Leaderboard

Here’s a video I put together covering nearly all aspects of the 109. Cold starts, taxi, takeoff, engine management, weapons, landing, and more. Hope you guys find it helpful! https://youtu.be/_uwnsK3E1dU

Version 2.0.1 - 20240125 Maintenance Update The first couple of weeks after the big 2.0 release have been surprisingly calm, and happily filled with a lot of feedback for new and interesting ideas. This release contains minor tweaks to many modules, plus two more demos and their descriptions that I could not get done last year. The biggest updates were to csarManager, which received a partial re-write to its inner core for better performance and reliability, and The Debugger, where I (with great help from the community) was able to finally track down a very, very strange bug that is related to how DCS does memory management during event callbacks, and that you should not worry about. All changes in Detail: Manual Main - Updates/Tweaks to many modules - New "Clone Factory" demo doc - New "Airfield Mine" demo doc Quick Reference - tweaks / corrections / updates Demos - new Airbase Mine - Attack of the CloneZ update - Bug Hunt update - new Clone Factory - CSAR of Georgia update - Debug events and more update - Landing Lessons update Modules - airfield 2.1.1 - fixed a DCS getCategory regression-related bug - added makeNeutral? attribute - cfxZones 4.1.2 - added some QoL - civAir 3.0.2 - clean-up - csarManager 3.0.0 - rewrite of inner core, no longer requires cfxPlayer - better integration with Limited Airframes - better support for aircraft other than Helicopters - dcsCommon 3.0.1 - improvements to clone() - factoryZone 3.1.0 - new attributes redP!, blueP!, defendMe? - support for method - objectDestructDetector 2.0.2 - integration with PlayerScore - PlayerScore 3.0.2 - integration with objectDestructDetector - TDZ 1.0.3 - fixed defaulting for 'manual' option - The Debugger 2.1.0 - fixed long-standing issue with crash after exiting mission - Willie Pete - added more WP ammo - hardened player update Enjoy, -ch

Its still going Added washing stains, reduced the walkway dust, fixed the supercharger intake weld seam (horrors... horrors), fixed missing fabric dents between controlsurface spars, redone tailsection/stabilizer layout. Added dryness to rim of mudd. Tried around with spray paint application and way to imitate that coarse effect. Eventually might try a new brush, but atm, noise does it. Still some normal map things to fix ive missed...

RAZBAM discord Mig-23MLA https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/1196617030233751573/1199647494380998688 RAZBAM F-15E https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/1118443936348901426/1199438846081912933 https://metal2mesh.com/Paintkit/F-15E_PaintKit_ver-1.2.zip Updated Paint Kit to 1.2 Version 1.2 Changes: Added Padding around Paint Masks to help with seam lines from showing. Added Various Visor Colors Added Fuel Tanks Added Sensor Pylons Updated: Decal Tool with more nose art.

It would be great if we had some accurate separation modelling with possible airframe contact and damage if weapons are released outside of tested parameters. There are some good videos available of mishaps during envelope testing. At the moment they seem to just 'pop off' the jet at any speeds or g loads. In a related note, over-G of the targeting pods would be great too.

So many different styles, so happy A couple of pics from one of my missions, they'll feature prominently in all future missions I make. Thank you.

The phantom will have dynamic modexes.

Hi, New release version 1.2.4 https://github.com/sedenion/OpenModMan/releases/tag/1.2.4 Change logs: Fixed Mod overlapping not properly detected between Direcotry and Packaged Mods Fixed presets execution toggles already installed mods instead of leaving them installed Per-Channel Mod Editor path memorisation mechanism for Open dialog.

I am constantly amazed at his dedication. Huge thanks to @cfrag for what he does for us. My DCS experience is better thanks to him. Definitely a member of my community hall of fame !

James Brown might have been the Hardest Working Man in Show Business, but @cfrag seems to the the Hardest Working Man in DCS Utility Modding!! Thanks for all you do and your willingness to answer our (MY!) stupid questions!! o7

Нет. У нас нет ни времени ни сил контролировать еще всю пользовательскую самодеятельность. Когда вы ставите любой сторонний мод, вы должны понимать, что корректная работа DCS при этом не гарантируется. На свой страх и риск.

Вы представляете себе объём работы?

I can confirm @virgo47 's finding. No wind and RW33 is selected. 1 & 2 m/s wind from any direction will shift you to RW15. 3 m/s and higher creating a headwind for a RW33 landing will give you RW33. Any headwind 3 m/s and higher producing a headwind for a RW15 landing will give you RW15. So the issue is the 1 & 2 m/s wind speeds. TRKs attached. Gudauta-No Wind-RW33.trk Gudauta-Wind 151_1ms-RW15.trk Gudauta-Wind 151_2ms-RW15.trk Gudauta-Wind 151_4ms-RW33.trk Gudauta-Wind 151_6ms-RW33.trk Gudauta-Wind 330_1ms-RW15.trk Gudauta-Wind 330_2ms-RW15.trk Gudauta-Wind 330_3ms-RW15.trk Gudauta-Wind 330_6ms-RW15.trk

A certain trouble with some of the bugs and issues that are long reported and at some point were labelled 'low priority' is that plenty of new things, that originate with higher priority, get shoveled in at a high enough rate to seemingly never get to these old problems. Lets not get into this whole 'this is complicated' topic, we all understand that some things are indeed very complicated, but that doesn't make us blind to the fact that some things are actually quite straightforward and just never get done because nobody ever has time to look into them.

Hey Lads and Gents, can you please stop this Off-talking? You are not funny and you derail this thread. Thank you all

It's because all our weapons are gradually being replaced by ED's equivalents. It will show that message in the log when there are duplicates (our own and ED's). We will get rid of our own weapon declarations. This error does not effect the user in any way.

That all after F-4U Corsair and F-8 Crusader. Taking current speed of work into account it's expected in about 16 years. (assuming that F-8 isn't much complicated than F-4U)

OP updated, C scope also now in work.

According to Razbam's own manual and the information posted on the forum, the radar should complete full scan in 1.3 seconds. But in the current DCS version it doesn't match this number and there are multiple problems with targets depiction in the Mig-19. 1. The targets on the screen are not updated every 1.3 seconds, but much less frequently, only once in roughly 3-4 seconds. 2. On top of that, there's also more delay built into the system. For example if I turn right, the target starts drifting to the left on the screen. When I reverse the turn, the target keeps drifting to the left for another 1-2 cycles, before it comes back to centre. So in total, the information shown on the radar screen is 5-10 seconds old. Check the attached track. 3. The same delay is also visible in the vertical. It takes 5-10 seconds for the radar to switch the target between "above" and "below" indication after I change pitch. Also shown in the attached track. 4. The vertical sweep line that travels across the screen is the only thing that updates in DCS every 1.3 seconds, but it only paints the ground clutter. It has no correlation with target updates whatsoever. And if it is meant to depict the radar antenna "sweep", then it's also completely incorrect due to this particular radar construction. The search radar has two antennas spinning together at constant speed, one pointed slightly upwards, the second downwards. Together they scan the whole area in front of the aircraft, one full scan equals one rotation of the assembly. So it's actually two sweeps in each full scan, with a brief pause in-between, when the assembly is oriented perpendicular to the flight path. It also means that the targets that are at the same level as the radar will be caught by both antennas. So where does this 1.3s for the full sweep comes from in Razbam manual? @foxbat155 discussed it here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/192125-mig-19-ground-radar-return-test/?do=findComment&comment=3758423 but that math does not check out. If the assembly really spins at 80 RPM, then one scan should take 0.75s, not 1.3s. Even faster than what Razbam manual states, and much, much faster than the current implementation in DCS. Either way, the Mig-19 radar in DCS fails at the primary task for which the thing was created in real life, and that is performing intercepts at night or in low visibility. With 5-10 seconds lag as it is now, getting into position behind the target that you can't see is more a matter of luck than anything else. You can try it for yourself, I've attached a simple mission with clear night, AWACS and two targets in front of you flying straight. Have fun PG_night_intercept_MiG19.miz zMigRadar.trk

Hi guys, As it was pointed out, after the latest updates the AI is not taking off properly and they happily smash into each other. This makes the whole mission hard to finish. I have taught them how to stay alive and fly better. Or at least take off better. The update is available here and it will be included in a future DCS update. https://drive.google.com/file/d/166RVz4tjJaNpqZGPjajGOBK9A-93r7Yw/view?usp=drive_link Just replace the mission in your DCS World\Mods\campaigns\UH-1H The Huey Last Show folder As always, any feedback is greatly appreciated. Cheers, SorelRo

two weeks sorry someone had to do it

You are mixing different things together. An RWR does not have the ability to distinguish between friendly or foe. It simply detects a source and classifies that according to the database in the system. Think about, if two countries were at war, with the exact same aircraft, how is it supposed to distinguish between friend or foe if both have the exact same radar? So, forget about using the F-18 symbology for the RWR of the F-15C. The semi circle above a contact indicates a fresh contact on your RWR.

Negative, RWY 33 with 0 wind is consistent with the original (DCS 1.2 and prior) ATC behaviour. The erroneous ATC behaviour (effects most maps/airports) is for 1-2 m/s head/tail winds and introduced with the initial release of DCS 2.5 (2018). https://forum.dcs.world/topic/172761-open-beta-25-kobuleti-ndbs-without-function/?do=findComment&comment=3421379

It really doesn't: RL pilots say a boom is capable of "driving" you around. Once you're hooked up, it's much easier to maintain your position than it currently is in DCS. It's why currently drogue refuelling is much much easier in DCS than boom refuelling, while IRL it is the other way around. It does: if you fly in MP (with a squadron) you can see that.

If you want to power all the systems with ground power you’ll also need to have ground air connected and applied for equipment cooling, then all the ground power switches on the left rear will stay on

Versuch dich mal vor so einen Bildschirm zu setzen. Die Diagonale ist das eine, aber die Seitenverhältnisse sind das andere. Das muss einem liegen. Die 34"er die ich so kenne sind extraweit im Verhältnis zur Höhe. Was bei einem Auto Rennspiel bestimmt cool ist, stelle ich mir bei DCS und im Desktop Betrieb schwierig vor. Bei DCS ist doch der Blick nach oben/in die Vertikale recht wichtig. Da würde mir im Verhältnis zur Breite was fehlen. Ähnlich würde es mir auf dem Desktop gehen, wenn der horizontale Weg so viel länger ist als der in der Vertikalen. Was noch dazu kommt und was jeder ein wenig anders empfindet ist das Thema PPI. Also wieviel Pixel du per Zoll Bildschirm hast. Das ist bei 32" 1440p schon grenzwertig, wenn man noch gute Augen hat. Gröber sollte es nicht werden. Ich bin jahrelang sehr zufrieden gewesen mit meinem 32" 1440p Samsung in DCS. Aber dann lief mir der 42" übern Weg Deshalb wie gesagt: im Idealfall mal selbst anschauen und einen eigenen Eindruck gewinnen. Und im Zweifel noch etwas warten. LG und ich meine auch Samsung haben für 2024 einige größere Gaming Monitore mit OLED angekündigt. Das müsste sich im Bereich zwischen 32" und 38" bewegen, wenn mich nicht alles täuscht. Vielleicht ist da was besser passendes dabei - nicht dass du jetzt schnell kaufst weil du nicht wusstest dass da was neues kommt.

Yeah, I'd like that too, was just talking about it with my friend, we can drop weapons anyway we like, over-g the pods etc. Would be great to have that implemented.

This rivet counter approach wouldn't be such a problem if they gave us more than 2-4 numbers per squadron. But apparently the livery guy likes to move on to the next fancy paint scheme rather than dealing with the disadvantages and consequences of using static numbers. (There was a screenshot on reddit and it looks like we're getting a grand total of 2 numbers per squadron for the F-4. But 200 different squadrons, of course) I don't mind rivet counting but what I do mind is ending up with just 4 numbers after 4 years of early access. (F-14) At this point I'd rather have "generic" dynamic numbers. HB's way of doing liveries is overambitioned and badly executed. 2 static numbers per squadron, not again, no thank you, hard pass.

DCS MiG-23 MLA 23-12A update Here below is the latest update from our devs working on the mighty MiG 23MLA 23-12A. - The external model is 90% complete. Work on the final elements of the visual damage model and the liveries remains. - The internal model (cockpit) is around 70% complete, with about 95% of the required animations and textures for the coding process already made. The cockpit is currently using simple textures while the more detailed and realistic ones are a work in progress that will be shown once the work is in a more advanced state. - The module manual draft is in an advanced state and will be finished soon. We´ll see if it can be shared with the community eventually once it is more complete to help in the wait. - Aircraft systems modeling and cockpit interactivity is in full swing for some time now. Initial testing of the aircraft in game has already started. Bye Phant

@currenthill any chance in getting the RAF dominie t1 for the uk asset pack?

Much as I love DCS and what ED do for us, I must admit I do find it difficult to understand how the AI can be so useless and why it is taking so long to make improvements. I spent several years flying Falcon 4 and they were not so bad there. Surely a key part of a sim which is played extensively in single player mode.........

D

Kinda +1 for the whole sentiment. I've not been very long with DCS, but most of the time nothing frustrated me more than bugs I encountered only to find out they were reported years ago. Things like long hand on L-39 with pilot body shown, flaps/canopy controls in TF-51D (thankfully fixed recently!), Yak-52 toggle binding not working, minor but annoying Caucasus ATC bugs, etc. There are many other bugs other people care and I don't. I know bug fixing is not fun and you need also to bring in new stuff, but I'd have no problem having a slower year with more bug fixes. Of course, other people (and perhaps most of them) see it differently. I'm really just voicing the sentiment. I wish DCS had fewer long-standing bugs. With or without a public tracker, I'm fine with the forums. In retrospect, I also see some fixes, sure. But I'm not sure the debt is decreasing - especially with all the new stuff coming out. That must mean more maintenance in the future.

Ok I can now make it work but it always loses the signal near the landing point. Thank to all

That’s basically my point. I am by no means mad at HB. I fully understand that these things take time. But on the other hand I think at this late stage of development a status update would be a tremendously good thing. And it doesn’t hurt as they do not need to give a date. They only need to say they are on track - or not. That would totally suffice. Helps to manage expectations if the set schedule cannot be met.

Please ED also give us some of the airfield equipment like an updated Ural 4320/APA-5d, towbars, and the like. I really liked the old Virpil airfield mod from a few years back. Also, thank you for the MiG-29. It is indeed a dream come true for me. I suppose a request for the Su-25 or maybe a Su-27 as well would be out of order....lol.

That's not completely true. If you're in CSS there will be an "A/P" advisory on the left DDI while it's active. The other modes will also have advisory in the left DDI indicating they're active (i..e "BALT" for barometric altitude hold). And trim pitch to centre the VV in the middle of the AOA staple that will come up on the HUD when gear is down to get correct AOA for landing. And after that use THROTTLE to control your pitch (rather than stick) for your landing. Seems counterintuitive when you 1st try to do that, but it is the proper way to do it.

If it were an A-4 I bet it could land inside

Hi, I know you have your priorities and your limited hands on solving bugs and issues. But it will reduce the user frustration to see in every patch an ancient bug resolved and knowing that in the next update another ancient bug for a different airframe is resolved and the same for the next update. So every user can expect one (at least one) old bug solved of their favorite helo/plane for the next 6 months or one year. I reviewed the change logs in every update and in all of them there is a lot of work done, of course, but there is always the feeling that some planes received more attention than others, even when there are reported bugs for years. I'm sure that focus in one (just one) of them for a different airframe in every patch will not disturb so much your development roadmap. And I'm not referring about eternal bugs discussions about 1 RPM or 5s more and the engine is death, I mean radios not working, incorrect bind controls, graphical glitches, etc. What I'm looking for is not a punctual action, but a scheduled task that we can track. At this moment we only have your words (which I appreciate) but few facts (which I appreciate more) I tried to be not rude, but I'm not English speak native, so thank you for understanding.

Hi, we know it can be frustrating for some users, we are dealing with lots of data and reports which take time to reproduce and report. We also then have to work on the priority issues first which may differ from users understanding of what is a priority. We tag most bug reports on the forum with its status. When we have fixes we list them in our change log, that is the best place to see what has been fixed and what we have been working on. You can see we are not " abandoning " products, we even work on products that are over a decade old, work on older modules takes time as we have to fit it in when the dev teams have free time form other tasks, this can be frustrating and does require patience. So please as mentioned review our change logs, it is the best place to see what work is being done to modules, the core of DCS and for new features. thank you

bump ... our flight group can confirm ... Case III in Multiplayer and with more than one Pilot in a flight are absolutly confusing .... One only Client in a flight works ... sometimes ... Its very anoying ... please try Case III with two Clients in one flight in example Enfield-1-1 and Enfield-1-2 brg

Hi @TAIPAN_ The Viper manual is currently being reviewed internally and a newer version will be released soon. We apologize for possible changes in the current version of the module that may render some sections of its manual a bit outdated. Please consider the fact that creating such a manual is a very extensive work that needs to be checked with available sources.

Operation Jupiter has been updated. It contains 3 missions: A template type mission for pre-invasion. Ground has radars and flak only. No set ground targets. Intended for dogfight mayhem. A template type mission for post-invasion (very similar to the old Operation Jupiter layout). Ground has radars and flak only. No set ground targets. Intended for dogfight mayhem. Adlertag an objective based mission that runs for about 3 hours loosely based on 'Eagle Day' Download is attached You will need Normandy 2.0 and WW2 Assets pack If some warbird pilots could give them a try and provide feedback that would be great. Hopefully you like them. Edit: All other missions have been removed from user files as they are broken

@currenthillI had a nice multiplayer hop yesterday using your beautiful Tu-95. It really is a great adition for the sim! However we noticed that the propellers won't turn. I haven't seen this when I placed the bear in my single player missions, but I was using the older version of your pack back then.

What would cause me to receive this while trying to connect to Enigma Discord?

Not my experience at all. She is rock steady in the landing pattern. Behind the tanker is a piece of cake. And I mostly fly the "A" because, well I like a challenge. Do you have a track or video that we can see so that we may ascertain what's going on?

Hi, as already mentioned by Raptor it is not correct for the US Army AH-64D

Hello, I think this problem was reported in 2D Bugs... a while ago but didn't find any attention. Since the harrier is the only plane I fly with a targeting pod, I dont' know if others would do the same. When having a spot tracked with the tpod and you fly a 180 ° turn eventually away from the target the fps drop from anything down to very low. Only happens with shallow angles mostlikely when the exhaust gets into the tpot field of view. Game becomes close to unplayable until you change angle or turn the tpod off/change target!