Leaderboard

I added the TM-62M anti-tank mine to the Russia pack. They're not perfect since DCS doesn't really have the mechanics for mines. You set them as invisible and the approaching vehicles won't see them until they're really up-close. Here's an example.

Hi all, the team are on a break currently for New Year, when they return they will be back to tweaking DCS. I have mentioned about the latest DLSS update from NVIDIA to the team. thanks

DCS: AH-64D | Target Sharing For all FCR datalink communications, it will initially be regarding multiplayer. Once the FCR and datalink are final, we’ll then add this for AI Primary members. So, to start with, let’s get some FCR target data by doing a single scanburst. I’m also going to switch my TSD to Attack phase so that it displays all the targets that I detect, not just the 16 high priority targets and display shot symbols. Now that we have some targets, we can decide how we want to engage them. As seen in my earlier Fire Zones video, see card above, we can use fire zones to separate the battlefield into areas of responsibility for each flight member, so that we don’t waste missiles by shooting at the same target as our teammates. Now, I can then send these FCR targets to my teammates so that when they unmask, they already know where to focus their sensors within their assigned zone. To do this, I’m going to send an FCR Target Report. I have the TSD on my right MPD, I press the Report, or RPT, button at T1, just as when I would send a Present Position or FARM report in my previous videos. I then press TGT, or Target, at button L2, and I am now presented with some options for what kind of Target report I send. If I want to just send the 16 high-priority targets from my FCR page, I can select PRI. If I want to send all my FCR targets, I can select ALL. However, if I want to choose the targets I send in the Target report, I de-select PRI and ALL, and then I use my MPD cursor to select each individual target that I want to transmit. When I’m finished, I select the Primary member or members to send to and then press the Send button. Report sent. I’m going to have one of my colleagues, Chaos 2, send me an FCR Target Report from his FCR. I get the notification on the EUFD along with a ring tone, and so I press the Receive, REC, button on the main TSD page, and then select the FCR Target Report to accept the data. When I receive this target report, it overwrites all my FCR targets and only shows the targets I received. The FCR can only store one “snapshot” of the battlefield at any given time. So, if I were to do another FCR scan myself, I am now replacing the targets he sent me with a fresh FCR scan. It’s important to understand that although the FCR Target Report allows you to send a lot of FCR targets to multiple Primary members simultaneously, it cannot be used for direct targeting of the aircraft’s weapons. The Target report could be used for reconnaissance data, to maintain situational awareness, or to cue other aircraft sensors to FCR target locations. “Chaos 2”, go ahead and send me another FCR Target Report. Another way we can share targets is using the Radio Frequency Handoff, or RFHO, option on the FCR page. It is different from the FCR Target Report in that it sends a single FCR target to a single Primary member. However, the advantage of this type of message is it allows another AH-64D to directly engage that target without having line-of-sight on the target themselves. Now that I have some targets, I can select which target I want to send to my teammate, Chaos 2, using the MPD cursor or the NTS button on the FCR page. I can then press RFHO button along the right side of the FCR page. A menu displays my available Primary members, and when I select one and press SEND, that single target designated as my Next-To-Shoot is then sent to my colleague in the other AH-64D. I’ll now have him send an RFHO to me so we can see how this looks on the receiving end. There’s the notification of “RFHO” on the EUFD along with the ring tone. As with received Target Reports, I’ll press the Receive button on the TSD, select the RFHO message to accept it, and now you can see that all my FCR target data is replaced with the new data. However, this data only consists of a single target. Once I’ve accepted the RFHO, the next step is to select FCR as my sight, even if I’m in an AH-64 without an FCR installed. This allows me to engage this target just as if I used my own FCR to detect it. I action my missiles, which automatically are set to RF type since my sight is now FCR. I make sure I am in launch constraints, and then I fire. Although RFHOs are used to send a single target to a single Primary member, multiple RFHOs can be sent to each Primary member at any given time. I’ll do a new scan, find multiple targets out there, press RFHO, select my Primary member, and press SEND. Each time I press the SEND button, the NTS diamond advances to the next target in my shoot list, just as if I were launching the missiles myself. By repeating this sequence in a rapid manner, I can start sending these targets to each aircraft in my flight as I see fit. Now he’ll send me several RFHOs at once. I press Receive, accept the first RFHO, launch. Press Receive again, accept the next, launch again. And so on. As you can see, this makes several AH-64D’s an even more potent fighting force when just a single FCR aircraft is added to the flight.

F4U and others modules Magnitude3

Okay, we've properly added the RPL201 to the flyable F1s. Should be available in the next update most likely.

Thanks! Yep, I had to do some smoke and mirrors workarounds. The mines are actually really small vehicles which will fire a short range projectile at the approaching target. So you can say that they work as proximity mines. But it's very close as you can see in the video. The approaching vehicles will notice them just a couple of meters before and try to steer away. But depending on your mine placement they may not succeed. It's also very dependent on the vehicle speed, just like in real time. If they go very fast they don't have the time to steer away. I don't have any control of that, I think it's a built-in feature of Google Drive. I have no idea why preview doesn't work, they are ordinary zip files.

I don’t get it, you can spend hundreds on hardware to run dcs, plus more on the modules, the two monitors, etc … yet you can’t pay for a pdf utility? I spent 7 euro on the pdf app for my iPad on 2010, it has served me fine for almost 14 years, moving from one ipad to the next easily (along with my pdf documents) … how can’t it be worthwhile?

You're right fapador, but most time you only hear the people who are unsatisfied, and the satisfied are silent. Imagine you're developing a module and read only negative about it. Would you enjoy continue to work on it? I don't think. There are in fact things that need to be worked out, but there is a lot of progress. It's good to be encouraged sometimes.

Currently while tracking targets by radar in STT the TGP in A-A mode is driven without any dampening of the seeker head movement . It seems its elevation and heading is instantly updated with refresh rate of STT tracking. As result the TGP image shakes and creates artifact's like tearing and ghosting (especially in VR) In reality TGP seeker head has natural physical acceleration and speed limits which naturally smooth out the movements of the head (azimuth and heading corrections to look at target when supplemented by STT and not tracking by contrast) This seems to be a simple fix in code to add acceleration and speed limits to change of azimuth and elevation for small angular adjustments of TGP when it is not tracking targets by contrast, but instead is driven (updated) according to STT updates from radar. This would remove jitter and ghosting as well as make TGP movement more realistic (mean close to real by flowing physic limits).

Beat me to it

Hello I am new to this forum. I just want to make a post of my Mirage F-1CG version stick I am working to make. F1.mp4

At first time I thought It's REAL ! DCS has Pushed the limits of real and virtual !!!

Two F-14As (Bullet 1 and Bullet 2) of VF-2 Bounty Hunters provide CAP for a VS-38 Red Griffins S-3B from CVA-61 USS Ranger (Grey Eagle), as it refuels two F/A-18As of VFA-87 Golden Warriors conducting SEAD Operations from CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt (Rough Rider). 24 January 1991, Persian Gulf.

I noticed that when i am selecting just 2 drop tanks and nothing else, or 2 a/a missiles + 2 drop tanks, or 4 a/a missiles + 2 drop tanks or even 2 amraams+ 4 sidewinders + 2 drop tanks the jet requires CAT I stores config otherwise if CAT 3 is selected i get a stores config error. The only Α/Α loadout that allows CAT3 is 4x amraams plus 2 heaters plus 2 drop tanks or 6x amraams plus 2 drop tanks Now correct me if i am wrong (obviously i am) but according to what i know plus various sources online plus DCS F-16C manual, even a clean F-16 with just 2x 370gal. tanks should require CAT 3 STORES CONFIG Switch. Sets the FLCS mode of operation based on external wing stores. When set to CAT III the FLCS limits the angle of attack and onset rates in order to increase departure resistance. This switch has no effect when the FLCS gains are set to takeoff/landing configuration (landing gear deployed or air refueling door open). • CAT I. Used for air-to-air loadouts without external wing tanks. • CAT III. Used for air-to-ground loadouts or when equipped with external wing tanks.

WinWing just announced their new pedals to be released for sale in February

1. White runway centre line markings on hard surface airfields. Current airfields affected: Tangmere, Ford, Kenley, West Malling, Farnborough, Odiham and Needs Oar Point These are a post-war feature and should not be in evidence on WW2 period airfields: Examples: Tangmere, Feb 1944: Kenley, March 1944: Kenley, August 1944: Ford, 1945 Please remove the white dashed centre line markings from the hard surface runways at the airfields listed above.

Really the boarding ladder should only be down if the crew is boarding, or the ground crew are working on the jet or prepping it. Typical static jet on the deck or tarmac I wouldn't expect to see the ladder deployed. If you're setting a static jet however to have the canopy up then ladder down makes sense. Logically (and may be done eventually) the boarding ladder should be handled under the ground crew comms with the chocks, air supply, and ground power. During startup the ladder should be stowed going off a number of clips such as this from VF-211 at Oceana:

Nope… Die WW software benötigt man zunächst mal auch nur zum erstmaligen Konfigurieren/Kalibrieren des jeweiligen WW Devices und danach nicht mehr. Zumindest so lange wir hier nur von Stick und Throttle reden. SimAppPro (die WW software) muss nur dann aktiv im Hintergrund laufen, wenn das jeweilige Gerät auch Daten von DCS empfangen soll. Also vor allem z.B. die MFD Displays, die LED Schriftzüge des UFC oder des neuen ICP aber ggf auch Vibration im Stick oder der F-15 throttlegrips oder wenn die Beleuchtung der Panels mit DCS synchronisiert sein soll. Unter VR interessiert mich das alles zum Beispiel nicht (und ich habe kein WW device mit Vibration). Aber im Sinne der Vergleichbarkeit mit Virpil muss man dazu sagen, dass das ja auch Funktionen sind, die Virpil Geräte gar nicht haben (soweit ich weiss).

Напомним, что Bf-109K-4 был частью Kickstarter RRG Studios WW2 1944, а модели времен Второй мировой войны (Bf-109K-4 / Spitfire Mk.XI / P-47D / Fw-190A и Me262) были выбраны эта компания. ED не имел к этому никакого отношения, а просто спас проект и продолжил его развитие.

Yeah, but last year Wednesday wasn't on a Wednesday.

Agree with @MAXsenna, Helios is the way to go. As I remember, a strange thing in in DCS was that you needed to set up the resolution to the combined resolution of all your monitors. In your case if you have a 1920x1080 and are locating a 1366x768 monitor under it, your DCS resolution would be 1920x1848 (1080+768). That may not be the case anymore, and it sounds like Helios may have eliminated any manual settings required..

Hello everybody, I was notifyed that a bug slipped into my training campaign - in mission "basic 09 - JTAC/GBU" the lasercode of the bomb did not match the code used by the JTAC. Both codes are now set to 1588. I uploaded the mission as a fix, just paste it into your existing campaign folder. Sooy for the inconvenience. --> https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335244/

Hi Buur, you can check these points using the DCS Model Viewer, option "CarrierRouteManager". The 8 parking slots in the screen below are mine, not the most recent ones. They free simultaneously the landing deck and the forward catapults for combined air ops. Enjoy !

Well, there is one solution already implemented that makes flying the Apache super easy: jump into the front seat and let the AI helper ("George") be the pilot. Random youtube video for demonstration A lot of the CPG (=front seater) controls can be fit onto a gamepad. For example : You'll still have to do the front seaters job. But that's perfectly doable without a joystick and you'll not have to directly pilot the aircraft. Perhaps this is close to the kind of gameplay you are looking for? And, as mentioned above, it already works today.

No, we have neither a map nor picture at the moment. But the ramp start positions go back from the two catapults towards the landing zone on the flightdeck, leaving the area before the island free for statics. When landing, the latest version has the park positions moved to the bow of the carrier, e.g. blocking catapult 1 and 2. Again, the area in front of the island is free for statics. I quickly sketched this. Purple are the parking positions after landing, green are the ramp positions before launch: Cheers, TeTeT

Just a quick blurb.. I do know there's still several issues with preset editor (and German Locale especially), Work continues on revising and re-writing the functions, but over the last 2 months I have been working 12-18 hr shifts every day. Once work calms down and I get more time off I will continue to develop these functions as well as others. I haven't gone radio silent I promise.

@NineGzuz, thank you for your interest in the DCS AH-64D. Unfortunately, what you are asking for is not planned. There are plenty of reasonably priced joysticks, some with twist-sticks for yaw and sliders for collectives; and such devices are worth the investment in my personal opinion. But an arcade flight model that has been designed for use within a "first person shooter" genre is not in the plans for DCS AH-64D.

Hi, check MP

The AFCS in the F-14 only has heading hold and ground track hold. Both work by navigating the aircraft to the desired heading or ground track and stop stick inputs with less than a certain degree of bank angle like mentioned. It has no function to follow the heading knob or bug.

Just edit the lua to add the particular weapon CSLID onto the Correct Pylon, obviously you need to also have the weapons/base aircraft they cam from to begin with. I added the JAS Gripen Stormshadows to the default RAF Tornado GR4's for eye candy.. Then used Currenthills ones from the Ukrainian Su24M addon to have them actually work

I understand the interest in modding, but I'd appreciate if we could keep this thread about my assets.

It's hobby. Not even the most expensive one (not even close). Try motorcycle track racing if you want to break in tears....... (and think of all the hardware you probably bought DCS-related..... )

2. Trees and shrubs within the airfield perimeter. Current airfields affected: Tangmere, Ford, Kenley, West Malling, Funtington and Gravesend. Given the MOD specifications stipulating the size of run-off areas adjacent to runways (225ft each side, levelled and sown with grass) and a further 300ft each side of the runway to be clear of obstructions, the abundance of trees and shrubs in evidence between the runways and perimeter tracks on the noted airfields in the DCS Normandy 2.0 map is unprotoypical. Also note the absence of any foliage between the runways and perimeter tracks on the period aerial shots submitted in the first post. Please omit the offending vegetation.

Decided to give Gazelle a go last night via free trial. Mapped axis, trim and view zoon then flew around Normandy for twenty minutes. Sold. Bought the module this morning. Seemed straight forward enough to fly (compared to Apache, Huey and Hind) and I love the forward visibility.

May I preset, The Vietnam Military Mule! Armed! Takes out Russian tanks like they were marshmallows With Prone drivers. As in RL. Coming soon to a TETET pack near you! CA compatible!

The file does not seem to be updated for the new lua coding for BORT numbers. Sometime in April DCS revised the number code for the F-18 and the previous codes do not eliminate the numbers. Go to the topic in the forums for the history and a solution. You need to update your description lua for that livery by adding in the lines that are explained in the topic. seabat

Ah okay thank you for that information.

This pretty much sums it up. No matter how realistic and simulated F14/AIM54 is, it’s still part of DCS World. While it might function properly ”by the book” it’s overall performance is still bound to DCS World rules. Fighting against perfect RWR’s, simple ECM implementation, serverlag and netcode issues etc. In a stupidly busy MP environment (like on GS server) over land and mountains, it will be a nightmare and many tracks will be lost. In SP and in a fleet defence role - it performs as expected most of the time.

MY favorite map. Lot of trees are performance heavy and cities 10x, if I can circle the Haifa and can not a SA city quarter if its size, there must be some tech with better optimization. Sat all the way, even I understand there is lot of work in fixing the photo glitches, various shades etc. I made few maps for Condor gliding sim and it was helluva work.

What we need is a proper, organic air support control system, with modern voiceovers and the ability to react to the situation. The current JTAC implementation is inadequate, the only weapons that can change their laser code in the air are LMAVs and LJDAMs. It chooses targets somewhat at random, and doesn't really consider the threat environment. With DC incoming, we can no longer rely on static JTAC being up to the task, because it won't be static. Also, you guys missed one particular point in the discussion: we have a Phantom incoming! It served both as a FAC (fast FACs like Misty, Wolf and Falcon) and, quite famously, under control of many a FAC. So, we need realistic FACs. As for the authority, I imagine there could be some discussion on the radio, but at least in Vietnam, FAC had the ultimate authority on authorizing a strike. Yes, the pilot who checks out the airplane has the authority over the bombs, but FAC has the authority over the strike. If the pilot gave him too much static, the FAC could and did send him back to base with bombs still under the wings. They were often junior officers, flying O-1s and O-2s (we need them in DCS, as AI if nothing else), but they had the authority to do that and it didn't look good on any Phantom jock's resume when they did. From what I've heard, JTACs today have the same kind of authority, even if they're enlisted. They can't force a pilot to drop, but the pilot can't drop without their permission, either. That's the idea of positive control, that's central to how those ops are ran. I'd suggest a simple heuristic as to what gets dropped. Evaluate the warhead's blast radius and weapon guidance method. For example, the FAC has you go in with GBU-12 and you want to go with -10, that's a negat, because the latter has a larger blast radius. As for the seeker, moving targets can get laser or imaging (Mavs, Walleyes), static targets get any type of guidance. So, for a moving target, you could "trade" a GBU-10 for a Walleye, but not for a GBU-31. You'll also get a negat if you ask him to change a guided strike to unguided, but he'll approve the other way around. CBU runs can't be changed, and for rockets, you can only substitute a different type of rocket. This is fairly logical, transparent and should be simple to implement algorithmically.

I have asked the team to investigate this after their New year break. thank you

Hired by the OOC mission builder, not the pilot. A JTAC doesn't even answer to the pilot. If anything, a CAS pilot delivers a service to the JTAC and subsequently its CO. Of course one can complain about the rudimentary implementation of the current AI-JTAC. As I said before, it was meant to give F-5s, M2000Cs, etc. the means to get their GBUs on a target (not chosen by the pilot). It was not meant to deliver a sitrep or to manage a nicely organized CAS stack. It wasn't even meant to give you a complete 9-line. I get it, one can complain about that. I might add, that the costs and ressources to implement all that functionality would probably outweigh the final results, so instead we are stuck with an economical approximation, but then again, you dont have to go with that. What you cant do is to build a redforce on the ground, complain about its strength and the impossibility to tackle it to your liking and therefore make demands/propositions to the devs to expand the functionality of an DCS aspect (said AI-JTAC) to make things easier just for you and regardless if that expansion could still be considered as an instance of its former role. To me, that looks like a purely self-serving argument.

КА-52 кому интересно мод https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WbnhmQHmYLgPJ1NGEFTk4QmPsIVn5SyQ/view

This module seems pretty popular even today, and at least fixing the bugs would extend its life for those who own it, would sell some more as a solid product and a simple and capable platform, and would give ED more appreciation and faith in their upcoming projects. IMHO I think it would be worth it.