Leaderboard

Miltech-5 Bo-105

Added the T-Bird II livery for USA Inviato dal mio SM-F731B utilizzando Tapatalk

Please leave PC out of DCS, thanks.

I love the cup coffee

The ship has been released and updated. Wishing everyone a happy new year.

The booster will initially speed it up. But it will settle its cruise speed just below Mach 1.0, like the real thing. I will go through all the weapons when updating the country pack the next time, and I will check if the booster needs tweaking.

It wasn't anything you did or said. It's all on someone else that accused players of being "low knowledge gamers that didn't care about history" and accused Heatblur of false advertisement. I won't mention any names but his initial is Vampyre.

Dear all, I'd like to add default F-16C skins to several more countries: 1- Norway 2- Egypt 3- Denmark 4- Belgium 5- The Netherlands 6- HAVE GLASS skins for OH, SP, SP, and WW. All submission should be standard gray birds, not "peacock" and fantasy paint schemes. Please feel free to list your skins here if you'd like to be considered. I can offer ED Miles and credit in the newsletter as thanks. Kind regards, Matt

I hope you find these helpful:

Started work on 1 of the two tails Edwards AFB did. Been tricky with only one side showing lol.

Digital Combat Simulator Black Shark 2024.02.04 - 04.08.18.0125 - Trim1.mp4 Turret aim by mouse input, turret slewing works with headtrack and VR point of view and key input too. Animations will come after i got a few things sorted, like the boresight and maybe a ccip indicator. null

Oh, I see. That envolves something deeper, then. Please add this to the Wishlist section of the forum here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/207-dcs-core-wish-list/ Maybe we can pick up this suggestion for a future feature.

The current option seems to be built around Blue with the assumption that Blue will always have optimum GPS while any other coalition may or may not. If the option was separate from Blue and could be applied independently to any coalition, that would add the following new possibilities: -Blue with degraded GPS -Non Blue with optimum GPS while Blue has degraded GPS -Better support for more coalition if added in the future I think it would also be a little more intuitive form of the GUI. Here is a rough edit of your image showing what it might look like:

Hello all After we reviewed the tracks and observed the conditions, we believe we have found the culprit for your reports. It's actually a feature in DCS, regarding GPS quality. In your track @RPY Variable your F-16C is set to the Red Coalition. As such, the GPS quality is by default much lower than the Blue Coalition. In order to mitigate this, you can select "unrestricted sat nav" option in the Mission Editor or just select a Blue coalition side. I tested this myself with the DCS: F-16C Viper and with the DCS: A-10C II Warthog and you can observe the difference. Without proper or with poor GPS guidance, the GBU-38 can have a CEP at about 30m or even more. So this is actually well modelled. Thank you for your patience and, yes, this was a tricky one.

you dont need to do anything different, it will be a seamless update for you. When we are ready to patch you just update as usual. No changes in your folders your tools wont be affected.

Yes, absolutely! On launch you can use the arg system for this, but later on we will offer all ethnicities- super important for us.

Like in almost every helicopter ( at least the ones I have flown) there's no such thing as a re-centering. It will basicly stay in the position where you bring it to. So a spring loaded joystick is pretty useless and unrealistic when it comes to fly helicopters. In regards of the "stickfeel": As spoken for the Huey, it's pretty soft. You feel a marginal counterpressure when starting the movement. Once over it the stick moves very smooth until you stop it at any position. You could flick the stick with a finger at any position and the stick would wander through up to it's mechanical stop. In other helicopters featuring electro-mechanical trimming systems the feel is a little different. The haptical mechanical feedback from the rotorsystem is less present but that might be a subjective impression. Cheers

RAZBAM A-29B Super Tucano.

Oho, even BN can get snappy….. I can’t imagine the sheer amounts of cool-juice you guys need to consume everyday to keep your composure all the time! I all seriousness, here‘s to you: cheers!

In this case, few care about what you believe, because at the end of fhe day, this is a simulator environment! If you want to take-off instantly, then you chose the wrong product, the market is saturated with software allowing you to spawn into battle with unlimited combat loads. Luckily, ED PR this software as a simulator themselves, and if you, or anyone here, lacks 20 minutes for a full alignment procedure, they should consider thoroughly if they should be spending time on a simulator. This translates even more to reading up on manuals and understanding the aircraft, which requires even more time than that! Let me introduce you, and the rest of the apparent heretics here to a new thought! Instead of starting up within 5 minutes (that's why accelerated INS procedure exists!), flying to the AO and getting shot down instantly (because you never planned anything, least of all, your flight), resulting in multiple restarts per session (accounting to more than 20 minutes, I'm sure!). You might as well use those 20 minutes of alignment to carefully look at where you're going, and what threats are estimated along the route, read the briefing you never have time for, and the likes. That way, at least you'll have more chance of staying alive. In the end, if the task proves too monumental to handle, luckily, as mentioned before, you can go to the mission editor on equip your Ka-50 with baby wheels (reduced INS alignment times). The option however, is a detraction from reality, something this simulator wants to achieve, thus not being default. Qualitative estimations of how many people want the realistic INS vs. unrealistic one, is irrelevant. None of you have either data, nor any evidence for this. I however, have evidence that people join this simulator due to the realism aspect, as its main selling key. That's that!

Great! Hopefully they'll be of the same quality as the work of "lee1hy" and "141st_Gözcü" for example. And there is a pack that replaces all the default US liveries by much higher quality ones but I can't for the life of me remember who made them (edit: found it - that pack is made by “Texac”)

Back in business.

It would be cool if ED would offer some slight Models modifications to better fit those requested paint schemes. (Small mouth, PW Engine, and maybe even an A tail with Chute option) It’s unfortunate that the model that was picked for the full fidelity module is so very US specific. It was previously stated that ED is not interested in making a hybrid model or expanding to include different blocks. Personally, I would absolutely pay for an official, visual only expansion pack for the F-16. To include accurate liveries on the correctly configured exterior model. -Woog

Sale started today:

In reality, this is probably done by the ground crew in all cases, the pilots have better things to do than sit in the helicopter for 20 minutes and do nothing. The briefing is carried out beforehand and then they get into a helicopter that is on standby "ready to go" In dcs we have the problem that most server admins don't know what the INS in ka50 is all about and leave it on default... Even in missions we use "stored ins" because we only get into the machines after briefing. and waiting 20 minutes would be absurd. "Realism" to do something every time that the pilots probably rarely do themselves. Time is an important resource. I'm also a fan of being as realistic as possible, but waiting 20 minutes for an imaginary timer to expire is just absurd

it would update both if you used the updater on each of them, but you will only need one. My advice would be to remove the open beta version when the time comes if you have both installed currently, this will save disk space.

Folks get their crotch straps in a twist for a first-gen HMCS on a Phantom, but if we're honest it won't do as much good as people think because you still have to swing that nose around to put the target in the missile flight envelope. The Soviet HMCS on a MiG-29 made such a big splash because it came with a missile that had more seeker FOV and the envelope to make actual use of it. The situational awareness is a whole other matter, I'm not flying F-teens without HMCS any-more because I like to know who's where. HOBS missile or not, the HMCS on a Jeff will be a huge improvement.

Then you had this absolute mf'er https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-chico-the-gunfighter-the-very-unique-gun-podded-stormy-fast-fac-f-4e-phantom-ii-used-during-the-vietnam-war/

For those of us with good gunnery skills, I’d prefer all the rounds be grouped on the paper.

Sorry for the reply in English, I have no Italian language skills While it's true that the F4U is no F-35, I would argue that some aspects are as challenging to get right and find documentation on. We expect a lot more than your average flight sim game and this can push development a lot longer as well. I believe this team is small and while the module might have been announced 6 years ago, it doesn't mean this has been their sole focus this whole time. I know it can be a painful wait but its not on purpose or lack off effort. Thanks.

With the newly announced 6 week (at best) update cycles, if it doesn't release by mid-February they will miss the "end of winter" promised deadline as first of April will be the next update period. (We never see new modules released without a corresponding update as it has to be included as an AI in the base-sim.)

DCS is an ever evolving software platform utilizing dozens of modules supported by dozens of 3rd party developers, there will always be bugs, that's just the nature of platform software. Removing the beta/release branches removes a SP/MP/Community split, and removes the need to monitor and maintain both code paths, instead, ED can focus on a singular code path, instead of developing fixes for both OB and release.

Why so fast with the "correct as it is"? This has no sense. 1) If there were drift between the target and the waypoint, for example 30 meter to the left, the bomb should fall away from the target (+-30m to the left), but with the same CPG. All bomb should fall near each other, because there is an offset, but the bomb accuracy (CPG) shouldn't change. Image attached showing what I mean. 2) The waypoint was in place in the editor, the mission was just started, so there should be no error, and what shows that there is no error is the TGP pointing to the tank, which was CZ, it was not slewed at any time. In this case, it should work as a B2 with preplan waypoints. Is a INS/GPS bomb. 3) They are also very apart in azimuth, so it not a distance (laser) thing. 4) I tried with lase, almost same result. Image attached. null F16 GBU38 CEP with Laser.trk

Amen!

Isn't DCS World a huge sandbox? And I, when I was a kid, used to sit in the sand and play with the toys that I got. Ten percent were in my hand and ninety percent happended in my imagination. So if there's a Phantom in DCS World and it's as close as possible to the real Weasel... well, I'll take it! This has nothing to do with false promises or even malicious advertising fraud.

New image of the F4u-1D Corsair on the Magnitude3 Facebook

Magnitude 3: We'd like to wish a respectful Waitangi Day to all the Māori and New Zealanders down South.

Hello @Wags, I have an Egyptian F-16 livery posted on the userfiles, it is static bort but could easily be modified to be with dynamic bort numbers with your cooperation. The livery features custom weathering, labels, and bort numbers here are some of the images and the userfile link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3321815/

ED showed some while ago that they reworking the Shrike. When those become available we'll implement them of course.

You pre-program certain Landmarks in the Nav System with their coordinates. Then you lock this point via Shkval (or fly over that). Then you tell the INS that you just showed it this known point with known coordinates. Using that Info, INS can correct the drift because you just told it for a brief moment where the airframe really really is right now.

Updated NX611 paint

Hi, I was wondering if the greying out of the photos in the manual (to highlight the part being taught) could be made less obvious (ie. make it a bit more transparent)? Maybe I am just not used to it but I find the greyed out photos a little strange on the eyes for learning and do prefer the traditional approach of numbering or boxing. I get what it is trying to do and it does negate the need for arrows and numbers/boxes. But I think the traditional approach helps the reader relate/reference the part being taught with the rest of the pit. Just a personal preference thing/feedback.

Игра с модами

In this case I don't care what is realistic. A small minority would want to wait 20 minutes. Ka50s should default to being pre-aligned unless the mission designer selects otherwise.

Having worked on INS equipped aircraft with no GPS in the past, I can confirm that ground crew would typically align the INS and switch to Nav before the aircrew arrived.

I don't think it's a question of realism, but rather abstraction of ground crew procedures, and understanding of practicality in what is a computer game at the end of the day. I believe that the real navigation system needs 40 mins to align. However, it is certainly something that the ground crew would set up, and would be done by the planned take-off time. The best solution would be to give players an alignment "cheat" in Special options tab. This is not unprecedented, as many aircraft have things like simplified crosshair, take-off, nosewheel, etc. If the Realism cheat is not set up on the server, the navigation system is simply unusable for any precise task, and I think it's less realistic than starting pre-aligned. I imagine the only time when a real pilot would take off without proper alignment is an emergency scramble. Any normal mission, the ground crew would set up the helicopter for planned take-off time. In, particular, none of the Single Player campaigns that I've played have this enabled. They also plan the take-off time to be immediate. So in practice you just always have extremely poor nav precision. I strongly believe this is way less realistic than having your machine aligned when you load into a mission. I personally actually enjoy playing with the weakness of the system, and needing to do fixtaking - however, this does no good if you lose alignment in a few minutes after anyway. What I don't enjoy is being expected to wait 20-40 mins before I start the Ka50 up to be able to meaningfully use the system. Additionally, this is a video game, and you cannot expect people to wait this long. As someone above pointed out, refuel and rearm takes 2 minutes instead of dozens, and you can do it at any position in the airfield vicinity, so a departure from literal realism is not unprecedented here. Having the option to simplify this behavior is reasonable. I would see this as an abstraction of ground procedure.