Leaderboard

Miltech-5 / PD BO-105 FM: For the last 2 weeks we have been busy calculating the helicopter downwash. This also includes the stabilizers at the rear. These will be penetrated by the downwash and will make the BO-105 behavior noticeable, especially when landing. This behavior is currently being integrated into the MEDUSA-FM. MODELING: At the same time, the pilot/co-pilot model is entering its final phase.

Did they hide the nature of the pre-purchase... No. Did they falsely advertise that the product was fully fledged and ready to go... No. Did they give you a massive discount, for purchasing it before it was ready without any guarantees of a precise delivery date... Why yes they did. Oh and while I think about it, did they give you an opportunity to get your money back that they didn't have to, yep...

Genau das ist ja die Funktionsweiße von übler Nachrede: Man setzt einfach rufschädigende Aussagen in die Welt ohne dafür irgendwelche Belege zu haben.

They didn‘t charge us, but we choose to pay in advance voluntarily. That’s an important distinction!

New subversion just out: https://github.com/BAAS-Dynamic/DCS-SK60-Mod/releases/tag/v1.2.1 I was looking for a way to hide the pilot body and found it. The update provides a fix for the cockpit glass texture issue, the ability to toggle pilot model on/off, a gunsight gyro and a fix for the radio display. Thank you to the creator for this very nice mod and @Rudel_chw for the missions, finally I have a free mod to train some DCS-wannabe-pilot friends without forcing them to spend money in a module (yet! )

Excactly. And the bottom edge of the cowl flap rose higher.

На самом деле, возможность выбора качества текстур кабины для каждого ЛА пригодилась бы обладателям видеокарт с недостаточным объёмом видеопамяти. Например, поставить средние текстуры для F-14 и высокие для Су-25. Можно в разделе "особые" для каждого ЛА добавить галку "переопределить качество текстур кабины" и возможность выбора качества текстур. Не обязательно привязываться к каким-то конкретным значениям разрешения текстур, просто сделать дублирование опции из основного меню настроек графики. Мне кажется, это не будет загромождать интерфейс и сделать это несложно.

Here are some updates to the V-22. Changes to aircraft specs/mission type. MV-22B is the Marine Transport Version. EV-22 is an AEW aircraft that can use the AWACS mission type and does function as an AWACS aircraft in missions as far as I can tell. Many thanks to the Special Mission Aircraft and Operator's AI Mod V2.0 for the example of how to create an AWACS type aircraft for DCS. Install. NOTE this will REPLACE your current V-22 so back that file up. The MV-22B replaces the standard V-22 You can just add the V22_OspreyAEW file and keep the stock V-22 if you want. Just add the aircraft lua files to the MAM mod folder and add this line to the entry lua file dofile(current_mod_path..'/V22_OspreyAEW.lua') IMPORTANT. Take off mode is base on aircraft weight. I have the "V-22" setup so that a 50% (or lower) fuel load will do a vertical take off and above 51% fuel load will do a short take off. The Wing/Engine animations are only working correctly for vertical take off. During short take off the propellers will hit the ground/deck but it will still take off ok. Also because STOVL aircraft can use both helicopter spots and airplane spots getting them to spawn on the ship's deck where you want in ME can be tricky. STOVL aircraft will only use the helicopter spots if, ONE their weight is low enough for vertical take off and TWO, all the other "plane" spots are full. So if you want to use the MV-22 on a ship like Tarawa or any other carrier make sure all the airplane spots are full BEFORE you add the V-22 (at 50% fuel load) to the deck. Other wise the V-22 will use a "plane spot" and ME will NOT let you reset the position, even if you delete and re add the V-22. And finally I just noticed that while take off from a airplane "runway" start works on ships take off from a parked airplane spot is not working on ships (but does of land) But vertical takeoff (parking hot) from a helicopter spot works fine as long as you can sort out the deck spawn. V22_OspreyAEW.lua V22_Osprey.lua

A decade long wait followed by a few months of YouTubers getting it while we all waited for the unannounced actual delivery? I mean this has been two years since it was announced and they've delayed by at most 2 months after they gave a vague release window.

One side note: the implemented DCS KUB is not too accurate itself. IRL the terminal guidance can also be command guidance with no radar illumination. Combined with TV/IR used on KUB, it may even launch and guide with no warning. In addition KUB launcher can be slaved to BUK launcher, which also is not implemented in DCS (was a feature from the birth of BUK).

Space flight confirmed

Yes, and no. I believe someone probably mentioned yet, but the real inner and huge problem is expectations. The second anybody says anything is under development, or they're trying to, the second some people (we can't blame everybody for that) is eagerly awaiting for whatever it is, and some of them get really insistent about the subject, with crazy arguments like "I'm awaiting since ever", "this is never gonna happen", "they don't deliver as -promised-", and so, and so, and so on. But those people don't realize those and false arguments, telling people somebody is developing anything doesn't mean they will reach their goal, at all (we've seen that with many third parties, many, no longer existing, do you recall some third party was gonna develop a Super Hornet even before the legacy Hornet we have now? no? that's it), they plan to, they'd like to, but sometimes it just isn't feasible for whatever reason, their resources, their team, their budget, or just insurmountable problems they face at some point. AND those expectations are really bad, they become "promises" nobody made in the first place, they become even almost paranoid ideas about teams no longer developing whatever it is, "they've ditched it but they wouldn't tell", and even worse. Do I have to recall some third parties have even disappeared due to those crazy ideas spread? third parties and their teams are humans after all, they aren't impervious to wild, constant criticism, not just here, in here mods and some of us try to chill the thing (because we've seen so much in here, don't get me wrong, we aren't in ED's payroll, but sincerely it's exhausting), but go to Reddit were ED's mods can't do a thing about it, or whatever the external source it is. Those people, while saying they only care and worry about DCS and it's benefit, are really harmful in the end to third party teams and to ED themselves. I haven't paid a thing yet, I've only seen a few screenshots and small videos I like and are nice, I want the module badly of course, but I don't feel myself entitled to demand anyone, third party or not, to finish a damn tough job like making a module is because I'd like to see it in-game right now, or yesterday better. Third parties are humans like me, they bleed when punctured, they suffer with harsh criticism, why would I want them to feel bad about the hard work they embarked in? They're already aware about the timings and the time they've already spent developing a module to the nut, and I haven't bought a thing to the day. Why the wild criticism? is it gonna finish sooner with it? I bet no, perhaps the opposite… Heatblur case is a different kettle of fish, they've already taken people's money (mine for sure) for a module they promised, or kind of, for a date they couldn't fulfil in the end. Ok, fine for me, I won't change my mind and I want Phantom badly, if it takes a few more weeks to finish and polish it the way they mean it to be great, why would I critique them for trying to do their best and deliver what they feel people who paid are ought to? It's great from their part, of course it is, but they had a commitment due to the pre-sale being already there, they had to. On the other hand, M3 haven't charge a penny from anyone yet, not mine for sure, they don't have to deliver and fulfil any promise already made because there is no promise, yet they're still a rather small team (I believe it still is) and if they were here speaking and all, on top of creating even more hype and expectations, while they write here they wouldn't be working on the module, which not only is a module but a huge assets pack and all together with it. I have no problem in letting them work on their goal, releasing a great module, and I'm sure in the end they'll gonna make it sooner than later and crush expectations. But releasing a great module takes time… and this one is huge… Since I haven't bought anything yet and I'm only waiting patiently I feel no urge to demand them a thing. Why some people do? I wouldn't know. Just let them work… Patience mates… patience… P.S.: the 8 years wait said by some people is just false, there might be mentions to it, intentions, but that's not 8 years of development time whatsoever, so why some people want to feel like they're waiting since 8 years ago, I wouldn't know. to recall something, Hornet was gonna be "the next module" after A-10C in 2010, but it happened only a few years ago due to the need for many things, a formal contract with the builder, lots of information, and a platform that allows you to have all the features they wanted the module to have. That's a wait mate, knowing they were trying to get a Hornet module but couldn't deliver yet due to the lacks in the platform we call now DCSW. Yet it's here in it's full glory now despite they had to change game and graphics engine twice or thrice in the meantime, and we're heading towards a fourth engine core change which will allow even greater things. Great things take time. Patience mates, patience…

I do not think we are radio silent, I am here replying to threads and so is Nineline, we have made it clear there will be a longer patch cycle, and we needed to let everyone know that there is only one version now for DCS. I'm not sure why you bring up the discount topic, it is not related to the patch cycle, but we like bringing sales to everyone, we know it helps people enjoy our work. But lets not derail this thread. I do hope we can meet you expectations going forward. best regards bignewy

We have a great team of volunteers and a QA team all working hard and personally I prefer this longer cycle. Of course the goal is to catch as many issues and bugs before a patch as possible and we have already seen this over the last year, which is great. We wont be able to catch every issue, and the bugs the community find and report will still play a vital role in what we do. Development is an ongoing endeavour and DCS will continue to grow and expand. It is also nice to see the multiplayer servers busy, with everyone on the same version now there is more choice for those who were using stable only. thank you

В игре есть настройки текстур для моделей и настройки текстур поверхности. У нас и так огромное количество настроек и делать более детальные от существующих - еще больше загромождать и так тяжелый интерфейс.

I haven't decided whether to use EDs model for IIA, we'll see. There are pros and cons. I've worked a lot on the loadouts. There are numerous alternatives available, but I will differentiate the loadouts by having the most modern weapons on the Flight III and the slightly older weapons on the IIA. This way we can use the two versions in different scenarios. My Flight III will get the MST, since from all the information I've gathered, seem to be the antiship weapon of choice. I haven't seen anything about a VLS LRASM being chosen (besides from the test firing). I want to avoid using the standard missiles as antiship missiles, since it's not its primary role.

Yep, my current US asset pack contains a Flight III based on EDs Burke model, which actually hardly matches the configuration of most of the Flight IIA. So I'm updating my Flight III with a new model as well as an updated loadout and weapons configurations. I also plan to add a Flight IIA with an updated loadout and weapon configurations.

Work in progress for the US pack update.

@Nedum „Sie“ verrennen sich da gerade etwas, verehrter Herr. Ich schlage vor, mal den Fuß vom Gas zu nehmen und eine Nacht darüber zu schlafen.

@Nedum Dream on, Dreamer! So wie aussieht, stehe ich mit meiner Ansicht über Deine Statements nicht alleine da, auch wenn Du Dir jetzt Deine eigenen Aussagen zurechtdrehst. Und seit wann Siezen wir uns hier im Forum? Das sind mir echt die liebsten. Groß im Austeilen und kein bisschen Gegenwind vertragen.

Just a quick note to congratulate Polychop - because they decided to double down on support and updates for the Gazelle, they've made one more sale. It's my first paid DCS module. Although I've flown a fair bit in the sim over the years, I've only recently had time to dedicate myself to learning a platform properly. Between the included modules and the increasingly excellent community modules (if you haven't got the OV-10 Bronca, H-60 family or the outstanding A4 then you're missing out, they're brilliant!) I had plenty to keep me busy. However, the commitment shown by Polychop to support the Gazelle and the huge improvements they have made to it seemed worth celebrating. So, cheers PC, well done and keep it up! Tonker

Air defense engagement zones are never perfectly sized cylinders. Even winds aloft at higher altitudes can affect a missile's kinematic performance, not to mention the other factors mentioned here. The point is that the SAM rings on the HSD are only a rough estimate of danger based on pre-mission intel, rather than a binary state of "safe" or "not safe". Understanding the nature of the threat system capabilities and how they function is much more critical in determining the degree of the danger a threat poses at any given moment.

It seems fine on my DCS: I fully believe Current Hill when he says that on his system he has every one of his Mods loaded and so he knows for a fact that they don't conflict among themselves. If I have a problem with one of his assets, then I check my system fully before reporting a bug, particularly I test with just his Mod loaded, never have had a problem.

Help! Scary browser is scary….. Just refund it then. Personally, I wouldn’t skip this impressive next step in simulation for the very theoretical (so far) and vague threat by a „browser“ in game.

Aiming and SA is a massive AI issue. Their awareness of things around is seemingly tied directly to object position. If they want to focus or attack something, they know exactly where to look. I would like to see some uncertainty added to this. For example if you fly into an enemy's blind spot the enemy should stop tracking your true position and instead track your last know position + velocity, but there should be random error added on that that increases with time, for example. The AI also needs to have react time. If you shoot a missile at it, flares shouldn't be deployed immediately. There should be a fixed human reaction speed delay (sub 1 second) and then an additional delay based on awareness or having to search the sky visually for a missile. This can get complicated very fast. For example when it comes to reactions, real pilots don't always wait for something to happen. They may try to anticipate an event, which could allow them to react to something much faster than they should. A universal AI delay might actually make them too sluggish in some situations because of this. Still, I think such a system can be setup in a reasonable way, but it might take a couple of iterations.

This is and always has been the standard way things have done in the internet software business. I am a 60 year old man and I know this. When you give your money to anyone on line for software, you agree that the software does not in any way belong to you. You are paying for the right to use their software. They reserve the right to do whatever they see fit with it and you have 0 input or control. Read the agreement that you glossed over and agreed to when you paid for it. It specifically says that they own it, you are allowed to use it and they are allowed to do whatever they want with it. You have no recourse. Everyone here should already know this stuff as it is, and always has been the standard for everything in the virtual internet age from the very beginning. Everything from Windows, to C.O.D. If you agreed to their terms, that's what you agreed to. So if this arrangement doesn't suit the purchaser, then maybe they should spend their money on something else. It is very much a buyer beware kind of thing and we all know this. So yes......Entitled.

Easily fixed? Yes. Totally unnecessary? Yes. While I want to agree with you here, you arent losing anything. You certainly can tell the chef its undercooked, but you still have to put your order in, but it also implies that theres a try before you buy period on whether or not you buy it due to something you dont like. The only thing you've lost is patience and you can certainly storm out of the restaraunt and make a scene, but you aint making that chicken come out any faster.

The particular bottleneck they talked about is the CPU though. You didn't mention what you are running.

https://shop.janes.com/all-the-world-s-aircraft-in-service-23-24-yearbook-6541-3000230011 The hard copy of the DCS wishlist

Do you subscribe to our weekly newsletter? If not it maybe worth it, you can subscribe on your DCS account page and get a weekly newsletter on a Friday. You can also follow our social media platforms and join our discord server, I am very active in the discord if you have questions. Links here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/links/ What I do not want is for this thread topic to derail, so please keep to the DCS unification topic thank you

completely trivial ... if you have moved device id's (and thats a windows issue btw not an ED issue) the Joypro App detects it and prompts you asking you if you want to saying something like Joystick X is no longer detected do you want to move it to another one (and then presents you a list in the UI of available devices) ... then just export the control sets and job is done ... but the real "gift" is it makes mapping controls across multiple aircraft much easier ... i mean much easier ... it even made moving from my old joy stick to my new joystick easier

Про текстуры - хотел напомнить предложение упорядочивающее сложившуюся ситуацию. Суть была в том чтобы ввести т.н. "меру разрешения" в пикселях текстуры, т.е. в настройках графики вместо абстрактной настройки сделать (как пример при движении ползунка) 1024>2048>4096 и т.д., дабы при выборе 1024 у всех без исключения ЛА она были именно такого разрешения в вылете, и грузила память соответственно - сейчас эта настройка не даёт понимания загрузки системы т.к. для каждого ЛА разрешение будет отличаться. В случае если у ЛА текстуры относительно небольшие - просто сохранять максимально-возможное их разрешение при выборе бОльшего (н-р имеется текстура 2048, при выборе разрешения 4096 получим те же 2048). А если по этому принципу реализовать настройку разрешения текстур террейна, будет вообще здорово (только там видимо нужно разрешение в виде "пиксели текстуры на площадь террейна").

That's a great news IMHO. I hope this will eventually lead in the long run to a consumer version with less bugs, both in the core game and in the modules. Moreover, groups that plan activity online can rely on a software less subject to sudden changes and more stable, as a consumer product should be. I am absolutely in favour of this new development philosophy.

Dear giullep, We have already explained the the unification of the stable and beta version will have longer patch cycles, this is needed so we can have time to implement new features and test everything in DCS before we patch. The patch cycle will be on average about every 6 weeks ( depending on testing results ) that will mean that videos showing new features will also have a longer cycle, this is to be expected. The great news now is everyone gets the same update at the same time, stable users used to have to wait months before seeing a feature or a fix, so depending on what you used to use you will either see things taking a little longer, or if you were stable things now seem to be happening quicker. thank you

Mal OT, aber gibts hier ne Ignore-Funktion ? Wenn ich so lese was manche hier von sich geben, möchte ich einfach nichts mehr von diesen Personen lesen. Für was halten sich manche Menschen eigentlich ? Unfassbar. Bitte kurze Info obs ne Ignore Funktion gibt. Danke.

Thud

LOAL LO and HI trajectories really mostly applicable to "Remote" engagements in which another platform is lasing the target instead of the launching aircraft. When self-lasing in LOAL, DIR trajectory is sufficient. On that note, George currently does not have the ability to select a point in the database to cue the constraints box for a LOAL shot using LO or HI. Since DIR is sufficient for a self-lasing LOAL shot, I recommend just using DIR for the time being. However, if you do intend to fire on a target using LO or HI while someone else is lasing, you can do this all from the Pilot seat yourself.

I will look at the tracks later. But it should be said that the rwr warning is dynamic, which means that you can get a missle warning between 5-8nm, if you get the missle warning at 5nm and the missle is still very fast you hardly have time to react. Therefore, make your own timings and do not rely on the rwr warning. Otherwise Also fly high and fast and shoot as early as your radar allows against an f15. You can lock an f15 at 55-65nm. If you have a lock, shoot and dive down immediately.

Kannst du mir noch kurz den finanziellen Vorteil durch "nicht Releasen" erklären?! Das war mein ursächliches Problem mit der steilen These.

"Oh my....the sense of entitlement by some here..." That's why we are where we are as a culture today.

Heatblur haben in ihrem Statement eindeutig klar gestellt, dass man bis zuletzt einen pünktlichen Release noch für möglich gehalten, ja selbst als der Entschluss dann gefallen ist den Release zu verschieben war man sich laut dem Statement intern nicht einig ob das wirklich nötig sei. Das mag der ein oder andere hier vielleicht als unprofessionell erachten, aber was es definitiv nicht ist, ist unehrlich oder betrügerich. Wenn du nun unterstellst dass sie die Verschiebung schon länger geplant hätten, ist das ziemlich üble Nachrede!

One of the better comments I've seen here in a long time. Gotta love people discussing the advantages of a Hornet vs. a Viper in a dogfight in smallest detail and then ending up slinging AMRAAMs at each other all day long or finishing the fight slightly after tally with a -9x.

being able to move every waypoint # together instead of individual groups. Example: 30 groups all have the same waypoint 1 but you want to move it somewhere else. Select all the waypoints at once and move them.

The crew can't see your salute at night. You can decide in the F-14 special options: Automatic external lights at carrier launch - Allows using common carrier launch bind (salute) at night which turns on external lights which is the RL sign that you're ready to launch (instead of day salute, more realistic is to use the external lights switch)

I genuinely feel for you guys. Ran software development teams for near 20 years so did my fair share of expectation management. It sucks when outside influences disrupt projects and no amount of contingency can deal with issues like war and contagious viruses. I wish gaming communities understood a little better how these teams work, the distribution of skills, how pipelines work and how you just can't throw money at problems like this, that products like DCS have legacy code to navigate and peculiar undocumented quirks. When people used to ask me "just hire another developer" when we had issues with delivery I'd respond with "can 9 mothers make a baby in one month?".

Honestly, some people will always be d1cks and thankfully, most wont.....I was heavily involved in Falcon BMS and pre that Superpak for many years and that was a FREE software.....did not stop the bitching and whining about release dates and features and so on.........

and its probably a move he can pull when hes at sea level but in high alt not so much. Anyways, to OP I think you need to go through the training missions, they are good and explain things for you. and `i dont know where on earth you found that absolutely horribly wrong description on retreating blade stall, sounds like something one of the influencers on tik tok would come up with. Have you flown other helicopters in MSFS,XP or DCS before ?

Thank you all, it was indeed an incredibly tough decision for us to make, specifically because we are this close to full on release ready. Thank you all again for your kind patience, passion and support!

All of us want it. Even if it comes in like the A-4E. I'd still fly it.