Leaderboard

Ok, I can call it done. I didn't had the time to make a new Yak-28P skin from A 2 Z so I've decided to update the existing (including NM and Roughmet) and this is the result. I hope AA-3 missing pylons will be fixed. I can provide blank textures too.

Did a little "milk run" in the OH-6

Hello all, apologies for the lack of updates and release, got tied up with work issues, and a family bereavement recently so didn't have much time to get this squared away. I will work on it this week, not sure what the last update broke, there's bound to be something !! LOL

Not EA release != bug-free release. There will never be a bug free state of software and people need to get down to earth if they think they'll get a bug free module no matter how many years it's in development and no matter who develops it.

@TKhaos Don't get me wrong, standalone mods are definitely better than FC3 based. The time to make them is a lot longer. A decent EFM standalone mod will take aprox. 2 years if you work on it with 2 people on the weekends or in the evening and you already own the external and cockpit model. FC3 SFM is about 3 Weeks with FC3 cockpit. About 2-4 months with custom cockpit, depending on how far you want to go. So only standalone will just lead to fewer mods and more abandoned projects. FC3 was also a stepping stone. If a mod found an audiance it made sense to develope it further and invest that time. There is not that much sense in developing a plane for two years to find out that nobody wants to fly it ;-)

This is getting a bit silly now, so I'm asking you to all stop being Cassandraic and take a step back. Early Access does not refer to quality or bugs or even performance. It simply refers to the amount of completed features at release vs. the planned amount for the product. In that sense, the Kiowa is not considered Early Access since all the features we planned for the module are implemented with one or two exceptions that have already been discussed. Compare this to other modules where you're still waiting for various weapons or whatever feature five or six years later. I want to be super clear here - I am not saying the module doesn't need improvement, or that there aren't issues to be looked at and addressed. I'm simply saying that arguing it is an Early Access release because of these issues is factually incorrect. Your definition of what Early Access means is not what is used by Polychop or Eagle Dynamics, or any software developer or game studio I've been a part of in my career. It is about delivery of planned features, that is all. Quality is not a *feature* (although I would absolutely agree the world would be better if it was, and I personally try to push that where I can - hence WHY the fixes are taking longer than you want). As for "Didn’t even know they reacted “we fly from inside the cockpit”…. Even more reason not to spend my money on them." - I don't know where this came from, nor do I care. It's not my opinion, therefore as long as I am part of Polychop it's not fair to say it is the opinion OF Polychop. No matter what someone else may have said. I've said this earlier, I will repeat it again: We have listened to what you've said, we're aware of the issues and we are currently working out how to address them. I can't give you better answers than that because I am not the artist, I'm sorry. All I can ask for now is patience. I know you don't have it. I certainly don't either

I paid for a product and I'm using it every day. Just because there are bugs doesn't mean I cannot fly it. EA is a frigging label that means absolutely nothing anymore. I don't need reminders, I was here and been through it. Oh my, I can't explain how little I care about this. Maybe I can. For starters, my GPU is happy because it doesn't have to load 10+ GB of textures so I have some space for other things like when Apache, Chinook, Phantom and Tomcat comes into play with their textures like they are the only module that exists. Their comment is correct, we fly from the inside and that is pretty solid enough for what we use. Maybe if they add in MipMaps so the bit of AA gets removed but honestly what else do you need? Chinook level textures so that I have to wait for 5 minutes to load in and murder my GPU for the one minute of jaw dropping details and then for few hours of ignoring such details because I'm focused on flying that thing, not looking if the scratches are visible and every individual flecks of paint are here. I play DCS to fly combat machines, play army men and shoot stuff at virtual enemies. I don't care if the enemy is Hi-rez or Low-rez, it makes no frigging difference at all for my experience as I'll likely see it through a sensor from far away.

So the bottom line is, if the module was 10-20$ cheaper, most of people wouldn't complain about the bugs? Yeah right, I don't believe that for a second. Call me however you want, but it just looks to me most of the people are rear-end hurt because they had to pay full price outright.

Would be nice if you could utilize the tester team and QA team to check the data points across speeds and altitudes with different loadouts in EM diagrams. I am only a single person so I can not do the QA job for you. I'm aware that flight model development is incredibly complex, and perfection is a tough target to hit. However, the community's confidence would be bolstered by a more detailed explanation of how these discrepancies arose and what steps might be taken to address them. Please take your time. Thanks.

Cockpit model is being further developed, courtesy of @musolo.

Yep, it's the combination of the weapon type that's firing and the target type. If AI doesn't think the weapon will do any harm it won't fire, like having an asset with a 7.62 MG against a tank, it won't even try to engage. You can test that by having a helicopter engage the Strb 90, it will then use all its weapons to defeat it. But I will make a note about this and change the type for the 12.7 mm guns, which should engage these kind of lighter targets.

Maybe that would work if you installed musolo's cockpit mod that replaces the F-15C cockpit, so with 1.8.6 that should be possible if you have that installed, but it will be a single seat cockpit. I have a two-seat version that will be included with Version 2.0. It even includes an animated WSO in the back seat (though you cannot occupy the rear seat and multicrew will not be available).

yes, look into the RAT component of Moose:

The thread was created concerning "massive dynamic campaigns or multiplayer missions" not just a small FPS decrease. I play a complex mission in 2.9.5 with 160 FPS and that same mission runs in 2.9.7 with 9 FPS. Thats over a 100 FPS loss. That is what we are talking about here. Lowering settings or anything of that nature will not have you regain a 100 FPS. In small missions my game runs fine.

It is certainly good enough for me, again a VR user so I am sure It is the reason that I do not notice the graphics. But flight wise... superb module! I would say a must for any one that wants to learn DCS choppers for the first time.

Yeah, if you downgrade the graphics settings to a certain threshold depending on each one's hardware you can avoid stutters. That is not what we are reporting on this thread, what we are reporting is in fact that we have to downgrade the graphics settings a lot to play the very same mission with the very same quality we could play it before the update. And obviously we do not have any 100% certainty here, but most of our tests tend to show this is directly related to the sim being unable to handle the same number of units than before. Please do understand our frustration with posts of the type "it works for me, have you tried to downgrade?", yes, we have, but that is not what we are showcasting in this thread. Probably if we all buy a new rig with a state of the art hardware the stutter will be solve too, but what we are reporting is that while it is normal that the sim requires higher and newer hardware over time, we are experiencing a huge jump since the lasts updates. EDIT: and also, what it is more worrysome for some people (myself included), awesome campaign missions such as the ones by Reflected are now not enjoyable due to this

Would be nice if we could opt out 4k skins.

As I said, it will be investigated. There is no need to be rude. Thanks.

I will share asap

Oh, I understood it and didn't comment on the optimization side of it (ask 10 people in the industry how to optimize stuff, you'll get at least 10 different answers). I was mainly talking about the "looks" as that's what most people care about and I'd say it's far from unusable as some people would like to portray it. Can it be better, sure it can. Everything can be made better with some time put into it, question is is it worth it at that particular point in time.

I built a new PC base unit recently (7800x3d, 64GB ram, NVME gen 4 and added in my existing 3080ti). Post installing Windows, was the usual drivers, config of security (firewalls etc). Then onto DCS, so: physically move the NVME from my old to new PC Move the Saved games folder, and empty the FXO and metashaders folders Apply the VR empty hangar mod Run a repair to rebuild the links Firewall/anti-virus settings to open ports For all of my 12+ USB devices, identify the new Windows ID and apply those IDs to each of my aircraft (so around 600 files to update) Sort out the drivers for two of my USB devices that didn't like Windows 11 (i.e. my external DAC and Jetseat (thanks Andre for helping) Re-configure my VR settings for my Quest Pro Sort out the boot time for my x670e motherboard by changing the MCRU setting from "Auto" to "Enabled" (why have an auto setting that does bugger all) I finally got to the end of the pain at the end of last week, following a good deal of testing. Sat morning, fired everything up. Carrier launch just before dawn in my F14 on the Kola map. Snow blowing over the wet deck. All controls working. Go through my cold start, getting some nice rumbles from my jetseat. Disable the frame rate counter. Wow, now that is both very dark out there and amazingly immersive. External lights on and off to signal for launch. I'm thrown off the deck, outside is just BLACK. Can't see anything outside now I'm off the deck. Clunk, wheels up. Hold speed at 300knots and 750'. Coming up on 5nm, turning to required heading for Wpt1. Nose up, throttles to full mill. Still can't see bugger all. Climb out of clouds at around angels 20, with dawn breaking to my right. Just wow. What an awesome experience. The bit when you finally get to see what all the effort was for.

Im amazed how well Razbam did on the eagle at release. If I’m not wrong the SE only had 2 rounds of bug fixes before everything blew up, still is totally flyable and able to deploy almost every weapon the SE actually uses. One of my favorite modules in DCS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems to impossible without the sourcefile of the huey 3d model. Maybe ED wants to create one.

Chiming in because I find this new performance issue so disastrous. Since the big update about a month ago, my frame rate during larger Campaign missions is about 25% what it used to be - and I'm seeing Reflected say he's suddenly having this issue too. I struggled through a mission at a miserable frame rate, and have not opened DCS since. It's not currently possible for me to play DCS, because, for me, single player missions are DCS. It's incredibly frustrating to be forced to stop playing in the middle of a campaign and not even seen an official acknowledgement, but I guess I'll just have to find something else to do.

If it was added it wouldnt have been so silently released because its one of the bigger deals in DCS. Its bigger than Christmas.

Regarding unit counts: Yesterday I loaded a Retribution mission with the option for all friendly forces that aren’t tasked not spawning. This results in you and your wingman being the only two aircraft on the airbase. My FPS were a solid 72 (7950X, 4090, 64G DDR5, Quest 3). I ran the same mission with all aircraft spawning, even those that are untasked. This results in you spawning onto an airfield surrounded by about 30 other helos. My FPS, same mission, were barely holding at 30 - 40 fps. To me it is obvious that something changed with the last update that is preventing DCS from handling any meaningful amount of units. How on earth would an eventual dynamic campaign work?

Good Day Everyone, In order to restore FC3 Dependent mods that utilize the Old = x System, You have to force load them on startup, In the \Mods\Aircraft\ Folders for: A-10A F-15C MIG-29 Su-25A Su-27 Su-33 There are entry.lua files You will need to open these files, and add a line below the binaries block Add: load_immediately = true, And save the LUA File, This will tell DCS to load the Binaries at DCS Startup, Allowing mods that used Old = x to run as they did before 2.9.6.

The DLSS option in DCS is more performant than MSAA, however has a side-effect of ghosting. The DLSS library itself supports a number of presets for varying graphics qualities/performance. DCS appears to set preset C. A number of DCS users currently use the DLSSTweaks tool (https://github.com/emoose/DLSSTweaks) to override this preset value. A commonly recommended one, at least within the VR community, is preset F which has great performance, image clarity, and removes the ghosting which is otherwise seen with preset C (even when using the Quality mode). Could this be investigated and potentially the default preset used by DCS to be updated to remove the current ghosting that is experienced. Would be good to evaluate the preset with both 2D and VR, as if the experience is much better for VR users, but has no change for 2D users, then a direct change of this should have minimal impact on users across both platforms. For anybody wanting to test this themselves; follow the instructions on the link above, and then rename the DLSSTweaks "nvngx.dll" placed in the DCS bin and bin-mt directories to "dxgi.dll". Set the DLSSPresets to F in the dlsstweaks.ini file, place this in the bin and bin-mt directory as well, and then start DCS and use DLSS. You should see the dlsstweaks.log file created in the bin or bin-mt directory. Additionally if you enable the DLSSTweaks debug overlay you should see this as per the screenshot. You should see less ghosting when using DLSS. Similar config exists within that config ini file for using with DLAA instead of DLSS. Nvidia Global Profile (recommended approach): A more simplified approach to configuring this, will apply to all games using DLSS, is to use DLSSTweaks to set this preset globally within the Nvidia Global Profile. This means you don't need to place the dll file and ini file (or update it) in the DCS/bin-mt directory. Instructions as follows: 1. As per the previous instructions, download the DLSSTweaks.zip file from https://www.nexusmods.com/site/mods/550?tab=files 2. Unzip this and then run the DLSSTweaksConfig.exe file. This requires administrator permissions, but will prompt you and run if you don't 3. Set the GlobalForcedPreset to F (or preset of choice) as per the screenshot and save changes Set GlobalHudOverride to Enabled (all DLLs) to display the debug overlay that will show the preset currently in use. Update 11/14/24: The latest release of the DLSS library (3.8.10) has removed all other presets except for E and F. If you just replace the DCS nvngx_dlss.dll file in the bin and bin-mt directories then DCS will now by default use preset E for the Performance, Quality, Balanced without any overrides. The "Ultra Performance" option will select preset F, however this will mean lowered graphics clarity so you will need to use DLSSTweaks to enable preset F for the "Quality" or other options. Update 24/01/25: DLSS 4 and Preset J: DLSS 4 just became available along with the new J preset. Tried and tested and so far seems awesome. See my comment linked here for instructions and findings. Update 30/01/25: DLSS Swapper: The recent release of DLSS Swapper (use the v1.1.2 version or later) now supports manually adding game folders. You can add the top level DCS installation folder and this will now automatically replace the nvngx_dlss.dll file in the bin and bin-mt folders. You can confirm this by hovering your mouse over the dll files and verifying that the tooltip displays the correct version number. Update 31/01/25: The latest DLSSTweaks release now supports setting presets J and K in the Nvidia Global Profile. This also contains a fix to prevent crashes when using the dxgi.dll wrapper approach. The latest DLSS 310.2.1.0 library now supports preset K NOW AVAILABLE!!!: The latest DLSS dll is now available in DCS and presets can be configured. Add the below line to your C:\Users\username\Saved Games\DCS\Config\autoexec.cfg file to set the DLSS preset, this is still C by default. You will need to create this file if it does not already exist. DLSS_Preset = 'K' You can add this line as well if you don’t want DLSS applied to MFDs and HUD to keep them sharp with no ghosting for greater control. HUD_MFD_after_DLSS = true

Heya Everyone As the Kola map was released, I started to create a campaign (planning to release it also public) for choppers(for AH64, OH-58D at first + maybe some others too later). For this campaign, I need support ship + some more local equipment, so I started to model Nansen frigate and Skjold corvette. First question: Someone already modeling these? Before I go too much forward? Second question: I can handle the modeling side, but for defining the weapon systems in DCS, I may require some help. Any good templates for ships or any help to convert the 3D model to DCS Mod? I will publish any models I create for everyone and use in any way You like. I dont mind. I will post the Blender model too after I get something more done if someone wants to polish the model.

Hello everyone, while searching in my photo archives I found images taken during my stay in Afghanistan in the Kapisa region on the Nijrab FOB. I stayed in the region from 2008 to 2009 for seven months. At the time there was a lot of movement on the FOB: CH-47, OH-58, UH-60 and AH-64. I was able to take some photos of the Apache in action, and I thank again a thousand times the pilots who provided us with support in all conditions and all weathers with great mastery and great professionalism without ever giving up.

Two in one, to confuse radars

if the Entry is properly coded, the ASM Systems and SFM Arguments are loaded w/o issue. The only thing that DCS has changed, is FC3 Aircraft binaries do not load automatically w/ old = x variable in the flyable declaration, which causes the module to not load and if you try to force control it says it cannot. adding that line loads the binaries at launch of DCS, allowing users to continue to load into aircraft as it was before 2.9.6. If you're getting the cockpit and no FM, then the entry.lua flyable declaration is wrong, and it's pointing to a null SFM/PFM. Likely from ill-advised edits done after the patch to try and restore the mod. Who do you think helped most of these teams find solutions?

I did. But when I changed them to flights of 2 aircraft it solved itself just fine. Give that a try?

HAHA couldn't help myself XD. I'm keen for the fix I love the bird she's a blast to fly.

Well, we pay for the product, we do not get paid for spending time on testing and finding bugs. If something is marked as EA i expect bugs and treat them differently. PC is a special case here, bold claims are getting easily offending against customers because of their history. Selling a helicopter module and delivering the flight model 7 years later, just to remind you. And it's better to embrace early adopters, give them a little discount and let them help you detecting and ironing out the quirks. The poorly done texture job, this is something i absolutely didn't expect from being delivered as finished product. It's really embarrassing. Plus the comment we get from PC "we don't care, we fly from inside the cockpit...".

I will mention it to the team again thanks

Same issue. At least increase the hitbox size. [emoji1303] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Hi @BIGNEWY, Can you confirm this will be addresed by the webdesign person/team? As someone who visits this forum everyday, this tiny button is a pretty much an everyday annoyance. As posted before, I'm asking kindly to increase the size of this button on the top right: Right now it's just too small for comfort on a phone screen. Tapping only a fraction outside this button and you hit the DCS banner and proceed to the DCS website. Should be an easy fix, yet big QOL improvement for forum users.

Oh wow, thanks I will check it out!

@Migparts As previous poster pointed out, the Extended range fuel tanks that are carried internally are piped into the fuel system so there would be no need to refuel yourself. As for hauling fuel as a slingload, as a hack to extend your range? In theory it is certainly technically possible. The reality is you'd lose range from the added weight and added drag. Meaning you could do it, but you'd likely have more range simply not hauling the added fuel. Adding fuel is a diminishing returns thing. One internal tank is the most range for least amount of lost payload etc. Two internal tanks gets you a smaller increase in range for the same amount of added weight, etc. IIRC you can't even fill the third tank all the way for weight or C.G. reasons. So you can imagine the same phenomenon with slung fuel, but with the added penalties of massive parasite drag from the load. So possible, sure. But without running any numbers, at best you might get a very slight increase in range. But more likely, the result of hauling the fuel itself would be less total range.

Soooooo now that they are out and after a nice break.... What are the next steps for you guys ?

CCIP aiming when dropping multiple bombs with interval has changed in the last few updates. According to real life Hornet pilots, the way it was modelled was correct; the CCIP aiming point is supposed to be the center of a salvo of bombs ie: dropping 4 bombs, the aiming point would be between bombs 2 and 3. I made a tutorial video on this a while back: Since then, the aiming point as now changed to be the impact point of the first bomb. Why did this change? The F-16 Viper CCIP still behaves like it was before; the impact point is the middle of a salvo of bombs.

The internal report was bumped very recently.

@Migparts Unfortunately, just describing an issue is sometimes not enough to identify an issue. Not only do we need the setup to cause the issue, we also need to observe it happening. As a rule of thumb, please create a short track replay with the event. It's something you can easily save into a file and it allows us to reproduce the alleged problem. That being said, the current AI is still a "work in progress" and it is very much under development at this point.

1) Art issue. I can't speak for this or any other art issues, sorry. 2) Known issue, I believe resolved internally already or tracked to be fixed. 3) DCS issue. Believed to be linked to DLSS settings. Reported to ED on the 6th of June, nothing has happened since. Look, I understand your concerns and frustration. But the idea that we're not doing anything about it is false. You only have to look at our WIP changelog to see that. Bugs happen. I don't think you can judge us negatively on releasing with some bugs compared to any other module. What matters is that we are addressing them. It takes time because we do so methodically and carefully, and the update release process has been chaotic until recently due to the CH-47 and other changes. I will not release an update until it has been fully tested to my satisfaction, and until now there has not been a release window large enough to allow that. Again, I can only speak for code issues. But do not think the art issues you raise have not gone unnoticed. I just can't provide any answer to those at this time. null

@Terrifier, no one is saying the flight model is perfect or without its flaws. As I already said, the devs are working on it. Further, ED has several AH-64D pilots that they have been communicating with to refine the flight model. Casmo is indeed a valuable community member and content creator, but there have been a few instances in which he has stated things about the AH-64 that are not accurate. I am not speaking ill of him because I have talked to him on numerous occassions and he is a respectable and well-meaning individual with many years of experience and hours of real-world helicopter flight time. However his experience in the AH-64 was quite limited compared to his time in the OH-58. There are a couple of AH-64D SMEs that provide feedback to ED regarding the DCS AH-64D's flight model which have over 5000 hours of combined time flying the AH-64, one of which is myself. So believe me, the flight model is being addressed, which is a monumental task. The AH-64D flight model is not abandoned; it is being worked on as we speak. If you don't or won't believe that when it has already been made very clear, then there is nothing else that can be said on the matter.

As Raptor and others have stated here in this forum, yes, the FM needs fine tuning, specially with the rotor torque/anti-torque and SCAS. HOWEVER, the power available and engine torque margins are, as far as the feedbacks from people who used to fly it IRL, very close, if not on point. The AH-64D had a lot of weight added on in avionics (some 2000 pounds in empty weight alone, iirc), without much improvements on the engines/transmission end of it. As a result, it lost some performance compared to the A model. This, and other reasons, are why they developed the AH-64E Guardian now, with much better performance. That being said, plan your mission acordingly and this issue is severely mitigated. And I do agree, FM is a very important aspect of a good module, and I do have hopes of ED delivering a great one.

May 2009 : Visit to Kabul

2008 French JTAC in fire guidance training.