Leaderboard

A look from inside the workshop. I am preparing units to guide fighter aircrafts.

Folks we do understand those of you who have concerns. We have shared our plans for early access and beyond, and have let you know the change in the patch date to accommodate us with a little more time. If early access is not something you like or enjoy PLEASE WAIT, the last thing we want is people using early access and expecting a finished product. Early access takes time but the team is working very hard currently. With your feedback and bug reports during early access it helps create a better module and we couldn't do it without your assistance. Again please remember if you have pre-ordered you have a nice discount and get to participate in the early access development of the CH-47F, it is going to be a lot of fun for those of you who understand this process. thank you and have a great weekend. ---------------- please stay on topic in this thread, off topic posts will be removed

Coming soon... 3D model and textures by Virtavia, prepared for use in DCS with their generous permission

Military Asset Pack China 1.1.3 released! Changelog Version 1.1.3 Changed PHL-11 accuracy Fixed DF-21D missiles issues Fixed HHQ-9B model smoothing issue Fixed HQ-17A SHORAD SAM issues Fixed PCL-181 GP155 issues Fixed PGL-625 FB-10A exhaust position Fixed PGL-625 SPAAGM SAM issues Fixed PGL-625 missing IR missile seeker sound Fixed Type 052D Destroyer SAM issues Fixed Type 054B Frigate SAM issues Fixed Type 055 Destroyer SAM issues Fixed Type 055 Destroyer YJ-21 missile issues Fixed Type 056A Corvette SAM issues Fixed ZBD-04A-AT missile issues Distribution model This Military Asset Pack is available in the following versions: The standard full download. The incremental download which updates 1.1.x to 1.1.3 and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your 1.1.x installation. Special thanks A special thanks goes out to @daskjdhjah for a tremendous testing effort!

As a former Hooker I have to ask, what is force trim? I only flew chinooks for about 13 years with about 2000 hours but I really do not remember a force trim anything. The Ch-47F had a trim switch which used Mag Brakes in the flight control closet to hold the flight controls in a specific position you set with mag brakes. The trim switch just "inched" the stick forward and back or left and right using drive motors inside these Mag Brakes. A series of Extensible Link Actuators (ELAs), springs, Control Position Transducers (CPTs) and a DASH Actuator helped maintian a general attitude and airspeed without needing to much attention. Additionally, the system was tied into the AFCS to allow for heading hold. You turned the heading bug, the aircraft turned to that heading. The thrust had something similiar but it was called a CCDA (Cockpit Control Driver Actuator). It did pretty much the exact same thing as the Mag Brakes except it was also tied into the Altitude Hold feature and would move the thrust channel of the flight controls to maintain either baro or radar altitude depending on which was selected. Anyways, very simple stuff that the CH-47D before it had and provided for a VERY stable platform without the need of to much pilot attention. What you are probably hearing that may not be available with the EA release is the Flight Director (FD). In the CH-47F, you can literally take a PIMCA card out to the aircraft, load a route you programed on a laptop, pick the aircraft up to a 10 foot hover, engage flight director and the aircraft will fly the entire route controlling heading, airspeed, altitude, without the pilot ever touching the controls and then come to a 10 ft hover within 3 meters of your plotted land point. All you have to do is land. This feature also provides features like hover hold, hover beep (alows you to beep your hover positon fwd, back, left, right by a foot at at time with trim switch), hover altitude beep (allows you to beep the altitude up or down about a foot at at time at a hover). It is very awesome and we older pilots hated it. First, because we saw all the young pilots loose their control touches and stop being able to do things like pick up a load without it and second because it made for some pretty debatable tactical practices that I won't get into. Don't get me wrong, it was nice to be able to fly a cross country flight eating my lunch while the aircraft did all the work and they are certainly impressive toys to have but it is not real flying. We even called it system management, not piloting. If that is what is missing from the EA release, trust me, you will survive. You will still get a chance to feel the impressive nature of a Chinook without it. Now, I will say this, the one bummer thing about the FD not being up, if that is the case, is you will miss the very sexy voice of the Chinook. I had a stick buddy through the CH-47D to CH-47F transition course who used to like to turn it on and off just so he could hear her voice!

Пора уже ЕД самим браться за советские модули (вести более активную политику в этом отношении): вернуть к жизни МиГ-21бис; доделать разбамовский МиГ-23МЛА; взяться за создание МиГ-27Д/К или Су-24; по аналогии с МиГ-29А доработать Су-25 в модификации К, а можно и "Скорпион"; проконтролировать работу над Су-17М3. Поверьте, этого хватит для 80-90% красных, как я, чтобы не вылазить из DCS и серверов типа ECW, ВF'80 и даже SDCS с DDCS. Не нужны здесь Су-30, Су-35, Су-34. Да и эти смартсамолеты удовольствия такого не доставляют (надоели уже), как будильники, НПП, АРК и прочие аналоговые радости))) Думаю пример Ми-24П наглядно показал популярность советской техники, а онлайн ECW и BF'80 востребованность аналоговой авиации среди пользователей.

Eagle Dynamics, with all due respect, you need to come to your senses and delay this before you forever kill any desire within the community to either buy or fly this helicopter. First impressions do matter. Surely you are fully aware how barebones and underwhelming your feature list looks like? No NVGs on launch, no multi crew? Not even a crew chief station? You absolutely have to delay this by as much as a year. You might have your own reasons to rush it out of the window as you clearly are, but it is not worth it in the long run. Please, delay this before it becomes another mess you'll come to find in your lap. Compensate those who pre purchased the Chinook with either store credit or perhaps the Afghan module and appologise for delaying it, but at least we'll know that we'll get a much more complete product when it's ready. The community will understand and even respect that.

No DAFCS, NVG's, HUD, MWS or Autopilot... Those things should really be in the product on Day 1. Ideally with an improved transport & logistics system so there is some kind of gameplay available for it. I might be wrong, but this seems like a very rushed (bare minimum) EA release.

I wanted to create it for the Militariy Aircraft Mod, then I can stop.

Thanks to @Admiral189 for the donation of the correct radar, the Type 42 is looking better. Beldin has done an excelent job of editing the luas. Bear in mind this model was never UV mapped, the textures are hit and miss, that being said, I like them ! Just a few minor cosmetic things to fix, and should be good for a release next month.

You don't understand why people might have concerns about the state of EA releases going backwards, to the point that basic, fundamental features like force trim, which has always been available on initial release for every other previous helicopter, is an issue? I have decided not to buy the CH-47F, the problem with its EA release state still exists, so this mindset doesn't actually solve the problem, it just no longer affects me personally. But here's the thing, I'm not selfish to the point where I can only advocate or care about concerns if they affect me directly. For you maybe, but you don't get to decide that for anyone else. Personally, I find the lack of a logistics component for a helicopter dedicated to logistics to be my #1 reason not to purchase it. Right now we can transport troops in a functional, albeit janky way and while we can slingload, we cannot slingload functional units, nor does slingloading actually accomplish anything practical in the core game without resorting to user scripts or fudging it with triggers. See slightly further up in this comment in my reply to Cab. Me not purchasing the module doesn't actually solve any of the issues here, it just means I'm not personally being directly affected by them. What utter drivel. It's as if you think that a more completed EA release and core functionality that better supports the product is somehow a bad thing, that only people who "endlessly whinge" care about - which is just beyond baffling. Frankly it's stuff like this that convinces me that people like you are opposed to the game ever improving. Just chalk everything up to endless whinging and bingo, everything is perfect, nobody should ever improve anything and if things go backwards who cares? If anybody doesn’t accept this, they should go away. That or I guess it's a sign of the times where people just cannot deal with or respond positively to anything critical so their only recourse is to try to invalidate it by trying to insult and make up the motivations of people making them. I might be inclined to call that "pathetic" - it's certainly the easier thing to do compared to actually listening to what's being said and taking steps to improve and move forward. If people don't air their greivances or otherwise act like they don't care about shortcomings, how can ED be expected to improve upon them or care about them either?

Indeed I have. Would people mind if I delete some old photos to put in some new ones?

First off, there is nothing new to report as of the date of this post, this new thread is simply a clean-up and ease of access for all current official information on the current issues between Eagle Dynamics & RAZBAM. Hopefully, this will make it easier to see the current known information and weed it out from the theories, guesses and suggestions in the other thread. If you want to see that one, the link will be available at the bottom of the post. The first public knowledge of the disagreement happened with an announcement on the RAZBAM Discord here: https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/544501300134543380/1225494495458627634 razbam_prowler — 04/04/2024 10:17 AM Dear Customers and Community, You may have noticed that the that the latest RAZBAM announcements does not include a changelog or any updates for our products. We would like to inform you that, until further notice, all support for RAZBAM-developed aircraft modules is on hold. This suspension encompasses, but is not limited to, bug fixes and updates. We want to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to this exceptional community, our current customers, and prospective clients. Unfortunately, due to circumstances completely beyond our control, we are temporarily unable to continue our work at this time. Our team, a group of highly skilled and professional developers, is first and foremost made up of dedicated individuals. They invest not only their expertise but also their personal dedication and sacrifice into crafting our products. For many, this work provides essential supplementary income or even constitutes their primary livelihood. We are hopeful for a swift resolution so that we can resume our normal operations. However, until these issues are resolved, we will not be issuing any updates about our products. We ask for your understanding during this challenging period, a situation that RAZBAM Simulations did not seek and which has previously seriously affected other parties, for example Heatblur Simulations. We have been patient, perhaps too patient, waiting for a resolution from the responsible parties. Now, we find it necessary to take a stand and await a practical solution to this deadlock. I also want to extend my heartfelt thanks to my fellow third-party developers. Their support, once aware of the relevant facts, has been overwhelming. Thank you for elevating DCS to new heights; it truly wouldn't be the remarkable experience it is without your contributions. The suspension will remain in effect until the significant issues between Eagle Dynamics and RAZBAM Simulations LLC are resolved to our mutual satisfaction. Once these issues have been addressed, we will resume our standard practices of bug fixing, updates, and upgrades, just as we have since our inception as developers for DCS. We hope this resolution results in a more stable and optimistic future for DCS and all 3rd Party Developers. Best regards Ron Zambrano CEO RAZBAM Simulations, LLC Eagle Dynamics was compelled to respond shortly after on their Discord found here: https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/543013214485610520/1225540029493936219 04/04/2024 1:18 PM Following the message published by Ron Zambrano of Razbam Simulations, we believe that it is necessary to rectify some of the unfounded allegations and to reassure the Community that everything is being done to resolve the current situation promptly and for the benefit of all concerned. Without entering into the details of matters that are confidential to the parties, we firmly reject the allegations that the current disagreement between Eagle Dynamics and Razbam Simulations would be as stated by Razbam “due to circumstances completely beyond our control" and that it is "a situation that Razbam Simulations did not seek". On the contrary, the current disagreement is the result of improper actions that have been taken by Razbam Simulations, in breach of its contractual obligations towards our company and of our legally protected IP rights, and for which we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims. We very much regret that Ron Zambrano has decided, without even pre-advising us, to make these disparaging public statements and, more importantly, to take the customers of the Razbam developed aircraft as leverage in the discussions with us. Please rest assured, we are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness. Many thanks and kind regards, Nick Grey RAZBAM followed with this reply: https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/544501300134543380/1226492074233434182 razbam_prowler — 04/07/2024 4:21 AM @here Dear customers and community RAZBAM Simulations is actively working with EAGLE DYNAMICS to reach an agreement to resolve our internal dispute and we don't want the discussion that our public declaration has generated to escalate any further. We want to assure you that it has never been nor will it be our intention to abandon our products. We look forward to a prompt and satisfactory resolution, turn the page, and move forward. Best regards Ron Zambrano CEO RAZBAM Simulations, LLC This was the last of the official announcements from both management parties. While both teams have officially been very quiet due to the delicate nature of issues at hand there has been some events that have come up and caused concerns. Some Anti-Virus programs were picking up a false positive on some DCS DLLs. Sadly it seemed to be worse on some of the RAZBAM modules fueling fears of issues with the modules. This can be solved by adding the DCS install folder to the exceptions for your anti-virus software, this happens from time to time so this was nothing new. The M2000 had some issues, including CTDs. This was an accidental merge of some changes one of the developers was working on. Once it was identified the changes were reverted and the issues were solved (although nothing was noted in the changelog at the time). This was not anything related to compatibility with the core game. June 12th at Midnight the F-15E radar stopped working. While we have internally identified the issue no fix has been presented as of yet. once we have solid news on that we will share that ASAP. Again this had nothing to do with core compatibility but rather something in the coding of the F-15E. UPDATE: When version 2.9.6 drops it will contain a fix for the F-15E radar. This fix was created by our team and not given to us by any other party. Refunds While at first, we were maintaining our normal refund rules, we decided to bend a little for those who were frustrated with the issues and how they affected an Early Access Product. We have been giving a store credit for the value of the F-15E when you purchased it. You may open a ticket here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/ for a refund, but we ask for patience as it may take up to 7-10 business days to process your refund. Other modules will not be refunded at this time, all of these are out of Early Access and remain working. It is our commitment that no matter what happens we will do our best to make sure these continue to work into the future. We understand those of you who remember losing the Hawk, this is not something we intend to do again. Steam refunds are based on the play time of the core game, not the individual module. It is their policy and they handle the refunds. As we understand it, no refunds have been accepted by Valve. All modules continue to work, aside from the current radar issues with the F-15E which we hope will be addressed sooner than later. South Atlantic continues to be updated and as I stated above, the other older modules we plan to make sure they continue to work into the foreseeable future. Is ED broke? No, Eagle Dynamics is very healthy aside from this dispute currently, all other 3rd Parties and the ED development team continue to work and push new and exciting content out to you. Is ED pushing things out because they are out of money? No, most of these recent products have been scheduled for quite some time now, into early last year. The 3rd Party products are based on when they are ready from their own team, although some delays here and there squished some release dates together, nothing has been out of the ordinary except more goodies in a short amount of time. How can you keep selling the F-15E or other modules? UPDATE 2025-04-07 Right now we are working within the framework of the legal advice moving forward and not wanting to cause any more riffs or issues. It's a complex process at this point and most likely why it seems to be moving so slowly for everyone. Nothing more can be said about that right now. Sorry. After receiving an official request by RAZBAM to remove products from sale we have done so. All products will be fully supported by DCS and will continue to operate. We cannot comment on any more conspiracy theories than this. This was an unfortunate disagreement that had been going on for some time and finally went public. I can only speak for Eagle Dynamics but I believe both teams want to resolve this as fast as possible and get back to making virtual airplanes. The discussion below was the old thread. This new thread may be moderated a little harder, so please be nice to each other, know that all the other customers in here discussing this with you are in the same boat and probably want the same thing. So let's be open to their opinions and concerns and understand they are allowed to have them as much as you are. Anything from any user here without an official tag won't be making any official comments, me and @BIGNEWY will only comment on publically available info as this is a legal matter at the end of the day. ------------------------------- Update 25th July 2025 In response to recent comments and questions made by Razbam Simulations, its proxies and/or external developers, Eagle Dynamics confirms that it signed a settlement agreement with Razbam at the end of 2024 to put an end to the existing disputes and that such agreement also provides for a strict confidentiality requirement that prevents Eagle Dynamics from disclosing further information. Eagle Dynamics can, however, confirm that Razbam instructed Eagle Dynamics to cease selling the modules developed by Razbam and its independent developers. All modules continue to function ‘as is’ and despite not receiving any access to source codes or cooperation from Razbam and its external developers, Eagle Dynamics will do its best to ensure that these modules continue to function in 2.9.X. We are still hoping to be able to implement the settlement agreement and to find a satisfactory outcome to the current situation, in the best interests of our valued community. Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics I cannot say enough, on behalf of all of us at Eagle Dynamics, how sorry we are that you are being made, in part by us, to go through this. We are committed to getting this sorted as soon as we can. Thanks The ED Team

Not calling it 'force trim' and it not existing are two entirely different things.

null I suppose if that's your position, then any evidence doesn't matter and is "propaganda," including this MiG-29 pilot getting severe pipper burns from a TF-30 powered F-14A in close combat where it cannot compete with the MiG, but just won. On the same cruise, a nugget Turkey driver "killed" the MiG-29G squadron commander in a scenario where the HMS/R73 was allowed simply by reversing his turn. Because the Tomcat pilot did it while the MiG pilot was blind (big headrest), he lost sight. Lose sight, lose the fight. By the time the MiG squadron commander reacquired the Tomcat, the Turkey was nose-on and had already called a shot - the Fulcrum pilot overstressed his jet in a defensive pull, but the range had already scored the kill for the F-14A, which cannot compete with the MiG, but had just won in spite of the MiG having HMS/R73. Conflicts over the past 33 years have not been particularly kind to the MiG-29, but all that has already been posted here. So, too, has the FM work. But, that's all propaganda, correct? I've been shot down plenty by the MiG-29 flying F/A-18s and F-16s in DCS. Guess I'd better complain that the MiG is OP, based on all those comments and combat records, some of which are posted here, right? No. It's because I'm not flying the Hornet or Viper as well as the player flying the Fulcrum. I've also shot down the MiG-29 flying either of the former, or the F-14, or F-15. Suddenly, my Teen-Series plane is over-modeled, right? No. I happened to fly better that day. I've got a bridge to sell to anyone who thinks a given aircraft is invincible against all comers. The MiG-29 is formidable, but "no western aircraft can compete in close combat" with it is not a fact, it is utter nonsense backed both by actual and simulated combat over the decades.

I believe we Brits like to refer to that event as “high treason”! Regardless we will be heading to the polls so hopefully will be able to join our colonial cousins in celebrations

Thanks for the response. For those of us considering pre-purchase, can you elaborate on what “basic trim” entails and whether force trim in the traditional sense is what will actually be missing at initial release?

Well , I thought it was clear that I meant "release" in a figurative sense, as in "being made available for use", not in the litteral "out of EA, now official release". Consider it not a rant, but a feedback regarding EDs apparently contineously reducing mininum bar for EA . And btw its not like the discount gets ever larger simulteanously. If you encountered a product in a store that you considered defective and/or fundamentally incomplete / unfit for purchase of course you can tell the store owner that. Its a called customer feedback. And please, before you now say, "you re not a customer, because you aren't buying it" , again "customer" in a more figurative sense. I was a previous customer in that store and I may come back in the future , so the store owner may or may not be interested in my feedback if he wants to keep me as a customer. But each to their own, I for sure won't buy it in the now announced feature-state.

CH47 was or still is a platform that is meant to pivot DCS into the logistical aspect of combat operations. Surely this can't be an acceptable first impression or amount of effort made to make it stick? With zero raw Chinook footage with just two weeks to go (With the new delay), it's obvious that they are not confident enough to show it off in the slightest. Why should that inspire any confidence in us? I can not comprehend how releasing a module into early acess that can't even feasibly operate during both Day and Night is an okay thing to do. Everyone will benefit from having a more complete module on Day 1, surely on that you can agree?

Totally stopped buying any products from DCS . Tired of waiting for fixes .

The R60 is one of the weakest missiles. I can't comment on other aircraft but our research on the Phantom shows that most such missile hits wouldn't lead to the aircraft exploding and spitting fire everywhere. Especially if its not a direct hit but misses by a few feet and then airbursts next to it. Its ofc quite dynamic and depends on a lot of factors. In practice, if you got a Phantom with a missile and it didn't explode, you can most likely expect that the aircraft has to disengage and fly home anyways because that missile failed like 500 things in the aircraft (from the 1500+ damagable components). Meaning, just because it doesn't explode, doesnt mean the threat has not been defeated.

Every morning i click on my CH browser tab to see what's new and updated, a nice little update today. null

Another quick update video! A quick look at flap scheduling in action:

Same. I don't know if ED care but we, their customers, have called it out repeatedly. There are loads of people calling out how barebone the helo is at launch and a fact is that we have seen how long it can take to get these features delivered... We are still waiting for the Apache FM to be corrected. I love that helo but man I've been waiting for a long time.

Good Afternoon Everyone. I just wanted to pass on the news from ED. They are delaying the update release along with the CH-47F and the Afghanistan Map until July 3rd, 2024.

With the imminent arrival of the Chinook, it would be great if we had IR and visible strobes as placeable objects for marking troop positions etc.

Title. Thank you!

OH god...I JUST BOUGHT IT !

Or maybe you don't know how to fight a MiG-29 against the F-16. This is a very different sort of aircraft, with no G limiter and largely analog avionics. That you can't win against an F-16 doesn't mean a better pilot than you can't do it. Air combat is not as simple a situation as a race, there are multiple ways to win, and the right way to do it in one aircraft will be wrong in another. MiG-29 can point its nose and stand on its tail really well, but it has trouble keeping up in vertical with the Viper. This was true back when there was an East Germany. The R-73 was indeed a game breaker that put MiG-29 a step ahead anything NATO could throw at it. That said, AIM-9X had leveled the playing field since, although HOBS dogfight tactics mandate a tight one circle flow which does seem like it'd favor the MiG-29 somewhat.

Works fine for me: Default: Barthek Basic: Barthek Snowless Added: In your screenshots, it looks like "snowless winter" somehow got added to Barthek base install. You're showing Snowless Winter in the bottom image but I don't see it listed in GME.

The Readme has been re-written to include descriptions of all button and config options. This is looking like a good public version candidate... https://github.com/asherao/KIO-WA?tab=readme-ov-file#kiowa-integrated-overlay---warrior-automatis

Most modders are doing modern / cold war, which most players are interested in. This is largely due to the DCS focus in this area with many maps and planes. WW2 is a bit of a second thought. Hawkeye does a lot of WW2 (Thankfully). Thus he is going to get fewer likes and comments due to the fewer players. Many of those WW2 players go to the other sim. So there is competing interest drawing some WW2 players away. Do Modern , you get more likes Do WW2 you get fewer likes but are doing a greater service to the community and greater appreciation from the few of us sticking around for WW2. Without the WW2 mods, DCS ww2 would likely be long dead at the rate they produce content. We have 1 map, with another coming someday. No other maps planned for pacific area. Even the official aircraft released get few updates it seems. Ultimately though, I think you need to be modding for yourself. Not just for the likes or even appreciation. The satisfaction of seeing your work in game, propping up the game even. Too bad the Devs don't realize this and give modders an incentive. I wish I had the skills, but then I don't even have the time right now. Cheers !

No thanks, I think pre-order or EA discount or not , they should offer a product that clears a minimum bar of functionality and this is not it. Its simply a bad trend. I'm exaggerating now, but at some point they may offer just a blender 3d model , for 35% off. Huge savings, but the actual functioning flyable plane may come at an undefined point in the future. And lets be real here, given EDs track record, we know that EA is very very vaguely defined time-wise and many of their products are still lacking critical components years after being available for sale. They continue to give more or less the same amount of EA / preorder discount but for less and less basic features available at release in return.The opposite of what the 3rd party developers are doing lately , with F-4E and Kiowa shipping somwhere between feature-rich to almost complete.

It's not that simple. And it's not really about this module itself. It's about ED's push to erode of what we find acceptable product level. You are correct in your position that if we don't like something we should not buy it until we are happy. Problem with that is, that it might cause ED's cashflow to suffer, which in turn leads to further degradation of the environment. As we have witnessed with EDvsRB dispute. Other point to support this is, if you think about it, what do we have in DCS that is not in EA state? How many matured modules we can fly in DCS right now? And then try to figure out how much money would be out of ED's pockets if we all waited for those EA modules to mature. And how DCS World would be affected. I don't believe ED could survive that. They need constant cashflow. And let's not even go into a discussion of how many of those mature products are bugged as hell. But further development/refinement is all but stopped. I'll be the first to admit that I like flying in DCS and for that exact reason I don't want to see it threatened by what a lot of us see as a flawed business logic. And some of us are actually capable of running our own businesses, so it's not just a noise in the wind. I'm not sure what are you asking here? ED needs cashflow and they are willing to endure backlash about barebones products they are pushing out in order to get said cashflow.

I really don’t understand the issue here. If you don’t like it in this EA state, don’t buy it. If you’ve already bought it, just don’t install it until it meets your standards.

ED needs money. That's all that there is to this module launch.

Natürlich sind realistische Einsätze nebenan nicht möglich, @Yurgon ich erinnere da nur an die Übung, die wir damals mal geflogen sind, als wir mit den Huey zur Rettung des "Politikers" die Boots abgesetzt und uns nachher mit zerschossenen Funkgeräten koordinieren mussten, um sie wieder raus zu holen. Ich war nach dem Einsatz klatschnass geschwitzt, eine meiner intensivsten Sim-Erfahrungen überhaupt. Chinook und Afghanistan-Map sind schon vorbestellt, und auch die Kiowa wird über kurz oder lang in meinem Hangar landen. Ich würde eine Huey 2.0 notfalls sogar noch mal zum Vollpreis kaufen. Auch und gerade, nachdem ich da nebenan gestern drin gesessen und den Mund nicht mehr zu bekommen habe, man meint, die Nieten am Türrahmen spüren zu können, wenn man mit dem Finger drüber fahren würde. Das hat mir halt noch mal knallhart klar gemacht, wie extrem outdated das Modul in DCS bezüglich Grafik und Sound (ja, auch der) leider mittlerweile ist.

I have figured out how to do drift, increase/decrease speed and altitude, and incremental turns. How to best do this in the GUI from a user's standpoint? Should I set a standard increment in the code, or in the config, or add another button on the GUI for the player to change as they see fit?

All of this "yeah, it will soon be ready" means absolutely nothing without a timeline. I have no words for all of this...I am just dissapointed to the max. The DCS F-15E was refundable...I wish, this map was, too. ORT had an extremely good start but then???! ORT has been nothing but a massive dissapointment. Tell us something! Tell us a timeline when you (ORT) think, you will be able to present an update to DCS Sinai. Tell us, what will be in this update. At this point I have lost any trust in your ability to deliver anything but shiny pics. Tell us something we can rely on! No, at this point you guys at ORT owe us a concrete timeline. At this point, there is no room for any excuses, anymore. More than a year without anything, any update, is more than I am willing to take...this can´t go on for any longer!

I love your WW2 mods. You are the only one making them... Im not sure why considering they have the least complex systems. My only constructive criticism would be maybe just revise and improve old mods. Your old WW2 plane collections were awesome. They just need updates/fixes to make them useable again. A big reason why we enjoy Currenthill mods are because they are constantly kept up to date. It's a lot of work I'm sure, but should be a little easier due to again, not as complex systems for WW2.

Thank you Lord Vader. I'll get in touch. My knowledge is based on having flown APG-73-equipped Super Hornets from 2004-2005. Somewhat dated for sure, but that is how I remember it, and given the alternative, I hope you'll agree, it makes much more sense for the radar to be mechanized that way (even though my knowledge is based on F-18F, I can't imagine the F-18C would be any different). Although I don't have access to the manuals anymore, I suspect that if you were to scour whatever manuals you have access to, or ask any of your F-18 SME's, those sources would support my claim. In any case, it doesn't take away substantially from what is an outstanding product. I have nothing but respect for what ED has accomplished - I'm just trying to help in a minor way as I enjoy the product and appreciate the attention to detail the team clearly demonstrates!

Ich glaube das macht er mit allem so das nicht Mi-8 heißt. Klingt verlockend, aber ich finde halt auch die hausinterne Konkurrenz durch die Kiowa Warrior nicht zu unterschätzen. Fantastisches Flugmodell, ebenfalls ein Bell-Hubschrauber, und auf seine Weise sehr vielseitig einsetzbar (allerdings ohne Hula-Hoops, wenn ich nichts übersehen habe ). Ohne jetzt eine Diskussion über den Nachbarn losbrechen zu wollen, in DCS gibt es halt die Option, Hubschrauber in (gemeinsamen) Kampfeinsätzen zu verwenden. Das nimmt unserer Huey ja niemand. Aber ja, die Komplettierung des Triebwerksupdates und ein Auffrischen des externen und vor allem internen Modells wäre richtig super! Mit der Chinook und der Hercules sollte DCS ja eigentlich auch einen Push in Richtung Logistik bekommen, und da wäre es super sinnvoll, Hubschrauber wie Huey und Mi-8 ebenfalls einzubinden.

I said what I said, and my point stands. I wish heatblur would have taken the Corsair with them along with the f-14. The results speak for themselves. 2 modern jet avionic aircraft with complex radar and flight systems released. M3.... Well, we all know how that story went. Shame that the most iconic Pacific WW2 fighter didn't get the love it could have had.

Probably paint primer. Since a good chunk of aircraft parts are made of aluminum, the best primer for it is zinc chromate, which is greenish-yellow in color.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Option 2 has nothing to do with computing any bombing solutions, Jester wont automatically figure out anything. If you want to drop a LGB, you have to make sure that it ballistically is roughly in the right area. Therefore, drop it like any dumb bomb. You have many ways to do that, but all of them include using the Bombing Tool to figure out parameters. If you use the Pave Spike, TGT FIND is an excellent way of designating the target to attack. But that still requires you to input the data into the tool so that Jester can enter the right Drag Coefficient value into the computer. The laser should only be used on the final 10s before impact to ensure you are not accidentally screwing it up, since the Pave Spike is extremely sensitive to any aircraft movement and if you just touch your stick while lasing, the bombs will miss as they bleed all their energy chasing your jumping laser beam. Make sure you have actually set the correct laser code, remember that the ED weapon menu codes are not compatible yet (until the next patch) and you need to set the code via our Crew Chief menu instead). All in all, treat and drop them like dumb bombs. Go laser only shortly before impact, when you are stable and dont need to touch the stick anymore. Make sure you are actually activating the laser (both cues solid). Enter all data into the bombing tool and try to follow it at least roughly. If you are still having trouble, please send a short working SP track or a video, thank you :)

Извините, но мы не бандюки и не гопники. Я по роду деятельности в стороне от юридических вопросов, но не сомневаюсь - всё, что ED делает и будет делать, будет делаться в рамках законов.

Man unterschätzt, allgemein wie wichtig generell das Scenario und die Mitstreiter sind in so einer Mission. Der Spielspaß kommt ja nicht ausschließlich vom "Dinge in die Luft jagen". Das meiner Meinung nach große Problem der Huey in DCS, ist die meist sehr feindselige Umgebung, die gerade im Multiplayer häufig, schlechte Jet-Piloten animiert, auf wehrlose Helikopter jagd zu machen, die mangels funktionierender CAP ein angenehmeres Ziel sind, als gegnerische Abfangjäger, oder mit absurd überzogenen SAM-Stellungen geschützte Bodenziele anzugreifen. Da hilft nur selber machen, in kleiner intimer Runde.

Hi, thanks for this awesome mod!!! I take lot of fun flying it!! Any chance to have also a more modern version to play over Afghanistan? Thanks for your great work