Leaderboard

Why would anyone who wants the Phantom want a refund? There is absolutely no doubt that the module will be released. So why should I buy after the release when you can save a few percent before? And if someone isn't sure whether they want the Phantom at all, they shouldn't pre-order any modules. It takes longer? So what? The module has no expiration date. We're not little kids here who stamp their foot and say "but I want..." (although some do)

https://github.com/tobi-be/DCS-OH-6A it is available now

3D model is near completion

I'm a bit puzzled by this, because no one from ORBX Team actually seems to maintain this part of their Forum, and all messages come from users. Its worth remembering that here is where the main part of the support and information provided should be. Thank you :)!

I hope @BIGNEWY will take care of this topic. They must have some community manager here on the Forum because this is the official channel for reporting bugs, wishes and any information. Maybe from the nearest Friday it will change, I hope :).

Please do not drink before posting on the forum thanks.

We expect them to become more active when the map releases, but they also have their own forums to deal with so how they will balance that all out is up to them. I will note with them the concerns of course.

Simple. Then do not pre-order or buy EA. Buy the module when you think it is in a good state. But if people are happy to learn and grow with the module, regardless of how it changes, then that's fine too. You have a choice. I never understand why people make a big fuss out of this.

This. I'm glad to see there are other people thinking like that. After all those years of just playing around in the sim, in 2021 I decided to learn flying from scratch. And since I'm very interested in history and grew up in East Germany, I got hold of training materials from the past and started learning to fly "eastern style". Thanks to the Russian origins of DCS (inner and outer beacons and RSBN / PRMG), this works really well in DCS. First I flew the Yak-52 for six months, teaching myself wind, route and curve calculations. Then I flew the L-39 for a good 2 years and am now moving on to the MiGs. All the procedures that were available back then really work in DCS, provided the aircraft is realistically simulated (the L-39 is, the MiG-21 is not, hopefully the MiG-29 will be). So I understand Hassle very well when he wants to dig deep into the subject. It gives you a lot back. The F-5E is also in my hangar, collecting dust, but one day I will start to learn flying "western style"

They haven't exceeded mine

The Saab Aircraft Add On Collection Brought to you by The Saab Global Eye Saved games install OvGME ready ai only at present Enjoy! New link https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/98g0ks4m4b4gga7yrpp1g/Saab-Global-Eye-V-2.9.2.zip?rlkey=u3cjzv8fy3n31sulmbzcn8c2r&st=weu4npz6&dl=0 With the near release of the Kola Map I decided it was high time these aircraft saw the light of DCS day, They have been collecting dust in my mod hanger for years So I took them out, Gave them a Polish and Wax, Fixed a few issues, and we can now show you what we have on offer These models come from Sketch Fab and 3D warehouse All modifications to the models are my own They will be released as ai at first, with Flyable coming later. (FC3) In the hanger were found, Saab 35 Draken Saab Global Eye Saab J-29F Tunnan SAAB J-21 and a Saab MFI-15 Safari Some of these models are low poly, and are presented as eye candy only Coming very soon! With a nod to @currenthill Who should be making these Himself! Enjoy these screens. All A WIP Stay tuned!

ORBX Discord Kola map: Article on Stormbirds https://stormbirds.blog/2024/04/28/thirty-seconds-of-dcs-kola/

The thing is that you do not need to pre-order the second it is announced. You can wait until just before they actually release it.

Geez, I'll buy you that upgrade when it's out, ok?

The moment subscription comes, im off.

I've tried different techniques to achieve a more advanced terminal maneuver. For the RBS 15 I implemented a combination of very low altitude on half and jump on half, to make is harder for the CIWS to counter. I've also tried things like setting the GPS error to a high setting which will make the missile turn hard when turning on its seeker. They are all better than nothing, but they're still workarounds.

Yeah, I'm very aware of Orbx's pedigree and I've owned a bunch of their FSX terrains in the past and been very impressed with the quality. That's why I was so happy to see them starting work in the DCS ecosystem - especially when it was announced that they were working on the map I was most excited about. I'm also very aware of the constraints around early access and what that implies. On the flip side, I've been in game development for 25 years and what I'm seeing (or not seeing) gives me pause. I don't have any negative agenda around this - quite the contrary. I'm just giving my perspective. I guess we'll all find out on Friday. (PS - This thread gives me the opportunity to say thanks for all your Flanker Training content back in the early 2000's. You were an amazing flight sim resource back in the day. )

I disagree entirely. ED modules has a good track record of delivering updates to its pre order customers. There are one or two third party that falls under your envelope. And they are not a major player in this game. Pre order make a lot of sense. And I am not following your chain of thought at all. We must learn a new system , we will be able to do so until more feature come. And we will know what to do with that feature when it arrive. Pre order got a bad reputation because of noisy drama queens do not know what it means buying access to an early access module. You are basically a cadet testing a beta. If you’re not up for it don’t. If you are buy.

[emoji2960] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Коллега! Поскольку Вы не приложили своей миссии, чтобы на её примере Вам показали как надо, то рассказ будет в картинках. Судя по вопросам, Редактор Миссий для Вас не является хорошо освоенным инструментом, поэтому не пытайтесь сразу всё сделать сами, используйте готовые решения. Для этого в игре есть готовые наборы шаблонов. Первая картинка: 1. Выбираете Объект. 2. Добавить шаблон. nullnull Вторая картинка: Выбираете нужную группу из готовых батарей ПВО и тыкаете мышкой в нужное место карты. Не забудьте после этого закрыть окно шаблонов крестиком в правом верхнем углу. null Третья картинка: У вас появляется готовая группа. null1. кликая по чекбоксу под номером 1 можно выбирать любой юнит из группы. Текущий юнит выделяется жёлтым цветом. 2. Компасом мы можем придавать юниту любое желаемое направление. Пока хватит.

Um die Erinnerung von @Flow zu ergänzen: Wir sprachen über die zivile CBS-5-Version, die Schwierigkeit, einen zivilen SuperFive nachzubilden, angesichts der vielen verschiedenen Cockpit-Layouts und zusätzlicher Ausrüstung wie niedrige Kufen, hohe Kufen, Hebezeug, Lastenhaken, FLIR-Systeme . Unterm Strich wird es eine Version des Cockpit-Layouts geben und angesichts der zusätzlichen Missionsausrüstung würde ich das Gespräch so interpretieren, dass noch keine Entscheidung getroffen wurde, ob und was getan wird. All das ist auch der Status quo, da die koreanische Version wahrscheinlich nie in ein spielbares Modul umgewandelt wird. The_Fragger teilte uns außerdem mit, dass sie die volle Unterstützung von Airbus haben, die BO 105 für DCS nachzubauen, was eine sehr wichtige und großartige Neuigkeit ist. Soweit ich weiß, werden alle (!) Leistungsschalter im BO 105 modelliert und haben Auswirkungen auf die Berechnungen der verschiedenen MEDUSA-Module. Alle Systeme im BO 105 werden im Spiel realistisch dargestellt, mit Ausnahme des IFF, da dieses noch klassifiziert ist. Stattdessen wird es ein Modell-IFF-System geben. Wir sprachen auch über das Innenleben der Mast Momentanzeige, den Chip-Detektor und externe Effekte, die vom Flugmodell selbst berücksichtigt werden. Das Flugmodell wird sehr schwierig sein und The_Fragger sagte, wenn Sie Ihre ersten Flüge mit der BO 105 genießen, haben sie etwas mit dem Flugmodell falsch gemacht .

Haha, thanks! No matter how I do it, it creates confusion.

OK, let's be realistic here. What we already have more or less working in DCS: parachute flight controllable ejected pilot (full 1st person view) controllable manpad soldier ability to point and shoot small arms, guns and missiles with manpad or from the vehicles (shooter eyepiece view) binoculars and night vision goggles (1st person view) a few types of animated (I know ) infantry and terrorists models drivable vehicles Now just connect the dots and we don't have to create multi-million business for it to happen. Scale problem? New maps are pretty good and detailed on the ground. Let's forget about the buildings for now since we can't get into them but there's no one hiding there either. Maybe it could be added in DCS later as it's still needed for good helicopter and CA action anyway. It doesn't make sense to make some higher fidelity areas that aircraft would enter/exit. If you're hiding behind the bush as a solder, the pilot has to see that bush too on his TPOD from 5 miles or you'd be literally a sitting duck there. Timeline problem? You don't have to forcefully connect them all together. Don't forget we're in a simulator and can change the place and time of simulation. That means you can be a pilot, then a boot and then a tank commander a moment later without breaking the physics of simulated world, because we're not one and the same person going Rambo style, the pilot stays in aircraft and the AI pilot controls it after you leave, while you take control over one of AI soldiers, just like that. Imagine the scenario: startup your Chinook, embark AI troops, drop'em, you then become one of them and continue FPS mission. Call for evac, get to extraction point, embark the transport. Change back to pilot and RTB to end the mission as a pilot. Idea isn't new and have been done already in some games - we just put the focus and fidelity on the flying part with added lower fidelity fun part on the ground Isn't it how CA works right now? We don't ask to compete with AAA FPS here. Then this wish connects with other wishes for a downed pilot that can survive on the water (under some conditions) and can be CSARed out.

Finally got around to being able to finish the weathering on the wings. Made for the v57th.

The last question was "When Kiowa?" @1:23:46 The planned release window is end of May, beginning of June 2024. https://youtu.be/dmtJvckryoA?si=Grwcis4TujJ4FlD_&t=5026

Look at Elite Dangerous if you want to know what happens if you ram a half cooked first person shooter into a game designated entirely for flying. Spoiler alert: nothing pretty.

Thanks all. I marked @lengro 's post as the solution but @speed-of-heat came up with an equally nice solution. Very much appreciate the help.

I've got about 25 modules and I see no reason I should get free planes. I mean, I'd be delighted if they threw a CH-47 at me, but that's mmmmmm... unlikely. I charge for my work and they charge for theirs. Capitalism, baby!

Auf die Kola Karte freue ich mich grundsätzlich sehr, bin aber gleichzeitig auch von orbx enttäuscht. Es wird ein Teaser veröffentlicht, der ziemlich genau nichts aussagt, ausser dass bald mehr kommt. In 5 Tagen erscheint die Karte und wir haben noch sehr wenig davon gesehen. Wie Air Joker richtig gesagt hat, bloss weil die 15 Jahre Erfahrung im Bereich Flugsimulationen haben, muss das genau gar nichts bedeuten. Ich hätte mir da ganz klar mehr erhofft, nicht zuletzt auch um die Vorfreude zu steigern. Wahrscheinlich werden wir am 03.05. einen Video zur Veröffentlichung zu sehen bekommen. Auch hier im Forum ist orbx kaum oder gar nicht aktiv. Auf deren eigener Homepage wird die Kola Karte nicht einmal unter der Rubrik “comming soon“ angekündigt. Eagle Dynamics bzw. DCS wird auch unter Partner nirgends erwähnt. Irgendwie etwas seltsam. Versteht mich nicht falsch: Ja, ich freue mich sehr auf die Kola Karte und als ED im vergangenen Jahr orbx als neuen Drittanbieter vorgestellt hat, waren meine Freude und Erwartungen gross. Sie ist eine tolle Ergänzung zu dem, was wir bisher haben. Am Freitag wissen wir mehr, meine Vorfreude wurde zwischenzeitlich etwas getrübt. Trotzdem freue ich mich auf die Karte und die Videos, die nach dem Erscheinen der Karte folgen werden.

I'm not entirely convinced we “know” that. What your photo is showing isn't an Mk84 explosion — it's the aftermath of an Mk84 exploding in a built-up area, creating and throwing dirt, debris, and dust into the air but most likely also smoke rising form the house collapsing and/or being on fire. The bomb isn't doing all the work, and even if it's a huge contributing factor, it wouldn't look anywhere near that big without the buildings providing all the material to create that cloud. That doesn't mean that your sense of lack-lustre explosion effects is wrong, just that it might not be the bomb that is to blame. Rather, it's that targets don't really blow up all that spectacularly in the game, with a rare few exceptions. You might get a small fire effect and a friendly block vape party, but buildings don't generally contribute to the spectacle as much as they probably should. Compare what happens if you drop even a tiny firecracker on a “warehouse” building, and if you drop a MiG-21 nuke on some generic houses. One creates a spectacle because the building generates its own secondary-explosion effects; the other just creates instant ruins with little to no extra decoration. Basically, yes, DCS explosions could probably use a bit more oomph, but it's quite likely that a better way of going about it is by addressing the object destruction part of the equation rather than the actual bomb effect. Same end result — different ways of going about it.

IMHO The price isn't bad, however I already own the FF versions of F-5E/F-86 and moreover I'm not interested in buying any more FC level module.

Oh duck, here we go again....... Everytime the same drama.

WOW! What is with all the whinging?....Oh, just pre-purchased the CH-47F and Afghanistan.

Just because you make weird assumptions about ED's alleged business model, I shall pay a subscription? No, thanks.

Can i somehow increase the font size of the UTM Grid references on the ABRIS? They would benefit from a dynamically scaled font size, but they stay in tiny 6px font size regardless of how far you zoom in. Did someone already create a mod for this perhaps or is able to whip one up real quick? Would be awesome.

I'm out if a subscription model hits as soon as it hits. The world is already messed up on that front, I don't need it on this little digital hobby. [that I love a lot, but that's not enough] It is unlimited. But relies on your machine ID for your account come back to online. If your machine ID changes (hardware failure, dismount and re mount hardware in different slots/ports, hardware upgrade) without going online first, you'll need to contact support. Steam version is limited to 3 days but needs successful authentication to access DCS in any shape or form. If you're out of internet access and is not in offline mode, both formats, stand alone version and steam version, has the 3 day tolerance >>after your last successful login<< unless you updated DCS files and haven't been able to successfully log in. In the later scenario, you're locked out of your modules unless you at least successfully log in once in the current build installed before losing connection.

USB-C Gigabit Ethernet Adapter with Charging Port,Thunderbolt 3 to RJ45 Network Socket with Type-C PD 60W Power Delivery for Chromecast Google TV,iPhone 15,MacBook,Mac,iPad Air 5 Pro,Dell,Chromebook https://amzn.eu/d/1rjacaG BASESAILOR USB Type C Extension Cable 2M/2Pack,USB-C 3.1 Gen2 10Gbps Female to USBC Male Adapter,Thunderbolt 3 Extender Cord for MagSafe Charger,iPhone 11 12 13 14 15 Plus Pro Max Mini,Apple Watch 5 https://amzn.eu/d/c8EOfN1 AuviPal USB C 90 Degree Adapter (2 Pack), 40Gbps USB C Male to USB C Female Connector, USB Type C Thunderbolt 4/3 Extender for MacBook Pro, iMac, iPad Pro, Tablet, Phones and Other Type C Devices https://amzn.eu/d/iZcqlVD

$50 to $60 US funds seems a safe bet.

Daily MiG-29 9.13

While CA is a mess, I don't think I've seen anyone outside of DCS really complain about it. It doesn't compete with bigger games because it didn't manage to attract a wide audience. DCS ground troops would probably be the same and just compete within the simulator niche. DCS FPS will have to make some compromises, but that is fine. It doesn't have to be the pinnacle of FPS games. It only needs to provide us with some way to allow player controlled troops to interact with aircraft. Even just adding controllable infantry to CA is a good start. There are some issues of scale when mixing aircraft and ground combat, but it's not a massive problem. I've made missions where I interact with ground forces for more than 5 minutes, and even if one pilot can only stay around for 5 minutes you can have more than one pilot available to extend the interaction time between air and ground.

Apart from an announcement they don't mention it in their own forums either, the only form of "communication" they do is on Discord and occasionally on Facebook. But there's not a whole lot in the way of answering questions about the product.

No. I think I actually found the problem. Because even my hardware/software needs startup procedures and checklists to play DCS, I've found that I no longer need to open up WMR before starting up DCS-MT. I just click on DCS-MT and it all goes smooth. I don't know why.

Very interesting discussion. I have also been obsessed with color grading in maps, but lack the knowledge or background to critique it as constructively. I was always mind boggled how especially Normandy (Even V.2) looked so wildly un-natural and un-european in it's tones that it needed mods to fix it. I indeed see the point here as well and hopefully it is something that will be tuned out in later Orbx updates. Regarding the leaked vid: I kind of suspect that it was a 'fan trailer' leak made by a tester. The standards were WAY below DCS marketing standards, and the technical aspects of it were sub-par. Multiple super close ups of aircraft and only one shot highlighting the scenery, all done in low light, mostly overcast weather.. Hopefully, and official trailer will come in the quality we have come to expect to give the map a proper showcase.

Probably almost as much as developing them FF. The flight model would still have to be to the same standard as FF. FC3 aircraft have flight models on par with FF modules. It would not be acceptable to have a G6 with a K4 flight model, and it would defeat the point. They would only save some work on not making clickable cockpits, but a lot of the cockpit could be copied from the existing version, so it's probably not that much work, and would not justify making it simplified. Might just as well make it FF. A better idea would be to think about releasing them as a paid variant addon to the existing base model, like if you own the K4, you can add the G6 for $10 or $15. This might make financial sense for ED if significant amount of work can be directly copied from the base model. I'm not sure if it can with their dev process.

Yeah, I really hope ED fixes this "visibility" issue through buildings and trees when the Kiowa comes out. If you can't stay masked behind cover and just pop the mast above the roof or tree-line to spot targets, what's the point? And I would expect an enemy unit would not immediately detect you with just the MMS poking up. I fear I may be expecting too much...

Most, actually. Though has more to do with games from that era possessing gamespy as the only real internet dependency and that can be circumvented by a private master server or a VPN like GameRanger or Tunngle. I can still install Homeworld, Cataclysm, Unreal, the Thief series, you name it. I even have Flanker 2.5 installed and it runs fine, though it's always a wise idea to go find a new sourceport or fix just to get widescreen support as that's the only consistent issue. Honestly, if there are classic games you'd like to revisit? Hit up GoG and then the game's forums to find any potential recommended fixes. It's worth it! Anyways, back onto topic: The real thing that hamstrings a game and limits its longevity is the dependency on online services. A subscription service furthers that dependency and can drives away these particular players. A model like World of <Insert crap here> or War Thunder is probably the worst: Can't host private servers, dependent on tons of microtransactions, etc. Both approaches would alienate a big enough chunk of the consumer base to actually be an existential threat to DCS World, and the communications we get from ED on this topic indicate that pretty clearly. Publishers hate PC players paying an upfront, single time fee. They like that little drip feed since they can get so much more out of you over time. I've read a number of opinion pieces and have had shareholder documents shown to me that they easily get 4 times a standard game MSRP if the game is free to play and supported via microtransactions. It's absolutely predatory. It encourages developmental laziness while ensuring a large portion of a player base will provide what is, in essence, a new game purchase spent regularly while not having a new game made at the same time. Another reason they detest us is because when we find a game we like? We're going to play it. For years. The best example? Falcon 4.0. How many still play that and even still play Allied Force? It doesn't have a closed ecosystem of servers providing you matchmaking, it can't lock off major sections of content behind arbitrary experience grinds, it doesn't require a monthly fee for access, so it was completely cut off from the publisher once it launched. They can't shut it down, they can't tell us "IT'S BEEN FUN GUYEZZ" in some fake sentimentality post on social media. They have no control over it. They want that so they can force you away from an older product and to buy newer product, frequently seen as inferior. That's why they really love the F2P model, it forces the player to be completely subject to that publisher/developer's particular digital fiefdom. They can retire and stop service whenever they want. Sure, there are ubernerds who can flex their skills and make them run on private servers, but the game's still dead and you'll never see it at full potential ever gain. Time to move onto the next slot machine, I guess? The only 2 games with ethical free-to-play scheme that I have played are DCS World, which charges what they want in total upfront while also providing ample price reductions during sales and the ability to try out a product, free, for a limited time and the other is Warframe, who doesn't have a long grind for the most part, has solid action, and a very simple monetization scheme that doesn't bar access to anything save for a few cosmetics and, in practice, only really affects inventory space.

And to think I get bored with a 100 mile round trip, and even think about air-starting when I work on muscle memory just to compress the transit. 10 hour simulated F-18 mission? No thanks; this is entertainment, not a job. I'd rather fly nine one hour missions and throw in a little helo practice during that last hour. There are three carrier capable aircraft, plus a couple mods (A-4, T-45)? I believe two maps, if you include Afghanistan, with no CV ops and yes, you can put a CV on Normandy and Channel. If I want to fly off a carrier there's plenty of opportunity elsewhere including the other new map about to be released. I'll set this one up with ground based missions, just like NTTR. I've already logged plenty of at-sea time.

Couple of landings (don't rate them) - first one is default config, second was carrying the heaviest loadout + max fuel. The suspension doesn't appear to notice the extra weight. TRKs attached. mozlandg2.trk mozlandgheavy3.trk

Post from Wags from discord -