Leaderboard

Well, let's put it this way: there are multiple competing subsets of the community who all want different things. The Strike Eagle guide took a focused effort of about 9 months... which left me with a hefty backlog to address for other guides that were left behind. I don't pretend I have a perfect solution since I am severely limited in terms of resources (mainly time and availability). My immediate priority is to include the new datalink architecture implemented by ED, which means that the F-16, F/A-18 and A-10C are all in the first batch of planned updates. The Viper having the most stuff to update/fix (mainly INS and other things), I'm tackling this one first. I also want to fix some stuff on the targeting pod lasing logic for the JF-17 after a Deka update a few months back. Once these critical updates are done, I have to decide if I want to do the big AH-64 update or work on the F-4 Phantom. I cannot stress enough how badly I want to work on the Phantom straight away, but I have to think about the Apache playerbase having to potentially wait an additional 6-9 months if I go that way. I still haven't made up my mind about the best course of action. Regarding the MB339... it's a tough call. While I think it's a cool trainer and most certainly worthy of a proper guide, the demand for it is simply dwarfed by the amount of requests I have for other modules. And all that does not even take into account what I really want to work on. One last thing: I saw that many people appreciated the "quick" guide for the Phantom I did (which was mainly for start-up, takeoff and landing). I was thinking of potentially doing something similar for the OH-58, CH-47 (and hell, maybe even the MB339 while we're at it). It could be an interesting concept if people want it.

Here's what it looks like with the wake file. 5 knots and 24 knots. I reduced the tail size as well. However, I couldn't lower the bow wake height. I attached the OHIO Wake file below. The wake file can be edited via Notepad if you all would like to add it to the LA and Sturgeon Class. https://ln5.sync.com/dl/0be3a27d0/2bfv9zmy-e5xijie2-vdwz8ryq-dk7friga

I have tried several things here, up to and including directly referencing the F-15CCWS.dll and F-15.dll files in my entry file, using the code from the F-15C's entry file as reference. None of this has worked so far. Will keep experimenting...

1 time purchase by 1 person, you seem to forget these modules are not a limited in number or in time offering, but can be sold for a long time to a lot of new customers as long as the engine supports the module I bought the F-14 early this year, almost 5 years after pre-release

Issue reproduced. Devs are working on a fix.

I still don’t understand how anyone could think that an ED early access map could be anything other than what was released. Early access could not possibly be “feature complete” in the sense that most users interpreted it. That alone should have been a clue. Plus, as you stated, the fact that it wasn’t given to content creators to preview, should have been yet another clue. All in all, what people are most upset about is that their enthusiasm got the better of them. In life, I’ve found that it’s best to tone down your expectations and be pleasantly surprised, when they’re exceeded. Reality normally glitters much less than the hype. This map has great potential. We’ll just have to wait and see what comes. Personally, I think ED will eventually make this map enjoyable for most, but not all, of us. For now, anyone who bought it in early access, got a nice price break…which is why I bought it in the first place.

I'm putting final touches on the VOR/ILS Antenna. I've also added it via 8th "AUX" Pylon, Which will allow me to include the lines for the Refuel Probe mod items, user would just have to enable them. Also made custom loadout graphics for the wingtips and VOR/ILS

You shouldn't have to search for and find "the right areas" for enjoying Helicopters (which I'm sure is possible), or in other words avoid the awful patchwork immersion killing spots, when in almost every other map you can just go without a second though from any airfield in the map and at least not be instantly put off. And on the topic of Afghanistan being a Helicopter map.... Apart from (a non-existent) Vietnam Map for the Huey, Afghanistan is (or should be) THE ultimative map for the Helicopters we have in DCS. It should have been crafted with especially Helicopters in mind - and that means everything* has to look good from close proximity, but sadly it doesn't. (*around POIs, including rivers and main streets)

Not sure what has happened there, internally it is fine but in public builds its locked on random. I have reported it to the team so thank you for the heads up

First post! Yeah me! I have decided to start my own thread here to put up all my static templates and miz files of the main PBs, FOBs and COPs for TF Helmand (The British ones mainly) and then the complete miz file with them all included in one place. This is a pretty big task so it is all a WIP. Completed TF Helmand_Nadi Ali - PB Pimon TF Helmand_Sangin - PB Pylae TF Helmand_Sangin - PB Tangiers TF Helmand_Sangin - PB Wishtan TF Helmand_Sangin - FOB Jackson TF Helmand_Nadi Ali – FOB Argyll TF Helmand_Now Zad – District Centre TF Helmand_Now Zad – ANP Hill TF Helmand_Gereshk – FOB Price WIP TF Helmand_Lashkar Gar – TF Helmand HQ TF Helmand_Lashkar Gar – FOB Bost TF Helmand_Upper Gereshk Valley – FOB Gibraltar TF Helmand_Kajaki - FOB Zeebrugge TF Helmand_Kajaki - OP Normandy TF Helmand_Kajaki - OP Sparrowhawk TF Helmand_Kajaki - OP Athens TF Helmand_Sangin Valley – FOB Nolay TF Helmand_Sangin Valley – PB Viking TF Helmand_Sangin Valley – PB Waterloo TF Helmand_Sangin Valley – COP Robinson TF Helmand_Upper Sangin Valley – FOB Inkerman TF Helmand_Musa Qaleh – District Centre TF Helmand_Musa Qaleh – FOB Edinburgh TF Helmand_Musa Qaleh – OP Roshan TF Helmand_Garmsir – FOB Delhi TF Helmand_Garmsir – FOB Dwyer (Already on the map so not sure what to with this one as it was the 105 gun fire base for support of FOB Delhi). And more to be added to the list…. Each of the FOBs will be recreated as close to realistic as I can possibly make them within the limits of the DCS Mission Editor, using my own and many other sources. They may not all date to the exact same time period or year either, but they will all be within 2006-2008/9 hopefully. Also I will not be using any mods so they will be accessible for all without the need to download anything else or increasing the chances of these being broken as DCS updates. If anyone has any ideas or wishes please do reply! Hopefully someone will get some use or enjoyment out of these! All of these templates are hidden. To reveal them on your map you will need to go to map options in the mission editor and unhide blue units! The first of many! TF Helmand_Nadi Ali - PB Pimon This is my new and improved PB Pimon as it has been resized to be correct, the last one was twice the size it should have been! Oops! The static template can be downloaded from here; https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3339481/

Hello, My PC had six storage drives, the fastest being a 1 TB NVMe unit which held Windows, a few software like Office and Adobe, and DCS. The remaining drives included one SSD of 1 TB where I held my documents and my Lightroom photo collection, plus 4 older hard drives for Backups and lesser games. As the 1TB nvme drive was getting cramped, as DCS alone used over 600 GB, I have now finally bit the bullet and purchased a 2 TB unit to use as an upgrade. I know that many people swear by Gen.5 units, but those are still hideusly expensive on my country and would force me to upgrade the motherboard as well (this is my current MB: https://pg.asrock.com/mb/AMD/B550 Phantom Gaming 4/index.asp), so I ended up purchasing a Gen.4 unit at a price of US$ 175, this one: I wanted to share a few highlights about the install process, in case it might help other users: 1) First, I wanted to avoid a Windows reinstall, as I've spent a lot of time tuning my Windows and drivers and wanted to avoid doing it all over again, so I needed to clone the drive. 2) Since my MB has two M2 slots, I opted to mount both drives simultaneously and then perform the cloning. The software I chose to use was a 30-day trial version of Macrium Reflect: https://www.macrium.com/reflectfree This software has the advantage of running within Windows, so no need for boot pendrives nor running DOS-like front-ends. 3) To avoid any chance of error, as I have so many drives, I disconnected the Sata cables of all my existing drives, leaving just the two NVMe units connected. This is my motherboard with the GPU removed and just my original 1 TB unit: And here is the new drive already installed on the secondary M2 slot: I start Windows and then start the Cloning software: Disk 1 is my existing Windows drive and the new unit was detected automatically as Disk 2, we can see it is empty. The One Drive message can be ignored, it is caused by having all my other drives disconnected during the cloning. I click on "Clone this Disk" and the software automatically offers to clone the disk while at the same time enlarge the partition 3 to take advantage of the larger destination drive, like this: The cloning took about 30 minutes and then I powered off the PC, removed my original 1 TB drive and moved the new 2 TB unit onto its slot. I would have loved to leave both NVMe on the PC, but unfortunately my motherboard disables 3 of its 6 Sata ports when using the secondary M2 slot, so I chose to just replace my original 1TB with the 2 TB one, to keep all of my other drivers operational. The free NVMe will be sold at the 2nd hand market or used to upgrade my spare PC. So, that's all, I can highly recommend this cloning software, worked perfectly. Best regards to all, Eduardo

The Hunter is based on the A-10A, so the displays do not work. We are still waiting to see what the next updates will change and will then decide how to adapt the mods, as the Su-25T avionics are also causing problems.

Disappointments and trash talk could have been avoided 100% by showing exactly what state the map was in before Early Access launch. ED selected not to show off the map properly during pre-order. They also decided not to give content creators preview copies this time around. That's ok, some players are very happy with the quality. But there are many players that got disappointed and burned this time. Not a good thing for future DCS Pre-Orders.

F1 plus Falklands. ..

I believe the line between good constructive criticism and downright trash talking, for some forum members has gotten extremely blurred. I'm absolutely interested in hearing/reading good, well informed, well stated constructive criticism. The best criticism comments, should have you questioning your position, even if all is well on your end. Unfortunately though, a majority of those sharing their issues, for some reason, feel that it's necessary to include completely disrespectful and disparaging statements/remarks towards ED, and their staff, as well as anyone that has a different opinion. *That*... I'll never understand, nor do I feel inclined to do so.

We couldn't see how the new map turns out, before it was released obviously*. As I said, it is perfectly ok to find the map appealing as it is if that's your drift. But it is equally legit and reasonable to voice my disappointment about the route they are taking. (*not even mentioning, that the promo material convieniently misses the rough spots.) And what even is "careless" critics?

Without Soviet bases?

Hi @bengo This is working according to the available documentation. The SAT option for the MAP type will only work up to 25km and selecting a range above it will revert the type to STICK as you describe.

Hawkeye, Glad you updated. Will send you some old liveries I made for James Stewart's squadron. Not the best quality but I had fun using them. seabat

Note that I have an overview of the various bases with the information about them here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/88770-ffb-joysticks/ I use that to keep track of the info myself, so I don't have to go looking for it again.

Great map, I really like it - realistic, nice color palette, very well done small details in the airports. It's just a pleasure to be on it. But there is only one thing - this map is for airplanes, not helicopters. On a helicopter, the nice part is next to a muddy spot of photo grid overlay or a square of green grass. I did not enjoy flying Kola on the helicopter and believe this map is made for Cold War aircraft, Afghanistan seemed to me well suited for the US military conflict 2001-2021, although I thought I would use Hip/Hind on it. Overall I am happy with the purchase, I think it is a good result for EA.

Du kannst den initialen Wert auch in der Datei hier editieren, dann musst du das nicht jedes mal neu machen. D:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Scripts\Aircrafts\_Common\Cockpit\ViewportHandling.lua Zeile 28 und 29 kannst du die Koordinaten der oberen linken Ecke angeben. bei mir ist 30 und 40 knapp oben Links in der Ecke auf dem Hauptbildschirm. local default_y = 30 --h - default_height local default_x = 40 --w - default_width - x0 Das muss man allerdings nach jedem Update einmal neu eintragen.

WIP

Consolidated B-24 Liberator The most produced bomber of WWII! Re post is now active!

Hey RWC, I removed the wake files because when the Subs are cruising underwater they still show a big wake. I honestly wish the wake would disappear when they're submerged. You know I think it's possible to make a minimal wake for subs as it should be. Is it all subs or the OHIO Class? I know she creates a large wake. Thanks for the feedback.

Haha, thanks for the info! If they actively supported modding (it's known to happen in the real world), maybe there would be less issues for users to complain about? And pointing towards imbalances in gameplay doesn't really make sense looking at the core game inventory. Maybe it's just me, but I've always had a hard time listening to game developers telling me how I should play the games I buy. Especially sandbox based games.

ED you have released the latest map yet why can Afghanistan not actually be chosen as a country to add to a coalition? Also whilst we are discussing this topic i'm quite unsure how all these years later we are still awaiting New Zealand? I'm not going to list out here all the significant contributions they have made over the years in real terms, but suffice to say they should have been included in a selectable country as part of the coalition be it on your WW2 maps through to modern day. Why on both please @BIGNEWYor @NineLine

Code is 100% done in VDXR. But unfortunately it is currently blocked on an unforeseen limitation of Virtual Desktop's compositor. There's currently no guarantee this will be resolved.

On the last page, there was talk of the satellite textures and not looking great. I believe ( and do correct me if wrong) that the South Atlantic map has been made using similar technology? When that was released, again, I was pretty dissapointed, for all the same reasons I have been similarlky dissapointed by Afghanistan. However, the SA map has been significantly updated recently, to the extent that its literally almost unrecognizable.....stunningly detailed mountains and hills, glaciers, see below: Now if this can be achieved using the same technology, then it should be possible for Afghanistan to look as good as this ......Lets hope it does not take as long as Razbam took to get the map to what I call an acceptable standard...... I have been exploring it more, in particular the "high detail" areas round the main bases and cities and di notice one thing that also irked quite a lot....again,. I hope its going to be updated, but there is very very high number of houses / compounds with what looks like Nissan huts in a kind of blueish colour.....( dont have a picture to hand but can post one..) These dont look like any kind of Afghani houses I have seen and there is literally hundreds of them.......what are they supposed to be and why so many? In general, I think the houses and compounds look pretty good, but these really spoil it....A comment or explanation from someone at ED would be great....

“Most complete of the three”. True. Will “receive some updates post-release”. Also true. “For all intents and purposes feature complete”. Ditto. I doubt they’ll be adding a tremendous amount of new features. I should hope not. ED is no different from any other company that owns a niche. They put out a decent product overall. Not a great one. Their strength lies in mimicking systems in the cockpit. They are hard to beat in that regard. Elsewhere, not so much.

You didn't think much about what you've said, did you? 15 years of DCS growing and success without the feature tells me it's just very minor inconvenience.

Bowie, all of us have been using 2.9.6 for two weeks now and you're the only guy reporting such frequent failure issues, so it's safe to say it's not as common as you think. I've been flying Mustang, Thunderbolt, Mossie and Anton, in stock and custom missions, with random failure option enabled and haven't experienced a single one so far, which leads me to continue to believe that the option hasn't been fully implemented in all aircraft for years. But I digress... I'm not saying there's certainly no bug here. Clearly something happens in your DCS install. There must be something in your combination of mission, airfame and 2.9.6 that exacerbates the problem, but without a replay track, nobody's going to search for a needle in a haystack. We, fellow operators are more than willing to help narrow down the issue, but if you're saying "please advise" in one line and pretty much tell us to F off when 1st troubleshooting advice is given, then, well, good luck. Rules here are simple: a) If you post a track, ED might take a look at the issue, investigate and reply. The chance is small, but at keast it's there allright; b) If you don't post a track, there's an absolute, 100% guarantee that nobody's going to bother, neither devs, nor beta testers, nor users, because there is no starting point to investigate. You being a "paying customer" is irrelevant. Well, choice is yours. You do you.

I never activate the pilot because it obstructs my view on the controls and switches, so I don’t care wether the pilot is male, female or what so ever. Bring on the bird. Everything else can be added after the release.

Hi, currently VR is not support in combined arms. It has been requested but at the moment we are not planning to include it. thank you

Thank god Chuck has provided an almost 500 pages Guide, without it I wouldn't have been able to learn this bird fully.

I have a Pimax Crystal and in my humble opinion, I believe it's quite accurate now. For examples: I'm able to see the faint silhouette of a MiG-19 against the clouds from a head-on aspect at approx 4-5 miles, *if* I know where I need to be looking. The 'heavies' I can spot at 10-12 miles +/-, if I'm visually scanning diligently. "Flying" the Tomcat at 10k and trying to get visual on the maneuvering A-4E sporting the desert camo down low above the NTTR, is *very* challenging. Once I do get him in sight, I don't dare lose him, or I have to get way down low and *hope*I can spot his silhouette against the sky. The accuracy of Jester's Bandit callouts in the 2v2 fight are definitely in question for me. Either he's incorrect 1/2 the time, or I'm just that blind. Anyway....as they say at the real 'Topgun'... "Lose sight...Lose the fight" Comparing the same results to my daily occupational experience, I believe it's very accurate in its current state as of 07/24/24. I'm happy to post a screenshot of my VR settings upon request.

Since we have an Afghanistan map, we should have Afghanistan as a faction.

An upgrade to Nevada would be really cool. I would pay for the upgrade.

Honestly, what you're doing is honorable invaluable free work for the community. Your resources are limited self-evidently. In order to not burn out (see Spudknockers latest Video for reference) you should abso-effing-lutely take into account what you really want to work on!

While I really value that ED is trying to further realism in simulation, the fact that the JDAM implementation is still halfway done is frustrating to say the least. Instead of introducing a new, but feature complete solution, ED introduces a half baked (only relative mode) on only the F-16. It’s been a couple of months at least now and some information is welcome. Furthermore it would be prudent to apply this to all things coming out of ED’s hands. Recently all solutions seem to introduce more problems than they solve.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU ED for this unique map finally arriving! I don't care about what most dissatisfied may find to complain about a rather huge map in comparison to others with things like: resolution, not enough details, etc.! Kiddish complaints from my point of view! I'm only happy that finally..., this map is available in DCS and it resembles the real landscape of Afghanistan. NOW I can truly simulate what I want regarding the Soviet-Afghan war against the Mujahideen, especially in 1987 when the soviets have learned more about defeating Stinger missiles and found new ways of hunting the extremist Mujahideen down. Can't wait to make a realistic conditions mission reflecting that year! Better to be happy of this map already as it is rather than waiting more years to be able to fly on it. Can't you guys have any bit of appreciation other than immediate critics (some being careless) for something which was waited for so long and which of course is a WIP? Cmon! Be reasonable.

One freedom fighter ... How come not yet in the game ... Does it need ballistics code implemented first or perhaps awaits 3D underwear model completion?... Just saying

If ANA and ANP get own factions the USMC and ARMY would need too… And the Russian VDV and GRU for sure. I think one Afghanistan would do the trick.

Thanks very much . Hope you enjoy the campaigns!

That was a hotfix , not an update.

Im not aware of any plans for that, will mention it to the team however.

FOB Argyll is live see the post above. Next project, Lashkar Gar HQ/PRT.

I would place the boat in the PG map, perform the launch of the strike group, fly towards Afghanistan with AAR, once CLOSE TO the the end of map, use zone trigger to load mission and load air start mission in Pakistan, perform AAR and fly to the Afghanistan, strike the target and return to PG for recovery ... yes ... mission loads in-between, yes two maps used, but at least I would not be disappointed by the lack of boat ops and the mission would be long ...

@NineLine provided some details earlier for how they approach the map. As I understood it, ED intend to build out all three parts of the map and based on its performance go back and add further details as long they believe it doesn’t impact performance too badly. Also it looks like they are experimenting with procedural generated maps + handcrafted on top to speed up the process of map generation. Anybody who can confirm this is correctly understood? This may address the immediate concerns/questions for low texture as well as the expectations for how ED will address it?