. There has been no word at all on forthcoming changes and it has essentially ruined my favorite module for several months now. I understand that some tweaks are indeed an actual improvement in accuracy, but the negative net effect has been thoroughly discussed and demonstrated.

Guys, if you really want to enjoy the F-4B/C mod, I can recommend the following multi-player servers: 1. StreakEagles Vietnam (VSN) Servers. Great missions, really cool made and perfect for the timeframe. 2. BurningSkies Foothold/CommandCentre/Pretense Servers. Lots of mods availabel (F-4B, F-4C, F-104C/G/S/S_AG and a lot more). No introduction into Foothold or Pretense needed. Awesome missions even made better by Chazz with some cool add-on functions. BUT you will need to pick your fights, or you will go up against a Su-33...hhhmmm...challenging 3. Hooligan's ColdWar Server. Nice, fitting cold-war scenario to get some good AtoG or AtoA missions done. Definitely deserves a visit. 4. TaktLwG66 Pretense ColdWar: Yes, a ColdWar mission by Mr.Foothold himself, with added F-4B/C and F-104G and all that on stable (for everybody who does not like to see that nasty little DCS-crash window all to often) On none of the above servers will you get punished for making mistakes while learning the F-4 or F-104. But they are really a lot of fun and you can fly the Phantom in AtoG, SEAD, CAP or CAS missions...you like it, you can have it. Cheers and enjoy the phantom... P.S.: Little "micro" update on the way regarding the radar-set...just very tiny but may be a bit more immersive than the one we have right now...

Once I've finished mine, I hope to be able to share everything with clear instructions. I will be sharing the code as well as gerber zip files ready to upload to PCBWay or similar, so anyone who wants to build one, will only have to know how to solder a bit, crimp cables and 3D print. But everything else will be provided.

На счет этих пока не скажу. Но новые технологии БРЛС будут использоваться на других модулях ED и, в переспективе - внешников. Когда доработка и отладка закончится.

GUILTY

We hope to have this inconvenience addressed soon. Stay tuned for future updates.