Leaderboard

Ready for police operations (WIP)

Thanks, Rich, I will do just that. Thanks. I have sent the Italian Pack out for testing. Once testing is complete I will release the Italian Mods. I've hung on to them too long now. Thanks for your patience.

Thats because dissapointed users will always vent it on the Forums, while satisfied users don’t have the same urge. I find it funny when people want a low price while at the same time demanding not only bug fixing, but also constant improvements and facelifts. On my personal case, I dont feel unsatisfaction because most bugs are not really as bothersome to me as some users say, and I manage the cost of the hobby by mostly purchasing at Sales, or using miles, or pre-purchase discounts. My only un satisfaction is the Razbam-ED conflict, but the Sim is otherwise pretty great.

Flight simmer for 25 years, real pilot for 15 years, bush flying, and warbird formation, aerobatics and dogfight simulations. I fly in VR, Varjo Aero, and a 4090, have MFG pedals, and many controllers, a few months ago got the VP Force Rhino, It has an extension and a Virpil Mongoose grip, I only fly the warbirds in DCS, in short its fantastic, it is very immersive, you need to use it with Telem software which has the effects , and you can fine tune them to your liking. Did you guys know that many times dogfights are flown at the edge of the accelerated stall? Rhino has this effect, pull high Gs, stick gets stiffer, fire guns, you get the effects, you get hit also get the effects, gear , flaps, engine rumble everything is there, DCS warbirds deserve FFB, they become even more realistic and immersive, highly recommended. Warning, a FFB stick wont let you fly pulling crazy unrealistic stunts , like we see all the time in DCS MP where the virtual pilot can take a lot of positive and Neg one after the other, FFB will make you fly realistically. Here are a link for the Rhino, a video of my real flying , Telem, and my setup. https://vpforcecontrols.com/ null

That's actually not true. Typically for every person who complains, there are a lot of people with the same issue who don't bother complaining. And the people who abandon the game will pretty much never complain on the forum, because they have moved on. Of course a company shouldn't make the mistake of trying to solve every complaint, but it's also a mistake to only listen to those who are satisfied. That's one way to look at it. Another way is that a better job might be possible at setting expectations and convincing people that the right decisions are being made. And with the latter, the issue doesn't have to be that the communication is poor, but the decisions can be poor as well, of course. I personally think that flight sim games have been doing a poor job at providing the players with a good single player experience where they have fun things to do. As a result, a lot of players buy games, but not play them as much, or never get into the game in the first place. By growing the consumer base, you can actually have more things (lower prices, more bug fixes and/or more improvements), because more money comes in. I'm seeing some sims respond to this user demand to have more things to do, which at least according to Asobo, is the main thing their players ask for, so the question is whether sims that don't improve on this front, get left behind. What I would do if I was in charge of DCS, would be to invest heavily in a dynamic campaign and somewhat unpredictable AI (in the good way), even if it doesn't get the best return on investment in the short term, but as a way to add value to all modules, and to grow the player base. And I would focus development more on creating a coherent set of aircraft and matching map(s) that fit well together for a certain time period. And I would plan for obsolescence, where either the game engine, or preferably just the plane API's, get frozen and an incompatible game engine or API is introduced. So at that point, one can fix the major outstanding bugs, and then planes should keep working in the same way, albeit without getting improvements. So that would prevent having more and more modules to maintain over time, which doesn't seem sustainable, while players can still enjoy what they bought. But of course ED gets to do what they deem the best and consumers get to choose whether to buy it or not.

You’re mixing up torque with P-factor and downwash effects. Torque is a rotational moment generated as a reaction to the propeller’s swirling air mass (according to the conservation of angular momentum), which creates a leftward rolling moment on the aircraft. Right rudder is primarily applied to counteract yaw caused by P-factor and downwash effects, not torque itself. At positive angles of attack (AoA), the P-factor creates a leftward yaw and positive pitch moment by increasing AoA on the descending blade, becoming more pronounced with increased speed due to differential airflow over the propeller blades. Downwash is more influential at low speeds , decreasing as speed increases. Meanwhile, P-factor takes effect once there is sufficient speed and high AoA to cause noticeable local AoA changes on the propeller blades. Overall, the interaction of these forces and their impact on rudder trim requirements are clearly visible in trim diagrams. Torque itself requires very slight ailerons input.

The Mi-28 - a surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one. Also, are you planning on adding tracked IFVs for the Russian military asset mod pack, such as the BMP-3 and BMD-4? The models used in the base game are quite old, and lack the detailing found on more recent ED vehicles, let alone your stuff.

Can you do that?

Hello all, I'm editing a set of Training Missions for the MiG-21, set at Egypt, but with an emphasis on following real-world procedures as much as I possibly can. I have just finished the first one: Cold Start, and I'm halfway trough the second mission, on Taxi, Takeoff and Climb to cruise. I will upload it to User Files tonight, but in the meantime here is a video walk-trough of the first: The full mission runs 45-50 minutes, but 3 of its 5 chapters can be skipped by those users who prefer not to do complete checks. The mission is a bit verbose because the Cold Start is an ideal point to give a bit of background on the many Systems that the -21 has. The next missions will be much shorter. Please, If I have misunderstood parts of the procedure, let me know so I can fix them if feasible. Best regards to every fan of the Fishbed Update: 21/Nov/24 Today I finished testing my second mission, on Taxi, Take-off and Climb, it looks like this: As taking-off on the Fishbed requires some practice, during testing I decided to expand this mission a bit, adding a second client slot for a runway start, dispensing with the long taxi ... this way a new user can practice the take-off several times without spending too much time, this short version looks like this: For more immersion, I added a bit of random air traffic on the background, so you need to be careful to avoid collisions, like I did waiting for the helos to cross the runway before taking off Update: 11/Dec/24 Well, it took more time than I initially thought, but I've finally finished the third mission, here is how it looks like: I have uploaded these first three missions to the User Files section, here is the link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342519/ the file is in OvGME format, and places both the missions and the RSBN mod for Sinai map on the Mig-21 folder of the DCS program folder. Be sure to employ a mod manager, since the RSBN mod is not IC compatible, so you may need to disable it before going to a multiplayer server. Edit: The RSBN Mod is no longer needed, as on February 19th Magnitude 3 added native RSBN & ARC data for the Sinai (and Kola) Maps. Also, these missions employ the superb Egyptian liveries created by @Kerbo 416 ... be sure to download them here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/unit-is-mig-21bis/user-is-kerbo416/apply/ Meanwhile, I'm starting to edit a weapons training mission .. for an easy start I have chosen a Gun Strafe training, hopefully it should not take too long to finish. Update: 16/Jan/25 It took more effort than I expected, but today I have updated this mission set with the addition of two more missions: M04 Re-starting engine in-flight. M10 Gun Strafing (my first weapons training for the -21) IMPORTANT: Please note that mission M10, REQUIRES the 476th VFG Range Objects Mod, which you can download here: https://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=download&downloadid=482 This is a very mature Mod that should be placed at /Saved Games/DCS World/Mods/tech/ and does not impact the Integrity Check, so it is MP-safe ... it looks like this once installed (my DCS folder at Saved Games is named DCS.296, yours will most likely be different): Here is a walkthrough of each: These videos were taken on the latest testing rounds, so I must say that the landing distance report feature that appears on the video, was removed from the mission because it gave erroneous values, not sure if its a problem with Sinai or with the Script, since this script worked fine on my last missions set on the Kola and Nevada maps. I will now work on both a Visual Landing mission, and on a Rocket attack training missions, hopefully they won't take as much time, I'm aiming for a release on the first week of February. Update: 4/Feb/2025 I've completed my two A/G Rocket missions, one for the S-24 and another for the S-5 rockets. Unfortunately, ED's User Files is giving me trouble at the moment and I had to open a Support Ticket for it, in the meantime this Mission Pack can be downloaded from my Cloud drive (ED fixed the issue and now the User File entry works correctly). As with my prior missions, you can start already in the air near the Weapons range, or start on a nearby Airbase with the engine already started. After expending all rockets, you can optionally practice the return to base, landing and Shutdown. The new missions are similar to the Gun Strafing one, and require the 476th VFG range objects mod in order to work. As always, you can press Spacebar to cut short the voiceovers, and on the flying sections you can use Time acceleration freely and the mission will return time to normal when needed. Here is a walkthrough of the S-24 mission: and this other video showcases the S-5 mission: Update: Feb 18th 2025: I've added a VFR landing & shutdown mission (M05), it looks like this: I intend to add later a Break-Circuit VFR Landing, as well as an IFR night landing one, but this last mission had me landing several dozen times while debugging, so I'm kind of burned out. So, the next mission will be a Radar Basics Training, followed by another on AA radar guided missiles. Update: March 6th 2025 I've completed the Radar Basics mission, this is a walk-through of it: I encountered several MiG-21 radar bugs while editing this, and it is a bit disheartening that no one from Magnitude commented on them when I reported on the Forum : Anyway, the training menu now looks like this: Cheers to all. Eduardo

Mod was updated.

Eventually, they do. But, some things? Some things are just hand waved. And yes, there will always be negative feedback, there's no avoiding that. But, there really would be less. Some things ED has done defy logic. They've been provided with hard proof of certain things and still refuse to make the needed changes. DCS really, really needs to start shaping up in some very specific ways and, frankly, waiting for complete customer aggravation isn't the way to go about it. We've asked for improved AI flight models and behavior to better reflect their performance. We've gotten that, but certain aircraft aren't affected by it and they refuse to do anything about it. We've asked simple fixes that have taken literal years to get to us. We can hear this same song and dance about how ED believes its priorities are in order when, frankly, they really aren't. The customer base is asking for ED to actually step back and do some housekeeping. We're all eager for the Fulcrum, we're all stoked for updates to the Viper and Hornet, we love the Hind, we love the Apache, but more than anything? We'd like the sandbox we use these toys in to feel like a game of the mid 2020s and not an updated LOMAC. With times being tough and, frankly, set to get tougher, we're going to be demanding value out of our entertainment. It's no longer a question of "Well, what other modern combat sims ARE there with this variety, really?" and more "What other things can I do that are more fulfilling given my reduced fun stuff spending?" ED can choose to ignore this, of course, but it'll be to their detriment.

They are a fair price point, but that's just the initial purchase. I don't need to tell you that improvements happen iteratively here, for better and for worse. That's how it is, it's a model that might be necessary, so I'm not going to argue against its employment since that's utterly pointless. But, there are issues with trust in the company in regards to those modules. Now, if I buy the Hornet, I know that updates with that are forthcoming. But, if I buy the MiG-21bis? Not so much, Mag3 is swamped as it stands. If I buy the F-86, there's no real indication that we're getting assets etc. to really fit them into any scenario outside of obscure, reserve units. And, those fixes have been a very long time coming, as long as a decade for some. We've had them acknowledge, but no one was willing to make the fairly rudimentary changes? This is what we're trying to say, really. Sure, these offerings are less than the more updated, newer modules, but it seems that extra $20-$30 gets them attention. And, there's nothing to indicate to customers that this is the case unless you read these forums. If you've done that, you've probably already parted with money. Deal with it, at that point, I guess? This is what I mean when I say ED's priorities are not where they need to be. I'm sure they'll tell you that they feel their priorities are correctly arranged, but it should be pretty clear from this thread that the customer base disagrees. This is a lot more damaging to ED's reputation than any kerfuffle with RB. As I mentioned, I've stopped buying WWII modules since I've no assurances of any issues within their code being addressed in a timely manner thanks to my experience with the F-86's issues. I'm not comfortable with parting with my money for products that don't get issues addressed for years. So, ED can make a choice here: Review what it's doing in regards to supporting its software and communicating intentions or find itself increasingly getting recommendations against. The situation with the Sabre's guns were absolutely unacceptable. We cannot let that happen again. We want to maintain DCS' health as a game and to do that? At the very least, decent explanations as to why delays occur or why some high priority fixes have been outright backburned are in order. And sure, it's ED's right to decline to comment on those issues. But it's also the customer's right to tell others to save their money in the event of unsatisfactory service or product.

Just tested and confirmed. I would even go so far as to say that 3.8.10 almost completely eliminates ghosting in DCS. At least it does on my system. Looks really good. In any case, I would suggest that this nvngx_dlss.dll be included in future updates as a significant improvement is observable. I would kindly request that ED test this version more thoroughly and then consider including this version in future patches if necessary.

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

At present my hopeful and optimistic view is that some things are getting dated because ED is focusing significant resources on major tasks at the moment (Vulkan, Multithreading, and the Dynamic Campaign Engine). Once more of these are completed, I'm hoping it means that it will free up a significant number of devs and resources and we'll see the floodgates open where these other things we desire will start to get more attention in a significant way. However... ^^^ this. I can understand working modules (even if old) not getting updated at the moment. (I love the UH-1, and would love to see it updated). But I can use the UH-1 as it currently is. It's bugs that are introduced with updates, that aren't looked at or addressed for years that has sapped most of my enthusiasm away from DCS. I've seen our community shrink from a core group of 15 strong, (not including others who pop in from time to time) dwindle down to 3 people being semi-regular - and it's largely due to being sick of dealing with various bugs over an extended period of time. I'm really hoping my personal observation isn't reflective of the wider community, but seeing video's like this come out, comments on ED's youtube trailer video's, etc gives me the impression we're not alone. I can wait for older models to be enhanced to more modern standards if my optimistic views above reflect reality. However I have concern that the community is going to remain as strong between now and then if bugs that are introduced aren't addressed with more urgency. I feel for everyone involved. The creators have developed an incredible simulator - beyond what I could have ever have hoped to be flying. Something to be real proud of. I can't imagine the ongoing countless hours, effort, and passion that has gone into creating what is. For this to be so undermined because somewhere in the mix, someone is deciding that bugs aren't as big of a priority as they should be and can wait years to be addressed - or not realizing the true impact they're having on a community is a real letdown not only for customers, but also for everyone else involved in the development of DCS. That being said - I should also note that the last 2 updates have been significant patch fixes - and this needs to be recognized. Maybe there is a shift changing within ED? I also see in the latest HIP video that we've got drag and drop coming to the Mission Editor, as well as an option for the updater for those who are limited with drive storage. Maybe ED is beginning to listen to the community a bit more? It's important to give credit where credit is due. So, I am watching with anticipation with the next few release cycles to see how other outstanding bugs are being addressed, and if we are seeing the beginning of a shift in ED's priorities, or whether this was more of an exception to the rule.

Negative sir, YOU HAVE to trim it at every power change. And, finally, you have to prove that DCS P-51 or any other prop plane have very different trim curves from the curves that were recorded for the real plane. And only these graphs give adequate information, how it should be.

Can't say much about the Sabre, 'cause I haven't flown it in a long time, but Mustang for example, with its half broken radiator switches (not spring loaded anymore), broken control stick lock, permanently enabled cockpit lights at cold start (which doesn't make sense on bright daylight), broken oil dilution and recently broken main wheels animation has been clearly deteriorating slowly. 3 first mentioned issues have been with us for 5-ish years at least. Granted, one could say they're not critical because the plane can still takeoff, fly, blow sh..t up, return and land so minimal functionality in combat sim is still there allright, but the fact is module features which worked correctly in DCS 1.2-2.2 era, albeit not major ones, have been broken and effectively abandoned. After many years I finally stopped bothering with making or bumping bug reports because I don't see the point anymore if they tend to be ignored anyway, or noticed and pushed further by NL only every few months or so. I'm talking about warbirds mostly, as they're majority of purchased modules in my virtual hangar. Maybe F-16 / F-18 /AH-64 or other "flagship" customers are more lucky.

Exactly this. I don't demand that the f-86 has the same graphics as the apache, but that once it reaches the peak of its development it keeps it that way over time, and that it does not progressively lose value not because newer things came out, with better graphics, additional features or whatever, but because the features that were there have gradually been lost and it takes years (and sometimes it never happens) to get them back as they were before.

Probably not completely what you are looking for but you can make missions and campaigns for the OH-6A on https://dcs-briefingroom.com/ then edit them in Mission Editor to add or change things, takes a bulk of the work out of it if you haven't got much free time.

This reminds me of the people who paid €3000 for a 3080 during the mining boom, and then expected top dollar on the 2nd hand market later on because they paid so much themselves, completely ignoring how their price compares to other options that buyers have. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how much work you put in. What matters is how much value that product provides to customers compared to other ways they can spend their money. There is never any free dev time. There are only choices what to spend dev time on. You act as if it is out of your hands, but you clearly have a choice to spend more (or less) time on bug fixing versus implementing new features or new modules. What I see a lot of people remark is that they can accept that older modules are built to worse standards, but that there are significant bugs that severely hamper their enjoyment or even cause them to bench the module. In the latter case, those are effectively module-breaking bugs that reduce the value of the module to €0 for them, since they consider it unusable. $50 is a lot of money for new buyers as well, if they discover that they will quickly toss the module aside. Now, I understand that it is probably financially not very rewarding to fix old modules, since the people who complain typically already bought it and won't rebuy it, and you get relatively few new buyers (especially if the price/value proposition is not great anyway). However, I think that you are causing significant harm to your reputation, which seems to typically don't show so much in short term sales, but impact the general willingness of customers to buy things. For example, see the unwillingness by MiG21bisFishbedL to buy WW II modules or the general unwillingness of nessuno0505 to buy new modules. In my view, the best companies make sure that their products match or exceed the expectations caused by the marketing and the price point. From the DCS fanbase I see a lot of disappointment, which at the very least suggests that the expectations are not managed, but also that certain choices may not match what a lot of people want.

I've spoken to the team we should see improvement with the next patch. thank you

Daily MiG-29 Russian 9.19s

The main issue isn’t the torque it isn’t the rudder or even the ailerons. The incident all stems from the elevator, as soon as the nose pulls up he was pretty much doomed. After the pitch up the pilot has no control, the only one that has any effect is when the elevator is pushed forward but by then it is too late. Watch the last video, slowed down it is pretty clear. Torque related accidents occur when the throttle is opened at low speed and it is the sudden increase coupled with the lack of authority from control surfaces which lead to an accident. That is not the case here.

The spammers get dealt with as soon as a moderator is active, it is normally myself or Nineline who deals with them, I cover EU time zone and Nineline covers US time zone. Once we action a report and mark them as spammers all of the posts get deleted. So please keep the reports up if you are making them. thank you

There will always be negative feedback. You can’t please everyone. And they do actually listen.

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.

The new raindrop effects like to pool on the windscreen at approach speed and cause more distortion than the old effects do, making linup difficult or sometimes impossible. Previously there wasn't a need for the windshield air rain repel function to actually work, but with the new rain effects we need it to help clear the windscreen for safe lineup in rainy CASE IIIs.

Just to be clear: I am aware that a piece of software 100% bug free does not exist in life. But there is a distinct feeling that something is wrong here, and @Art-J example is perfect in this regard. Maybe a few people still fly the P-51, but it is not a deprecated software and is sold in the same showcase of the Apache. If you can't keep it up to date, for whatever reason, create a separate older version of DCS to be used with the older modules. It would be better than it is now.

Have you ever tried an old module wanting to go into detail? There is always some bug that pops up, even a gross one, and 90% of the time you find that it has been already reported... for at least a couple of years! This fact is driving me crazy. In the past I have also reported some bugs, or followed some bugs-related discussions, but after 2 years every hope is lost... That's just my opinion, or maybe just my immagination, or maybe I fixate on minor insignificant things, but there are bugs even in the most unexpected modules, see the airport divert page bug in the A-10c, which is still there despite the A-10c II being released. It may be a minor bug, but it's there since DCS 2.0: around 2017-2018. It's 2024! (nearly 2025). If the developers haven't found free time to fix this in over 7 years, it means they'll never find it! And it's an "already reported" bug... since 2018!

Just two things to add: F-14 is full fidelity module and it has various real life limitations modeled in DCS. Su-27 is low fidelity simplified module and it's real life limitations aren't modeled, it's a big advantage in itself as this 1980s Su-27S avionics was full of restrictions; radar needed some time to lock, it had tracking limits during maneuvering, it had lower detection ranges in "independant mode" without GCI steering the antenna from the ground, it wasn't that reliable at low altitude look down, many functions were not as automatic as they are in FC3 Su-27, datalink was easy to jam, has limited number of doners, IRST was described as nearly useless in tactical air combat, but good enough and usefull for high alt interceptions and it was very weather dependant etc. All of that would be modeled in full fidelity Su-27S some day. Second thing is F-14 was carrier based, it required heavier undercarriage, hook, more corrosion resistant skin, whole lot of low speed lift etc. Naval Su-33 has significantly worse kinematic performance than Su-27.

Hi there. I would love to see the Aim-120A added to the game to simulate 90s scenarios.

Now you need to upgrade your Crosswinds to FFB with the Rhino mod as well!

Lots of work has been done on the AI and a lot more is being done for the Dynamic campaign. Keep an eye on our change logs for core and AI changes. thank you

It would be nice, though AIM-120B replaced AIM-120A on production lines already in 1994. And AIM-120C entered production in 1996. Considering haw simplified AIM-120 is in DCS (due to classification) i doubt there would be any differecnes between A and B as modeled in the sim, except for the name.

Oh ho ho

If ED listened to their player base they would have way less negative feedback.

This issue has nothing to do with “spaghetti code” or what any other games do.

The weapons on the ground units have been poor for a long time. Most AFV’s have a ready rack, unless it’s an auto loader. Having spent many a year teaching gunners how to load their tank, replenishment is a key fundamental part of the job. We teach that loading from the secondary ammunition is only done during lulls in battle. Your ready rack can be depleted quickly, so replenishment at the earliest time makes sense. Granted, it takes time to replenish, but you can do this on an adhoc basis. As soon as you have emptied rounds and charges from the ready racks, replenishment should be done immediately, the tank crew should be doing this automatically without the player interaction. One thing that is not taken into account is the crew experience, this would have a huge impact in the replenishment process. When reloading internally can be quick, a lot quicker than from a replenishment truck. The external MG ammo should not take any time as it’s generally kept in its containers. The COAX MG is replenished by unboxIng all ammo into a long bin. Depending upon tank type this can be over 3000 rounds. when loading the main gun, this can take around 6 seconds to load, each loading then around 6 seconds from your ready round rack. Loading from other parts of the tank is not recommended, and in my experience, never done. The extended loading times in DCS is completely incorrect in my opinion and should be removed. Tank commanders are trained to pull out of contact to carry this out. If you can’t get the ammo to reload, or has extra long loading times, stop the loading process and then select the correct weapon system. Sometimes this happens and requires you to manually stop and restart it again. Make sure you select either APFSDS, HEAT OR HESH. I hope this makes some sense and if you need more info please ask. Happy hunting, Mike-Delta

Can you provide any context?

They will, soon.

Version 3.8.10 released. Brought me significantly less ghosting. You should try this version. So far I am very satisfied.

You can change the Controls Indicator Box position and size fairly easy, will need a bit of experimenting for different sizes. Line 29 changes the position: base.init_pos = {(-1*aspect + 1.5*size),(1 - 1.3*size)} Line 12 changes the width of the box: local size = 0.15 Line 15 changes the height of the box: local box_height = 0.2 Changing (-1*aspect + 1.5*size) move the box across the screen, you only need to change the bit after +. Example 1.5*size, change the 1 gives big jumps and the 5 smaller adjustments Changing the second part (1 - 1.3*size) moves the box down the screen, as above you only need to alter 1.3*size, change the 1 gives big jumps and the 3 smaller adjustments This is mine on a resolution of 2560 x 1440 but the settings should be universal and display where it is regardless of resolution. base.init_pos = {(-1*aspect + 17.2*size),(1 - 16.8*size)} [This is Line 29] local size = 0.11 [This is Line 12] local box_height = 0.1 [This is Line 15] and this is the result of the alterations Compared to the original If you are happy with the box size you can alter the placement by just changing Line 29. This gives an example of changing the settings as well to give you a rough idea where they are compared to the original and also smaller one. base.init_pos = {(-1*aspect + 1.5*size),(1 - 12.1*size)} -- Bottom Left corner base.init_pos = {(-1*aspect + 22.7*size),(1 - 11.1*size)} -- Bottom Right corner just above Grenades Display base.init_pos = {(-1*aspect + 13.2*size),(1 - 12.1*size)} -- Bottom next to controls in the window

Да не о недопустимом уклоне речь вообще, например ставим мы на горку отделение ЗРК с радарами, пусковыми и прочим, по карте высот вроде как на вершину, вроде как на плоское место,в игре же, обнаруживаем что они стоят на уклоне и не могут вести огонь в половине секторов. Приходится в нужном районе летать камерой, думать, куда оных впихнуть, чтоб стояли на горке, с хорошим обзором и без уклона.

Oh well, we've been waiting for more than 10 years now after the first "promise" that ATC would receive a "major" update. That patience now is slowly coming to an end.

As mentioned many times the work is in progress and going well, we have shared some progress in a newsletter already and when we are ready to share more we will. thank you - Threads merged

Yes, that's true. All user files of the tanker version are broken - but only those, the normal S-3 liveries still work. It seems the files from the 3D model have been renamed. I reported this, ED promised to take a look at it. So if someone manages to make a working description.lua file, just let me know, I'll update the skins. So far I'm out of ideas what to do.

@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.

Devs have been working on it. The fix should be part of the next update.

*Dynamic Campaign *Better AWACS *Better ATC *More (random) explosion animations *Better dynamic weather The dynamic campaign is important, I would even pay for it at this point.

Maybe, just spitballing here, FlyingIron releases development updates that cover the entire previous year's worth of work on the A-7. Because that's exactly what they have done the past two years. The year is almost over, and I assume FI will hold to the established pattern and give us an in-depth writeup of all the systems and modelling they have been working on during 2024.