Leaderboard

Dear all, we are proud to announce the release date of the DCS: F-4E Phantom II. May 21st 2024. We thank you all for your very kind patience and tremendous support you have shown us over the past couple years. We hope to see you all soon, in the Phantom skies, come May 21st. From all of us at Heatblur: Thank you!

Let all the "Two Weeks" jokes commence...

Just wanted to let everyone know I'm currently in the middle of a complete re-do of all engine sounds (internal and external for A and B, using some new tricks learned from the F-4 and brand new/improved audio samples as well as many completely new layered sounds like intake howls, etc. End goal is to get as close as possible to this:

Ok here are the new liveries for the Bowen Mod. This update is for the version current posted on page 1 of the thread. It includes liveries for USS Knox, USS Roark and USS Trippe and a updated lua file. The only change to the lua file is I added the line "mount_vfs_liveries_path (current_mod_path .. "/Liveries")" to load the liveries. For install back up your USS Bowen FF-1079.lua file then copy the livery folder to your mod folder and overwrite the old ship lua with the new ship lua file. PM me is you have any issues. If you would like to help test my "Knox Class" update for the Bowen mod please PM. The update includes radar and weapons updates, the "F" icon for the F10 map and includes 4-6 ships. The 4 1975-94 fit Knox Class frigates and the optional "DE" designation for the Knox and the Roark before they were reclassified in 1975. I picked these 3 ship because of their early commission dates and long service lives. This allows historically possible missions from the late Vietnam War era up through the mid 1990s. Note: These are some of the few liveries I've tried to make as I learn the process and are not meant to be AAA, but I hope you find them useful until the Admiral is done with rework of the Bowen. Also I will do a USS Pharris after the new version is done . I can't believe I forgot about that ship. "Red Storm Rising" is one of my favorite books https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArIUQEKgEWp8gfdplW7Pq_F1--GkLg?e=0cI60i

You'll have to wait and see... By the way, here's another work in progress.

I couldn't agree more. I'm in a similar age group to you (just a little older), have worked 30 years in software development, and have six 20-something year old kids - two of which I would put into the gamer category. They seek perfection, but for them perfection is not a personal experience - it's a shared one. the first thing they do before they buy anything (or even go to a movie in a theater) is check the reviews. if the reviews are bad, they're out - they wont pay and they become the echo chamber of what they have read without ever actually experiencing it. in the rare times I can convince one of them to try something new, the experience is totally filtered through the lens of what they read. It's like there are no original experiences any more that are unencumbered by others thoughts. Anyway, I digress... I'm OT. I like the kola map, it's not complete but I knew that going in... it will get better and I enjoy it now and will enjoy it more later as it evolves and we get cool campaigns. The new maps will continue to push the performance of our machines. We like to complain about the visuals and the performance (they're related you know lol), but they are both improving for all maps even with older hardware. A+ for Kola as an early access product.

I 100% agree with you! These models that CH uses to create new assets are NOT cheap. It's really important that the DCS World Community support CH. I've been a Member of DCS since its release. CH has honestly brought so much life to DCS World Community. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that CH's assets are truly amazing, so throw him a few bucks, so he can continue creating new assets, it's the least we can do!! Cheers, Timex 3

I just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone for the wonderful entertainment I have enjoyed reading this section of the forum whilst awaiting the F4 over the past few months ......Especially to all the arm chair experts,you've made an old man very happy.....what a hoot

The more I fly it the more I ask my self did ORBX really make this (I have plenty of other ORBX software) the high detail airports are bland compared to anything in Syria and Sinai, the airport building model texture are unaspiring and have no worn look about them in such a harsh environment, also it looks like loads of taxiways and roads have not been completed with airport buildings out on grass with no foot path or road too them or parking, objects at airports seem to be randomly placed, tarmac and taxiway textures have no life to them, airports just don't look real compared to what we have in Caucuses, a lot of airports don't even have a road that goes to them at all. I really cant believe ORBX did this based on other work they have done, too me it feels like they gave it to an intern as a first project, we have all seen what can be done with Syria and Sinia airports', the map needs to lift its game a lot even in the high detail areas. Flying around it, Im fine with that part except for the really odd color pallet used in places its really a very bright pucking green in places, up high over Norway it looks pretty good, I still stand by my point this is too much $$$ even for EA and I really cant believe ED let this out in this state.

Another work in progress...

Bless the Maker Heatblur and His Phantom II. Bless the coming and going of Him. May His passage cleanse the skies of Mikoyan. May He keep the world for His people.

folks please keep the tin foil hats for reddit. As mentioned we have no plans to change to a subscription model. Our current payment model works well for us and has done for well over a decade, we continue to grow as a company with the support of the community. thank you

DONT FORGET DONATE HIM IF U HAVE much much much REQUEST.............................................

MiG-29G Luftwaffe. My pic from 1994:

Please do not drink before posting on the forum thanks.

I find it funny (in the best way) to read your comment as: I am also 46, I actually had Microsoft Flight Simulator '95 for which I had a home made joystick. I did step away from the arena up until recently, but I have almost every module in DCS, all the terrains (even SA), all the extras: Combined Arms, WWII, Supercarrier. We are basically a very similar player in this environment. I have a different opinion on certain key areas: the downward trend, for me, consists in the actual business model which, in principle, favors developing new modules and not focusing on existing ones to iron out features and bugs. I entered the arena mainly as a WWII warbirds pilot, and the Br-109 had a bug that, if you were using MW50, you could not refuel. This is not a small bug, not being able to refuel in ground seriously limited your ability to do "serious" longer missions. The bug was there for around 3 years if memory serves me correctly. In the meanwhile they were busy selling spitfires, mosquitos, p-47s, and completely disregarding serious bugs of other airplanes. Like this, there are, literally, hundreds of bugs that exist there that linger for years on end and there is little effort (or manpower, or budget, or flow process, or intent... call it whatever you want) to fix them, but you get new modules all the time. That is my concern /critique to the model. It's in EDs beset interest to push as many modules as possible so people keep buying instead of finishing / fixing previous ones. The Super Carrier is a similar case: I bought the SC thinking it was the only way to do carrier ops in the F/A-18. This is my mistake, 100%, but since then I have read in FB dozens of confused people asking this very same scenario: if I want to get into carrier ops, do I need the SC? So there is an "overlooked" (to not say intentional) ambiguous confusing situation for new users that, "weirdly enough" favors people buying the SC even if they weren't sure they needed it. But, again, this is 100% my fault and decision. But, that happened 4 years ago and it's barely better than the one that is not paid for, has had almost none of the promised features, and they have new teams devoted to coding NEW carriers for the WWII scenario (which has also been grossly neglected) and the purchases we already made are not yet finished (or evolved in a reasonable pace... 4 years in EA is, although more common this days, not reasonable in any way, IMHO). And then there is the third party complications, specially with Razbam. I have at least two of their products which now are threated to never be finished. Even though they are third party modules, I still bought them from ED with a backing from ED that this purchase is backed by them, I honestly wasn't aware that it's a: if the partner drops out, we have no way of controlling that, you are out of luck type of scenario. So, as much as I enjoy DCS and love flying missions, campaigns and MP servers, to me and my way of assessing my purchase's value... all these things do take away from the experience and create this friction with new modules and, as time goes by, I'm inclined less and less to purchase new additions, as I don't want to wait 4 years to get a feature offered me for $60 discounted dollars at time of release. Still, your post has 13 hearts and 2 trophies, mine has 1. So, I would argue that more people here in the forums, feel more like you than they do like me. That's OK. Not everything is a good fit for everyone, and, as others have mentioned, no one has forced to buy anything. I would just echo what Marques suggests in a recent video about the new trend of selling products in EA with the promise of features to come: when purchasing EA products, buy them considering their current value proposition, features and consider if THAT is worth it to you at the moment of the purchase. Don't buy with the promised features in mind, because that could not get into fruition. With that said, and trying to get on topic with the current thread, I honestly don't think the Kola map is currently worth $56, which is more than most AAA games these days. I already bought it. I hope it, one day (hopefully soon) would be worth what I already paid. As is, in my opinion (and mine alone) it is not. I don't think I'm a new generation entitled whiner. Maybe to me, those $56 represent more than to others due to being from third world country economies, maybe I'm just a more negative person, yeah, it could be. At any rate I wanted to reply because yours is a very well thought post explaining your point of view without minimizing mine, even if different, and I appreciate that very much.

Hi, In the past I buildt Norway for Falcon BMS 4.33 . Now when I see what OrbX did, I have to say that I´m truly impressed. From my point of view, this map is brilliant. Not completed (of corse) but brilliant. I love it. Thank you very much and keep on! Cheers TOM

There are 3 reasons I buy this map: 1. Location 2. Location 3. Also location. I can pretend Caucasus to be Falkland, Sweden, or even Vietnam as much as I want to, nothing can replace those fjords. (Yes, I am having a video of fly-bys)

Do you own any modules? This and one of the other points give me the impression that you don't, or that DCS hasn't been your main focus. If you do own DCS modules, build what you enjoy flying the most. If you don't, then buy or trial ones that you like. Then build the one you enjoy flying the most. No point having someone tell you to build a Hornet pit when you spend all your time in a Phantom or an Apache.

@Текущий холм Hello, I really appreciate your work and would like to see things like: 3M22 Zircon (ground-to-ground (not ship-to-ship) 3M55 Onyx (not ship-to-ship, but ship-to-earth/earth-to-earth) C-300/S-400 which can operate in ground-to-ground mode MiG-31K with Kh-47M2 Kinzhal hypersonic missile (air-to-ground) Tu-22M3 with Kh-22/32 cruise missiles (air-to-ground) Su-57 with the ability to carry the latest Kh-59MK2/69 missiles, (air-to-ground) as well as any tactical aircraft (Su-34/35/30) that can launch air-to-ground missiles such as: Kh-59M/MK2, Kh-35, Kh-31P. I hope to see this in the next Russia updates, thanks for your great work!

I'll add your suggestions to the list and we'll see when it's time for the next Russia update.

Players and multiplayer server hosts who play missions provided by contributors often face a dilemma: the chosen start-up (hot/cold)option for player aircraft. No matter what the mission designer chooses (hot/cold), there will always be lots people who would prefer the other option. This is especially true for popular missions that run on many servers and require a lot of maintenance work any time there is an update to a mission. I would like to request the following mission-global setting that affects how the mission is read when it starts up: start-up becomes a multiple-value pop-up (much like road traffic) where we can choose between the following values: individually - use what is provided in the original mission cold - all eligible player aircraft start cold hot - all eligible player aircraft start hot Something along the lines of this: With 'eligible planes' being those player aircraft that start 'from ground' or 'from parking/ramp Rationale: since 'mission' is read at the start of a mission, this option can be quickly applied while reading it into main memory. Since the structures for player slots are immutable after reading them, this can't be done with Lua scripting while the mission is running (I've tried), so a player slot's cold/hot status when starting up must be determined when the mission loads. Providing such an option greatly reduces the amount of work for anyone who wants to change a mission's hot/cold player starts without having to spend significant time to edit/change each individual aircraft in the mission

I'm going to stop shaving my upper lip. Two weeks should get it looking about right.

Can we have a pre order on steam now?

The Navy Version....

Got it solved - thank to the great ED support! It was a bug created by my Arduino Controller (for FFB Joystick). Simply unplugging it from USB and reconnecting it let DCS start again. First time for me (in years) using ED/DCS support and I must admit they are extremly fast and helpful. Great service!

This has always been my stance, and it's why I have purchased many ED modules. I also trace my gaming and flight sim history back several decades (my first flight sim was Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer, and my first combat sim was Microprose's F-19), and in comparison to all the earlier games, DCS (and other current flight sims such as Il-2 and MSFS2020) is vastly superior in almost every way. DCS is not as good, and never will be as good, as the fantasy flight sim that exists only in my own boundless imagination, but I've found it's better for my own life satisfaction if I look down and am grateful to be up, than to look up and be resentful that I'm down. You mention Marques's review of the Rabbit, and I agree, that was a great summary of the problem. But funny enough, the video that I personally thought of was the intro to JJ McCullough's recent video, in which he said: And even though the video is about consumerism and capitalism rather than gaming, my first thought when I heard that was of hoggit and other subreddits which are awash in exactly the kind of endless toxic griping he's referring to. Fortunately, I am starting to see at least a little pushback, but there's a long way to go and gratitude seems to be in short supply.

Just wanted to let everyone know I'm currently in the middle of a complete re-do of all engine sounds (internal and external for A and B, using some new tricks learned from the F-4 and brand new/improved audio samples as well as many completely new layered sounds like intake howls, etc.

One more post for the night. The gents and I are looking into some possible missions in the future conducting SAR and downed aircraft recovery operations. Been years since my last Huey sling load in DCS. I had to give lifting the OH-6A a try. I did not pick the best area to drop it off, very tight. Look forward to showing more once we actually start putting missions together in the coming months. Thanks again to the guys who put this mod together. Having a blast with it.

В общем кто как хочет. А мне норм.

Interview with team members.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Kommt wohl am 21.05.

He does

Before you ask Currenthill for any new equipment, don't forget that all these models have a cost and that without our donations, they will probably never see the light of day... https://ko-fi.com/currenthill

No worries, you are absolutely right. If anything I'm surprised more people haven't pointed it out. A cockpit overhaul (doors, pedals, frame, seats, etc) is planned for later (not soon). In the meantime, just like @Jarhead0331 said, leave those ugly front doors at the FARP Thanks a lot Slippa Regarding the PBRs, they're only available as part of the Sea Float barge. TeTeT's Vietnam War Vessels pack should have one if I'm not mistaken. What kind of tutorials are you looking for? If you want we have "flying tips" section on our discord: https://discord.gg/cE4Q8E5CE9 This is really cool, looks like a lot of fun! Looking forward to see more I think it's the first time someone is reporting that issue. Was it on a dedi server or local host? If on a dedi, did you also install the "Scripts" folder on it? [EDIT: that's not necessary] Any other mods running?

Is this still getting worked on? If not why? It'd be really nice to have (increased ATA), but more than that it'd be REALISTIC.

Did a multiplayer test Sunday with the boys to test marking with smoke and a combined attack with the OV-10 mod. The OH-6 is still having problems with comms and SRS so we had to use skype. Did a video on it about an hour ago and will post it here soon. Had a blast flying this with the boys. I cannot brag enough about flying with a good group of people online with DCS. Flying down low and marking targets while you have support overhead getting after it is beyond awesome in VR. This was just for fun, but we have some future plans to put together a multitude of mission variants with the OH-6 in conjunction with a few other mods and official modules. More to come.

I really can't understand why anyone would pay monthly for DCS (or anything IMHO). Do you really hate your money?

I know for some the wait is unbearable but it will be worth the wait. We will be sharing news soon. thank you

This has been fixed internally, waiting for the next patch opportunity.

Hello everyone. The RoughMet Material issue has been solved thanks to CH and feedback from EightBall. CH took the time to get on a quick call and show me how it's done. Another task checked off my list of things to learn. I will work on finishing up the Italian ships for DCS. I am keeping the texturing simple concerning rust and weathering. I will create more hull numbers for the ships. I think they're too large. One of the downsides to creating 3d models using SP is creating liveries. So I will create all four versions of the Comandanti Class Frigate. Stay tuned. Thanks for your patience.

Thanks, Beldin, I mentioned to him I'm creating a new model of the USS Bowen. Much cleaner version. Thanks for your assistance. Supersylph, I will upload the LCU-1627 to the new site and notify you all once it has been uploaded. Something that caught my attention is the ability for a vehicle to drive into the back of the new CH-47 that will be released next month. I'm hoping they can make that possible for ships as well. It's one reason I have held off on releasing the new LCM-8. I would like to add that feature to the LCU and ships also. I've tried adding a collision model on the ramp but it still doesn't allow vehicles to load. Italian Frigate update. Texturing is complete on the Comandanti. However, I would like to include RoughMet material but I can't find clear guidance on how to create it. If any of you know how to create a roughMet and or know someone that does please PM me. CH sent me a link but it seems it's more to it than that. Otherwise, I will texture, code, and make her sea-bound this week. Thank you all for your support and assistance.

Меня больше всего бесит - почему меня нагло обманули? Покупал я одно, а получил другое?

+++ SniperStudio +++ Coder & 3D Artists +++ I am currently trying to get together a team for Su-22M4 project. I'm looking for talented 3D Artist(s) and Coder(s) with experience in DCS. If you believe you have the right skillset and want to contribute to the project please get in touch with me. Details gladly via PM.

The lua above will add the Mk46 Torpedo to the 4 Pylon spots, but they wont drop like air drop torpedo's, they will drop like iron bombs. The closest I ever gor to an air drop weapon was by adding a Russian FAB250 M54-TU, that is an air drop para retard bomb, it looks similar when falling ... but its still a bomb. (If it looks like a bomb and it drops like a bomb you can be pretty certain - its a bomb !!) I also tried to find something that looked similar to a depth charge, so added the FAB-250 - its roughly the same sizer and shape as a Naval Air Drop depth charge, that of course drops like a bomb and goes bang like a bomb, because its a bomb !! The Royal Navy were saying at some point a couple of years ago that they intended to add some kind of AGM weapon to the type but i have never seen one so armed, and I live in an area where I see lots of them. SO - You could try these Pylon settings. (Like I said earlier, I could hardly ever get them to hit a moving target - the game isnt configured for this kind of stuff) Pylons = { pylon(1, 0, -2.500, -0.139, -1.793, { FiZ = 0, use_full_connector_position = true, }, { { CLSID = "DIS_mk46torp" , attach_point_position = {-0.0, -0.126, -0.0} }, { CLSID = "{3C612111-C7AD-476E-8A8E-2485812F4E5C}" }, -- FAB-250/Depth Charge { CLSID = "AGM114x2_OH_58" }, --"AGM-114K * 2" { CLSID = "{FAB-250-M54-TU}",connector = "PYLON_R_OUT_1"}, -- FAB250TU/Air Drop Torpedo } ), pylon(2, 0, -2.500, -0.139, -1.451, { FiZ = 0, use_full_connector_position = true, }, { { CLSID = "DIS_mk46torp" , attach_point_position = {-0.0, -0.126, -0.0} }, { CLSID = "{3C612111-C7AD-476E-8A8E-2485812F4E5C}" }, --FAB-250 { CLSID = "{FAB-250-M54-TU}",connector = "PYLON_R_OUT_1"}, } ), pylon(3, 0, -2.050, -0.139, 1.536, { FiZ = 0, use_full_connector_position = true, }, { { CLSID = "DIS_mk46torp" , attach_point_position = {-0.0, -0.126, -0.0} }, { CLSID = "{3C612111-C7AD-476E-8A8E-2485812F4E5C}" }, --FAB-250 { CLSID = "{FAB-250-M54-TU}",connector = "PYLON_R_OUT_1"}, } ), pylon(4, 1, -2.050, -0.139, 1.878, { FiZ = 0, use_full_connector_position = true, }, { { CLSID = "DIS_mk46torp" , attach_point_position = {-0.0, -0.126, -0.0} }, { CLSID = "{3C612111-C7AD-476E-8A8E-2485812F4E5C}" }, --FAB-250 { CLSID = "AGM114x2_OH_58" }, --"AGM-114K * 2" { CLSID = "{FAB-250-M54-TU}",connector = "PYLON_L_OUT_1"}, } ) },