Leaderboard

we have no plans for subscriptions. Again lets stay on topic here. thank you

Dear all, I have moderated some of the last comments, if you can not be nice or keep on topic you will get warning points. Please read the rules before posting further. Try to appreciate that module development is difficult, be supportive of the projects you are interested in, if you do not have the patience for long development we understand but please keep it constructive. thank you

Cavour is out there in the DCS open ocean already. I have done a stern gate repaint of the Admiral's America, that covers the Wasp-class Makin Island's, island very similar to America class I mean it ain't nothing special but it works for me if the Admiral doesn't mind I'll post it for others to use... here is picky of the Iwo Jima I've done I know the islands on the earlier wasps class boats are different but for me, I can live with it.

Then you are even more supportive than I am! I just can‘t bring myself to buy the Christen Eagle…. But I fully embrace the idea behind it!!!

I know it's off topic but please ED do not ever make DCS or its modules subscription-based... this whole software subscription models drive me insane nowadays and I applaud ED and Heatblur by not doing it even considering the shortcomings.

it would be very cool to have both the UH-1H and a UH-1N or other huey versions but at the moment i'd much rather see a UH-1H module overhaul before adding more variants into the mix

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

Well, today I finally found the Sale price of the MB339 more tempting and so I purchased it for myself before the current sale ends. I'm a bit ashamed of waiting almost 1.5 years to buy, but that is the buyers prerogative ... I'm happy with the purchase and I'm currently enjoying its training missions, I'm tempted to convert them for training on the South Atlantic map, but I'm still finishing my Viggen projects. Cheers.

I'm not crazy for those, but I will purchase the Corsair no matter what, simply because I truly enjoy learning to fly new aircraft ... and also because I like to support all DCS developers, particularly the smaller teams, that's why I purchased the Christen Eagle even if aerobatics is not my forte, it helped them to develop the Corsair. It's the same reason I will also purchase the La-7 once its released, even with no proper map or AI units.

Business practices from mainstream area of production and distribution don't quite apply in our very specialized and niche software segment. 1) Guys who are crazy about PTO and Corsair will buy it no matter what; 2) Guys who have sub-zero interest in PTO and Corsair will not buy it no matter what; 3) Guys who are possibly so-so maybe kinda sorta half-interested in PTO and Corsair will: a) wait for release and buy it (or not) only after reading and watching reviews from early adopters; b) wait 3-4 years to buy it when it's on sale. In all of these cases, devs' interaction with community in pre-release and pre-preorder phase is irrelevant and unnecessary, as it will not affect aforementioned buying decisions in any way. I agree with Lionel that it would be nice to read more frequent updates on this project, even short ones, but that's my point - it's a "nice to have" item rather than "must have" one and this is where our opinions differ. Introduction of preorder changes things, obviously, but we're not there yet.

Though I have never flown an F15E, I personally can't believe that you would be able to hear that thump over the sounds you have just mentioned, or certainly not as loud as it sounds right now. I only really noticed it in the tutorials, where the aircraft is set up for you, and you're sitting there on the ground while going through the training steps. Maybe it's my incredibly fabulous bassy headphones making it worse, hence why I asked if I could have the sdef file so I could mod it for me. My original comment may have been a tad OTT, apologies

Jester is just interface for radar for pilot, not advanced AI RIO. Jester doesnt do any active searching for targets or sorting, he just presses buttons. Its you as pilot that have to babysit him, tell him where to look and what target to lock. TWS prioritization is done automatically by AWG9, and following track as well in TWS Auto is also done by AWG9. If radar doesnt return a track of target then Jester WILL NOT LOCK HIM, tell Jester first where target is by telling him where to scan (radar elevation at what range), and when you got track back, then you can tell Jester to track him in TWS (by switching to TWS AUTO, then its AWG9 following the track and Jester just sits back) or STT.

Mein T-Shirt ist gestern angekommen. Atemberaubende Qualität, das ist kein billig Stoff. Richtig dicke Baumwolle

I have some updates for those that would like to try. Important. You must have Currenthill's CH Military Asset Pack USA installed. Currenthill was nice enough to fix the sensor file. So many thanks for that. SAM range is limited for game balancing reasons. This is to prevent the carrier from wasting the Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missiles on targets her escorts are shooting at. So while her anti air defenses don't have that much more range than the standard Nimitz class but RIM-162 missiles are much more effective than the standard Sea Sparrows. I think I fixed the group spawn issue. I was able to recreate an issue when spawning CVN-79 after CVN-78 in a group. It seems gone now but I'm not sure why. Because after trying a few things that didn't work I basically wound up with files that had just been renamed back to the original problem. Which now seems gone. Other small fix is to the RIM-162 launchers. The launcher tube covers have been operating backwards. They now show when the launcher is loaded. BUT unfortunately they stay covered after launch. This seems to be a model issue, either the animation is backwards or none with the covers on. I'll keep looking for a code fix but having the cover always on is better than working backward. If anyone is up for testing I'd like to know if...... Player take off and landing is working (it should be) Are the landing aids working correctly (they seem to be but I've never really flown the F-18 or F-14 modules) Is ATC/radio working (maybe?) Can you detect the ship on the aircraft RWR and at what range. (may require currenthill RWR mod) Weapons performance seems good but the Port side RIM-116 SAM has a poor hit rate when firing to the rear quarter. But there should be no missiles or CIWS firing through the ship. Fire damage effect is a bit of a hack at the moment but there should be a slight increase in the fire(s) amount as damage increases But any feedback on what's working and what is not is helpful. https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArIUQEKgEWp8gfccYyPRa2xK9WeNWg?e=GbjZLx

Why? Are you paid opposition? For someone who hasn't lost anything, you sure act like you have a court case for fraud against a company. The adolescent arguments here are the ones here acting like they have special privileges and the continued acting like true textbook narcissists. Climb off that high horse -or mountain top and join civilization again. Or again, the door isn't far away.

F-35 is for sure an interesting piece of tech, but even when you have it in DCS... to do what? Our mid-2000 more modern aircrafts (f/a-18c, f-16c, f-15e, a-10c, jf-17) are already overpowered, not only vs older aircrafts but also against the vast majority of AI assets. Do you like easy win? It would be better to have 1980-1990 fc3 modules (f-15c, a-10a, su-27, su-33, mig-29a -- this one is coming!, su-25t) simulated in high fidelity, so that we can have a balanced blue vs red battlefield and more suited for AI assets. After we've had fun with high tech easy stuff it would be time for something still modern but more challenging, where you have to be a pilot more than a systems manager. Why not the fc3 aircrafts in full fidelity, rather than the (impossible) f-35?

Jester automatically uses TWS. By default he will start in RWS. Once the radar detects a target, he will switch to TWS Auto. Your cue will be the scan volume on the TID repeater will switch from 80 degrees wide to 40 degrees wide. TWS Auto will automatically adjust its scan volume/elevation to try and keep the greatest number of most important contacts within it's scan volume. The options to select specific targets in the BVR menu are for telling jester to STT lock specific contacts. Shoot order (or target sorting, if you will) in TWS is done every 2 seconds by the radar itself. Jester doesn't have a way to change the shoot order.

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.

so far they didn’t try to sell anything, there’s no listing or price. Pre-order or otherwise….. Personally, I‘d love to see energy supply by fusion reactors. It‘s only 10 years away now … for fifty years now. Unfortunately there’s nothing I can do about it - so bitching about it would be a waste of energy.

As shown in the corresponding Wags video, sending an FCR Target Report does not permit direct engagement; it is simply a target report, similar to sending TSD target points. This allows other AH-64D's to gain situational awareness of targets in the area or their PFZ before unmasking. But you can CAQ on the TSD to make any of the FCR targets from the report your ACQ source. The FCR TGT Report does not transfer the entire FCR data, which includes an FCR-driven priority "shoot list", it just sends targets. Therefore there are no NTS or ANTS designations, stale timers, shoot list order, etc. Only RFHO may be used to handover a target directly to another aircraft's RF missile for engagement. Yes, it is often said that the AH-64D can transmit multiple targets to wingmen for rapid engagement, and that is true, but that doesn't mean it is only performed with one button push or that the non-FCR wingman can engage simply by repetitively pulling the trigger like the FCR-equipped aircraft. But that also doesn't mean the wingmen can't engage targets rapidly using RFHOs. Watch the video I linked above. You can send multiple RFHOs back to back, which can be engaged just as rapidly and is demonstrated in the video. I also recommend reviewing the latest AH-64D EA Guide on the DCS website, which describes all of this in detail. Each time an RFHO is transmitted, the NTS advances to the next target on the FCR shoot list just like if you fired an RF missile yourself (you don't need to cursor select each one like in the video, unless you want to send RFHOs in a different order than the shoot list). An RFHO is essentially firing a missile from a wingman's aircraft, which is why either method advances the NTS through the shoot list.

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...

Hehe, ok, a bit embarrasing, but this might be solved. To find out whether the fans were running, I opened the cabinet, and sure enough, a piece of plastic foil was wrappen in both fans, which prevented them from running. Temperatures of 51 degrees when running DCS now (at least for the couple of minutes I tested), so I'm fairly sure this is solved. Thank you all for replying to this thread!

Will it be possible to release more standard terrain assets so we can create more variety without having to rely too much on other people's asset packs? Such as, flat concrete, Runways, roads, railways, trees. I'd like to populate some empty areas of the map and I can't add a road or a flat concrete surface at the moment.

dear Razbam could you please update these small details of the external model to bring us a better & more accurate simulation? I beg you, 1 million thanks

If this is stating the obvious, then my apologies. So much will be dictated by how much situational awareness you can reasonably build. The choice of you going into a BVR engagement where you're employing >5nm rely on knowledge of the threat likely before radar detection. The radar can probably detect a fighter sized target up to 25nm, but you're reaching for optimal circumstances. Add ground clutter on both sides, then you having to descend to enter a look-up situation and your detection range will reduce due to the interference(and be harder in general to manage). You have contact(s) on scope, this is further complicated if you have a wingman and you have to issue a sort and hope that the scope can pick out two contacts. Say if you're eagle eyed you get a lock at 15nm, and at worst 10nm(if you didn't spot by then you're not going to really have a 'bvr' opportunity). You're then going to have to check that it is a good lock and you haven't locked something erroneous(so you may have to break lock and start again). Once you're sure you have a good lock, remember to IFF if you didn't during search, if it's an AIM-7E you're carrying you'll have to count to 4 before employing(assuming a vc of 1200 between you and threat, you've closed nearly a mile and a half in that time); 2 seconds for F/M. For the former missile you'll have to try and get within rmax(and LAR if interlock isn't out) which may not be many miles, which means you're either shooting and blowing through or going to get into a dogfight. F/M may give you a better opportunity thanks to its better range. The circumstance above assumes that you have a GCI and you know what to look for in the first place. Your RWR could probably help you very vaguely, but not much given it's older gen. I think, as evidenced by reports like Project Red Baron, so much of whether you win or not is dependent on situational awareness, and employing in a BVR context with the Phantom will probably be dependent on having some support from a controller. Following that you're next thing is probably ensuring that you/WSO is really on it with the radar, knows how to manage it to get a good search probably. Just basing off the AIM-7E in game(you can mod it onto the F-14), even when you go very high and fast to get an rmax shot I think you'd be exceptionally lucky to get a scenario in which you can skate. I suspect planning for and owning banzai will be the way to go. If the Sparrow gets the kill, then great, otherwise hopefully it gave you better angles against the bad guy I know this isn't tactics per se, but it's worth recognising the number of steps and consideration that have to go into it to get some sort of bvr opportunity

Glad it's working out for you! Hope it works for anybody who uses it. I have been loving the MFSSB since. Papamiraculi was the real genius. I'm just the guy with too much time on my hands and a CAD program...

This is still labeled as "PM Evidence" so I wanted to follow up. Do you need more source information?

folks please stay on thread topic and keep it constructive. Off topic posts will be removed. thank you

Not really. DCS tactics will approximate what the F-4 was supposed to use IRL. Remember that it was originally designed to fight a Soviet invasion of Europe. As such, IFF would not have been an issue and Sparrows would have been maintained in temperate conditions with normal checkups after shipping. The Phantoms would be facing Soviet fighters equipped with their own Fox 1s, meaning that closing in for VID would be suicidal. As such, these tactics is what they practiced in exercises, and would have been used in a Cold War gone hot scenario. Now, Vietnam saw the F-4 used in ways that it was never intended for. For one, the Fox 1 threat didn't exist at all. Also, the skies were saturated with friendly aircraft, and due to how air operations were planned, with carrier fighters coming from the east and USAF from the west, point of origin criteria were not particularly helpful (in Europe, anything taking off from the east was likely Russian). For that reason, VID requirements were established, and Sparrow ran into envelope concerns. Not helping was Vietnam's harsh jungle environment, which did a number on the missiles in a way that Europe didn't. Most of our maps are not in the jungle, nor are they set up in a way that invalidates point of origin criteria for IFF purposes. They are, however, equipped with Fox 1 capable redfor fighters. This means the first set of tactics is going to be in use.

You're free to buy anything from DCS store any time you want.

Ok I think I have this reproduced now, I will make a report for the team. thank you

Thanks...maybe for some reason the quest pro is not suffering from this change... Another user saw that there are no issues with the new version...I am waiting that he replies on which headset does he use

Sams in DCS are rather simplistic. Only by using scripts like Mantis or skynet you can make them behave less stupid. Until ED comes up with some more in-depth modelling of an actual IADS, thats sadly how it is.

Does anyone have the Fearless/Intrepid link?

@Jim Bob Well done sir. I was used from other games to slamming the throttle forward and takeoff while using my free left hand to hold my beer. Mosquito takeoffs in DCS require a bit more concentration and fine control inputs, so I have to put the bottle down for 30 seconds till I reach safety flying speed Navigation to the target, that’s the time for boozing.

No, I am simply perturbed that me, being a very angry person by default, has to be the voice of reason in this stupid forum of all the places. Aint your ship to run aground. Capice? Im certain the dev is listening to every word you say. Im certain he'll take your opinion under advisement. Im also certain they dont care. Young lady, meet Mr. Brick Wall here. Im certain you two will have an entertaining and moving conversation with each other. Meanwhile, the rest of us would like to enjoy the casual conversation without the back and forth match.

It's a module for DCS, not a car you've paid thousands, tens of thousands up front for. Well, unless it's on credit. I'm happy paying a subscription. I know Nick said they won't do it but he also said that they can't make it viable without early access. I'd happily pay $15 a month for DCS and I don't have large sums of disposable income either.

Sooo ... did you guys already start with the rework? How is it coming along? Any chance that we will get an updated manual this year?

If you're absolutely in the lower end of the spectrum and on the edge of playability, it might have some impact. I tested this extensively and it didn't make a difference. No change in frametimes with a modest PC. There was a thread some time ago from a guy who reduced the desktop resolution and gained some performance. You might want to check it out for some ideas. Does the Reverb have a way to reduce the mirror resolution in your monitor while playing in VR? That way you could test it yourself before making the upgrade.

A flying I-pad with a lot of electronics and very little guns. Nah, I'll pass, give me an F-4E any day. The F-35B is interesting because VTOL, but otherwise not really all that great. There'd be no comparable assets for it. I think the early F-18E/F is the furthest forward in time that DCS should attempt to go (and that's only because of Top Gun 2 and that ancient Superbug sim that I'm rather fond of). Anything beyond that is too much of a flying computer IMO. The real fun is in Cold War era heater+gun dogfights, anyway.

Thud

I would agree with you there. A good summary. BoB hooked me throughout because of the characters. MotA did not do that. A bit too much "Hollywood" and fragmented story.

No, but, they don't mention the compiler flags they use either... That said I can still get a refund if I wanted one... No you likely shouldn't be... The threat model is different when using a browser that is likely defended by the anti-malware software installed on your PC... Compared to one where the folder in which the exe runs is typically excluded from the anti-malware to improve performance ...

But this is a game. Not a necessary software program to run a business or whatever. That said, the terms have gotten way way more extensive and one sided over the past 15-20 years. You know this. I've read a few so yes, the companies writing said terms are both entitled and down right rude. So, ENTITLED goes both ways. The problem is that this bad software culture is leaking to almost every type of purchase there is. You own way less of even your physical objects now versus only 20 years ago. And here we have people defending it. Like it's perfectly normal. Well yes, if you lower the standards of what you expect to pay for it is. To be clear, I'm not complaining. I haven't paid a dime on any pre purchase here at all. Just baffled how people keep defending that business model for computer in-game objects. Keep it up and you'll be paying a subscription fee every month to play on top of the module prices like iRacing does.

Why don't you just turn the radar off whilst on ground? Thumps gone.

You think pathfinding is the worst of the ground AI problems? Try flying a helicopter anything anywhere near an APC..

@IronMike why is 9Line now going on steam saying there will be no steam-preorders, after Heatblur stating here several times that a steam pre-order is coming? https://steamcommunity.com/app/223750/discussions/0/7735567974674839609/t Is it another ED miscommunication or is the steam pre-order suddenly cancelled?

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.

That's why you get SC-quality visuals on the Stennis. Pity about the Kuznetsov, but I guess it was kind of a side project and we don't have an FF aircraft for it, anyway. If we ever get a Su-33, perhaps it could become part of that package, especially as it has no SC functionality.

Probably your radar hitting the stops left and right.