Leaderboard

HB A-6 Intruder, Art completed, AI version integration in progress, flyable module post Eurofighter. https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/s/1wxDqPKTlw

We are adding more content to that video, that's why we are not releasing it yet.

There will not be any update this week, the team are still working on some issues and testing, of course everything depends on test results. We may share some news this Friday in the newsletter. thank you

We have unlimited fuel - unlimited ammo - no reaction to threads - no weapons on enemies - Green State - Turn off radar - No dispersion under fire In my humble oppinion i think newcomers are safe inside DCS to come and enjoy. If on top of that a fellow comrade is willing to teach you from time to time the AAR techniques step by step, doing things like 10 minutes formation fly to the left of the tanker matching speed and angels, nothing more buddy, no pressure , no hurry, and left home. Tomorrow, we are doing the same, just match speed and angels this time behind the tanker, nothing more buddy, no hurry, no pressure just five minutes behind. Then left home, drink a beer, tomorrow i will see you online buddy. Then now buddy ask the tanker and look at your HUD, canopy, etc and make a pic of that position behind the basket. Nothing else buddy, just keep steady on that picture, just 5 minutes mate, no pressure, no hurry, and we are leaving for another beer. Then next day, remember that mental pic on you head around the HUD? Now just keep that in the same place, and slowly try to be closer to the basket. Dont look the basket, look the fixed place, dont worry, no hurry, no pressure, if you go to close its ok, if you go to far, its ok, just try 2 minutes buddy. Then we leave and grab a beer. Next day same rutine, and I PROMISE YOU and any newcomer the REWARD beeing the teacher, and beeing the newcomer buddy the first time you hit the basket WORTH every minute, every beer and every drop of sweat you expend in the process. Thats why MY POINT is, teach newcomers how to do things, like AAR, because AUTO THINGS teachs you nothing. This kind of teaching-learning with patience and kind support of newcomers can attract more people to the game than 100 Auto things you can imagine.

Don't be so sure Indeed I can't see what exact code is implemented but with reversible method it can be easily figured out. Maybe you expect that motors in DCS are modeled in details, but they are not and like said it is understandable, who would make all these motors to be precise and perfect. So everything can be detected because of simplifications used in DCS and all other similar games. Give me several level (horizontal) flight envelopes velocity-time and distance-time for active time (when motor burns) let's say 1,2M launch velocity (or better 1M because 1,2M at 1km exceed limits) at 1, 5, 10 and 15km and let's see can we see or not what is code, what is motor thrust at these altitudes. DCS simplified principles is Isp*m, always linear thrust, not involving details like chamber pressure, pressure at nozzle exit, nozzle expansion ratios, throat diameters etc etc etc and that's perfectly right for most of motors. Even 7% principle when increasing thrust as altitude gain is fair enough because it fits quite fine for most of motors...but not this one. Deliberately said ''one'' not ''ones'' and who was reading me know what it means. This motor simply can't be ''molded'' together with Sidewinder, Amraam, Sparrow and pallets of various other tactical motors because with its huge nozzle expansion ratio it is simply different and needs different approach...believe it or not We have saying to someone when ruin established facts, you are destroying snowman, and I know that is exactly what I'm doing But not from wickedness but from engineering needs for precision

I think Auto AAR doesnt pull more people in DCS, It just makes AAR automatic. My point is community help attracts more people into DCS. And i've nothing against Auto AAR. Its ok asking for It. Just for me adds nothing to the game. Sooner or later you would need to learn it, so why dont just join others in the process from the start?

Pt2 of a small colelction of liveries for other peoles Mods - due to the large size I had to reduce this by removing some of the F4B liveries. As before I have identified the Mod you need in order to instal these liveries. Where a livery is identified as a Static that means I have folded wings or opend hatches etc as if it were parked up. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qbp0y2dch0tng2fw765o0/CrazyEddies-Misc-Liveries-Pt2.zip?rlkey=qr1dqxgrxg4hv7sw3zh93yxsz&st=at1tesvk&dl=0

Seems like you would be happier building scale models instead playing this game.

I have to? Haha, sure DCS is the "the most realistic military flight simulator"? Come on man, it still has clouds that are invisible to AI and IR, much realism Currently, improved spotting dot is not working as intended for people in VR as it is in 2D. Now, you have to understand that stating it is realistic because it works for you, is just egoistic and not helping to achieve exactly what you wrote. Other pc sim game ("ekhm" that is supposedly even higher in realism than DCS, "ekhm") has somehow managed to fix the spotting issue with smart scaling. Having an open discussion about possible options can only help with achieving exactly that in DCS as well, so let's try to fix what is broken and then adjust for realism.

Change in the special options between roof/no roof. There is a box to check.

Other games are relevant for a comparison of different system used to let people enjoy playing video game on PCs with different hardware, on different resolutions. DCS is a game, not a real life, so that whole “realism” thing that you are preaching about in nearly every post you make is just a relative term just for you. Instead of making statements, try to be more open-minded to others' opinions. The source of this entire topic is a representation of spotting in a PC app/game which causes problems for people. You have a low res VR headset, so it's the similar for you as for others in 2D where it seems that you are not affected.

I'm all for "easy" options that make the game enjoyable for new players. It is an eye-roller for me when people use arguments like "if you spent half the time..." and "it is DCS not War Thunder..." in threads like this. If you don't want to use an option, don't use it. It shouldn't be offensive or "toxic" if someone else requests those options. While it remains that DCS is focused on "realism", we're talking about sitting in your living room "flying" a jet. You don't have to pass the physical standards, education standards, or years of training to do so. Ultimately, even DCS isn't very "realistic", so what's the harm in someone else wanting an option for easy refueling?

VNAO T45 UK Fictional Livery Pack - with special thanks to Blinde1 for his excellent Finnish liveries which I used as my template for the UK trainers, it saved me a mountain of work. The UK does not use the T45 so I had to modify things to fit the airframe a bit. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jkuwb54r483u4ij8li7u9/CrazyEddies-UK-T45-Hawk-Liveries.zip?rlkey=3sczca3xa4ok2urxxu32hkj4s&st=3r6nmwlp&dl=0 Still to come - Tucano, Merlin, ED's C47 -- then I will try to create a ships collection, but thats a long way off yet.

Folks if this thread is going to derail we can close it, please stay on topic, please remember to be nice to each other including the dev team when giving feedback. thank you

ED choosed long ago his way into realism, deleting the Game Option in DCS and modelling only the real thing for every module, or at least this is ED approach to modules. Automatic AAR is something that doesnt exits, so asking for it is not going to happen. Thats why my point is, teach newcomers in the AAR skills instead of asking for stuff thats out of ED path. This could do best helping people than an auto AAR thing. PD: If AAR is a problem so big, just edit a mission with unlimited fuel until you are able to properly refuel in the air. You know, choices.

I´ve you invest half of the time and commitment writing here on improving your AAR skills, you could be a pro on air refuel right now. If instead you can AAR with no issues, invest your time in teaching newcomers how to do so. I promise you is the most rewarding thing in DCS, teaching others is like no other thing in this game

there's a new La7 vid on youtube:

If you go on this site you can create your own in a few minutes, it's lists the UH-60L and all the maps. Excellent site for creating missions and campaigns especially if you're not too familiar with Mission Editor. You can pick maps off Context & Environment and choose aircraft from Flight Groups then fill in the rest as required. https://dcs-briefingroom.com/ It's doesn't list weapons loadouts for the UH-60L, just default mod loadouts but you can create the mission then just open it in Mission Editor in game and change the loadout if you got the weapons mod installed.

My dear Massun, Thank you for taking care of the Huey. It deserves a facelift. I wish you a lot of fun and success with your project. I'm really looking forward to the result and will follow your progress with great anticipation. It would be wonderful if ED would adopt your improvements as standard. Because your structures for the editor are really great. Thanks again for that. I'm afraid I can't give you any technical or information support. But if I ever see a "Buy me a coffee" button, I'll be happy to do so. Or ED could take a part of you and make it the Huey II, but then they should hire you immediately.

Он же практически с нуля делается, вероятно. Хоть звёздный крейсер. Люди уже заняты разработкой.

That‘s why I know longer engage in discussions with either of the two….. But I couldn’t agree more to your post. That is exactly how I feel about monitors for office and gaming. Except in the office instead of a dual 27“ setup like most of my colleagues sport, I use an ultrawide (21:9) because of the layout, size and orientation of my desk it fits better. A little less real estate but nicer without the bevels in the middle. At home, I couldn’t go back from my 48“. I was thinking (shortly) about downsizing when 42“ OLED TVs became available, but especially with flight-sims, I love the real life sized instruments, I can read without squinting my eyes or lean forward…..

Need to call him Moriarity...... "always with the negative waves" I'm another fanboi for the A-20G, it's good for both theaters, the same can be said for a dual theater version of the P-38.

I think it is mainly because FC3 was a standalone game, sequel to lomac and FC2, titles released at times when released internet was not such a big think and studios couldn't get away with just drop patches every week. Most of what we have as DCS AI and ATC especially, is this same AI in Lomac and flaming cliffs dating more than 15 years now. Black shark was also initially a stand alone game, so a lot of the KA-50 single player mechanics was designed for this full game only. It was released with a lot of additional functionalities than just the module itself: """Improvements over the original "DCS: Black Shark" include: • Updated Mission Editor with many new features • New air, land, and sea AI units at incredible levels of detail • Improved AI for a smarter, more realistic behavior""" Similar is true for the A-10C, the jtac was one of the listed features for the A-10 release: Fully interactive Forward Air Controller (FAC) that helps you find targets. Check the features here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/dcs_a_10c_warthog_released/#:~:text=DUXFORD%2C UK%2C February 21%2C,a digital download for %2459.99.&text="DCS%3A A-10C Warthog" is a PC simulation,Close Air Support attack aircraft. Since then, I can't recall ED dropping a module with some sweet additions like this, besides the AI crew for Hind and AH64 but I suppose they had no other way to make them remotely usable otherwise. It's just a single module, many of which totally out of place, in early access for 6-7 years. Also those were never really taken and improved since then, jtac can be used with other modules but it's logic dates to 2011 and it has a lot of potential, it still can only give mgrs and not LL without a mod. While there were some minor improvements in AI units, and some attempts in the BFM arena, most of the work on AI is a cycle of introduce bugs then fix them and introduce more new ones. Playing DCS in single player or even MP for the most of the people is flying as singleton because the AI wingman is most of the time a burden then a help, don't even try to attempt 4 ship.. Anyway, I spent too much time writing this instead of playing the campaign I recently started on the other sim.. bingo fuel.. ejecting.

Daily MiG-29 Belarusian 9.13

'doh figured it out last night. I was trying to figure out where the targeting pod was looking when I was lining up to drop bombs with CCIP. Of course it's looking at the projected target. LOL. Now it all makes sense. Mike

Nicely done video of both the exterior and the cockpit of an immaculately restored P-47D, well worth a look:

Yeah, definitely, this video was very good - and the plane, oh... just about perfect!

You're probably better off submitting a support request direct to WW on this. I don't believe they watch this forum at all and some changes have occurred after people submitted support requests. They might occasionally respond, but almost all posts here are users, not WW.

Radar map in the AH-64D is already implementet - Wags just had to follow up with a YT video showcasing it.

I've just said It. Nothing against. Doesnt make sense for me but its alright asking for It. Maybe someday ED will add It. And i will cover the box with my finger everytime im checking the gameplay options just not to see It.

Whatever mate. Im not against anything. Just tryi..... What im doing arguing? Keep asking for AUTO AAR mate. Its ok.

Right but depending on your preference it still takes a huge ultrawide to give you the same screen height as a 16:9. If the height is your goal then 16:9 is preferable. Also for a given cost 16:9 is probably going to give you a taller screen. I can’t help but see it that way because again due to my age and eyesight the goal is “bigger”

Hello, this mod will not allow you to apply reshade post processing on game display. This is an autonomous "addon", it can only do its own effects to game output, at least for the moment. It should work for all VR headsets, even if I tested it for Varjo only. The "color" effects done by the mod are basic : Color addition or multiplication on all components (for cockpit or external) Color saturation (for cockpit or external) Sharpen (for cockpit only) Haze control (from 0 to 100%) Deband for sky and sea

The 21 has no parameter with the radio frequency, but you can check the Drawing argument for the radio preset selector knob: 211 for example the condition "X:COCKPIT ARGUMENT IN RANGE, 211, 0.248, 0.252" will be true when Preset 5 is selected, as there are 20 presets: 0, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, etc.

Thanks, I wasn‘t aware of that!

And isn't the height of the monitor reduced? That part bothers me. As for the off to the side view, I admit I like looking at the landscape.

fantastic tool for fun missions, it's remarkable what you get so I thought I'd just tip a hat to the devs and encourage you to try it

Да. Есть у них кое-какие взаимодействия. Не совсем голограммы. Зональный трафик уже записан в хотелках. Когда-нибудь доберемся.

Hi, yes it is reported, I will chase it up thank you

@kksnowbear and @SharpeXB please take a break, it is ok to have different opinions, just treat each other with respect, if you can not please do not post here. thank you

My feelings exactly. With ultrawide you don’t really gain anything in regards to size of gauges etc. and especially for things like dogfighting the vertical real estate is much more useful to me. I tried it, but no way I go back to the slit view.

A new release has been published. There aren't any massive features in this one, but rather some minor fixes, improvements, and an interesting new companion tool for autoscaling. A private squadron is running SkyEye in their weekly missions for only around $1.50 USD/month by using this autoscaler. SRS' secure coalition radios/coalition audio security is now supported. Note this is not an actual security feature (hence why SkyEye was effectively bypassing it before this version), it is a roleplaying feature only. PICTURE requests no longer require callers to provide their callsign. Tweaks to the bot's pronunciation based on SME feedback. Tweaks to speech recognition based on playtesting. An autoscaler companion tool has been added which can be used to trigger creating or destroying a SkyEye cloud instance as needed, significantly reducing hosting costs. See the documentation in the admin guide for details. On Windows, WinSW is now bundled for service management, replacing the PowerShell wrapper script. A configuration flag has been added which redacts non-essential STT transcriptions from the logs. Download and full changelog available at https://github.com/dharmab/skyeye/releases/tag/v0.5.0

@SharpeXB and @kksnowbear you two need a room... it always gets weird everytime you guys go with the back-and-forth comments. Personally, I dont give a hoot about the experts and the "standards". I know exactly what I like and what works for me. There's no way to convince me to go back to a simple desk monitor of "regular size". It'd be the same as telling you to swap your "regular size" monitor for a tablet screen! For over fitfteen years that I've been using both monitors and TVs, back to back, smaller screens (below 27'') and bigger screens (32'' and way above that), for PC use, both for gaming and office work. I always ended favoring the latter. I personally feel that anything less than 40'' is just too small, 42'' and 43'' being very acceptable, and 48'' being the ideal size. (couldn't afford an OLED, the alternative was a 50'' 4K TV) Have had 55'' (curved) and also tried 65'' (flat), that I agree becomes too big (scale in game versus FOV gets messed up for me, but YMMV). Benefits go beyond the obvious immersion benefit for gaming/simming, provided by the much more realistic scale (close to 1:1) of objects and the cockpit, be it car or aircraft. If it's a big size quality panel, at the propper distance from you and with head-tracking, then IMO only VR can beat it... (but that's a world of pain, at various levels LOL) How you can use that real estate for your regular "non gaming use", of daily multitasking, is one other major benefit with a bigger screen. The multitasking advantages are real, and the benefits for production/work are imediate. I split my big screen in various windows (usually 4, sometimes 8, it depends) which, pretty much, translates to various office screens. (I need at least three monitors if I'm at the office!) If someone tells me he/she is viewing this forum thread on his/her browser at FULL SCREEN with a 42'' or bigger screen panel, then I'd have to say it... you're not getting the point of a big screen!

EUREKA..... i think.... Take a look at the diagram below. If HB used the first chart, or at the very least their data matches it, then optimal L/D roughly coincides with the current performance. Granted, this is for 1g flight, but i took a look at the Cl and Cd per alpha charts i have, and indeed, at 10 degrees (true), the increase in lift for sweep of 22 degrees is still greater then the increase in drag, when compare to a 50 degrees sweep, which is where the wing sweep would be at mach 0.8, when following the CADC programming. But take a look at what the Cl/Cd chart indicates, at mach 0.8 the optimal ratio is at 35 degrees sweep. The current programming doesn't follow this curve. You know which programming does? The original one. Or at least it follows it more closely. Take a look at the 3rd image. The wings start going back way after mach 0.7. Which means, the original program, not only provided better Cl max, it provided better Cl/Cd, which for same amounts of thrust per mach, would also mean better excess power, at least up to 10 degrees alpha, or roughly best sustained alpha. What was the new programming good for then? If you ask me, one thing and one thing alone.... airframe longevity. You have less g's available all around, and less g's you can sustain up to mach 0.8, possibly even higher. If i have enough time next weekend, i might give the original scheduler full test, up to mach 1.2. This means we have been fed less then true information over the years? One mystery remains though, and that is the dip in performance (with the wings in manual 20 override) around mach 0.6. This shouldn't exist at all, not according to the Cl/Cd chart, nor the individual Cl and Cd curves per alpha. Images below:

Да, они сделаны совсем по разному. Трафик это по сути бестелесые голограммы, которые никак не взаимодействуют с миром. Зато, именно по этому, их может быть многие тысячи на карте. Если эти машинки сделать по технологии живых ботов, все встанет колом, даже на самых мощных компах.

Sorry but you are incorrect, please go to the store page and see which ones are marked early access and which ones are not. We have many finished products. We have also delivered many core features and continue to. The fact is these projects can take a long time to complete, and we will take our time doing it, this model of producing aircraft has kept DCS alive and growing. Many people dont understand how this works, and if they had their way would do it differently, but they would fail. thank you

Draconus, respectfully, I don't think anyone here wants a "war" about this. Believe that this kind of response of “what makes you believe that other than your thoughts” is an unhealthy and presumptuous way of debating something. We are here trying to understand what Heatblur has done, and trying together with the detailed study that Tavarish kindly provided, why the missile “reacts” the way it does in-game. If we just use data without calculations like "x is equal to x because my SME told me", we have already seen several cases of SME in podcasts or interviews speaking inaccurate information (in no way trying to diminish because these people are true Heroes who have dedicated their lives to protecting their country not to mention the many who have paid with their own lives). But back on topic, I want to remind you that we have a paper from ED showing how they used data to reproduce the 120 in and this allows us to understand the performance presented in game (And we know that this performance must also be different from the real missile because there are several factors that cannot be simulated in DCS) and also DCS is a game/simulator aimed at the general public for military matters there is the MCS, And if we if we go as drastic as “my data against your data!!!” we have several sources on the internet from the navy itself saying that the Phoenix was a missile capable of reaching mach 5 (and we know that it wasn't, not in the conditions that its launch platform could reach). you can find many sources from "official" documents that contradict the game's current performance like this one: I think what we're looking for here is to understand the calculations and where the metrics used to make the missile the way it is in the game came from. And whenever we try to debate this, we're treated like teenagers trying to improve a toy, when in fact I believe that everyone here is looking for something that, even if it can't be identical, can at least be simulated approximately correctly. We don't have children here, you're talking to engineers, programmers, maybe even military personnel and all kinds of professionals who have this as a hobby and who share this passion for knowing how things work and why. We're trying to get technical answers, not an arguments fight. My best regards.

Switching to 500Hz in Amoury Cate for my ROG Spartha has resolved the stutters. How annoying! You only get few hours to play a week and everytime you return you must troubleshoot something after DCS update.