Leaderboard

I'm updating the paintjob on the Patriot missiles, since I used the Swedish versions before.

Coming along nicely, we will put up a full update changelog in april, we have added the gyropilot systems as well as other smaller bits

We have a fix that has been tested internally for the next patch, we did see some issues during the tests with third party VR software that also complicated the fix, the long and short of this is complex software will always be a challenge and things will break from time to time. Thank you all for the feedback and for the crash logs, and also for community members who have found various work arounds. I hope I can share the patch date with you all soon, I am waiting for the all clear from QA before I update the patch status post. thanks

I haven't checked this post in a while, and apparently, I missed a lot of nonsense. Skipping the complaints about realism whilst mentioning ""Cybersport"" which cracked me up, there are lots of posts in this infinite thread that talks about the current issues of the missiles, the game in general (inconsistent radar and missile simulation, rwr, bug/exploits and so on - lol at esport again), and the fact that the Phoenix in DCS is actually a good missile no matter the API limitations. It has a very high top speed but slow acceleration; its behaviour changes a lot depending on the range, and whoever expects a preventively defending target to be splattered at 70 nm does not know how the phoenix works. At those ranges, a minor offset or changes in Vc can seriously affect the missile envelope. So far, people complaining mostly have three-four main "issues": - they haven't tweaked the AI to make it less dumb but exceptional at notching; - they play with no set era. Who would have thought that missiles from 2000+ are better than the Phoenix, especially vs fighters, right? - they play against modules with subpar avionics simulation: everyone can defeat a Phoenix if their SA and RWR are better than the F-35's fusion; - they expect Pk to be 100%. Well, it doesn't work like that. Obv this does not mean that there no issues, on the contrary, but the game can be made better and closer to real situations. It's boring AF, but only a matter of patience and will. Sorry to sound a bit annoyed, but I can't believe that almost 60 pages later we are still repeating the same things.

I’ve been there a few times, the landscape is just amazing. This Picture looks like it’s low level; but I was at 41000ft, every peak is 6000m or higher. ( East afghan border)

Sorry guys..... I'm currently busy working on Tornado.

Hi Hiob, can you take a screenshot of your dcs settings page, and maybe add a track and video showing what you are seeing. Obviously we have the LOD switch factor slider for distance stuff, and the individual sliders for ground clutter, trees ect, we can take a look at your settings and see if we can improve it anywhere. Or create some feedback / data for the team. thank you

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.

What about a Germany Map from the 1980. Fulda Gap and other scenarios. With the new Mig-23 from Razbam and the Bo-105 i think it‘s time for that map. Mig-21, Mirage F1, Hind, Huey…

Hi Tippis, folks. I did this, in my clunky way I have five sets of coordinates and want one set chosen randomly, for the first objective. When the objective is complete, another one can be accepted and the next coordinate set is randomly selected from the remaining four. Rinse and repeat. For the set up, Flag 5 is set to a random value between 1 - 5 at mission start. Then scripting will define a dictionary with values {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. Mission Start: Flag 5 set to a random value from 1-5 Mission Start: Create a "F5Dict", and remove the current value of Flag 5 from the dictionary. Flag 5 value determines the coordinate set (one of five) for the objective -- MS, code.Create F5Dict Flag5Dict = {1,2,3,4,5} do local Flag5Value = trigger.misc.getUserFlag('5') local indexsearch = 0 for index, data in pairs(Flag5Dict) do if (data == Flag5Value) then indexSearch = index end end table.remove(Flag5Dict,indexSearch) end After the first objective is complete, the player can select to attack a second objective from the remaining four values in the dictionary; Flag 75 goes True, so Switched Condition Do Script.. -- SC, Select Next Killbox, F75T do if #Flag5Dict > 0 then local indexRand = math.ceil(math.random(#Flag5Dict)) trigger.action.setUserFlag(5, Flag5Dict[indexRand]) -- remove the new value table.remove(Flag5Dict,indexRand) end end Complete the objective. Rinse & repeat. Credit for the code help goes to Franze Boxcutter Hari 02.lua Boxcutter Hari 29S1g.miz

PHABULOUS Phantoms Phorever Baby!! Received in Chicago USA 3-26-24 Thank You Heatblur Easter Bunny

Hi, I can not share when the next patch is yet, it will depend on test results, as soon as QA give me the go ahead I will share the date with everyone. Please bear in mind we are testing the whole of DCS and all modules, not just one fix. The meta crash in DCS has created a problem for us and all of you so apologies for that. We are testing potential fixes internally at the moment, I wish I could also, but I do not own the headset personally.

I will continue to improve and publish 002. and 003 will not be published without authorization from the original author. If you want, try to download it from the original author as much as possible

Хочу полноценную модель Су-25. Раз уж Афганистан будет, то Су-25 маст хев!

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.

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.

Afganistan Develop Pics.

Hello Creators, I'd wish to bring a topic to your attention that bugs me tremendously, even though I'm usually not easily bugged by this kind of stuff. That topic is the Bubble of maximum LoD around the player. There is this area/bubble around the player (estimated 150-300 m wide) where you see maximum details, including but not limited to: Details on buildings, Satellite Dishes, Detailed Fences, Ground Clutter etc..... I get why this zone of maximum detail is limited (performance obviously) and it usually isn't a problem when you fly Jets or even Warbirds for that matter - because you are way to high and way to fast anyway to notice any of this stuff in the first place. And when you are taxiing around, your pov is so low, that you can't see very far in the first place. !!! HOWEVER - this completely flips when flying helicopters. With typical helicopter operations being low and rather slow in comparison, the "wave" of LoD pop-in's of the aforementioned Details/Clutter is squarley right in the midst of where you're looking. In the worst case, flying over a dense city you're literally "riding the wave"! (the lovely datailed urban areas in the latest maps only exacerbate the problem). !!! There is always a compromise to be made between best looks and best performance - totally clear - and thankfully we have a wide range of gfx features we can adjust to our hardware and priorities. Even when there isn't a game settings option to tune DCS individually, there is often some more or less hidden .lua file that can be modified by the great modding community of DCS to make things happen. Unfortunately not in this case. There is neither a build-in adjustable setting for this, nor has anybody (including me) been able to find some inofficial mod that helps. Personally I would happily change some maximum viewing distance for improvements in the very near to midst viewing ranges. At least there should be the option to do so. Hardware has become vastly more powerful (even though it can still be brought to its knees), and I think it should be allowed to the users to balance their needs. To be clear, I'm assuming that this is just some parameter that is already in the game and only needs to be made available to be controlled by the player. I'm not asking for a rewrite of the graphics engine. In the latter case, there's obviously higher priority stuff. And I'm also not suggesting to force some hardware hogging feature on players that aren't so fortunate to own the latest top tier GPU. I'm just kindly asking for the opportunity to make that adjustment/decision individually! THANK YOU! @BIGNEWY @NineLine

Owning a pico 4 and an 8kx is a bit of a luxury, so of course I can’t help comparing the two. I had the 8kx first and have now had the pico for about 9 months. both are great headsets and I’d be perfectly happy with either. I thought I’d jump between them more, but actually I don’t. I just spent a couple weeks forcing myself to fly with just the 8kx to “get used to it” again. No doubt it has that lovely fov and nice colors. Then today I put the pico on again and flew a few of the same missions I had flown with the 8kx. Expecting to be a bit underwhelmed by the pico due to the smaller fov and VD with compression, I was not at all. In fact I’d go as far as to say the pico is nicer in visuals than the pimax. With the exception of the fov, the sharpness is the biggest noticeable difference. The 8kx gets very blurry away from the center quite quickly, meaning that despite the larger fov, i have to move my head more with he pimax than the pico, in order to see the details and labels around the cockpit. comfort is the other immediately obvious one for me. The pimax is not uncomfortable, but switch over to the pico and the weight difference and balance is like a breath of fresh air, as is the actual breath of fresh air provided by the little fan inside. im still in awe of this little headset for dcs after 9 months. VD works great with it and I get solid performance with high settings in dcs and godlike in VD with hvec encoder and 150mbps, at 90hz. At the price this things sells for it really is astounding. Highly recommended.

Yep, I was planning to add a FMTV M1083.

Yes and I interpret that as in the original configuration, which in turn means the following country options: - Poland. - East Germany - Czechoslovakia - Romania - Bulgaria Poland got an initial batch as a Warsaw Pact memeber(and later bought both the former East German ones after having been operated and modified by Luftwaffe as well as the Czech ones, while Slovakia kept theirs). Like you said, the Romanian ones were withdrawn from service years ago. AFAIK the Bulgarian are the only ones still in the original 9.12A config. Yugoslavia was never part of the Warsaw Pact and therefore got the 9.12B variant. Hungaria was a Warsaw Pact member, but didn't get their MiG-29s in that capacity, but only later as part of a debt settlement with Russia and therefore also got the 9.12B variant. Moldova inherited a number of MiG-29s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but those were the 9.13 variant - I don't think they kept any of them(they were in bad shape anyway), but sold them all to the US except for a couple of airframes they gave to Romania as a gift.

Spits pass almost every day during the summer here. Sometimes Hurris, Harvards and other props. I’ll often see and hear the two-seater Spits giving lucky punters their pleasure flights too. I’ve a grass strip not far from me in Kent that operate Spits, Harvards, Tiger Moths etc. and Biggin Hill’s not too far out. They’ve more than enough operating out of there to warm the cockles throughout the ‘good weather’ season. I’m very grateful and appreciate my luck every time I hear em. Watched the two Lancs fly overhead while on my way to the village butchers a few years ago. Punching the air like an idiot I was. Can always tell when the Griffons are about and if they’re low or tearing about I’ll try to get a look. Qcumber, one of the veterans I knew a little used to have a dog while he was flying during the Battle of Britain. They swore his dog could recognise his engine among others on the squadron and would greet him when he came in and wouldn’t settle until he had. He told me he wasn’t kidding about it when I quizzed him. Clever little buggers aren’t they.

Nice picture of formation flight

The problem for me is. 1. Mods are never gonna be supported in official campaigns or missions. 2. Mods do break and they can break DCS too. 3. Doesn't have AI gunners, which removes realism and immersion when you don't have door gunners. 4. Dosnt support force trim on force feedback stick.

Brilliant work! Perhaps in a future release, you could consider something like the FMTV series of trucks - a good 3D model to use could be this, for just $20, €18.5, or 212.6 SEK. https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/m1083-fmtv-6x6-general-utility-truck-6ff09587869f4aeabf8bb317c57bc3d3 I know that this model isn't rigged for animations so this may not be entirely suitable for DCS World purposes, but there are far more expensive options (up to $200, €185, or 2126 SEK) that are rigged and come in different colors (desert tan, green, and the CARC pattern). Speaking of trucks, there also exists the RMMV HX, but for some reason, they're either (relatively) cheap but not rigged for animations, or hideously expensive but rigged and game-ready. https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/car/suv/man-military-truck (cheap but not animated) https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/military/military-vehicle/man-hx77-container-truck (ridiculously expensive) Either way, I continue to donate and we all should. Every amount helps, big or small.

Qinetiq (civilian contractor)

This one?

Hhhmm, how do I say this: "The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak." and "Tempus fugit" Kind of... Be asured, that we really, really want to make the Thud a DCS reality, but...well... see above...

Daily MiG-29

Battle damage is not the only reason a system will fail. I have seen photos of sadly shot up Phantoms.

We have at least the community Blackhawk mod which many servers use, so there's that.

damn, now it hit me too…so sad. pls eagle dynamics bring that patch before easter, pls pls…

@majorandme yes the flashing and jittery is horrible but u might want to take a look at your settings in dcs. the mt version had its own settings and i had to tweak them to match the ST version. i also put down grass and trees to minimum and clouds to low and preload radius to 40000, then it was smooth again

well co-ordinated rudder turns are a thing ...

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/535-bugs-and-problems/

AP 2019E-PN, the Pilots' Notes for the FB.VI. Note very carefully that these were issued in the 1950s and the speeds given are in knots, not mph. This means you need to convert the given speeds to statute miles per hour, which is what our wartime Mosquito's ASI is calibrated in. 105kts = 121mph. 120kts = 138mph. No wonder many people are finding landing so hard - you're well on the back of the drag curve.

any chance we can get an estimate from ED on when fix/next update might be? Not happy that ED have elected not to hotfix for benefit of so many users.

Paket angekommen. Nochmals vielen Dank. Gruss, Dierk

Turns out that the keyboard was not recognizing the WIN key. Put another KB on, seemed to work now

OK, I'm on Team 'Cloud Shadows Are There' - but - they are not as visible over the water as over land. A lot depends on the type of cloud and its altitude. Quick vid and some pics (Water high, clouds standard) cloudshadows.mp4 This last pic was from 22k (online) and I couldn't make out any shadows. The clouds, IIRC, were at 12k. Don't know if this is realistic. Test Normandy Clouds Test.miz

I found the reason for 002 and forgot to do segmentation loss mapping. I will simplify the collision model. However, due to certain reasons, the original author published it on their own. If you need it, you can download it from the original author.鹦鹉洲大王的个人空间-鹦鹉洲大王个人主页-哔哩哔哩视频 (bilibili.com)

Agree! Only been doing DCS for a month or so, and still riding the high from the first ILS landing. -Ryan

Welcome to the great mashup of videogame-playing-desktop-pilots Sir! Take sources from US Navy, Air Force, sprinkle them with Brits and other NATO/Commonwealth countries spanning from the 50s to the day before yesterday, and this is the result. Bonus points if something sounds cool On the bright side, these acronyms help a lot to shorten discussions by acting as de facto brevities Neg Sir, the IFF in DCS is *magic* and based on the coalition. Even a British Focke-Wulf does not return as spades when interrogated with APX-80 or -76. Which is a huge shame as it kills a great part of gameplay. Hopefully, the work on the MiG-29A's IFF will see a more thorough implementation later applicable across the game because, at the moment, Spades = Bandit/Hostile. Against fighters, yeah, but, in theory, employing at 12nm and using cranking as a displacement turn should leave enough room for a counterturn, depending on VC and how the target reacts. Versus less agile targets, say, a pair of Tu-95: FOX-1, crank, at timeout, start the counterturn on the second bomber Also, I'd love to see the AI (or even players) avoiding a merge with a blowthrough. It is a concept hardly applicable to DCS, unfortunately.

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.

I'm the same with Spitfires. My dog has learned to recognize the sound of a RR Merlin engine and let's me know before I can hear it!

AIM-54 has changed again. In vCVW-17 since the last patch we are seeing a drop in overall Pk to a ~25% level vs ~45% at the end of last year. Notch resistance seems to have plummetted plus terminal energy is down. This is bloody frustrating. Our BVR timelines are all over the place. Can someone please justify these changes and at the very least ensure that patch notes reflect any adjustments to the AIM-54 physics.

I don't really understand this discussion. We already have FC3 MiG-29A and it's quite clear what weapons it can carry. MiG-29A is a good matchup for M-2000C, F-14 or F-4E. Not a F-16C Block 50 from ca. 2007. It's never going to be a fair fight against Amraam/datalink capable jets.

Daily MiG-29

Not sure who you've been discussing that with. I've seen exactly no-one defending the missiles going backwards. What we've said each and every time is that the missile kinematics, i.e. the motor performance and the aerodynamics are really close. The guidance however is lacking which makes the missile worse off than it should be due to that, but that also not really something a 3rd party can fix. The issue with the backwards lofting/firing missiles is due to how lofting in DCS works (at least with older missiles) and the fact that players have started to manually loft which wasn't really intended either in DCS or IRL. But no-one is defending that and it's not correct behavior, but again, also not something HB can fix on our own.