Leaderboard

Chap2012, I have a 3d model of the TCG Anadolu along with a Turkish escort ship. Hmm, you know I forgot Turkey is near Syria. Noted. HighMaintenanceB, I’ve been on the lookout for the Type 075 but I can’t find a decent model of it. So about welldecks. The new San Antonio will have a welldeck installed but not sure how much you will be able to use it. If the ships were able to ballasts in water. That would make it more realistic. Fury, NZ1781. Yes, USS America is being revamped. Beldin, has been working hard on creating deck landing spots for her. All the weapons need to be upgraded as well to make her more realistic. We also need to make sure she doesn't have any FPS issues. Tengah, I haven’t seen a 3d model of HMS fearless out there. Most of the 3D Models I have are all modern. Yep, I have a lot of models but it takes a lot of time to create them. Weapon Coding takes up 90% of that time for me especially if the ship has a lot of weapons. I say that because when the codes don’t work properly you’re in and out of DCS testing and more testing until the mod works properly. That takes up most of my time. Hey Beldin, there is a way to make the welldeck gate lower and raise but that’s all it can do. The Chinese Type 071 Amphibious Transport Dock has the coding for it. It’s just a camera script used to lower and raise the gate. Bbtbmb, share as you like. No worries. Thanks. So, reading all the posts there is a need for another Large Amphibious Assault Ship (Bird Farm) as we called them in the US Navy. Sounds like they are favored over most of the other Warships. I would like to get the USS America back up to full speed before creating another Large-deck Amphibious Ship in DCS. The last few days I have been working to get the Iranian IRIS Alvand Class Frigate in DCS. As you can see below she’s in DCS. I’m working on coding all the weapons which as mention is a Pain sometimes. I can tell you all from experience. DCS game engine has its thoughts about how we code the weapons for AI Ships. The game engine will let you know right away if you coded the weapons correctly or not. So I just code one weapon at a time and go from there. I’m also working on the Amazonas Coastal Patrol as well. Thank you all for your interest. I can hear you loud and clear. As you all know I’m a one-man shipyard so I can only do so much at one time. Thanks.

A to C model Conversion (WIP) Intakes are done! Nozzles and Antennas WIP Coffee 2D Artist - T-38C "Talon" Caffine Simulations More updates to come

I would never count on it. MiG-29 that adds MFD also adds alot of other things But they did confirm modeling the GCI command Beryuza/Lazur system. You will control this with panel by right elbow, you can select 3 ciphers and 20 different targets for up to 60 different selections. Each selection should give you range and bearing to a target, guiding you along a proportional navigation route. The autopilot can automatically fly this route, and it will control your radar and lock automatically for you, meaning you only have to press fire. You can also keep radar off, just use IRST for stealth while using the data link to guide you to target, this way you have stealthy approach while knowing exactly where target is. By changing to different targets, you can build a picture of the airspace and enemies within It should be a very powerful tool that should give it some options to take down some advanced threats You also have an auto mode, where the GCI operator decides what target to send you. And the whole time you will receive commands on the HUD, including when a new target is about to be sent

Brown 7 of 7./JG26 Late Fiesler Build 601xxx series

So about the Tracker...... Good news and bad Hawkeye confirmed that the 2.9 update has broken some prop planes taking off from carriers. That pretty much sums up the bad. The good news is the S-2 seems to work in all other respects and can use the AWACS mission type and update other units with target data. I've done two versions of the Gannet. Both AEW and ASW. AEW also functions as AWACS and the ASW can attack ships/subs with torpedoes.There are two models for the Gannet. The standard ASW and one that Hawkeye added the radar "bulge" to for the AEW variant. Even with the take off bug the units can still be used, you just have to start in the air or on land. Strangely they will still land on the carrier Can also be used as static "uncontrolled" but I need to sort out the Gannet wings not folding when parked uncontrolled. I'll post my lua files shortly. I also need to dumb down the sensor range as they both have "modern" radar ranges currently. I believe both of the original mods are from Hawkeye60 so I'll leave it up to him if he wants the original mods posted. And yes Valkyrie, Cold War Naval assets are looking up. Here's Cv-31 flanked by period NATO carriers. I had to bend the time line a few years and the F-4 never deployed on the Hermes but...... it looks cool

A picture worth thousand words, so here's what I mean by "crude representation": These are Iraq and Pakistan on the PG map. Hundreds of miles beyond the detailed area of that map. Doubt a lot of manual labor went into this. Probably just some leftovers from the data ED acquired for the region. With Afghanistan, I would settle for even less than that.

Because most prefer to have something early to play with. If early access is not for you please wait, if you support us in early access or wait for full release we are grateful for the support.

Afganistan Develop Pics.

MiG-29A Fulcrum Announcement It is with great excitement that we officially announce DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum. This remarkable, Soviet Union-era fighter will be a full-fidelity module based on a photogrammetry cockpit of the exported variant supplied to the Warsaw Pact countries. The MiG-29A will be by far the most authentic and accurate simulation of this iconic aircraft for the PC. Our MiG-29A, NATO codename Fulcrum, will be the export modification of the “A” version that was supplied to Warsaw Pact countries. The MiG-29A was designed to counter all types of aerial targets with radar- and infrared-guided R-27, R-73, and R-60 air-to-air missiles and its single-barreled 30mm cannon with 150 rounds of ammunition. The MiG-29A also has limited visual ground attack capability with 50 to 500 kg bombs, cluster bombs, and unguided S-5, S-8 and S-24 rockets. The MiG-29A can operate day or night and in all weather conditions. Its radar is capable of look-down / shoot-down in a heavy electronic countermeasure environment. The weapons control system consists of two complexes: the Fire Control Radar (FCR) and the Optical-Electronic Targeting Navigation System (OETNS). The OETNS includes an optical-electronic sighting system (OESS), a navigation system, a weapon control system, a unified display system, and multifunctional control panels. The OEPS includes an optical location station OLS that consists of an Infrared Search and Track System (IRST), a Laser Range Finder (LRF), and a Helmet-Mounted Sight (HMS) designation system. The MiG-29 is equipped with the SPO-15 “Beryoza” Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) defence system that is designed to warn of radar-directed weapon attacks. To protect against infrared-guided weapons, the MiG-29A features flare dispensers. The navigation system consists of on-board navigation equipment, a vertical and heading information complex, and an airborne signal system as part of the Optical-Electronic Targeting Navigation System (OETNS). Key features of the DCS module: MiG-29A Fulcrum At Early Access Release: Fully interactive and highly detailed cockpit that is based on 3D laser scanning and photogrammetry. Highly detailed and accurately reproduced external model. Highly detailed pilot model. In-depth study of aircraft systems and equipment. Detailed model of the navigation system with the gyro platform reference system, air data computer, and navigation equipment. Defensive equipment to include the SPO-15LM “Beryoza” and Flare dispenser system. Fire Control Radar with authentic modes for aerial targets. OETNS with modes for air and ground targets. Basic IFF At Final Release: Addition more advanced Identify Friend or Foe interrogation system. Addition of Ground Control Intercept (GCI) command system. Source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/8a53b9baafb8473116ad05970cd8a761/ Info on the PFM used from the FC3 version: Full-fidelity MiG-29 will use the same flight model. Actually, that’s not 100% accurate. The autopilot will receive new functionality and modes, and certain issues with closed-loop system stability will be corrected, along with new undercarriage characteristics. But the core FM is probably one of the most accurate we have. IFF Info: On release of the MiG-29A, it will include a basic IFF system, later on after some RnD we will create a more advanced IFF system. This was the plan from the start, it was just lost in drawing up the newsletter, we apologize for any concerns it might have caused. Thanks!

After doing some tests where I fly in a straight line towards an SA-5, I have come to a few conclusions about ECM performance in regards to the DCS AN/ALQ-184. I have attached 5 different track files from the 5 tests. I did every test twice, and the results were identical indicating that ECM in DCS is very likely to be deterministic, so I've only attached one set of tracks. During the tests I was flying at approximately FL250 at a speed of about M0.8. Test 1 - No ECM, Result: Stable lock at 75 nautical miles. Test 2 - ECM in Mode 1, Result: Stable lock at 72 nautical miles. Test 3 - ECM in Mode 2, Result: Stable lock at 72 nautical miles. Test 4 - ECM in Mode 3, Result: Stable lock at 31 nautical miles. Test 5 - ECM in Mode 3, but I only turn it on after being locked by the SA-5 and turn it off again after a lock has been broken, Result: Stable lock at 72 nautical miles. As you can see, there are a few take aways from these tests. Firstly, as most of you probably know, the difference between Mode 1 and Mode 2 is that Mode 2 will silence your radar in order to increase ECM performance, but according to these tests, it makes no difference whatsoever performance wise. Therefore there is no reason to ever use Mode 2, as it is objectively worse than Mode 1. On a similar note, in Test 5 where the Mode 3 barrage jam is manually activated in order to emulate Mode 2, you can see that it has the exact same performance as both Mode 1 and Mode 2. Lastly, there is no real reason to use Mode 1 or Mode 2 at all, as they only shorten the max range for an SA-5 to acquire a stable l ock by ~4% in exchange of decreasing the performance of, or even inhibiting, your radar. The only really effective jamming tactic is Mode 3 barrage jamming before being locked up by the enemy emitter. As soon as you've been locked, you may as well turn off your ECM to prevent home-on-jam shots as your ECM will not be able to break the lock again until you've reached a distance of within ~4% of max lock range, at which point you're pretty much out of harms way anyways. I obviously don't have any real life data on AN/ALQ-184 effectiveness against an SA-5, and since ED does not specify which variant of the Spoon Rest track radar they've simulated for the DCS SA-5 it's hard to even make an uneducated guess, but based on this test my personal opinion is that the effectiveness of barrage jamming seems to at least be within the confines of reason, whilst Mode 1 and Mode 2 break lock techniques are completely ineffective. The effectiveness of Mode 1 and Mode 2 should be increased with Mode 2 being closer in performance to Mode 3, whilst Mode 1 should have a slight decrease in performance compared to Mode 2 as a result of not silencing the radar. My guess is also that Mode 1 would have a much bigger decrease in performance against emitters with a similar frequency to the F-16CM-50s AN/APG-68V(5) radar (around 10-26 GHz according to public sources), but remain near equally effective against emitters using other radar bands as Mode 2. SA-5_TEST_Mode_2.trk SA-5_TEST_Mode_3.trk SA-5_TEST_Mode_3_Break_Lock.trk SA-5_TEST_No_ECM.trk SA-5_TEST_Mode_1.trk

nullThe filter settings should be able to be saved so that you always have your own adjustments instead of always with every new round readjust. null

Some people just want to throw around negative assumptions just for the faint possibility they can eventually scream "See, told you!".... and in meantime they poison the mood. It has nothing to do with "love for heatblur" more with trying to keep a positive outlook on life and not being relentlessly negative just for the sake of it.

Some good news about IFF from the team: IFF Info: On the release of the MiG-29A, it will include a basic IFF system, later on after some RnD we will create a more advanced IFF system. This was the plan from the start, it was just lost in drawing up the newsletter, we apologize for any concerns it might have caused. Thanks!

This is so much hysterical adolescent nonsense. No One - is demanding... Anything. Some are simply tired of the seemingly endless hype and waiting. Aversion and hostility toward contrary opinion is both inciteful and detrimental to this thread. Unless that is what you are getting paid for. The rest of us are simply looking forward to this project, and would appreciate honest and accurate updates when available. That's it. Just that. Bowie.

Sadly it seems you are trying to find negativity in this announcement, I do not understand the point you are trying to make here. First I have played hundreds upon hundreds of missions on the Caucasus map with Blue and Red aircraft and enjoyed my time there. I am not sure what your rules are towards "semi-convincing/plausible mission" but I have never flown one and said, boy this is unrealistic and I am not having fun aside from the fact I am sitting in my house on a computer. So if you are saying you cannot make mission on a map that are not fun based on them having to be plausible then I think you not letting your imagination flow. The same goes with the Early Access portion of Afghanistan, you will be able to see up what I consider to be at the very least "semi-convincing/plausible mission" such as COIN but why limit yourself... draw a line in the sand, put red on one side and blue on the other and create a story and just have fun, like every other map in DCS. I think some are just overthinking this waaaaay too much, but also this is not a mandatory purchase if it isn't your thing then we understand like any of our modules while we appreciate every purchase we understand not every one is for everyone.

The whole of Afghanistan will come, we have just focused on the plans for early access in this newsletter.

Access from the Indian Ocean supported by air2air-refueling would mean so much more possibilities. The Baluchistan region between south Afghanistan and the Ocean wouldn't even require any detailed scenery, terrain only would be just fine. Please don't miss this chance to include the opportunity for long range naval air ops.

Just curious to hear if we can expect any fixes for stuff on the WWII side of dcs in the next update? Whatever the date its slated for, hopefully in the not so distant springtime future. Things such undercarriage updates for the update on the mossie, the p47 repair bug, wep usage, multiple texture and 3d model issues on the p47, etc among the myriad of issues that have been around for a lot of the warbirds. If nothing to share, it would be great to hear what work has been done towards really any of the bug sections on the WWII modules overall. Any news on the damage models, flight models et all on the AI aircraft? WWII asset pack? Thanks, it always seems newsletters are pretty light on the warbirds from ED. I know there are a couple 3rd party props coming soon, but really no theater appropriate adversaries for them...some updates to the current WWII lineup would definitely gin up more enthusiasm, at least in my opinion, to know stuff is happening and maybe get peak at what is happening.

I thought some might find the following interesting.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3336235/ NOW BIG FLAG

I think we’re all pretty desperate for updates to the WWII modules. Would be nice for ED to spare a modicum of dev resources every once in a while to fix some of the longstanding bugs and otherwise clean up some of the modules. After SoW closed there was a tiny reaction and response that resulted in some modest fixes being rolled out, but that quickly came to a stop. It is an unbelievable shame that a community’s primary server has to shutter its doors in protest to get even a small response from the team reiterating its commitment to the era. Do we have to lose even more frustrated players and server operators for ED to send some TLC the way of warbirds?

I thought I’d share some thoughts, observations, and progress I’ve made over the past week. With the suggestions from Bignewy, darkman222, and other advice posted through this discussion, I’m having a lot more success killing those pesky Fulcrums! My first mistake was thinking “winning” meant getting on the fulcrum’s 6 for a low aspect gun kill. After trying it this way countless times, it’s just NOT a good approach against the Fulcrum. It takes WAY too long if you can get there at all. Go for the higher aspect snap-shot kill instead. Another important lesson… there’s sustained turns and there’s “almost” sustained turns. Over and over, I’ll do a max sustained turn at about 440 knots and I’m just not out turning the fulcrum. BUT, if I start the turn at 465 and slightly nose-down, and then I pull VERY SLIGHTLY into a decelerating turn, I’m usually nose-on the fulcrum by the time my speed gets to 430. Another problem against the Fulcrum… he goes high and I can’t climb with him. I’ll get so very close to the gun reticle reaching him but now I’m so slow I can’t maneuver that last little bit, and he gets away. No worries… the solution is to wait just a moment when the Fulcrum starts his climb. Just give it 2-3 seconds of acceleration before you go after him. I usually like to start my climb at 500 knots or higher. When he’s high and slow, you’ll be faster and still have speed to maneuver to get the gun kill. And if he drops his nose to accelerate before you get there, no problem. Rinse and repeat until you’ve got him. Last thought… instinctively I want to take full internal tanks into the dogfight. I figure winning the dogfight is pointless if you flame out on the way home. But really, technique is everything in the viper (unlike the hornet which is very forgiving). With the right BFM techniques, you can take 4,500 lbs into the merge and be on your way home with plenty of gas to spare. Or you can take 7,000 lbs and flameout because the dogfight stayed neutral for 5 minutes.

Visor updated

Count me in for a big hot smoking "yes". Love me some new maps. No problem with EA. Day one purchase for me.

I think JoyPro has made my controller worries almost nonexistent now. Still a little to configure but in a better place now anyhow. Thanks for all the help and positive comments, much appreciated

Уважаемые разработчики, а что то с освещением от САБ (и прочих светящихся бомб) делать будете? Они давно уже еле светят, и в миссиях где они есть, порой толку от них нет. Я так понимаю это связано с тем, что освещение в игре переделывалось.

Hello. To put it into two cents and make response useful to other people who may read this, I will get into some context. As for "not functioning at all" and "cannot see which targets are buggable or not" is not true a bit in my case. I see a lot of people having troubles with understanding difference between your own onboard tracks and datalink tracks (not to blame), and that's probably the issue you and the person above are having. To not play the "guessing game", there is a datalink data filter for your FCR, and the current setting is displayed above OSB15. You can either cycle through the options with IFF IN or disable all datalink tracks with IFF OUT. - ALL: Show all datalink tracks. - FTR+: Filter out all surveliance datalink tracks. - TGTS: Filter out all surveliance and PPLI (donor) tracks. - NONE: Filter out all datalink tracks. That's a good practice to keep general situational awareness with FCR set to ALL and HSD, but switch filter to FTR+/NONE prior to engagement to actually know what your radar actually sees. It will be still correlated on HSD display, so just crosscheck it. Let's have an example: 1. AWACS detects a contact. 2. Determines either this contact is hostile, ambiguous or friendly. 3. Sends the data over datalink. 4. You receive that data (in this example, a hostile aircraft, indicated by a hollow red triangle on fcr and hsd pages). When you point your radar in the direction of the target, the red triangle changes to a yellow box, and that's where many people start having problems: -- Yellow: Means target is ambiguous. Although surveliance/donors have declared the contact hostile (red), it's still unknown (white) to your own FCR. -- Box: Indicates track data received from a datalink source. It's not your FCR track data! Even if it's correlated, it may still be a search target. This only means that whatever radar return you had at that position has been correlated to datalink track data. In this scenario, unless you apply a filter, you can't know the status of the contact - search target or track target.

На англоязычном форуме, разработчики подтвердили, что Афганистан будет весь

Looking aewsome.

Just came to request this. I fully agree, we just need a very basic terrain representation of the terrain south of Afghanistan so we can access the ocean for carrier ops.

Thank you so much for your kind words Well, I did notice the AI poor airmanship when taxing, but the alternative was having to remove the random air traffic ... and I chose to leave it as is, because the airbase was too sterile without other planes moving ... and as you say, the accidents are kind of amusing. Thanks a lot for the report, I'm kind of a Single Player user, so I never use the VOIP feature of DCS ... I will test to see if ATC does respond to VOIP PTT, and if positive, I can then modify the trigger so that either PTT will do.

mig29 wont come before f-4, by that logic the ch47, f6f, marianas ww2, iraq, afghanistan, and ed pacific will come before f-4 since they were announced a while back right?

Showing up every 6 months posting a bunch of random pics of what looks like a finished module and saying vauge stuff like: ready for take off. Then nothing else. Then 6 months later more pics of a module that looks exactly the same as 6 month earlier with no explanations. Or posting a yearly update (after not having planned on doing it) says the last thing to be implemented was the damage modeling. Then 6 months pass. Picture of finished damage modeling. So is everything ready to go now? Nope suddenly vidoes of basic cockpit animations show. Up we never get explanations for thise cockpit animation videos. Are they just now adding cockpit animations? Why didn't they mention that 6 months earlier? Or is it just old stuff they thought was neat to show off. We don't know as they never bothered to say anything about these random vidoes. Then another 3-4 months go by. And get an update. They update by itself is perfectly fine, goes into more detail than any previous update they've had for years. Only problem is that they talk about the need to fine tune the flight model at various altitudes etc. So when they 9 months earlier said the last thing to do was damage modeling, they weren't honest? Something changed? No other module in DCS sphere has been so long in production, seemd so close to being finished for so long yet so little info actually given. 1. 8 years is just a silly long time to produce a module and is a unique even for dcs. 2. Combined with bad/incomplete/lack of info on what they are doing. Can't compare the Corsair situation with F4, or C130 or any other module in production. Extraordinary claims need Extraordinary explanations. Can be DCSed up to Extraordinary production time need Extraordinary explanations.

@huchanronaa are you just throwing around assumptions or have you actually read their statement? Because, for sure, it doesn’t seem you have. Heatblur explained en detail where they stand currently with the Phantom, why they are delaying and what time frame they expect to get it done. You can with some justification criticize the last minute nature of their statement, but right now there is really no indication they won’t deliver within this time frame. Again, if you don’t even bother to acknowledge the information they gave, you‘re just producing heat without any sense.

+1 No need for high detail in these areas. I would fly over at around 30k anyways.

They were deleted for allegedly being offtopic. Apparently this kind of discussion is more suited to the wishlist.

The new header means exactly nothing for the release of the Phantom. You‘re literally chasing phantoms now….. Why do people always want to read into anything? Is this how astrology came around?

For the record, I was never confused about why people would want access to the other part of Afghanistan, and particularly Bagram. My confusion was only about why people think the EA portion of the map is "small", when in fact it's essentially the same size as the high-detail area of the other maps.

The reality of what? Any NATO battles around the Strait of Hormuz are completely fictional (unless you're making an Operation Praying Mantis scenario or something I guess). So if you're happy to pretend that US forces operated out of certain bases in the region, I'm not sure why you couldn't be happy to pretend that US forces couldn't operate out of Kandahar, which is in the EA map area for Afghanistan. Granted that Bagram was the biggest base, but that should be coming later, and Kandahar is big enough to operate any kind of plane. Camp Bastion also has an 11k ft runway and operated at least USMC Harriers as well. That said, operating fixed-wing planes over Afghanistan in a "mostly realistic context" is going to mainly be orbiting for hours waiting for coordinates to drop a JDAM, with periodic trips to the tanker to top up. In which case I welcome the helicopters. On the other hand, in either case, about 90% of the fancy avionics, weapons, and capabilities of all the planes during those operations were completely unused. You don't need terrain following radar, ECM pods, AMRAAMs, MMW Hellfires, JSOWs, SLAMs, or a bunch of other stuff to fight goat herders. All of this is why I'm personally looking forward to Kola Peninsula more, or better yet, Central Germany, but that's another topic... Since the US did operate out of at least Kandahar and Camp Bastion, it seems like it should be extremely easy to make a plausible mission that isn't entirely devoted to helicopters. The Caucasus map is hard to make a plausible mission with US planes because it's right in Russia's back yard, and Georgia wasn't exactly a US ally at the time either.

As mentioned it will be the whole of Afghanistan, the area in the box is the focus of the Early access and we will share more details of everything outside of that as early access progresses. thank you

It will be all of Afghanistan, the newsletter just goes into more detail about the portion for early access.

Status update. Still working on the US asset pack update. You tend to forget how much work it takes to create a larger ship in DCS. Doesn't matter how many you've created before, and how streamlined your process is, there is still a ton of work. I think @Admiral189 would agree. The Constellation is more or less done, the Arleigh Burke Flight III is getting there, mostly tweaking and testing left. Especially with the missiles.

вот тут должны быть CoreMods\aircraft\Mi-24P\Textures\mi-24p.zip

The NS-430 I can understand since with only a very minor modification of the jet's electric system you can have a quasi realistic solution very similar to what's actually been done. Changing the repeater into, well, not a repeater is fantasy unless you're planning to fully simulate something like the Slovak or Polish upgrade and that's no longer a small job.

Hi, there's not been an OB update since the issue was reported, but it is fixed internally and committed to ED. It will be available to the public in the next update.

Are these people in the room with us right now?

I will not purchase that part of the map, when ED decides to build and populate the other half I will check it, but not now as the 90% the interesting operations for both Soviet war and US war were placed on the part ED decided to do later. Oh, and same for Iraq map. It really makes no sense how ED chooses their map areas and module marks. And before critizing my negativeness (that is not, is just a fact), try to run a poll on the forums.

Small? The yellow area shown in the Afghanistan Map screenshot is about 300 nmi by 400 nmi. That's almost exactly the same as the high-detail area in the Persian Gulf map, and the high-detail area of the Syria map is "only" about 420 nmi by 360 nmi, and a good portion of both of those is ocean. The high-detail area in the Caucasus map is smaller than that, and also about half ocean.

It does have an INS and a panel for it. You can choose one of the previously preprogrammed waypoints or airfields (so a total of six locations stored in memory). FF Fulcrum should be less annoying to navigate - because you will actually know which waypoint you're flying towards - but not really more capable than the FC3 Fulcrum. What would make it slightly better though would be mobile RSBN stations, so go and upvote that thread ;).