Leaderboard

I wasn't going to release this, but given that this crap show has been going on for too long now (and the cat has been out of the bag on reddit), here is an alternative OpenXR implementation for Oculus Link (air or cable) that currently works without issues with DCS: https://github.com/mbucchia/VirtualDesktop-OpenXR/releases/tag/1.0.3 This is the same implementation users of Virtual Desktop have been able to enjoy for a while now, except you can use it without Virtual Desktop. It comes as-is with no extended support. All you need to do is run the installer and you will be all set. Check out the instructions in the link to also switch back and forth between this and other OpenXR runtimes if needed. I will still recommend to you all to consider Virtual Desktop, which is a much better experience that Oculus Link. But if you resist, well you can try the workaround above with Oculus Link. Hope it will help a few. PS: Cheers to @MoleUK who's been testing it with DCS and reporting success.

Guys, Guys - I have discovered Warbirds!!! Instead of agonising over the F-4E - I am botched-take-off-crashing Mosquitos, P-47s and BF-109s in Normandy. My take off attrition rate is currently 87%.... B!tches to take off, the lot. But it is fun when you do actually take off...Besides, it sweetens the F-4E wait.

That’s really disappointing. I’d hope that if there was a large segment of the customer base that couldn’t use their product, ED would release a hotfix and not make people wait until whenever a patch comes out. Maybe it’s more complicated than that. Dunno Maybe the patch will come out tomorrow? I don’t know a damned thing about software and I’m sure ED will do their best….but It sucks not being able to use something I have put $1,000s or dollars into for sure.

@BIGNEWY So Oculus is now jamming through the V63 update no matter what you do. They hit my computer with it sometime today, even though I had auto-update turned off and had changed the file names. Bottom line.... Everyday more of your customers are unable to use your product. What is the point of working on a bunch of updates to DCS if a good chunk of your customers can't take advantage of them. Oculus is saying it is your problem, you guys are saying you are too busy to fix this, and more and more of us now cannot play DCS. THANKS PAL.

OK guys... I got it working. 1. Download the folders on this guys Google Drive: https://www.reddit.com/r/dcsworld/comments/1blxiry/comment/kwkcbib/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button (and give this Redditor an upvote) 2. Stop the Oculus service in Windows. 3. Overwrite the -client and -runtime folders in C:\Program Files\Oculus\Support with his files. 4. Start Oculus app and then start DCS. If Oculus updates, repeat steps 2, 3 and 4.

Me too, looks like we're not alone. This thread has been active since 2/15 and a fix has been ready since 3/11ish? Sad

Give the I-16 a go too, it requires the footwork of an Irishman doing the Riverdance...

I write this post with the utmost respect to ED, Module Creators/Developers, the members, and readers of this forum, I do hope that there is no offense taken, but, the internet is as the internet does... I am sure I will offend or attract the ire of one or two people... I make no apologies. A case, or rant whichever way you wish to perceive it, for the H.S. Buccaneer Smk.2B, C and D. The argument for the viability of a Buccaneer S.2B, C and D module for DCS is a strong one. Initially designed for the Royal Navy as a Carrier bourne nuclear strike attack aircraft, then later adopted (begrudgingly) by the Royal Air Force. The RN operated the S2.C variant, the RAF the S2.B, and the South Africans operated the S2.D with RATO packs for high altitude takeoffs. Whilst being flown by the RN, she flew from HMS Hermes, Victorious, Eagle, and of course, most famously, from HMS Ark Royal. The Bucc was offered to several nation's airforces, including Germany (very strong interest), Argentina, Canada, and several Middle Eastern nations, amongst others. Alas, we had a rather questionable Prime Minister in power at the time who was very much under the influence of another nation's agenda which contributed greatly towards the lack of export sales. South Africa operated 16 Buccaneers and their usage & feats with this aircraft are well worth a study. She was faster (by the book 600+ kts, limited by external stores) at low level (with a FULL war load - cue the retorts from the Tonka community) than the Tornado GR.1 and had a much longer operational range (2000nm without AAR and external fuel tanks). Despite being a nightmare to fly in the circuit, an absolute handful below 300kts the aircraft was an absolute joy to fly. Please, let us not discuss the single engine handling! O.o 16 tons of brute force and ignorance, despite this she was fast and bloody maneuverable. "The Brick" was the first aircraft to record a "no kill" by opposition forces for an entire Red Flag exercise. Buccaneers at Red Flag, once again, stuff of legend and I would urge anyone remotely interested to read up on 12, 16 and 208 Squadrons exploits during Red Flag deployments. "Grandma" finally won her spurs (as far as the Brits go) during Operation Grandby (Desert Storm for all you US guys). She enjoyed unexpected success as a laser designation (AN/AVQ-23E Pave Spike) aircraft for the RAF Tornado Gr.1 and later dropped her own LGBs, credited with at least two aircraft kills, albeit parked at the time. In-flight refueling capable, as well as buddy tanking. The scope that this aircraft could bring to DCS in terms of suitability, operations, etc, is enormous. The cockpit is an ergonomic nightmare akin the Mirage F-1 thus providing a challenge both in terms of flying and operating this great aircraft resulting in a huge sense of accomplishment to the person who bought it as a module and learned to fly it to any level of competence. To get ol' Grandma unstuck and airborne off the runway, simple: Just raise the undercarriage. The Buccaneer was capable of carrying the heaviest and most varied "war load" (16000lb) of any other British strike attack aircraft of its day. It had a rotating bomb bay (RAF S2.B's were later modified with a "Belly Bulge" for extra fuel whilst retaining the revolving internal bomb bay which gave her an overweight, pregnant, appearance. Weaponry included (amongst others): ALQ-101-8 ECM Pod AIM-9B (up to the mid to late 70's), G, later the 9L AN/AVQ-23E Pave Spike Pod ASM -N7a Bullpup A missile CBLS pods, 4x HES 20lb Practice Bombs CPU-123 1000lb (RAF)Paveway II laser-guided bombs Flight Refuelling Mk20C pod (Buddy Tanking) Matra/BAE Martel Anti Ship Missile & datalink pod both TV (AJ168) and Anti Radar guided (AS.37) Mk.114 1000lb GP LD and Mk.117 1000lb Chute Retarded HD bombs Optional Reconnaissance Pack (crate) comprising 6 F95 cameras and a container consisting of 36 photoflash/flare rounds. This pack or crate was fitted to the internal bomb bay. Wing mounted 400 Gallon (2000ltr) Slipper tanks SNEB 115 (Matra) Rocket Pods. RAF: 2-inch 18-round pod. RN: 2 inch 32 round pod BAe Sea Eagle Anti Shipping missile WE.177 A/B/C variant Nuclear bomb. Parachute retarded. Yield between .5 to 450kt The nicknames for the Buccaneer include Banana Jet (due to its unique NACA assisted design shape), Brick (due to its solid flying qualities, and it tended to fall like one when an engine failed), Grandma (RAF name, due to her respected age come the 1990's) as well as a few other unmentionables... An ode to Grandma: "Give me a Buccaneer, they are British through and through. The Bananajet, the best we had yet, we are the last of the few!". So much more could be written here but my old aged arthritis ridden fingers are now sore and my limited brain is now begging for mercy. This concludes my case for a DCS H.S. (Blackburn) Buccaneer Module As a final side "semi" rant (please refer to my opening sentence below before continuing further)... After watching the recent release video of a Tornado Gr.1 etc, for that other (civilian simulator) I will go out on a limb here and risk, perhaps, making myself rather unpopular with this semi-rant of a post... No apologies to anyone. As a Brit and former owner/operator of a retired (obviously privately owned) Buccaneer S2.B preserved to fast taxi condition, having previously spent a long association (professionally) in and around the Buccaneer & Tornado GR1; I can unequivocally state that the "The MoD won't release details" comment is ambiguous and not entirely true, it is akin to the very real fact that the US DoD will not release certain information, say nothing of the Russian policy (I say good for them, given their circumstances). There is so much, so much information out there, either via the internet, face to face or voice to voice with people who worked with the aircraft. There are enough airframes available, both in museums and fast taxi conditions, most of whom, I am certain, would be more than willing to assist any would be module creator. In my humble opinion, this aircraft has a very valid place within DCS, it could/should be brought to DCS, along with the various Lightning & Hunter marks, including the Tornado GR1 (excluding the GR1a and GR4 for all their super secret squirrel updates). There is more than enough info readily available to the general public that would enable these iconic British aircraft to pass ED's muster. If there is enough available information to introduce existing frontline operational European aircraft such as the Typhoon, Mirage 2000 and IDS Tornado (almost identical to the GR1) et al... Well? Before anyone offers the educated reply: "Well make it yourself!" - If I had the required skills, I would have fielded many "British" US, and other nations aircraft flying in DCS, unfortunately, I do not, I genuinely hold anyone who can in very high regard and esteem. One could make the valid argument that financially a British aircraft is not viable, well, I would argue this. I am not an F-14 fan by any chalk, F-15E, F-5E, Mirage F-1, Mirage 2000, nor am I a particular lover of the F-16, F-18, Mig-21, etc... I am especially not an F-4 fanbois. But I own (preordered in the case of the F-4) all these aircraft, purely out of interest, to learn the subject matter and to ultimately enjoy this wonderful simulator. Somebody said it here on this forum: "It is the only one of its kind we got..." - In my opinion, British aircraft have a lot to offer any DCS pilot from any nation and sales would follow accordingly. I feel that after 15 years it is a great shame, for a nation that has contributed so much to the aviation industry in all respects, that the UK's accomplishments are so poorly represented in DCS. Module Developers are missing a great opportunity, especially with such aircraft as the Hawker Hunter. Having spoken to a couple of 3rd party modders there may be a small number of British aircraft on the horizon as static or AI, this is a great start and I hope their projects come to fruition, I wish them all the very best. May your God bless ALL of you DCS 3rd party modders!!! P.S. If anyone should ever consider bringing a Bucc to DCS... Please, please do not model the S.1! >.< P.P.S. If anyone, group or otherwise is considering taking up the challenge of creating a Buccaneer for DCS, I would be more than happy to talk to you and to assist in any way I can, you only need to PM me, I do use Discord. Edited for a grammatical error, slave to my OCD'ness...!

It certainly is an inconvenience and totally understand the frustration. As soon as I do have a patch date I will let you all know.

Thanks @Gianky & @SuperKermit! I cannot say much right now, but the greatest issue coming from modern modules or even the Tomcat is the APQ-120. As you can read from the manual, it is shockingly less powerful than the AWG-9 and lacks many features we are used to. At the same time, it is a very good radar, the first full solid-state system, that had to fit into the limited room available in the nose of the F-4E. Besides that, the other big issue is the GCI. In DCS is extremely poor and both too good (too precise) and awful to use (spamming requests is necessary, it is not proactive, minimal information given). 3rd gen fighters, or aircraft with limited radars, really benefit from good controllers, and I recommend flying with a human one. If playing as RIO in the F-14 is a walk in the park once you get used to it, in the F-4E is quite a full-time job, as building SA is fundamental but time-consuming. On the one hand, we have a Pulse radar, so TA is not a factor any more; on the other, we have the ground clutter. You can practice this with the F-14 by using PSRCH only, set to 50 nm 1B and without cheating with the Gain knob. In the F-4E is even more interesting as the radar simulation is outstanding. You will immediately see how tricky the process is, especially if you do not want the target to know your position and intentions, and therefore you proceed without a lockon. Flipping the perspective, in fact, if you start locking left and right, you are only improving the target's SA. So, BVR. Since the F-4E comes with modern Sparrows, it is totally doable; the question is whether it is worth it. The -45 was introduced in the early/mid-70s, and in DCS, we have only the F1 (mid-70s in Spanish service) and the MiG-21bis (1972) landing in a similar time frame. The AIM-7E is better, kinematics-wise, than its equivalent of the 50s and 60s. If we include the whole decade of the 70s, then we find that the S530F (1979) and R40R (MiG-25, 1972) accelerate better than the AIM-7F (1976), but they are not vastly superior. So, can you expect a BVR engagement in a '70s setting? Sure. But I doubt it will be common. For instance, an AIM-7F takes ~30" to cover 10-12 nm and arrives slower than M2. Any offset or manoeuvre by the target will thrash the missile. I expect a lot of FOX-1s from very far to push the target into a defensive stance, or so people may think (mostly depends on the target's SA - if they recognise a FOX-1 from 20nm, they will basically shrug and carry on), but the odds of success will be minimal against fighters. At the end of the day, I would approach this similarly to any other engagement: work on obtaining superior SA, respect the MAR, and improve crew and section coordination. More data here: https://flyandwire.com/2023/07/27/missiles-kinematics-part-ii-cold-war-era/ @Kirk66 Unfortunately "notching" is one of the aspects where DCS' missile simulation diverges the most from RL

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!

Just did an ILS landing....man this sim is great. Mike

I was just lestining to the fighter pilot podcast https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/125-blackburn-buccaneer/ I know other people have asked for the Buccaneer so I am going to join them. Ideally I would like two of them, one Fleet air arm version with a carrier included and the second an ODS ventage RAF version

Presently they aim for this: "Our MiG-29A, NATO codename Fulcrum, will be the export modification of the “A” version that was supplied to Warsaw Pact countries." https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/8a53b9baafb8473116ad05970cd8a761/ As for: Romania: they ditched their 29s in favor of upgrade Mig-21 (yes you read this correctly) Moldova: they sold majority of their birds to the USA and kept minimal number for themselves.

Quick tally. Harrier M2000 F16 F18 F14(wrong model) Apache Hind HIP F15E A10 Upcoming Kiowa, Chinnock. Tornado AI B1 If only we had a full fidelity Blackhawk.

Thanks all, Was able to change the names and ID numbers in the board.txt file and now I can use both Leonardo’s at the same time. I renamed one Leonardo to “Lighting Panel” and the other to “Switch Panel”.

As I promised, I didn't do anything because I think there should be a patch but ... I see that I recived the update (even I pushed Yesterday "Snooze of update for 4 hours"). Now I have this version of Meta Quest Link: and no issue in VR for me . Link Cable and DCS MT / OpenXR works, however Im on Quest Pro, not Quest 3.

It’s less painful to have your teeth removed than speaking to the support team at Meta.

I'll have a look at this one. I noticed problems with SCUDs, maybe something that ED needs fixing. I'm wrapping up the Gamblers and then I want to go back to RO:DF and completely overhaul it, just like I did with the Raven One - streamline some things, add some safeguards to triggers, remove all space bar presses for freq changes etc. Will keep you posted. Apologies it all takes so long, but I am still bogged down with full-time job - but as of the summer I am planning to move to DCS full time and then both reaction time to bugs and releasing new missions will be much quicker!

As mentioned in previous post it is certainly unfortunate that the timing of this Meta update created this problem, we are currently locked into a testing cycle for the next patch, we have to test the whole of DCS including its modules, all our fixes features and planned updates. The work arounds in the first post are the only option at this time, the steam API seems to be the most successful at the moment. I hope (all going well) I can let you know the intended patch date soon, please keep an eye on the patch status post linked in my signature below. thank you and sorry for the inconvenience

I regularly see/hear E-3A's, as Geilenkirchen's downwind leg runs right over our house. I still walk over to the window every time

How’s this coming along Scoobs? Cold mornings in the hangar here. Winter servicing almost done. Slots available at all my airfields, always room for an Avro . All the best to the team.

This worked Tribbin, thanks for sharing.

Sure, here you go. This is based off 2.01 version of High Digit SAM mod. It's kind of a hack job, but if you flare the FIM-43 and 9M38M will almost always miss. Without flaring, they still tend to miss. The Blowpipe just almost always misses, but it's immune to countermeasures. So that's nice, I guess. Extra HDS Units.7z

Just got hit with the update - DCS crashes on startup.

DCS fatcat exes should do what Boeing exes did, QUIT. Way to many customer complaints about this and they wont fix it until they want. Get off your fat butts and fix this

This no longer works as I stated in my message - already tried this, it now force downloads v63

as requested many times before, the ability to select more than one group at a time. EG, a combat box with fighter escort or a battalion with multiple various units or even an entire army.

It's been 2 years now and still waiting for George to have the ability to call out targets or to be given a ROE free to fire command. There is a Wingman/Flight menu where I can give an order to attack armor or air defences and more with all the jets in the game. For now, Al George is sitting in the front reading magazines and eating potato chips waiting for me to put spot targets for him. I'm sure I'll make another post like this again in 1 years time.

Technically with the F-4E's pulse radar and CW guidance for the earlier AIM-7s, you are not "notching" anything; the radar and missile simply do not care. What you have to do is defeat the missile kinematically, or break the radar lock via chaff and ECM. But the point that the Fox-1 got you into the fight with an advantage is dead on - your target, if it survived, would be lower on energy and ripe for a follow on missile or high aspect gun shot. And yes, by the time the AIM-7 hit, you were close enough to watch the impact and results. Vulture

This one is... just terrible... I can't sugarcoat this one at all. Currently, the new landing gear mechanics are added to the P-47 and I bumped the report stating this needs to be addressed at the very least with the release of that. I will try and keep on it for sure. Thanks.

You don't like ED's decision. We get it. Teach them a lesson and don't buy it. The people hating on this map here before it even hits EA aren't going to change the plan. There are others who are looking forward to it.

Hey guys, I think this is a feature that'd be very appreciated, and it's been quite a bit since August. Do you guys have news on the subject? I'm afraid ED has given us the "soon" again, as it has been 14 "2 weeks". Thank you for your work!

We have asked, if we can share anything we will. Thanks I have asked, but currently the focus is within the borders of Afghanistan. Thanks. No need for hope it will happen, the whole of Afghanistan will be completed in phases.

...and it was the birth place/heartland of the Taliban movement! Definitely NOT a calm and quiet place.

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.

Looks like ED is going to take care of this from the latest newsletter.

We need a Fulda gap map and I think the Naval version might be a good what if for the Falklands

What was before does not matter anymore because it's the first time we wait for an update in new "united" version schedule. I know they try to aim at 6 weeks but I can't share optimism with you and most definitely don't expect it at 5 weeks. Rather 6 or more...

Thread found. 2024-03-14 17:41:14.773 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (1824): ClipmapGraphics::init("colortexture") 2024-03-14 17:41:14.865 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (1824): ClipmapGraphics::init("splatmap") 2024-03-14 17:41:15.977 INFO GRAPHICSVISTA (1824): Creating Resource "Unicode" of type 1 2024-03-14 17:41:17.438 ERROR DX11BACKEND (900): CreateShaderResourceView FAILED. Reason: DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED 2024-03-14 17:41:17.439 WARNING LOG (14856): 3 duplicate message(s) skipped. 2024-03-14 17:41:17.439 ERROR DX11BACKEND (2852): failed to create index buffer. Reason: DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED 2024-03-14 17:41:17.439 ERROR DX11BACKEND (10816): CreateShaderResourceView FAILED. Reason: DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED 2024-03-14 17:41:17.439 ERROR DX11BACKEND (2852): failed to create structed buffer. Reason: DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED 2024-03-14 17:41:17.439 ERROR DX11BACKEND (2852): CreateShaderResourceView FAILED. Reason: E_INVALIDARG 2024-03-14 17:41:17.442 ERROR DX11BACKEND (13476): failed to create index buffer. Reason: DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED 2024-03-14 17:41:17.446 WARNING LOG (14856): 1 duplicate message(s) skipped. 2024-03-14 17:41:17.446 ERROR DX11BACKEND (13476): failed to create structed buffer. Reason: DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED 2024-03-14 17:41:17.446 ERROR DX11BACKEND (13476): CreateShaderResourceView FAILED. Reason: E_INVALIDARG 2024-03-14 17:41:17.447 ERROR DX11BACKEND (1704): failed to create structed buffer. Reason: DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED @Gullwing91 Please try Art-J's suggestions. Also try Preload Radius min value (100) in DCS graphic options.

You're welcome, SuperKermit. Another great content creator for DCS is Mike Solyom, with his YouTube channel "The Ops Center". He illustrates aerial warfare, mostly from the USAF point of view. He's covering BVR combat right in these weeks. The Ops Center By Mike Solyom - YouTube

what's more strange is that how come we can mount the dual rack 250kg LS-6 on pylon 2 and 6, but not on inboard pylon 3 and 5 (which is also listed on the picture above)?

Honestly, without derailing this thread, localised weather is one of DCS’s most glaring omissions. The other major flight sims, combat & civil, have had this feature for decades.

I would love to have more languages and voices for the modules.

Установил новую версию клиента, авторизацию прошел и на этом запуск обрывается, при попытке запустить снова появляется окно Nvidia и иногда новый экран запуска и снова вылетает.

Thank you to all for posting your experiences and work arounds for the issue with v63. I do not have a date for the patch yet, as soon as I can update you all I will.

Hi, this is up to ED. We have asked for the new ammo types and they are in the process of implementing them.

Thank you so much! I'm pretty sure I am wrong (and please do correct me if I am wrong as I don't know much about the conflict) but I think we could usee the Buc to reenact some of the sorties in op Granby.