Leaderboard

Dear all, a follow-up to the above response. The 3D models are not broken and released as intended. The different quality levels advertised in the DCS newsletter will be presented as a part of the new ED product. Please wait for the news to follow.

The plain minimal cold start, provided everything is working as expected and in the default state, is indeed quite simple and mostly just: external air (or starter cartridges) external power (or battery) start engine throttle out of idle generator on At that point, you can pretty much already taxi around. Ofc you might in practice also want to setup some other systems and give the WSO time to do the INS alignment. Other systems you might want to setup include: lights volumes radio, intercom VOR oxygen AFCS (autopilot system, ...) countermeasures And for the WSO it would roughly be: radar laser code INS weapon computer nav system IFF and ECM

[Edit: updated 2025-07-27] Welcome to Vietnam War Vessels 2.0.0! This release is a major update of the Vietnam War Vessels mod. With VWV 2.0.0 comes a new directory structure, where all assets have a [VWV] prefix in the folder name. This makes it necessary that you first uninstall the old Vietnam War Vessels 1.x.y completely. We welcome the USS Enterprise, CVAN-65, in its 1966 configuration, to the fleet. The first nuclear driven carrier has been derived from the modern USS Enterprise, and takes a place of its own now. The complete launch and parking system has been overhauled, leading to a hopefully more immersive experience. The second new addition to the mod is the A-37 Dragonfly. This iconic aircraft of the Vietnam War is now available for AI use within the virtual DCS sky. Please take a look at the Known Limitations on the Release Page! Updates, Ships Knox class - FF icons are used instead of DD BB-62 New Jersey - CC map icon in use, better helicopter landing on the deck, new custom shell for main armament CVA Essex and Bon Homme Richard - model improvements, nick name as short display name for Bonnie Dick Many ships - sound updates to gun fire Updates, Planes A-1 Skyraider - split into A-1H (with bridle cat support) and AD-4 (without), add Napalm bombs from A-4E-C mod, add toilet bombs to all pylons, rework flight model to take off from Essex ‘44 with 70% loadout H-2 Seasprite - use of a new model, split into SH-2F, UH-2A, UH-2B, UH-2C classes MiG-21MF overhauled nose gear, support for RATO take-offs O-1 Bird Dog, add engine nozzle definition, Flight Model change for more realistic take-off RA-5C Vigilante - Flight Mode change, more lift at low speed Please download from https://github.com/tspindler-cms/tetet-vwv/releases Alternative download: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16pUuupD08L36KnD6vDel5VRlmwwftX5o?usp=drive_link We also have a discord channel dedicated to the Vietnam War Vessels mod at https://discord.gg/P2B63VEZVk ================================ [Original Post:] this marks a release of TeTeT's Vietnam War Vessels. It is my first attempt at modding for DCS, so take the result with a grain of salt. The release contains three boats and an (AI) plane: P 4 Torpedo Boat, used by the North Vietnamese navy in the Gulf of Tonkin incident USS Maddox (DD-731), a US destroyer that was attacked by the above type of Torpedo Boat in the Gulf of Tonkin incident USS Bon Homme Richard (CVA-31), an Essex class aircraft carrier, not participating in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but being used in the Vietnam War F-8 Crusader, a supersonic fighter jet, with liveries for Gulf of Tonkin incident, and others Read more on the history of this fateful event at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident The download URL is https://github.com/tspindler-cms/tetet-vwv/releases You find the current and past releases there. I welcome the discussion of the assets, and of course the discussion of the problems you encounter. Please abstain from political discussions in this thread. You can best reach me on discord, this invite is for my arma 3 and DCS mod discord server, visit the #general-discussion-vwv channel can be used for now: https://discord.gg/VpyuCzDr7c Cheers, TeTeT [EDIT] Added 2.0.0 info

New ED product incoming From Reddit

The DCS Jurassic Park Add-On Brought to you by. A saved games install OvGME ready. They would not be possible without the wonder of BONES! V 1.2.4 A BETA Test release. More dino's will be added, And the animations shall be refined. Find them under vehicles and aircraft. This was fun to create! All models free to use with creative commons license. With a nod to @Eight Ball For showing a video and providing inspiration! Merci! I hope you enjoy them! You are going to need a bigger GUN! Collisions NOT tested. Have fun! And Happy Thanksgiving! https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kbkw16o5p2tgwjfnlmuk0/The-DCS-Jurassic-Park-Add-On-V-1.2.4.zip?rlkey=qr3hwpxbdxmdei5t1do34eff1&dl=0

there is a new image of the corsair on the profile of -Rudel-

I plan to release the following: Ka-52 (Russian grey, Russian camo and Egyptian camo) with 2A42, Igla, Vikhr, S-8, S-13, tank, UPK-23-250 and Ataka Ka-52K (Russian grey) with foldable rotors and wings and the same weapons as above with the addition of Kh-35 Hm, I got confused since I used Rosoboron's own video on the Ka-52K as reference. I also found blueprints with wings folding upwards. Might have been earlier versions or just plain wrong. And I'm still confused since the helicopter in Rosoboron's video don't have stub wings and they are clearly folding the rotors on it. https://youtu.be/aHP_bS7QdtE?si=LjpDguIfJy8KBzAY I use the nav lights as a trigger.

Мощность такая, что дкс успевает за пролетающим самолётом прорисовывать еще 5-10 лишних самолётов. А они это называют гостинг!

The new images of the corsair are truly magnificent ( there is a new image of the corsair on the profile of -Rudel- )

In what actual CAS scenario are you rippling 4 jdams on 4 targets in 4 miles in one go? JDAM TOO rippling is the number one AG thread on these forums typically and it is entirely a DCS contravention. It's cool you can do it in DCS, but knocking the real life control scheme for its ability to handle something almost no one was expected to actually do in a mission isn't logical. Here's a different scenario: In which aircraft do you think you could more easily perform a low level ingress to pop-up dive bombing attack on a pre-planned target without GPS, with weak coordinates and without a visual on the target until you were in the groove for release given a strong relative reference? Here's a link to a write-up on the Osirak nuclear plant attack in 1981 conducted by Vipers using what appears to be the VIP method with a CCIP terminal attack. Note that missing the VIP for one of the pilots threw off his run enough that he actually had to do a go-around: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/April 2012/0412osirak.pdf Everything in the Viper is built on the base of being able to do a mission like that. The A10C was pretty much gutted interface-wise and done from the ground up to suit more modern missions. I think people like that the A10 makes the least amount of assumptions of what the aircraft is supposed to be doing, but at the same time that makes certain things more complicated than they need to be. If you're doing a pre-planned strike on a target, why bother the pilot with constantly telling the aircraft's nav computer whether it should be paying attention or not? The Viper simply assumes if you slew something, it's because you're trying to acquire the thing you're after unless you're explicitly using a TOO mode. Makes it a lot easier. I made a scenario wherein you need to bomb a non-descript building in a city in the Caucuses. The waypoint you're given is not on the target, simulating low coordinate resolution and drift, but a strong OA is given to a terrain feature and a VRP for a distinct shaped nearby building. If you do your slews right, you'll never see the target till a few seconds before release, and VID'ing it would be hard anyway, but with the TD box, combined with the two references make a precise CCIP delivery possible. All of this is done in less than a minute from run-in to delivery and LTL egress. You can do this sort of thing in the F15E, but the Hornet is so whacked out with bugs it can't do this and I'm not even sure how you'd begin to do something similar with the A10. The Viper's AG mission has historically been closer to a Viggen's than an A10's, and I think multiplayer server's reliance on TOO vehicle plinking is making that more plain to see.

Yes, despite first hand accounts of the AIM-54A being more resistant to CM then contemporary Sparrows (we are talking pre AIM-54C era here), ED has decided to make them worse. Hooray! Just learn to live with it. We are living with UFO AI's and Unobtanium powered Hornets. Is it so hard to live with a Phoenix that prefers not to hit its targets?

Серьёзно. Что не получается выполнить заход на посадку, вместо подлёта к полосе?))))) Ты потренируйся, потом нормальное видео запиши, музыку подбери поинтереснее)))) И, главное, поменьше нервов))) Удачи)))

We will have more info on this as we get closer, but we do not want an empty theater when you get the F6F. The 2024 and Beyond vid is coming, so lets cross our fingers something sneaks in there

It's now reported.

I've recently been creating a lot of missions in Syria and Sinai, but I've missed a lot of newer SAM systems. So, since you mentioned you want suggestions for assets, here are a few SAMs I'd love to have in DCS: Iran Bavar-373 Khordad-15 Khordad-3 Mersad Talaash Ra'd (Raad) Israel Arrow 3 USA Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)

Or maybe, IronMike and Zabuzard have confirmed on the Discord yet again that there will in fact be a preorder on Steam and it will in fact be the same discount as everywhere else. Just a thought. Maybe people should, idk, check with multiple sources before posting something that is no more than a poorly informed opinion.

Here is a more complete (but less detailed) view: You can also see the tiny differences (RWR buttons, radar range gauge). The big black cover at the bottom is the radar screen by the way.

Тот, кто считает, что будущее за преобразованием DCS World в MMO, не знает экономики. Мы говорим о нише в нише, это не "давайте превратим это в новый War Thunder/world of Warships/World of Tanks" и это принесет нам золото.... Крупные башни из слоновой кости пали... и меньше ставить под платный доступ... Что касается тех, кто говорит о Steel Beast, помните, что компанию держат не гики, любящие танки. Компанию поддерживают армии и военные, которые платят за ее профессиональную продукцию, не более того... То же самое происходит с Prepard 3D и другими. Здесь все еще есть люди, которые верят, что ЭД - это какие-то горожане, которые начали вчера, и они работают на рынке более 30 лет.... и они видели взлеты и падения других, которые считали себя богами... должно быть не просто так.

Схема с подпиской может быть только за предоставляемый сервис, которым является по-настоящему увлекательный онлайн. И хорошие примеры такого подхода есть, просто их не видно под кучей донатных дрочилен. Например: EVE Online и iRacing. Очевидно, DCS не стать ни тем ни другим, но, если в нем появится, например, какой нибудь платный сервис с качественной сетевой войной (с новым сетевым кодом и той самой динамической кампанией, которая будет крутиться на мощных серверах), то почему нет? Как раз схема с монетизацией одних только новых модулей, на мой взгляд, выглядит тупиком, т.к. каждый новый модуль всё круче и сложнее, а потом его еще допиливают годами. И не знаю кому как, а у меня только на более-менее уверенное освоение всех аспектов модуля типа кабана или хорнета (так, чтобы всё про всё узнать и всё уметь и "наиграться-налетаться") уходит пару лет. На _один_ такой модуль. Какой уж еще там фалькон или апач, до них дожить бы. Т.е. значительную часть контента DCS (особенно карты) я просто купил "в стол", на когда нибудь, на потом. Зачем? Зачем еще больше модулей, если толком освоить один уходит столько времени? В то же время, для развития DCS нужны деньги. Сейчас, как я понимаю, они поступают только от продажи модулей и карт. Это гонка вооружений, кмк.

IMHO wake turbulence is spot on in DCS, at least prop planes which I fly IRL and have done many simulated dogfights in warbirds, I would not change anything of what we have in DCS regarding wake turbulence.

Интересно. Давно говорил что надо делать паки ботов. А вот даунгрейдить вышедший контент и рекламированный как часть продукта - это уже нарушение публичной оферты. Вот вам новые арты - ой мы передумали, давайте назад, вот теперь купите. Ну и покупать подтяжку существующего аи-юнита - такое. Новые юниты на исторические периоды или страны - другое дело.

Excellent addition - The Sumner Class were used by Argentina up to and during The Falklands War, all three scrapped soon afterwards. Nice addition for that map.

Merged the posts, I think a Cold War Pack could be very cool, I don't know of any plans from us, would be cool if we had some 3rd Party Asset makers one day.

If you want a steerpoint with all clues then just put that 9Line in, slew the TGP and create a markpoint. Press 0 after setting the markpoint, making it the active one. And why do you dobber back all the way? STPT, 1, Enter, and there you are at steer 1 or any received datalink point. TOO? Press DMS up to make the HUD SOI, MARK, TMS up long, drop the circle somewhere, TMS up, there is your markpoint. Lay down fire. HTS? You name it. Markpoint. You got more markpoints than AG weapons in most cases. And you can go on and on with these.

Some shots, many of them with the lovely new S-3 Viking. Aren't they a nice couple? nullnull

You have to separate AI from human. They may seem like the same asset, but in configuration they are totally separate. Making a player controlled aircraft has its limitations, but you have a lot more wiggle room for workarounds since you can code around them. With AI you don't have much freedom at all, and with helicopters your freedom of configuration is tiny. But I don't really understand why ED has chosen to block some of these really basic features (like retractable gear) for helicopters, doesn't make much sense to me. Like for the EOS, it took me like a minute to get it working in the TB2 UCAV since it's a fixed wing aircraft, but the same feature seem to be blocked in helicopters. In ships or ground vehicles I can add weapon stations to my liking, but this does not apply to helicopters.

Good afternoon everyone, Just wanted to let everyone know about a new mini-campaign for the best helicopter in DCS. I'm creating this thread for any feedback, bug reports, etc. because I don't get notified on new Comments in the User Files. The summary: In April of 2022, a Brazilian journalist has been kidnapped near the Ba'ath Dam. You've been hired by a Private Military Company to provide helicopter support and transport to help locate and rescue the journalist. The campaign has full voiceovers with kneeboard pages. It's not meant to be a difficult campaign. As long as you can start up, take off, and land the Huey in FARP-sized landing areas, it will be fine. The difficulty ramps up through the 4 missions, however. If you're interested, here's a link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3334386/ Thanks, and fly safe!

After watching Reflected's DCS Campaign Buyers Guide" youtube video (and me never tried a single DCS campaign in my life) I purchased a few. Couple of days ago (when MP cold war server was full and couldn't join) I decided to give Fear the bones a try more like f14 training. I ended up flying one mission a day and it felt like watching TV series in 80s when I was a kid... and looking forward what is going to happen tomorrow. AI was behaving nicely, never felt like it was behaving unrealistically that usually kept me from flying in single-player. Learned few things about F14 that i didn't know before, and overall it was fun.

"is the Viggen navigation system inertial or not" - the greatest debate in the history of forums, locked by a moderator after 12,239 pages of heated debate, dril references aside, this question has come up a couple of times before, and earlier today @Rudel_chw asked this in a direct message. This post is mostly a reaction to that. My answer to the question is "not really", or "not primarily". It does use dead reckoning just like an inertial navigation system (INS) does, and it does use accelerometers and attitude gyros just like an INS does, but it does not primarily rely on them, so it's not really inertial. Pseudo-inertial? Partially-inertial? Whatever you might call it. An INS by the usual definition of the term only (or at least primarily) relies on accelerometers and attitude gyroscopes to calculate how it's being moved. The accelerometers measure the acceleration of whatever they're mounted to, and the attitude gyros measure the attitude relative to the earth, and if you combine the two you can figure out how the entire system is moving relative to the Earth. That means an INS is by definition ground-referenced (or rather referenced to Earth's field of gravity, I guess). The Viggen system on the other hand is primarily atmosphere-referenced. I've translated a block diagram from the SFI: As you can see, it starts not from inertial measurements but rather from air data measurements. First it uses temperature and air data to calculate the true airspeed. Then the angle of attack is used to calculate an estimate of the vertical and longitudinal speed separately (transverse speed is assumed to be negligible here). This is then combined with attitude information from the FLI-37 ADI and the autopilot's moment gyros to calculate the aircraft's true velocity vector relative to the air. To get the movement relative to the ground (which is what we actually want), the nav program then compensates for wind speed, which is either measured using a doppler radar (ground speed measurement), or forecast wind as programmed into the computer (input with VIND/RUTA/MÅL). The ground-referenced velocity vector is then calculated and integrated every 103 milliseconds to continually keep the aircraft's position updated. This isn't quite good enough though. There are two problems: first, transverse speed (side to side) can't be calculated from air data, and second, the air data system reacts too slowly to really make this precise enough. To mitigate these problems, there's an accelerometer unit that measures acceleration in the longitudinal and vertical axes; acceleration in the transverse axis is taken from the transverse accelerometer that's used for the autopilot's sideslip correction system (y'know that RENFLYGN knob nobody ever touches). These accelerometers react much faster than the air data system, and so they're used to correct the velocity vector calculated from air data. This taken as a whole is good enough. So, in the transverse axis the system actually is a "real" inertial navigation system - it relies purely on attitude gyros and accelerometers to determine movement in that axis. This, the SFI says, is acceptable because the velocity in the transverse axis is usually more or less net zero (the aircraft doesn't typically fly sideways, after all), with only small variations back and forth, so relying purely on acceleration gives sufficient precision. You might ask though, if the aircraft has attitude gyros and accelerometers anyway, why not just go purely inertial? The main answer is that to do that you'd need much more expensive equipment. You need more precision than the Viggen's gyros and accelerometers actually have to make it work well, and probably you'd need a dedicated computer for it too. INS systems were absolute state of the art in the early 1960's when the Viggen was designed, with the Minuteman and Apollo guidance systems being some of the first really practical examples. You couldn't just buy an INS off-the-shelf in the 60's; Saab would've had to design one in-house. INS became a lot cheaper and more reliable in the 80's with better computers and the commercialization of the ring laser gyro. The Viggen system isn't as accurate as a real INS, but at the time it had a significant cost advantage. It's noteworthy that almost the entire system is just a software program that runs in the CK 37. The only hardware it uses that the aircraft wouldn't otherwise have are the two accelerometers for the longitudinal and vertical axes. It also has the side benefit that it's capable of cold starting in two minutes flat because the gyros just aren't that sensitive. True INS systems of the era could take tens of minutes to align from a cold start. It was an engineering compromise: good enough to fulfill the requirements the air force had, but not more complex and expensive than it had to be.

Hi everyone. I am pleased to note that every time the program is updated, it is necessary to study procedures that are already widely known again. Really funny!!! So, up until the DCS 2.9.1.48111 Open Beta update the following is the procedure I used SUCCESSFULLY to engage multiple aerial targets with the F-16C's TWS function: 1) AA mode selection; 2) AIM-120C selection; 3) TWS selection; 4) as soon as all tracks appear on the radar (there are three MIG-29s ahead), TMS right short and all selectable tracks are listed (from solid symbols they become empty); 5) TMS right short again, the closest track is locked; 6) launch of the first AIM-120C; 7) TMS right short again and the second track is locked; 8) launch of the second AIM-120C; 9) last TMS right short and the third track is locked; 10) launch of the third AIM-120C. At 90% all bandits were shot down. After the last update, with the first TMS right short I can only select and hook the first bandit. The other two, although visible on the radar in TWS mode, are not selected (their symbol remains solid). Then, after launching the first AIM-120C, I have to switch to the RWS and manually lock on the remaining targets (making the TWS useless!!!). The question is: what happened?!?! Is this a bug or has the TWS target selection process changed? Thank you in advance for your kind attention.

@renhanxue That's actually my website and the link has now been updated By the way, I will soon have finished converting the ATIS37 into Word and PDF-formats (including an English translation) and will post those soon on the site, as well as in this forum. Keep a look out for that!

Project Overlord has had wake turbulence turned on for a few months now. For a long time we believed it would be a performance hog, then we did some public experiments and discovered the impact was negligible on the server and players reported little negative effect on their systems. If I remember rightly it's a forced server side setting, so everyone experiences the same when they fly with us. It is not enabled on the 4YA WW2 training server, however.

Ничего личного, но от вас я часто вижу "они обязательно должны прийти к тому что я сказал" от подписки до какой модуль выбрать в разработку. Подписка это на самом деле голубая мечта игрунов, которые банально хотят все модули разом. К слову, человек может накопить на желаемый модуль, а вот при сложностях с временем, откажется от игры с подпиской - деньги просто сгорают если не играть регулярно. Особо упоротые пару лет назад предлагали оплачивать самолёто-часы.

Welp, we finally have info on this, the new models are indeed part of a new paid-for product. Personally, while not the best news, I'd much prefer it work this way (i.e have free, lower-quality assets and paid-for high-quality assets), than to have it work like the WWII asset pack, where non-owners are completely straight-up barred from playing or editing missions or joining servers with even a single asset from it present.

На Реддите комьюнити-менеджер ED ответил, что это не просто пак моделей, а что-то новое.

Many thanks @currenthill. I don't really care if the gear retracts or not as I'm sure the drag difference only whacks off a few knots.

Nice to see you suceed!

это какие-то полёты в чистом поле за границами карты кавказа? как насчёт полетать в Ми-24 на ПНВ над Бейрутом например?

Hi Glad you got it sorted. There is no trigger to get a response from JTAC it is only the DCS modelling of the radio. I think the valley must cast quit a distinct radio shadow so you need to be high enough to get above that. No problem though, as DCS has so many updates I am dependent on fellow pilots to point out when there is a new bug so I can fix them. Been working on the latest Campaign for 7 months now it will be called, ‘Operation Green Line’. Thanks.

I like the Max FPS option in the GUI now in 2.9.1, however it does not allow setting 72 FPS for VR usage (only allows settings in 5 FPS increments). I used to do this in autoexec.cfg, but that is now not taking effect. I can set 72 FPS in the options.lua, but as soon as I open the options GUI in game it drops it to 70. I would be great if the Max FPS slider would allow changing in 1 FPS increments.

Officially the only WWII aircraft carrier that is developed and the USS Intrepid CV-11 of the Essex class of Magnitude 3 for the F4u-1D Corsair

It is a shame on me, but i did not save the track. Well, not sure if i had bad day yesterday or lucky today , but i was able complete the mission on first try today. My wingman and the AI grupe just did 80% of the work. Trigger was activated correctly at the end, so i moved on to mission 7.

If you are bothered by potential collision along your way down the ILS, you can still use the F10 map. You have the altitude readout on your cursors position, a map with altitude relief markings, and you have trees present on the F10 map. Without a chart, there is no other way to get what you want. They are working on a new ATC system so just have some patience and wait for that. Current ATC already gives you a vector to a specific point.

Hello. I came across this on reddit and confirmed it in game. The B-1B model seems to have been cut down in resolution compared to the newsletter picture. Is this intended or a mis-export of the model? null

Это откуда и такие фантазии ?

Thanks guys. To manage expectations. This is an AI asset, and there are some things that doesn't seem possible to achieve with a mod due to hard coded restrictions compared to in-game aircraft assets. For example: Having an EOS externally following the target only seem to work on ground, sea and fixed-wing assets (I have it turned on take-off to simulate activation). Having a trainable cannon only seem to work on ground and sea assets (I only have recoil and muzzle flash). Ejection only seem to work on fixed-wing assets (no known workaround, the pilots go down with the aircraft). Retractable landing gear only seem to work on fixed-wing assets (I simulate landing gear animation with workarounds, not perfect).

@DD_Fenrir @Fred901 Experts need to stay, because... It is the opinion of users that evaluates the work and corrects the development vector. I want to remind you that thanks to users, we made adjustments to French airfields, thanks to you, English hangars and caponiers were made, and the French one was slightly changed. fr At the same time, the engine’s resources are not unlimited; we made sure that “London” and “Paris” differ not only in buildings but also in airfield infrastructure. We created products as close as possible to historical content, but the capabilities of the engine and large maps impose restrictions on the variety of objects - they have narrow time intervals for working in war. The map is constantly being developed, corrected and expanded. In the studio we compared screenshots of what was and what has become - amazing changes. We have now come to the point that we cannot focus only on 1944, primarily because when new airfields are added to the Normandy map, 1940 scenarios become available to users: Dunkirk Retreat Scenarios and Battle of Britain Scenarios. You once wrote to us that there is no need to limit yourself to a certain period, but now this moment has come: the map has expanded both in space and time. Therefore, experts, stay with us, keep your finger on the pulse. And we will do everything possible to take into account your opinion and your wishes in our work.

I hope we will share some news on this soon and what it will entail, sorry for the wait.

"Darker and less glossy" livery for the carriers. Floating somewhere about on the User Files.