Leaderboard

I have worked in the game industry in a few companies, making some very complex games, mostly simulators, and talked shop with many colleagues, and operating like this, even on an early access product, would just not fly in any of them. If a new update broke an existing feature in a major way, significantly affecting the usability of a given vehicle or somesuch, AND it was caught by our testers, that part of the update would not be allowed to go out, even if other updates did, until the issues were solved. A couple of those kinds of slip ups and you'd seriously risk getting fired. This is specifically new stuff breaking old stuff AND being caught before release. If no-one caught it before release, fine, mistakes happen, and quite often those issues aren't 100% pervasive through the userbase. If you introduce a new feature that's partially broken, and issues with it were caught, also not that bad, it's a new thing that's under development. But pushing updates that knowingly (i.e. QA caught them, and they're known about before pushing the update) break old systems and majorly impact the functioning of those systems, that is just immensely poor form. It's always preferable to roll back and withhold those updates until they are actually working. Mistakes happen, absolutely, and I'm very sympathetic to development woes. Making games is damn hard, but it sounds like you're making things even harder and more stressful for yourselves operating like this.

Green light for the Flight Director. It will be available with the next update.

I absolutely agree on all points made. It takes a while to realize that the products degraded in quality for a hardcore fan that I always consider myself as, however it sinks into my veins and I see better now. No longer blindly accept what's given. It seems that the biggest attention is on 3D art for the aircraft and some of the new ground units however there is more and more visible distinction in ground environment quality. Caucasus looks almost better than Kola in certain situations even beats it. Bigger maps? No if quality goes down, I am truly dissatisfied with Kola visual fidelity.

I disagree, Syria and Marianas are both fantastic maps from down low and slow

Yes, we’ve all read the change log, we are looking for more of a response than that. It’s apparent nobody at ED has tested this feature. Could you please just give us an Off option? That can’t be so difficult. Then you can continue messing around with the dots at your own pace. Thanks

@BIGNEWY sorry for the ping and bothering you, but I would like to ask on behalf of myself and the community if something spectacular is happening regarding the spotting dots issue? Does anyone in ED fly like us and this situation bothers them like most of us, or no one flies, or everyone has problems with their eyesight so this situation is great for them? I understand that you are working on improving the existing algorithms so that the spotting dots are nice for every headset, and that is good and I appreciate your efforts during all these years of work on improving the most popular simulation. But there are also those of us who do not want to use spotting dots at all, and the only thing we are looking for is the option to turn them off, as it existed before the big update. I would like you to inform us about the situation: will you restore the possibility to turn off spotting dots, if you want, everything is ok, I will wait until the next big update if necessary. But it's a problem if you don't think about it at all, but you want us all to always have some kind of spotting dots on, and this communication so far makes me think that way. PLEASE ADVISE.

DCS: Minecraft Edition I actually burst out laughing when this javelin of B17s showed up. What I don't get is where is the testing on these patches before they are released? Is there any? Because anybody seeing this would realise that this - as an option amongst all the options people have described in this thread - is not the acceptable one to release. I also noticed that as the formation got closer, the black boxes grew small pixel "tails" out the back which on close inspection were the actual aircraft. So, to add insult to injury, the aircraft then proceeded to fly along with the boxes still attached to their nose - basically a combination of two options or representations of the aircraft at once. Just make the "off switch" work and I'm guessing a very large proportion of people - particularly single player - will be happy.

Gunsight depression settings fixed internally. It will be available with the next patch

Guys, please, calling devs and other users old farts and accusing them of bad eyesight as the only reason for using dots implementation is not helping the case if you haven't notice yet! Let's just focus on realistic aircraft visibility - the fighter size aircraft should not be so easily detectable by human eye from many miles away. Unfortunately, current version of DCS presents these targets as big blocky labels which looks bad and is unrealistic. This does not fit to the otherwise great study sim. This is the confirmed case for many VR players with no option to either turn this off or even go back to previous spotting iteration. That's why we ask for a hotfix to at least give the option those of us that don't like such helpers. Thanks!

hello i did a doc about this in 2021 and it is still relevant. https://pcwiseman.com/downloads_files/DCS_New_Computer.pdf

The point is that what's being developed (and what's currently in-game with FC3) is not a MiG-29A. It's a misnomer - the MiG-29A is a different, hypothetical concept aircraft that was never built. What we have in-game (and what's being developed) is simply a MiG-29 (be it a 9.12/12A/12B, though the 9.13 is also referred to as just MiG-29). It's like calling an apple an orange and it seems to be a problem DCS uniquely suffers from - like calling the HY-2 a Styx, Silkworm or an SS-N-2 (of which the HY-2 is neither), the Type VIIC U-boat a U-flak, when it absolutely isn't a U-flak or the Chieftain we have a Mk 3, when it isn't a Mk 3. The fix for all of these is a change to a couple of lines in a .lua file each - it should be trivial. Before the .lua lock of 2.7 I would've just done it myself.

A flaw that’s inherent in the whole concept, it’s drawing dots over aircraft that are large enough to be visible and hiding them. At least dot labels float over the aircraft and allow you to see it. This whole spotting dot idea is terrible and needs to be scrapped. I don’t think there is a way to ever make it work. Just give us a mission setting to turn them off. Thanks. This also needs to be a true Off option not just a toggle to the old 2.8 version. Off should mean no spotting dots at all. And it should be a mission option for the same reason that dot labels are, plus the spotting dots seem to be exploitable by simply lowering the resolution to make them bigger.

Do Magnitude 3 developers read this forum? I think every virtual pilot in their right mind would pay some money to see a Mig-21 worthy of its name!

ED have always been this way, you're right. But what we are asking here is to change this behaviour: you have a stable version of the game, keep it as bug free as possible. Do not push half cooked upgrades full of bugs in the stable: keep them in the closed beta, test there as you want, and then push to stable when it's all bug free. Early access = incomplete with bugs. I can accept incomplete, and I can accept also some bugs (we have bugs in released modules too), but I can't accept tons of bugs just because you are testing. Release version is for gaming, we want to play not to be your beta testers. Is this clear enough?!?

Perhaps an official MiG-21bis overhaul could done with a group of volunteers under the Magnitude 3 banner? Just like China Asset pack. It's a Win-Win. Magnitude 3 and ED can enjoy some increased sales (Cold War is booming). The players get to enjoy an improved module and developers who love to spend time on the MiG. However, I'm quite certain that the code is so old that it would be very though for a newcomer to get up to speed and sort the module out. Some years back, I talked to a person who had insight in the early development of the MiG-21bis module. According to him, there is a limit how much can be done without ripping the whole thing apart and start over. This module started as a mod, before the concept of 3rd parties was on the map. That's why I think Magnitude 3 reaching out to others in the community might be a good start for getting the module back on track and polished. Adding the realistic reticle and RWR options are signs of deeper issues and technical debt. It could be good to get some fresh eyes and enthusiasm into the project.

In the Ru part of the forum there are some hints about changes that are being considered, Heatblur Forrestal with DCS deck crew is a possibility. Plans to rework almost all effects. (Question about SC module steam effect) Kuznetsov deck crew is not yet in plans. All answers by Chizh (ED team) On 10/4/2024 at 11:01 AM, MicroShket said: 1. Are there any plans to improve the effects of steam bleed from catapults? Yes, we have plans to rework almost all effects. But it is not a quick matter. On 10/4/2024 at 11:01 AM, MicroShket said: 2.Have Heatblur discussed with Eagle Dynamics the addition of Forrestal-class aircraft carriers to the Supercarrier module? Heatblur had such plans back in 2021, and this would allow the introduction of deck crew on Forrestal. Last summer, they also confirmed their intention to contact Eagle Dynamics on this issue. But have any steps been taken?.. I think it will be possible when we finish the development of deck personnel. There are a lot of rakes there. On 10/4/2024 at 3:52 PM, Nick220584 said: Is there a deck crew planned for Kuzya? At least static. Not yet

You'll soon come the to conclusion that Tip and Sharp are neighbours. [emoji6] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Bro chill, have your spotting dots all over your place I want it off forever. I am playing mostly sp no mp, so dont know what you are taling about. When playing mission with 1000+ units all what i see on the ground is black boxes so i want option to turn it off.

No. What we want is a mission option to force it on, so that players can't exploit the rendering engine quirks and get the old bajillion-nm spotting range back. Alternatively, a “true off” setting must necessarily create pop-in at fixed ranges, making new targets very easy to spot. What you need to realise is that this is what he's really asking for: to be given back the unrealistic and unfair advantage he once thought he had over people who didn't have the same hardware setup he had. That is not what “we all” want. Quite the opposite. What any sensible player wants is a functional spotting system that works the same for everyone and doesn't arbitrarily hand out advantages to some but not to others. There should ultimately be no option at all for this — it should just be a universally applied part of the simulation. This is also why it should under no circumstances be confused with dot labels. Those work as an option because it's just a UI element, similar to the BDA window. In this sense, the old spotting dots were actually better than the “true off” option he's envisioning, since at least those gave different advantages to different people. He doesn't want that back because he was shocked to learn that others had an advantage over him, and the system was only perfect and needed no adjustment as long as he believed that only the opposite was true.

== Yes they Are == and so is Normandy II and Channel maps ..

Из литературы по технической стороне подробна эта книга. С точки зрения веб-ресурса вот этот сайт рекомендую. База. nullhttp://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history.htm С короткими историями пилотов F-14 могу рекомендовать две книги (самая левая и самая правая внизу).

This is what we all want!

Daily MiG-29 Polish 9.12A pair

"Достаточно напомнить, как накрывались постоянно прогретые процессоры интел из-за термопасты... " Не помню. И даже не понимаю, что за "постоянно прогретые". В каком домашнем компьютере они "постоянно прогретые"? Большую часть времени процессоры простаивают. Понижение частоты и паркинг даёт дополнительное энергосбережение при простое (сэкономить какие-то деньги, но у россиян тарифы низкие). Но и без них энергосбережение имеется. Когда же вы запустили что-то жрущее, разница стирается. Разгон же - отдельная тема, не имеющая отношение к описанному выше. "На 100% нагруженных процессорах в серверах почему-то конструкция и охлаждение совсем другие..." ... и нагрузка совсем другая, и требования к надёжности совсем другие.

This pack's N993JC had a bug of night cabin lighting. I missed it long time. The 7zip archive in User Files is already updated as Rev2, but you can easily fix it by yourselves without new archive downloading. Open the folder Liveries\TTJ_ERJ_135BJ\N993JC 2022\ and rename the file "erj135bj_n993jc2022_NiIllum.dds" into "erj135bj_n993jc2022_body_NiIllum.dds".

I like how you think, great ideas!! Now if only Mag3 saw this ........ Indeed. Do they even care? Would users approaching them even matter?

А вообще, очень бы хотелось увидеть в DCS отдельный режим учебного/тренировочного/свободного полета примерно в таком формате который есть в гражданских симах Чтобы просто выбрав этот режим, игрок оказывался на любом ЛА, локации, аэродроме , и далее сам выбирал чем заниматься. При этом вокруг был бы живой антураж в виде авиационнгого трафика , УВД. Различной движухи на аэродромах. Чтоб на картах, в разных местах были полигоны, где можно потренировать стрельбу . Возможно какие то мини -задачи по транспортировке грузов и людей. С генерацией погоды. Работающим УВД. Можно было бы просто тренировать полеты с использованием различных средств навигации. Летать в СМУ Для чисто боевых ЛА, можно было бы давать задания по поиску и уничтожению различных разведовательных дронов. Либо уничтожение морских дронов. Защита кораблей/портов, мостов от беспилотных катеров. Для вертолетов вдобавок кучу различных задач. В общем такой режим где игрок именно тренируется и привыкает к ЛА в интересной живой атмосфере. И чтоб все это в пределах одной бесконечной миссии, с возможностью сохранения места посадки и статуса , и последующего продолжения полета в другое удобное время.

Not sure what ammo they loaded for this mission, certainly wasn't standard issue Huey against two tanks, chain reaction and the trigger for the explosion still operational. Guessing it was a glitch in the matrix as it's not done it again.

I am flying from 2013 and this is THE WORST update since then. And I cant believe that they not doing notning to help us with small hotfix

Please make a hotfix ASAP. This is the worst DCS update in a long time.

Military Asset Pack Sweden 1.1.0 released! Changelog Version 1.1.0 Added Ag 90 case ejection Added Archer case ejection Added Archer user UK Added BvS 10 UK two tone livery Added BvS 10 case ejection Added BvS 10 desert livery Added CV 9050 camouflage livery Added Grkpbv 90 track animations Added Ikv 91 LT Added JAS 39C Gripen Fighter Added Lvkv 9040B camouflage livery Added Lvkv 9040B case ejection Added Lvkv 9040B track animations Added RWS 12.7 mm MG to RBS 98 Added Sisu GTP APC Added Strf 9040B camouflage livery Added Strf 9040B case ejection Added Strf 9040B track animations Added Strf 9040C camouflage livery Added Strf 9040C case ejection Added Strv 103 camouflage livery Added Strv 122 case ejection Added Strv 123 MBT Added Strv 2000 case ejection Added Strv 2000 track animations Changed Archer collision and damage model Changed Archer textures Changed Artillerisystem 08 name to Archer Changed Bv 410 name to BvS 10 Changed BvS 10 3D model and textures Changed BvS 10 collision and damage model Changed Grkpbv 90 collision and damage model Changed Grkpbv 90 textures Changed Grkpbv 90 weight and acceleration Changed LvS 103 3D model and textures Changed LvS 103 collision and damage model Changed Lvkv 9040B collision and damage model Changed RBS 15KA LBASM from require UndE 23 STR to AWACS instead Changed RBS 15KA textures Changed RBS 98 3D model and textures Changed Strf 9040B collision and damage model Changed Strf 9040B weight and acceleration Changed Strf 9040C collision and damage model Changed Strf 9040C weight and acceleration Changed Strv 103 textures Changed Strv 122 3D model and textures Changed Strv 122 collision and damage model Changed Strv 2000 collision and damage model Changed Strv 2000 textures Changed UndE 23 3D model and textures Fixed RBS 15KA antiship missiles to correct number of channels Fixed RBS 70 missile characteristics Fixed RBS 90 missile characteristics Fixed RBS 98 IRIS-T SLS missile characteristics Fixed all assets sensor issue due to DCS update Fixed all missiles seeker head generation configuration Removed Bv 410 / RBS 70 Removed Bv 410 / RBS 90 Removed RBS 70/90 Bolide redundant configuration files Distribution model This Military Asset Pack is available in the following versions: The standard full download. Remove old asset pack version and unzip this in your Saved Games mods\tech folder. The incremental download which updates your full download and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your current installation. Special thanks A big thanks goes out to @daskjdhjah for yet another tremendous testing effort! Also a big thank you to the Gripen mod team for allowing me to add an AI version to this pack I also want to thank @HE5405 for making the Sisu GTP mesh!

M904E4 - mechanical nose fuse with safe separation arming delay and impact function delay settings. M905 - direction reflection of the 904 but is a tail fuse FMU-139 - electromechanical tail fuse with arming and function delay. Can be electronically armed in the jet as an instantanious detonation fuse, or use the function delay settings on the faceplate All 3 of theses are ground crew set and cannot be changed in cockpit minus the caveat with the 139 Mk-339 mod 1 - mechanical time clock dispenser fuse that functions the dispenser based on time from release of the weapon. PRI and OPT are 2 different set of function timings FMU-140 - Radar altimeter proximity dispener fuse that functions on AGL. Vt1 uses the rad-alt. Vt2 uses a backup time based function. Only accesible on the CBU-99 Both of these fuses are ground crew set. You can change with option to use in cockpit. But you cannot change the timings. FMU-143 - electromechanical hard target tail fuse. Used for bunker penetration with a higher 75G impact force activation and (should) have a fixed 60ms function delay. FMU-152 - Joint Programmable Fuse. This the only attachable fuse that is fully in cockpit programmable. But only with JDAM's. JPF page is accessd under JDAM DSPLY --> Mission --> JPF. Has arming and function delay settings. Will use the faceplate settings as default if unmodified. DSU-33 - AGL airburst nose fuse for the mk-80 series warheads. Fixed 20m burst height. This about as condensed of an explanation as i can make it. There are a ton of nuances and caveats but this will get you started

*** Christmas Sale 25% discount plus free case! *** That's a pair of Slugmice and a Slugcase for just £100 plus shipping and packing. Offer valid until the end of December. Available now with no waiting lists, the Slugmouse is a finger-worn, wireless device that lets you flip switches and turn dials in your cockpit when used with HTCC and a hand-tracking headset (Quest) or leap motion controller. Full details here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/344857-slugmouse-a-mouse-button-emulator-for-hand-tracked-cockpit-clicking/

Wrapping up my passion project for the v57th. These were made for this group. They operate 36th vFS, 8th vFS and 16th vWPS.

Do you guys see a way to create an "official" road airfield in the city of Halat, based on the historical one (abandonned in the early 90s)? nullNote the Falcon 50 parked next to the Aeronavale Etendard IVP (16F, Aircraft no. 117) that landed on this road airfield in November 1983.

1+ (but it`s Airboss)

I'm the proud owner of a paper copy!

@Tippis Excellent points as always. Now, Powershell might be a little intimidating for some users, so why not suggest PowerRename from PowerTools. Same thing with a GUI. [emoji4] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/powerrename Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

I suspect that he, like most people with the 2024 expectation, is taking his cue from the Coming to DCS in 2024 video. In the last few minutes, it states “Coming to DCS in 2024” and shows the Afghanistan map and the MiG-29.

https://ffbeast.github.io/docs/en/joystick_manual_quick_start.html#dcs here is what need to be setup in DCS. FFBeast Commander can mix DirectX effects and generated effects, but it do not affect trimming. Trimming comes now exclusively from DCS in DirectX FFB effects

Starlink satellites clutter the sky now, so should work on a grid pattern going forward?

UPDATE: Have found a work round and issued to ED. Will be in next update.

Just jump into front seat and show him how it's done! Seriously though, logic is flawed, but I have a feeling that Hind development is all but dead. Chinook is taking all the manpower at the moment, and once that is somewhat finished, it will be something else to work on.

Does anyone know if this is still being worked on/updated or do the devs consider it a completed mod? Either way, absolutely love it. Towards the end of my Vietnam video below, I was flying support while my buddy was down low in the Cayuse popping smoke on targets in the jungle for me. Had a blast.

You need just the right conditions and positioning to be able to see it, so it's not really common.

Just an update on this, this will be a priority but the engineer needed is currently on DTC and will get back to this after that. Thanks!

When you select Solo Flight in Multiplayer, and you disable multicrew, it creates an airplane that does not have a rear seater. Be it using it for F-15E aggressor air, ferry flight, roleplaying D-model, whatever, it's nice to have and I like the option. The However, there's one vital function mission. The RWR can not be turned on, as it is not part of Front Seat Control Bindings. It is not accessible without .lua editing. It is clear that there was an intent to enable some rear seat switches to be turned on, presumably to simulate flicking them on on the ground. Yet, the RWR seems like an oversight. With this oversight, it means TEWS will never function. The desired button accessible from front seat would be RWR on/off. On Discord I received the "Solo flight would never happen, thus you don't get rear seat buttons". Except, you know, it is clear we get SOME of those buttons, so it appears it is an oversight. nullnullnull

Haha, I think you spotted a bad conversion between units. I primarily use the metric system and somehow managed to screw up the conversion on the one-pager. I never intentionally buff any weapon systems performance. But I only use OSINT and such sources can give very scattered answers on a certain system's performance. The one-pager on my website has been updated now.

You’re wasting your time with this thread, in the context of DCS an early access module doesn’t only mean that it’s not finished and parts are still being added but also that it will be full of bugs as they add the new features because they don’t test properly. They think that early access is a free pass for bugs. If you check their complete modules you’ll find bugs and problems that just get left because reasons. ED have always been this way and always will be until they go under anyway.

RNoAF is needed by default.