Leaderboard

There is a lot of talk about all the bases in Afghanistan but I think we are missing a much more important piece: Afghan People - One (better more) civilian male(s) and female(s) (with different liveries like with the insurgent pack) - A civilian crowd to create busy market street (similar to the airshow crowd) - Unarmed/civilian versions of the armed pickup trucks with cargo and/or people as payload and one or two civilian vehicles typical to Afghanistan (a motorcycle with two civilians/insurgents on it for example). - An Afghan police officer as well as a typical Afghan police car. - Afghan Military Soldiers (Rifle, RPG, LMG) - A loaded pack donkey/mule and one with a rider. - A goat (with different liveries to create a herd) - A few placeable Afghan buildings (those from the Caucasus look really out of place!) I think those assets could really bring the Afghanistan map to life. What do you think Here a few examples: Cheers DSP

The cargos will be included in the next update, coming soon™ Yes, we would like to expand the VAP but we're busy with other stuff at the moment so it will probably be a couple of months before that happens

I Totaly disagree. I raised problematic elements such as the lack of bridges in the Nile Delta, and they responded AND took my remarks for the next packs. They have a customer sense...

While fighters do use it between each other, "A/A T/R" should be the mode used for the tanker as well, if you do decide to use the tacan instead of your radar/datalink. "T/R" is for ground stations. IRL the tanker is setting "A/A T/R" so if you use "T/R" you wouldn't get any information from it. So this is still not implemented correctly. My source is me and the over 3000 hours I had in the 135, including as a FTU Evaluator and Receiver Instructor.

I understand due to the nature of EW some things will never be modeled, however, I know some time ago there was talk about an EW/IADS module. I know that's gone silent, however I'd love to see something worked out so we could have AI jammers, Wild Weasels and a better AID

Ok, this is my entry. It's a perfect time because the conflicts in Afghanistan, both US and Soviet, are my favorite topic Travel back to the times of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan 1979-89. This Mi-24P of OSAP repaint based on the real repaints used in this conflict on the Mi-24P, type - "desert clover" used during military operations in Afghanistan. The skin is based on the real schemes used on the Mi-24P in Afghanistan, the so-called "Afghan clover pattern". This camo was created at that time in two variants, greenish (as a background) and sand-colored (as a background). The repaint also has changed interior elements (pilot, gunner, etc.), includes enhanced weathering too and can be used with any side number (with weathering numbers too). I'm adding a few more screenshots than planned. The skin is a part of my "Szatan Arba" campaign dedicated for Mi-24P. Link HERE. Skin is already for download: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335143/. Personally I don't work in Photo Shop only in Corel, that's why I have files but CPT. I'll export them to PSD and give links later (although it will be very big content). Btw. if this skin were to be published, I can adjust it to DCS/ED requirements (in such a case it would probably be necessary to remove the "wolf and hare" symbol and the pictures from the kneeboard, in the free version these things can be still). Callsign: YoYo DCS username: YoYo E-mail address: PM me Files: DDS files (eventually CPT files)

@GNCRamBo, as Tholozor stated, the engine starters are pneumatically powered and can indeed be powered by external air supply. ChatGPT or similar AI aggregation programs should not be considered a reliable source for anything, as they are unable to ascertain what sources and information on the internet are accurate or not, and are prone to simply repeat rumors, misinformation, misconceptions, or folklore.

Yep, I have two different models for the Block I and II.

Here another 14 year old, eager to do that all over again! Really waiting for the Eurofighter and very happy its being done by Heatblur!

Beautiful Photo. I remember the days of sailing and couldn't see any land—only stars in the sky.

*update 10/13/2024, uploaded revised files called Roll Arm v2 and Shaft v2 after actually making this i found that the arms were hard to snap in, i revised the files [roll arm v2 and shaft v2] I am grateful that DCS has functional doorguns on some DCS modules (a few helicopters at this time) A few years back DCS Huey UH1H was the only one DCS world module that i was able to make a doorgun joystick and control the fury of the Miniguns (thank you @PilotMi8), supplemented with the Virtual Reality together making it an unparalleled experience NO OTHER GAMES allow vehicle commanded with player controlled GUNS as of this DATE! Fast forward to this date and now we have 5 DCS world Modules with Joystick bindable player controlled doorguns! In anticipation to the next DCS patch with possible joystick slew Fix for Polychop Simulations SA342 Gazelle minigun variant (hopefully CH47 chinook as well), I bring to you Now an even easier Doorgun Joystick build !!! Just print and snap on. Link to STL files are here and we have thingiverse link https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6795956 After seeing Akaki's 3d Printed hotas for Xbox, i said to myself.. maybe this is an easier way to get a doorgun joystick in to your hands so that you can enjoy the thrill of controlling doorguns for DCS world! I did a remix of Akaki's hotas into a doorgun form factor... using Milhause M2 Browning Machine gun as a mock doorgun with spade grips. the design is specifically for an XBOX ONE Original controller (not copy cat controllers) https://www.amazon.com/Xbox-one-Wireless-Controller-Renewed/dp/B07H5KRX5Q DCS World has player controlled doorguns! can be found on the UH-1H Huey, Mi-24P Hind, CH47F, SA342 minigun variant and Mi-8MTV2 Sharing the STL files so you can build a simple joystick to control the Doorguns on these helicopters Designed this as the simplest design i can make, No soldering and no arduino . ONLY 3d Printing skill required and a XBOX ONE controller is need ***i printed most parts 10% infil*** ***i went 100% on the pitch and roll arms*** ***used wire nippers (or 3d printer utility cutter) to widen ball sockets so that the snap in parts are manageable to snap in, also a filer to smooth out rotating parts***. following DCS World modules are supported for doorgun joystick use HIND | HUEY | HIP | Chinook | Gazelle If you are successful to make this build, DCS Axis Controls and Button Assignments mappings for DIY doorgun controller are suggested: axis doorgun slew LEFT/RIGHT, axis doorgun slew UP/DOWN VR Re-center (under UiLAYER control drop down) Fire Weapon Cockpit Camera move Forward Back Up Down Left Right Toggle decouple | trackIR on/off ***Map doorgun FIRE to keyboard or another device since the spade grip does NOT have a button on it*** VIDEO INSTRUCTIONS HERE! Joystick Base DG.stl joystick_controller_mount DG.stl joystick_grip DG.stl joystick_hinge DG.stl joystick_pitch_arm DG.stl joystick_thumbstick_collar DG.stl throttle_base DG.stl throttle_controller_mount DG.stl Shaft DG v2.stl Roll Arm DG v2.stl joystick_hinge DG.stl

Just received my new MFG Crosswind rudder pedals a few weeks ago. I ordered these with the hydraulic damper option. These new pedals replace a 20-year old set of CH pedals that had a left toe-brake die. The MFG pedals are very well made and the hydraulic damper really provides that smooth fluid feel of "heels on the floor" rudder operation. The hydraulic damper can be adjusted to whatever level of hydraulic resistance that suits your taste. As a former USAF pilot (T-37, T-38, F-111, F-100, A-37), these pedals are a great replication of the actual rudder operation feel that I remember in the planes that I flew. My home cockpit sits on a carpeted floor. Therefore, I had to build a mounting platform for the Crosswinds so that I could get a good replication of the "heels on the floor" operation. I bought a 2'x2'x1/2" piece of veneer plywood to serve as the base mounting platform. I then bought a 2'x2'x1/8" piece of black acrylic plexiglass to mount on top of the plywood. I then bolted the Crosswind pedals to the plywood/plexiglass platform. The plexiglass provides an extremely smooth surface for "heels on the floor" rudder operation. When using this platform, I only wear socks, no shoes. Since the mounting platform sits on carpet, I mounted 8, spiked carpet grabbers on the bottom side of the plywood. These were mounted using heavy-duty, 2-sided tape. So, far these carpet spikes have worked great, i.e., no platform movement at all when operating the rudder pedals. Here are some pictures of how the project turned out. Rudder pedals mounted to plywood/plexiglass platform: Carpet spikes on bottom of mounting platform: Mounting platform sitting on carpet: Home cockpit with new MFG Crosswind rudder pedals:

Fully agree, although 15 years of DCS history shows that it is not going to happen. Even half baked WW2 Asset Pack paid module got stuck, most of the stuff that would make sense for Normandy and Channels map is not there. Afghanistan, Syria, Sinai all we have is just a bunch of disjoint units here and there.

@GNCRamBo, the engine core (compressor and gas generator rotors aft of the combustor) mechanically drives the accessory section of the engine, which has all of the various other engine-driven components mounted to it such as the alternator, hydromechanical unit (the fuel control), IPS blower, fuel pump, oil pump, lubrication filters, etc. The PTO shaft is what mechanically transfers the engine power to the accessory section so all of the accessory components can function. The rotational speed of the engine, referred to as NG, is measured by the alternator itself, and the alternator provides backup power to the engine electronics so that the engine can still operate in case of a power failure of the aircraft electrical system. During the start sequence, the engine starter device known as the Air Turbine Starter (ATS) drives the accessory section which back-drives the engine core to spool the compressor during the engine start sequence. The ATS is powered by expelling high-pressure air across an impeller within the ATS itself, and this pneumatic pressure is normally provided by bleed air from the APU; but it can also be provided by bleed air from the opposite engine or from an external pneumatic power source. The engine is started by pneumatic air from the APU, the opposite engine, or an external air supply. It is not started by the PTO because the PTO is just an internal component of the engine that links one section of the engine to the other, much like how the central engine shaft links the compressor and the gas generator stages. If you do not have pneumatic air to spin the engine, the engine will not start.

First Draft. but functional. Mike

The issue is interpretation of the aim_data field, which should be the one that creates the ballistic trajectory.

Hey CH, Are you aware that the ESSM Blk II looks pretty different from the BLK 1? You might not have the 3d model available but if you do I would appreciate it if you updated the model.

For now, DOSBox is how I relive it. Still a great sim (and with the TACTCOM update too), especially the dynamic campaign that was so ahead of its time.

Нет никакого косяка. Так задумано. С развитием ATC мы подумаем над более гибком информировании о погоде.

Picked this up recently, been flying around, landing at various air bases. The map is very nice, performance is on par with other maps. Terrain is very nice, especially the mountains. The air bases I landed at: Kandahar, Camp Bastion, Shindland all look nicely detailed. No complaints here.

Daily MiG-29 Russian 9.13 4-й ЦБП и ПЛС Липецк

This is urgently needed

There is no clear yes/no answer to that. Explosion might be unlikely, but it can still set you on fire. And it could also cause catastrophic damage, or not. There are so many variables at play here, wire thickness, aircraft type and construction, fuel load, weapon load, speed etc.

Exhaust flames shouldn't even be visible except in low-light conditions. They should also be more "pops" like muzzle flashes than the eternal bonfire we normally get.

Yea, “once the deck crew is finalized” on an ED timeline? Don’t hold your breath.

Correct, they did remove a future feature that was not implemented yet, and never worked. You are looking at the wrong place though.

Hi, Did a quick test by adding a patrol vehicle to the SAM template, and the vehicle route is preserved by ASTI when applying the template on a new mission, but on the ME the vehicle route looks odd, as it is missing the connecting lines of the route only the waypoint circles being shown ... it does not seem to affect the vehicle movement. Will keep testing a bit more with other cases, like a FARP .. but that's all for today Eduardo

Mi-24P from 262nd separate helicopter squadron in Afghansitan, Bagram 1988 (262-я отдельная вертолётная эскадрилья, Баграм 1988 год) DCS user files: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340964/ For PSD, pls dm in forum or discord (yanevor)

Absolutely, even later than the latest - 2.84.1 Have to admit now, though, that my observations are clearly outdated and based on comparisons made when Barthek was still actively supporting his mod, which was what, 2 years ago or so? I used to switch between his and yours a few times to decide which one I wanted to stick with and the difference in buildings and overall brightness was very obvious to me back then. It eventually became the primary reason why I decided to stick to yours in the end - I've never used Reshade for colour tweaking, was tired of changing gamma constantly between both mods and certainly didn't want to do it while switching from Barthek's Caucasus to stock Nevada and Normandy). Now that I think about it, didn't ED update Caucasus buildings in the meantime, or am I mis-remembering old patch notes? In either case, you're right - as seen below the difference nowadays is negligible in city areas. One more reason to stick to CGTC for me then

I find it amazing, reading the threads where players refer to post-update drop of performance (meaning, before the update, DCS ran fine) that there are people on this forum twisting themselves in knots, trying to treat this is as a "user-related" error and offering many "solutions". The only true solution is a new performance-fixing patch. Too many people are experiencing these issues for it to be treated as a coincidence. I am having these stutters as well. Why would I now have to "fix" something that was working pre-patch, and with a fairly good PC specs? Why did I invest money to buy better hardware if I'm going to have to "figure out" how to get back the previous performance because the patch messed it up in the first place? So yeah, I am going to wait and hope for the next patch..hoping QC is not gonna mess it up this time..

Hey guys, Minor update to the mod today. I added the requested thumbnails with yellow outline for the cloud presets. This makes it easier to find the mod preset versus the default ones. 10/11/2024 - Updated to version 11 - Updated cloud preset thumbnails. The Mod thumbnails are now outlined in yellow for better visibility. Thanks to forum user ggrewe for help with this. - Fixed issue with cloud presets being out of order

Why there is only a "Like" and a "Thanks" as reaction to posts? I really need at least a thumbs down for this kind of nonsense, as it is now the only reaction I can have is to ignore the guy

Guys, we do weekly newsletters, I do not see many game companies that do this. Due to this frequency, we cannot have blockbuster news every time. If you don't like an article in the newsletter that is fine, but others might, I know our livery contests are very popular. So if there is a news item you don't care for, move on to the next, if there is none you care for, wait for next week, there is always a new newsletter just seven days or less later. Thanks.

I am a little confused about the FLAP operation. In the CONTROLS setup, there are options for FLAPS UP, FLAPS LANDING POSITION, FLAPS UP/DOWN. When I use these bound to a switch (FLAPS LANDING POSITION and FLAPS UP) I can see the FLAP THUMB switch in the cockpit animating. HOWEVER, the manual seems to make a distinction between the F(lap) setting and the Thumb Switch setting as shown below. Is this a holdover from the Full fidelity module and we only have the indicated FLAP controls? I can use the mapped commands to toggle the flaps between the FULL, FXD and UP positions, so I guess that is all we need? There does not seem to be an AUTO setting. EDIT: OK never mind.. I flew around a bit and saw the FLAP position go to AUTO as needed. So I guess AUTO is enabled.. er... AUTOMATICALLY. null

Would be nice to give the ground troops a new anti-tank weapon. Currently it's just the RPG and most of the time the vehicle has to be almost in the RPG's face to be effective in the game. This would give the infantry troops a better tactical advantage compared to the RPG. It would give them a much greater engagement range and and effects on a target. I don't think it would be hard to implement and it would be a sweet Combined Arms selling point. Even if you made it call of duty style clu tracking gates

As part of several years of research towards my projects I have developed a sort of "wish list" of more modern Russian systems to oppose our ~2005-era modules. The S-300PS ("SA-10B") was a venerable system even at that time and more modern variations were in service with the Russian Military. It should not be the only representation of the diverse S-300 family within this game and I would like to propose the S-300PMU-2 as its modern alternative to be modeled in DCS. System Comparison The S-300PS is the first major variant of the S-300. Introduced in 1985, it was widely exported and is still in use today in some countries. In DCS it fires the 5V55R command-guided missile with a range of 45-75km.1 Most DCS players will be familiar with it thus I won't get into much more detail. The S-300PMU-2 is conversely the most modern variant of the S-300 (After which the S-400 came to be). It was introduced in 1997 and would be one of Russia's key AD assets in a peer conflict circa 2005. More than 10 years of development and improvements resulted in a complex that, though using the same basic structure format, is an entirely different beast than the S-300PS. As part of the S-300 family, both systems share the same types of components but the vehicles themselves are different. The S-300PS uses: 54K6E command post. 30N6 "Flap Lid" FCR (45km engagement range, can engage 6 targets by tracking 12 missiles) 64N6 "Big Bird" SR (260km detection range) 5P85D/S TELs (using a wired connection and thus needing to be located close to the radars in clusters of 3 due to smart/dumb TEL relationship) 5V55R missile (uses command guidance with a 45-75km range) The S-300PMU-2 uses: 54K6E2 or 55K6E battery command post (w 30N6E2 "Tomb Stone" FCR (150km engagement range, can engage 36 targets and track 72 missiles) 96L6E SR (300km range) 5P58SE TELs (using datalink or wired, much looser co-location constraints and all "smart") 48N6E2 missile (uses Track Via Missile guidance with an alleged 200km range) 54K6E2 or 55K6E battery command post 83M6E2 system command post (can also integrate command of other systems like SA-5 and SA-10B) 64N6E2 battalion SR (600km range) Can ED model this? The missile in question, the 48N6E2, has been in the game for a long time as part of the armament for one of the russian warships. So, to an extent, they already have. If modeling the 48N6E2 was out of the question I would have advocated for the SA-20A, which has more component commonality with the S-300PS, but this is not the case. The 48N6E2's younger brother, the 48N6E3, has already at least partially replaced it. Why would this system be useful? The S-300PMU-2 would be the cornerstone of a major IADS in a way that the S-300PS simply cannot. The S-300PS' much shorter range and positioning limitations make it less potent and also constrain the depth of any defense under its umbrella. A proper IADS would comprise of a long-range system covering medium and short range systems. With the SA-20B's greater range, this protected area and thus the physical depth of these layers would be greatly increased. Additionally, with the exponentially larger number of simultaneous possible engagements, the resilience of the system against massed attacks would force more creative thinking from mission planners. Finally, the new guidance method would be a thrilling twist for SEAD nerds like myself. Between the S-300PS and S-300PMU-2 we will have almost 30 years of Russian, Chinese and Iranian long-range air defense systems covered, spanning the timelines of most of ED's most popular modules. This, in addition to complementary systems like the SA-17 and SA-22, will fill out any needed AD network. Sources: https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/S-300PMU-1_(SA-20_Gargoyle)_Russian_Long-Range_Air_Defense_Missile_System https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/S-300P_(SA-10_Grumble)_Russian_8x8_Long-Range_Surface-to-Air_Missile_System Thanks for reading.

Forum seems exessively slow and sometimes not responding at all since 2 or 3 days. @BIGNEWY; something going on in the background? (something seems wrong, as I don't have any issues with other websites)

HF8 have been updating their Firmware and still fine tuning it but it does have support for DCS and also has 8 Transducers. I have the HF8 and I have tried the SimShaker software and the HF8 software and they both work. The HFE can use Telemetry or sound. Not sure if the Razer uses Telemetry as it looks like it is using sound only and has 6 transducers. The only feature that I like so far is that it uses wi-fi so one less cable.

I‘m not a fan of discord either. But all the community and support around the Rhino is there, so for this special case it is the best place to get information. You can start from here (if interested): Vpforce.eu

Back to the VR setting: Im wondering about the argument of making people sick by disconnecting FOV and head movement. Looks easy enough to solve, at least to me: for instance allow free FOV positioning but black out the visual feedback when out of bounds (out of canopy, stretched too far unter high G loads,...). What am I missing here?

interesting. however I never heard anything other than "ten". there was no "5" or "15" or any other number. only 10, again and again and again

I am not sure when DCS stopped having flames come out of the engine exhaust ports, but I have seen videos on Youtube that show when they all did. Top Mustang shows flames and its 11 years old. Bottom video shows flames at 4:52 I found newer ones for the spitfire.

How it can be related to performance issues even theoretically?

I can ad I can add a track file but I am seeing the same behaviour as described above by @Temetre It never resolves to an image that looks like the one in Wags tutorial video (where he can actually designate an individual element on the airfield)

I actually find the map pretty good so far, not sure what people are complaining. And I fly down low with a rw. There are some imperfections with textures I only saw this once and all the maps have them. Overall I find the map amazing and looking forward for ED having it polished.

Please try that on a multiplayer server

I wish this sort of thing could be included on this forum topic for the server. Especially as I don't engage with Discord. Happy landings, Talisman

on mines, it just showed a red dot, without showing any text; that's why i reset everything!

I think a Handley Page Victor would be a fantastic addition. It has been out of service since 1993... I don't think getting the documentation for it should be too difficult - I could be wrong though. Nevertheless - Handley Page Victor :)