Leaderboard

null

A quick and dirty deck texture update. The model itself is pretty decent. A couple of things to note: The FLOLS (Meatball) is completely absent. The SPS-49 radar lacks animation, as do the propellors. And then of course the CIWS do not have any gun barrels. I assume that this means the weapons are not currently programmed, I have not tested them yet. Would anyone be interested in the WIP deck textures? -Preston

We appreciate the kind words, friends! I'll pass on the livery request to the team. I'm sure they're reading anyways. Closer to release, if we forget, feel free to remind us!

*coff* skill issue /s Besides random bugs that appear now and then, the Phoenix is always the Phoenix: the most challenging missile to use in DCS. It needs the right conditions and effort to make it work. I am working on a brief series about ARH missiles. Sure that many would have complained about the results, I put together this timeline. It should right away tell you a lot about how the geopolitical conditions changed after the mid-80s, how old the Phoenix is, both tech-wise and perspective-wise, and why comparing it to anything past the early '90s makes zero sense. Charts and numbers will come later because, apparently, there is still a need to reiterate the same things all the time

Status update Still working on Russian assets. A lot of testing and fixing smaller issues. I also choose to add a new aircraft asset.

For those who want transparent controls indicator Installation: extract and copy/paste lua file in .....OH-6A\Cockpit\Scripts\ControlsIndicatror (save original one) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/fr/files/3342033/

Daily MiG-29 Serbian 9.12B

Although I (thought I) knew what I'd get into, I bought many of these older modules, just because I liked the plane. I tried them before and went for it. I look at this from a few perspectives and I quite agree with your assessment. Older, old-standard module should probably go down with the price somewhat. A minor counterpoint is, that there are sales, often 50% for most of the older modules, but yes, from the pure apples-to-apples perspective, they are less value however you look at it. I don't expect ED to update the standard of the module. It would be nice, but that would be a really big burden. Sometimes they revamp their iconic modules (Black Shark, A-10C), you pay the upgrade price, that's OK. What bothers me personally most are bugs. Bugs accumulate over time - and it seems that if the module flies and can shoot at least one of its guns, it's OK with ED. Sometimes we celebrate bug fixes like flaps finally working properly in a Mustang after years, it feels like Stockholm syndrome, really. And tons of trivial bugs related to controls which are just "features" now. I'm over-sensitive to bugs, so it seems.

WOW

Taking a quick moment to appreciate a) the enormous amount of work that Tobi and Eight Ball have put in, b) the quality of that work and c) those screenshots, bloody incredible!

I'd love to see the Conie warning star and other old AWACs for cold war scenarios

A short Scim update today - I promise to make them slightly more frequent from now on - I will target once a month, but that will vary depending on other commitments. It's been a very busy 10 months since I sat down to write the last update. I now have a full-time job that will let me use my degree, which is obviously taking up more of my time than a part-time gig in a well known German-owned budget supermarket. The good news is that means I have more funds that I can funnel into the Scimitar to get reference material. Just this week (and the reason I have an update at all), I have managed to find some excellent 3D reference that will help kickstart development again. Progress will not be swift, but I am more motivated now the nights are longer and the evenings darker. I hope to be able to provide a better update with some juicy pictures before Christmas.

Thanks, Slippa, my mods aren't up to ED standards. It's ok I like being independent as do most modders for DCS. So I'm sure you can relate to what I'm going through. Hey RWC. Nice, I'm sure it will be routine for the US Carriers to make pit stops in Oslo. Norway looks like a beautiful country. Just FYI, I have the Nansen and De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate in my collection as well. Timex3, no I'm still working on the USS Bowen. It's a complete rebuild of the old one. Two versions. Thanks DJOGOO77. I'm happy to hear that. I will finish what I started including the Cavour. I haven't forgotten about her. I'm packing the Italian mods for release later this week. Bbtbmb, thanks I appreciate that. It helps. I want to thank you all for the motivation and support guys it's something I don't have a lot of these days but I will be ok. It'll take time but I will get through It. I had to step back and look at how I create mods. Instead of trying to create the ship mods all at once in a few days like I used to. I will work on them in stages. Stage 1 creating UVs for the mod and texturing in Substance Painter. Stage 2 exporting the mesh, and textures from SP and texturing the mod. Stage 2 may require rework of the textures so it will take some time. Stage 3 is animating and coding all the weapons, props & radars. Coding requires a good eye because a letter, comma or period misplaced will cause problems. Stage 4 is testing the mods in DCS. This is the longest stage because it requires you to log into and out of DCS. This is how I create mods but others may work on them differently. I'm sure it's similar to how ED creates mods but of course, they have a team of guys to work on them. Thanks again, everyone. I have to get back to work. You all will have your hands on the Italian Mods Pack Beta this week. I will completely rework the FREMM Frigates and re-texture them. For some reason, they didn't turn out right. Thank you all for your patience. Stay tuned.

Of course, but I need to find suitable models to procure. I rely on donations for funding the models. Once again, a big thanks to all donators!

So I had to find solution by my self (I have been foolish) And I found it. I didnt know, that "User Snap View Saving" in MISC DCS settings have effect on this problem - because it is wrongly named. It have not effect just on quick view, but also on user saved default view. So if anybody in troubles with default view angle not set after DCS restarted ... make sure that this option is checked

New Dropbox link for latest version. If you have any feedback please lmk in the discord https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/txe0ew20fmyh3d8crvqjp/F-22-V3-Cockpit-correct-HUD-Symbology-high.zip?rlkey=ap9bjw8vd56uj40hj2zzcr8b3&st=ckoosgi0&dl=0 (It's still called SU-57 right now)

Agreed!!!! Eight Ball is making a lot of people really happy right now!

If you are referring to the fact you are still getting an RWR indication of the radar while hovering in that picture, that is not necessarily incorrect. Radio emissions can propagate in all sorts of ways through the atmosphere and even the ground, depending on the waveform, they aren't like laser beams (Even though laser beams can be affected by the atmosphere and the environment as well). The difference being is that an RWR simply needs to detect the emissions. A radar needs to be able to analyze and process the radio waves that are reflecting back at them, and do it in such a way that it can discriminate a target amongst the noise of the environment.

First of all, the bug that produced the appearance of the FCR not emitting from the radome has nothing to do with the TADS, with LINK, or anything else than what I specified. The information I provided in other threads regarding this issue came from the ED devs and my own testing using internal debug tools, not the Hoggit rumor mill. Second, the actual issue that was causing this effect was resolved months ago, so if there are still some individuals in the social media channels making these claims, I would wonder if they have even played DCS: AH-64D in several months, or if they are simply repeating things that someone else said to drive a narrative for whatever reason. The image below was just taken from the same DCS version that anyone in the DCS community can play and try out for themselves. Clearly the FCR can see the target while the TADS is still obscured by the ridgeline ahead. And as you can see, the FCR is performing a continuous scan to show that the target was just detected at the current altitude. To provide some context, if the FCR does not see enough of the target, it may not be able to determine whether it is a target of military interest or simply ground clutter, even if it does register the radar reflection from the vehicle. Case in point, in the images below (again, from the same DCS build that everyone else can play) you can see that the raw radar information displays a radar target out there as a bright white reflection, but it is only partially visible to the FCR. The TADS doesn't need to see the whole target to establish an image auto-track on it, but the FCR does not have enough information to determine what it is, so it rejects it as ground clutter. As opposed to a tracked target in the foreground of which it does see enough to classify. Finally, the aircraft altitude is increased until the FCR can gather enough radar information to determine what the target is. As you can see, there is no issue with how the FCR is behaving, there hasn't been for months, despite what people keep claiming. However, one must keep in mind some practical limitations of radar as a sensor. Just as a radar cannot determine whether a tank is operational or destroyed by a missile, the radar cannot classify a vehicle if it only sees a portion of the vehicle. Threads merged.

Daily MiG-29 Russian 9.19

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342007/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342008/ In collaboration with Shmoo42... a heavily overdue joint livery release has finally arrived. VF-211 Fighting Checkmates and VF-24 Red Checkertails(later Renegades) now live, all representing their early 1976 transition to the newest Block 85 F-14As at NAS Fallon.

i believe that indeed, your change logs are a testament to your and your colleagues continued hard work on DCS. Few here (at least not I) doubt that you are diligently at work, furthering DCS, shaping the future - and I thank you for that: not just in words, but by purchasing modules, and investing >100 USD a month to host two DCS dedicated servers, and creating missions that I share with others. What can give people pause is not so much the amount of effort that ED invests into bettering DCS, but the focus. It's sometimes difficult to put reason to rhyme when we read that people are working on removable pilot patches and another new map when many of the aircraft I own (yes, I own all of them) are still in EA six years after I purchase them. It's ED's focus of work that becomes an irritant. Shining a light on why (ED is a business) helps to understand; my personal view is that some of your customer's irritation stems from the fact that we don't see what your (ED's) focus is and why. Much of the official communication IMHO doesn't help, and often (for me) exacerbates the issue. There's (for me) too much non-committal, if self-gratulatory talk about features like save-game and dynamic campaigns that, when looked at rationally, would already have arrived a long time ago if it was a focus of ED's aspirations. IMHO, the people at ED are working hard, and like so many people here I show my appreciation by staying a loyal customer. Criticism comes with the territory, and please do not confuse my being critical of your efforts with thinking that you are lazy. I appreciate what you are doing - even if I wish that your efforts were directed more into the direction of fulfilling promises made: I regard each and every EA module that I own as a promise that you made to me to complete, and I intend to hold you to it because I think that you are good for it. Currently, I prefer that you keep your many promises made rather than selling us new, unfulfilled ones. After all, even the greatest of all people can only do so much, and I have many, many products of yours that require ED's fine people's attention. So, thank you for your hard work, and please remember the promises you made.

In 2024 I would say that I expect ATC not only to be realistic, but also to recognize speech.. But maybe we won't see an improvement even of what we have now.

ATC for the supercarrier which is a paid module is for the most part useless too. It is unrealistic and incomplete. It is just radio responses based off basic triggers and radio inputs. AI do not use it or respond well if at all. In SP and MP missions AI flown planes smash into each other or into players in the pattern or on the deck. If ED cannot get the paid for module working well in a few years since release, I think the core ATC is not going to be anything more than what it is now.

Hello, I apologize if this issue has already been reported before. According to my tests, the problem is common to all Mirage F1 modules and in the case of the BE model, the incidence occurs in both cockpits. Action bindings: TACAN mode selector - Clockwise TACAN mode selector - Counterclockwise Erroneous behavior detected: Using these assignments, either with the controller buttons or with the keyboard keys, when reaching the extreme positions (OFF - A/A) the TACAN mode selector is locked in them. In these extreme positions, only the mouse can be used to change the position of the knob. This behavior is reproduced in the latest version of DCS without mods, after doing a slow repair and creating a new configuration within saved games. Best regards

I don’t think this can ever be resolved for VR because aparently it’s affected by the pixel density setting and not just the native resolution of the HMD. So there are infinite variables to account for and trying to tailor this to each headset is futile. People with the same headsets either can’t see the dots or claim they’re too large. At least monitor users can’t just turn these off but then you’ll be at a disadvantage online. The whole idea is a gigantic mess and should just be scrapped IMO.

I believe that the Virpil firmware is applied to the controller board. In the Virpil world, that exists within the base, not the grip.

Honestly, hitting a lot of them points dead on. The reason I haven't touched anymore of the WWII options is because of the state of the F-86 and MiG-15. If those gunfighters are forgotten and still feature objectively incorrect physics, I have no reason to believe ED will address anything further in the WWII fighters. They put a bandaid on the F-86's guns and that's about it. It's been a literal DECADE for that. It's been unacceptable. So, where is my incentive to buy the Mosquito? So, yeah, not parting with money for that. We're told that ED is doing fine behind the scenes, I believe that, so I'm at a loss as to why they don't review their priorities and address them. And yes, we got an newsletter about core changes. Not enough to give us lip service, though. I think most people want to see actual, quantifiable changes made to the core game in 2025.

I believe this is the George AI doing it. He wants to go fly.

@sirrah The F-86F is still being sold for $50 today and on the shop page there is absolutely no indication that you are buying something that is built to poorer standards and is not getting updates. So how would a random consumer who looks at the store know that some modules are built to lower standards? And it may also be off putting to consumers of new (early access) modules to see that some significant bugs never get fixed in those older modules, which raises questions about what state newer modules will be left in. Isn't the entire marketing claim by ED that DCS World is not a game that has a limited shelf life, but a modular platform that will keep getting more and more modules and updates? Anyway, I argued before that I think that DCS is painting themselves into a corner by adopting this strategy of adding more and more things, while it seems impossible for them to maintain it all. And I also think that all the weight of having to keep the existing modules working and somewhat up to date, will slow down development on the game engine greatly. It's the job of ED to manage expectations. Otherwise they create their own critics.

v0.7.3 available: [PLT] step 44 added to activate the FCR (MMA);

I hope so. Currently, landing on a carrier with rain on your windscreen is a bit "challenging"...

Just read the note, enter "0" and click "BUY":

Три разных провайдера, всё открывается- и сайт, и форум без впн и танцев с бубном. Наверно, выбран замечательный провайдер, который все свои грехи спихивает на кого либо.

This is related to this discussion: That forum link happens to show a video taken by an ED beta tester detailing exactly what I just tested in the ME with an SA-15 on the Nevada map. There was an original claim by players that the FCR radar beams weren't originating from the FCR dome on top of the rotor mast, but instead coming from the nose of the aircraft where the TADS is. Raptor from ED claimed this was false. So I think Raptor is actually correct, but there is a caveat that he didn't mention which explains the behavior shown in the video from the link and the screenshot above. The video and screenshot collage clearly shows that if TADS can't see a target, the FCR can't see it. Specifically, if TADS can't get a contrast lock, then the FCR has nothing to paint as a target. My theory is that this is because of the LINK feature. LINK allows the TADS to snap to a target painted with the FCR. While the radar beams are most likely coming from the FCR dome, I believe there is game logic in the programming code that tells the FCR to not paint a target if the TADS can't achieve a contrast lock. One possible reason would be to avoid a multitude of CTDs and program freezes while the game tries to find the related target to snap the TADS to but can't. Whatever the reason, the fact is if TADS can't see it, your FCR can't either, which completely negates the advantage of putting an FCR at the very top of the aircraft and peeking it over a hill to avoid exposing your entire helicopter. Raptor originally gave this explanation for why this appears to be the case, and he said some calculations were corrected for a future patch, but as of patch 2.9.9.2474 the FCR still can't be used as it was originally designed: So my question is...when will this finally be fixed ED? I shouldn't have to expose my entire Apache aircraft body to get a lock with the FCR.

Discord server now: https://discord.gg/4UhBZrmYUU

Returning to the Corsair video... It is obvious, that the initial movement was AOA increasing (wrong trimmer, uncontrolled stick movement, wind gust - I can not say), then left yaw that was a result of increased P-factor due to high AoA, and only after that roll started as a result of sideslip. The well known P-51 accident, when the plane flips over, was started just at the moment when the pilot decided to wave-off just before the touchdown and applied full power. Try this with DCS P-51, and the result will be the same.

too bad ED is also very keen on keeping that to themselves while sabotaging mod weapons

Thanks, I'll take a look. I wish. It's up to ED to make missile schemes that allows for these maneuvers. It's going very well. I'm still working on new assets. I'll post a status update soon.

We have no problem with criticism, you don't have to look far to find negative feedback on any of our platforms, Nineline and I spend a lot of time passing everyone's concerns on to management, some people are more vocal than others and will repeat a narrative over and over however, I just hope they also remember to have fun and enjoy what we already have. We wont be able to address every issues in a timely manner, we have to work within our resources, and fix priorities may not match everyone's expectations, but we are working very hard, our change logs show our progress. thanks

I loved seeing the option to change an Arelgh-Burke-class destroyer's load out. This is one of the items on my ship wishlist. I hope to see it added to the Ticos. There are still quite a few items on the list. A quick review of my top naval wish list items are as follows The ability to have ground units spawn from amphibious assault ships The ability to load landing craft with troops and vehicles hovercraft More ships for all factions (Celmet and Vietnam Essex battlegroups for the F-8, 1980s BB surface action group, Soviet/Russian destroyers, cruisers and amphibious landing ships, overlord and Marians fleets for WWII) The ability to target different guns air and land-based forward observers for fire missions dual purpose guns better damage models

Progress Update: Liveries and Exterior Texturing In this update, we’re excited to showcase the latest progress in our texturing work on the T-38A Talon. One of the most distinctive features of this aircraft is the variety in liveries used by its many operators. From the wide range of U.S. Air Force liveries to the vibrant red and white schemes of the Turkish Air Force, each operator has brought its own unique touch to the "dress" of the Talon. At Veco Simulations, we’re committed to meticulously recreating these differences, capturing the essence of each version and the character it brings to the aircraft. Our texturing process involves a layered approach that allows us to build a high level of authenticity into every livery. Structural details like bolts, rivets, and other surface elements are standardized on a dedicated layer, ensuring accuracy and consistency across all liveries. The livery itself sits on a layer sandwiched between these structural details and a weathering layer, allowing for flexibility in creating and modifying liveries without losing detail. The weathering layer, positioned at the very top, is designed to adapt to the full spectrum of liveries, from bright white to deep black. This adaptability is crucial because weathering behaves differently on light versus dark surfaces. For lighter liveries, like those used by the Turkish Air Force and some U.S. Air Force schemes, we’ll incorporate subtle dirt, grime, and wear to give a realistic, lived-in look without overwhelming the brightness of the paint. For darker liveries, we’ll emphasize elements like edge wear and faded patches that stand out against the deeper tones. This approach allows us to capture the unique aging and operational wear seen on Talons across the globe, regardless of the specific color scheme. By establishing this flexible, layered foundation, we aim to make livery creation accessible for the community as well. We believe that customizing the Talon’s iconic look is an integral part of the experience, and we can’t wait to see how the community brings their creativity to this platform. Finally, we’d like to give a huge thank you to our talented livery artist team for their outstanding work and dedication. Their attention to detail and passion for bringing the T-38A’s liveries to life are key to achieving the authenticity we strive for.

ATC and the dynamic campaign are the never-ending story for DCS

cfag, Whilst I largely agree with your post above regarding EA, I disagree with the line "there is a high likelihood that it won't improve much 6 months after initial release" The flagship modules (presently F18, F16 & Apache) do benefit from, I'd argue, significent continued improvements long after the initial 6 months - but I get and agree with the point you are trying to get across in the main. It would also seem logical to me that "some" infrastructure improvements, or additions, are definately worth ED investing in. Simply because these additions would likely result in an increase in player numbers and interest and therefore module sales too. (Dynamic Campaign being the obvious example)

It seems that La-7 has become another M3 Corsair.

nullEvery single reason you posted why not to include extremely important variant and stepping stone between 9B and 9J, when its in fact ALREADY IN FKIN GAME... is insane. Sometimes i wonder how **** people on forums can get yet always someone delivers on spectacular level. from 9E is just wider FOV 9B to actually being totally wrong, to just use SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ADVANCED 9J when it was barely used in SEA and early CW air warfare, to but hey, it was PARTIALLY used during one operation with few dozen launches from specific squardon using specific sidewinders. THE FACT STANDS.... 9J CANNOT replace 9E. Performance wise and date wise.

I added this guy.

Check Six Simulations