Leaderboard

Do not write any articles that will cause conflict or provocation under this subject, this is not a fight hall, we just think that some things need to be understood, that's why we are opening this topic. Dear ED team and members, I have been producing liveries here for a long time, also i took steps to make the textures look as good as possible and i know people who do the same. The reason I'm bringing this topic up is that we want to know exactly what the ED team expects from livery producers. Because we agree that there is no respect for livery producers after the recent events, no one works for something that will be bad for the community here, everyone strives to be better. I understand that 3rd party DLC producers are free to add liveries of people they want to DCS. But I don't quite understand why some advanced liveries offered by ED are ignored, in addition, every livery ED adds takes up space in the files. Yes, we can delete them, but they are restored with every update. Many of these liveries are of unnecessarily poor quality and should not be there, or should be fixed. I'm sure some people had contacted the ED team before this about adding a livery, and the same response everyone got was that no livery would be added anymore, or not in the plan. For example, our friend named @Texac remade the F-16 template as best as he could. It is a great effort to rearrange the rivets one by one, but I personally did not see any interest from ED. It's as if the template made by Texac is invisible, or maybe it is. Not just that, @Roughmaster, @wolfthrower ,@Kerbo 416, @2IAE-CrashBG, and people like that are too many. These people do not get money from ED, there is no need, they do what they do because they love it, if ED gives them the impression that they do not respect them, of course these people will not do anything anymore, or they will do it but they will not share it with anyone, I don't know if ED will lose anything from this, but there is only one thing I know. It is necessary to establish proper relationships. Nobody here is saying that someone made a mistake or that someone's livery is bad, everyone makes mistakes, just ignoring the help shown is a big problem. I don't want to play the role of a wise man, but I would like to ask the ED team or @Wags to please provide some information on this subject, Thank you in advance, Have a nice day.

RAZBAM Mig-23MLA https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/1196617030233751573/1206823664109092906

Baltic Dragon: The fact that I am quite means I am hard at work The Arctic Thunder campaign for Kola map by Orbx is coming together nicely. Having a blast testing the missions built so far getting them ready for your voiceovers!

Just as an input I believe should be noted here. I enjoy seeing all the livery contests that makes people strive to make some amazing liveries. Now, im norwegian and part of the largest DCS community of Norwegians in DCS, and lets just say that it did not go unnoticed when the 2024 and beyond trailer showcased F16s in Norwegian liveries. As such I was looking forward to seeing some great inputs for the Norwegian liveries, but (and I say this without critizing the artist that got chosen) I feel like ED missed out on an opportunity by cancelling the "contest" and just deciding to go for a specific artist from the start. Especially when the largest Norwegian DCS community uses the liveries of a different artist. Like I said, this is not a critism of the artist or artwork that was chosen, just a bit dissapointed by the choices to NOT make it a competition and allow users to vote. Would have been great to see all the different inputs as well as a great way to acknowledge the amazing work done by so many artists. I still look forward to the Norwegian Liveries beeing added though

Aqil, thank you very much for this post. Seeing one (talented for sure) creator be asked to create skins whilst they already exist from multiple other creators such as you mentioned was disheartening. I hope ED can reconsider their choice and add liveries from different Viper-loving creators, as we have all poured our hearts and souls into them, giving them extra details like rivets, reinforcement plates, nozzles, that make them so much more realistic.

Sadly, there are english subtitles.

Agreed, the encryption of the recent AI model enhancements and the decisions of liveries included in game, while excluding others is very discouraging to some of the people who put in dozens, if not hundreds of hours of work into making this game more enjoyable for all of us. I hope ED can consider at the very least adding liveries that are created in excellent quality from users such as Texac, Roughmaster, and Crash among others. Among others, not including roughmets in the B-17 competition, excluding excellent creators from inclusion in the game, encrypting the models which were recently released, issues in the templates and textures. ignoring requests for normals on older models.

пока в линуксе такой бардак с драйверами (а точнее пока производители железа кладут болт на поддержку своих устройств в линуксе) ничего толкового с этой идеей не выйдет. вспомните количество разных джойстиков, видеокарт, про виар вообще молчу. почти все это под линуксом мертво.

I understand it may be difficult to understand why tasks take so long, again I can not stress the complexity of what is required for the data cartridge implementation, work is in progress, spending time on other interim solution's would just waste more time when we are already working on a core solution. We are not going to change the fact that a pure client will be required for servers who enable the full integrity check, as stated many times. Servers can already allow mods and edits by adjusting the IC levels or by disabling it. The servers who run full integrity check do so for a reason, there are people out there who cheat. thank you

nullИмпульсный режим на малой высоте. "Режим фантома"))))

80% of the complexity was modeling the pilot’s “Olds” style mustache and its response to G effects. The F-14 pilot is clean shaven - that’s easy.

DCS seems to base the capabilities of HPRF (and I would guess the entire radar implementation) on target aspect, not closure. To reproduce: Select HPRF, try to detect a contact that is flying away from you, it will be impossible (0% Pd) to detect at any range, any Vc, or any dragging heading. The direction an object is facing is irrelevant to radar, it doesn't care what side is the "front". HPRFAspect.trk

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335700/

I am not sure about ED's position as a company, or the rest of the community's opinion. However in my humble opinion custom liveries are an essential part of this game and locking them out for any reason is not a good idea. I know there were quite a few people who were excited to make liveries for the newly released models only to then be disapointed with the reality. if this is the future from now on then I'd be very disappointed in ED. (I think that sometimes we as a community can be too hard on ED, however this time I think the criticism is fair, and while the wording may be harsh, I think that is coming from the language barrier present rather then any malicious intent) I think in the future having an avenue of communication with the skinning community (weather that be through the Livery Art Group Discord or some other forum such as a channel on the official discord) would allow ED to incorporate the best of what people are creating for this game, while acknowledging the effort put in to such work.

Can we please have more Air refueling tankers which are unique to China? Like the YY-20 based on the Y-20A? Or also the H-6U? YY-20 H-6U It's also been quite q while since we've seen or heard of any updates on the CAP. Is there anything new inbound to DCS?

Please more screenshots with helos at low level I am already using your current mod (same for other RW pilots of my Virual Squadron) and for sure we are waiting for your next improvments who is just amazing. Caucasus map is reborn ! I hope that te coming Kola Peninsula map will be of the same quality at low altitude... otherwise you know what you'll have to do!

I had this issue, at least it sounds like the exact same issue. Switching from FM to AM fixed it. Radios appear to default to FM and you just need to switch it.

Because Immersion Corp. had the patent, and they behaved like a patent troll. Sony and Microsoft were willing to pay for licensing on their consoles, but MS dropped it for computers. Flightsims are a footnote compared to racing sims. Just look at all the gear that's available. I do believe the patent now has expired. Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Thanks a lot @PeeJott17, looks really nice and seems to work with no issues on my DCS

Bump If you look at this older video, it takes about 18 seconds from advancing the throttle to the aircraft coming alive. Or this video showing a similar behaviour, about 19 seconds or so. And now a recent video, the engine is spooled up within 10 seconds after advancing the throttle. The manual also mentiones that the engine should attain Idle power in about 35 seconds. The "new" 10 seconds startup is way too fast. @Flappie @NineLine Can this get looked at? Here's a track showing the engine starting up in 9 seconds: F-5.trk

From experience - I was at one point a QA manger and have worked on a few AAA titles - I would expect ED has had access and made builds with these modules for quite some time, even if they weren't testable in the way people assume. The earlier you can get code into your builds, the easier it is to pick up regressed issues elsewhere in the product. The easier it is to get your CI/CD process and associated automated tests in place so as they deliver more and more of the module it's easier to test and certify. We've already seen the F4E in many different videos anyway, so it's a bit of a giveaway.

Please dial it back, no one is making excuses. The data cartridge is a very complex task, it is for more than one aircraft and it will take time, I think some think we are a massive company with unlimited resources, we are not so you will have to continue to be patient. thank you

Sorry, forgot to provide a source! "ED advised that the aircraft from Polychop is now in testing by ED's external testing team" They also said they fully intend to further update and support the Gazelle, good news for those that bought the earlier product!

I want somebody who sounds like Joanna Lumley to vector me in, wish me luck, and then weep as I plummet into the Channel.

As of about three updates ago (open Beta), the time for the engine spool up to 10% when applying air is unrealistically short. A similar thing also happens on spool down. Once the RPM lowers to around 10%, the audible turbine noise rapidly cuts out even though the RPM is still dropping gradually by the gauge. Additionally, you can no longer hear the turbine blade rattle once the engine is at very low revolutions as you once could. These issues happen regardless of other conditions.

Hey, so, kind of don't know how to approach this to be honest. I have been creating skins for over 5 years now I think and in that time period I got to work with some of the most amazing livery creators for DCS, even help some to learn ( while I learned myself ) and watch them grow as artists and become the best for the specific module they are working on. for me personally I love working on the viper, I enjoy painting it, researching for months about the panels and decals and trying to make each livery as real as possible down to the last detail, either by myself or as a Collab with other amazing artists such as my good friend @Roughmaster, all of us who are passionate about creating highly realistic liveries for the viper, do it not only for growing as artists but also to make the community better, to make DCS look amazing, and always appreciate the fact we have this platform to work on. this is why this is difficult for us to understand, its a feeling of being unnoticed when clearly so many people put so much effort out of their free time to create new content. content that brings more people towards DCS (and the viper module specifically in this case), content that already exists in very high quality, so why did you chose to ignore it? most of us don't want to annoy the ED staff with requests to put their specific skin in game so we wait, for opportunities like competitions, so when we pour our heart out into a livery knowing there wont ever be an opportunity...its kind of disappointing and honestly brings the wind out of our sails. I think all of us would like ED to consider to use some of those user created liveries, and not just by one specific creator. but ultimately we will of course respect any decision you guys make, I know there are a lot of things to consider also that we as livery creators are not aware of when implementing new skins in the sim. thank you.

There has been some very odd activity around previous competitions - the Apche one asked for entries and had some amazinbg skins produced....and the winners were plain green with a different squadron badge. The B17 competion and the discussions around roughmets and PBR/Specular maps.....then the Mossie competiion that again, the winners were rather similar to what was available already. A competiion usually showcases the best and the most innovative, the most creative, a winner should be head and shoulders above the others. For @Wags to ask for entries and then a minute later say we are going with someone who in my view is surpassed in terms of creativity and innovation by many others seems again, unusual. Its also sad that the most talented livery creators out there dont even bother to enter the livery competions any more. They just dont see the point of putting days of work into a complex, custom 3 colour Apached camoflage pattern when the see winning entries are indistinguishable from t he default one. I produce skins for several prominent content creators, official campaign makers and third parties. i know many others pixel-pushers that do. We all would have liked the oppertunity to contribute to what we all spend countless hours on, day in, day out. You missed another opeprtunity, ED, another missed oppertunity. Sad times.

Issue reported. Thanks for the tracks and videos.

NTTR has "zone 51 " :-0 I agree with @Schlingel mit Kringel that the most training programs are with NTTR.

Hmmm, Joanna Lumley, check. Hot Madamé, check. Lixman nickname change to “Dinghy-Lixman” check. We’re gonna need a village pub to repair to, I can feel it in my waters. A bicycle or two or a bicycle made for two and a tidy little motor. Drivable of course, wicker hamper with wine, everything right and proper. Right. Splendid. Cold shower what? Carry on chaps, toodle pip.

In DCS you will probably choose the method that gives you the best results or the most fun (or a combination of both factors).

This should be fixed in the next patch.

https://discord.com/channels/974874076977967124/974889495587594321/1206767707656036402 Check Six Simulation Discord

That does nothing to address the fact that we used to have a feature that stood in for DTC, and it got severely restricted. Of course DTC is a huge and complex feature, that's why the interim solution should have been allowed to stand.

What's your solution? How do we make them behave? Here's a cut from 2024 and beyond newsletter: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/341284-official-news-2024/?do=findComment&comment=5365197

The Phantom module was used to completely revamp Heatblurs codebase including Jester 2.0 and the new RWR system, not to mention that every single component has been meticulously detailed with degradation, wear, and failure with the new component system. The F-14 has no where near that level of component modelling and while they will be backporting things like Jester 2.0, the grease pencil, and the RWR(at least for the Early A with the Strobe RWR that needs the sounds), adding the component system would probably require them to redo the entire F-14 as it goes so far as to model that some lightbulbs might burn out faster or might randomly be dimmer than others. Hydraulic pistons might stick in places, targeting pod motors can be worn out seperately on the x and y axes, etc. No other module has ever done this. Also don't forget that the F-4E is even more analogue than the F-14. Take the radar especially. Imagine how hard it will be to "interpret the smudges" and lock onto the target instead of the ground. It's that much harder to code because they have to include the ground clutter a lot more and animate that onto the scope realistically.

For verification. However according to accounts from former pilots and LSOs, the reason for aircraft type is to ensure the arresting gear is set, and 15 seconds is plenty of time for adjustment. What's missing from the guides is the context of the "old" days where there's a huge difference between an A-6, an F-14, and an F/A-18 coming in, to today where it's all Rhinos. Plus the newer Ford class carriers with arresting gear that doesn't even need to be set per aircraft type because of its design and advancement in technology. Pieterras guide is tailored mostly to present-day operations. People often forget this context. Once we get the Naval Phantom, the A-7, and F-8 I'm sure we'll see people doing everything according to Pieterras' guide--when period footage and documentation shows no clearing turns and carrier breaks at 300kts--because they haven't considered context or multiple primary sources, instead putting all their faith in one unvetted personality.

What do you mean 'Feature' as it's some kind of thing we should be grateful for... it's an integral part of the module, it's not on me, a paying customer for an expensive module such as the F-16, to make my own server, or find a server that allows modded files or rely on the default settings that you can't alter in the cockpit. You've missed the point completely about ED having years to implement the data cartridge feature and spending time and effort actually limiting a modules capabilities while providing no interim alternative. People like you who make excuses for a company are part of the problem as to why things like this happen and basic bugs and issues never get fixed.

I'll look into seeing if it can be shared here. I can't recall what discord it came from. maybe even mine. I was on a bit of a modding break, lol

I've got some updates for the MAM V-22. Main issue I'm having is getting it to do a ground start WITHOUT the wings in the level position and "smashing" the props into the ground. Vertical take off from parking hot has always work from ship for me, but it's been awhile since I tested landing. I'm pretty sure I had the start up issue fixed but then one of the DCS updates broke all the STOVL landing stuff for a bit and I lost track of the file The other V-22 MOD I think you guys are taking about has the wing rotation animation linked to the landing gear animation. A novel idea to make it work but......It kind of screwed the MOD/model for future updates via lua edit. I'll take a look at the MAM V-22 and post what I have Update. I can't get the freaking engine rotation/start up routine right. If I get the prop to clear the ground at start up they wont go level in flight But I'll at least post the lua with corrected specs. tomorrow But the only animation that's correct is vertical take off from parking hot. Both vertical from ramp and short take off have the props hitting the ground.

Aloha les amis. A little "life-sign" from VSN. Here is the slightly updated VSN F-35 Lighning II (Ver. 1.9.1.103) with slightly tuned EFM and some added changes: EFM: - FBW switch (and Input/Command) added, which swiches FlyByWire on and off (you might want to leave it on) - changed pitch behaviour with FBW-ON (very slight pitch down, almost stable att-hold) - changed flight-behaviour in FBW-ON (I guess more like a lot of guys expect it to be) - camera-shaker slightly reduced - higher AoA in FBW-ON mode possible - changed bahaviour of VTOL-Mode for F-35B (added pitch-thrust for more stable flight) MissionEditor/Statics: - F-35 gets displayed with open Bay-Doors to see what yo are loading onto it F-35C and Carrier: - problems remain. Cable gets caught, but does not slow the plane down enough. SuperCarrier no response from DeckCrew: Force "Hook-to-Cat" is possible by rolling onto the cat, lowering the launch bar and pressing the "Hook-To-Cat" command more than once. Cat gets "fired" when reaching AB-RPM. (If somebody finds the cures to those problems, let me know and I'll update the mod.) https://drive.filen.io/d/75b7b60d-b94a-485d-bef0-2b7d2f3cf447#10i7zdbhjeYYFaGRezYlTPINyC2SR3Pt Since there is a comunity-F-35 Lightning II in the making, that will be a lot better than ours (if you can trust the devs), we will (most likely) halt the developement of the F-35 here. There is no use in developing the exact same plane in parallel, since somebody will eventually waste his or her time doing that, and time is to precious to be wasted. Cheers and enjoy the plane, PeeJott.

I’d love it if the voiceovers could be updated with a full sound pack such that we could replace them with say a really hot French accent

Already done that as requested by Polychop and got lots of grief for it when the module was released! It was exactly what Polychop said they wanted, but people were complaining that "people don't talk that way any more!". Something to bear in mind btw you can also hear my wife in some DLC campaigns, doing ATC

Too soon to tell. Still working on the Sensors section. I should be in a better position to have an accurate ETA once I'm done with the Weapons section.

I don't think they are much interested in taking a game seriously and certainly do not care what peoples opinions are on forums.

For those who come from a background of airframes that in effect have no vices and aid the pilot, it can indeed be frustrating trying to utilise an older aircraft in a manner to which your muscle memory and expectations are accustomed to. The F-16 & F-18 are both types that have a multitude of computer assistance to enable safe and effective flight. The F-14 and especially the F-4 are from an age where if you are ham fisted or subscribe to the “bang-bang” method of flying (stick stirring) then you have an airframe that will actively take part in your demise. It WILL try to kill you. That’s not to say that newer flight crews could not handle an older lady, they will just need a few more “get to know you” hours to learn its idiosyncrasies before handling it, and learning that there is no brain to stop you from killing yourself. Dont take Movers performance as an indicator of older being just “too damn hard”, it is just something that those used to “flying laptops” will have to realise that you are now in a situation that demands finesse and forethought.

Polychop OH-58D Kiowa develop pics:

But do you really want to wait and be teased and Irritated by endless previews, progress updates, peoples I wants and then debates/discussions that get heated? Id rather see an end point to modules that have been in use for years which are still classed as "early access" this also reflects on what is currently happening with new modules in development. Finish up and sign off what we have in a priority order. Every new update brings new bugs to old modules [that are still classed as early access] which is a constant frustration to a lot of people, 2024 should be a year where this sim and its modules are squared away, finished, completed and maybe give us a years break or more to further enjoy the sim at a stabilized point. Nothing against development and progression here but maybe ED can do this in the background and only launch it when its fully ready and will integrate into the sim without any bounce back on or to finished modules?