Leaderboard

Hi Regarding Spanish Air Force Mirage F1M, I don't have any picture at hand right now, only a couple of tech drawings, but I think you won't be dissapointed It has a Sextant Avionique true modern HUD with several modes (NAV, AA, AG, PRG) and plenty of info: speed, altitude, flight path vector, heading, pitch ladder, bank angle, AOA, g, WP info (number, heading, distance, ETA, TTG...) plus all the weapons delivery info (bomb fall line, impact point, frag, TGT diamond..) for each mode CCIP/CCRP Regards

Yesterday, I finished texturing the Italian Ship Paolo Thaon and created three liveries. Afterward, to keep me motivated I started texturing the Cavour. It's still a WIP. I will need assistance with aircraft parking so it may take some time to get her Battle ready.

Good point. No idea. Forgot about the existence of F4 since I've been using Ctrl+F2 in all other modules. In the meantime I made a new video with the OH-6 P.S. A virtual pilot body would really complete this chopper! Edit: is it possible to have an OH-6 as a ground object that doesn't have "spinning" rotors? I'm guessing it's a bug.

Hello, here some screens from the current development build with the new destroyers and updated catapult texture for Bon Homme Richard. Kudos to Odyseus, James J Jackson, Citizen and Hawkeye60! Three destroyer escorting CVA-31 Bon Homme Richard: USS Maddox with updated bridge and new AA armament midship: DD The Sullivans, a Fletcher class but not upgraded to FRAM: USS Jenkins, a Fletcher class upgraded to FRAM II. Forgive the WWII bridge and mast! Bon Homme Richard's new catapult textures: We're still working on an improved SFM for the A-1 to make carrier ops less deadly: Cheers, TeTeT

It really doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, adding in amateur code into the game can and does raise issues. I've had a number of issues arise because of mods. Everything from crashing to sound errors that effected the entire software. It's why the devs and support always suggest you empty your mod folders whenever you have issues with DCS. That video by reflected is good testimony as to why. ED needs all the help it can get to address issues, really. I love the A-4E-C, I love the OH-6, but they could still see an update that introduces issues. They are a double edged sword and that's just how it is.

I'm finishing up the Italian Thaon di Revel-class offshore patrol vessels. Indonesia also owns a couple of the Paolo Thaon di Revel ship class.

From Wags "Yellow shirt" video.

Ok, I figured out my problem. Whenever I change the local dimming value in the Pimax Client setting the profile.json file gets updated with the value "local_dimming_black_level" : 0.9980000257492065. In order words the local dimming gets maxed out, even if I set the value to 0.001 in the Pimax Client. As long as I do not play with the local dimming value in the Pimax Client, and instead edit the profile.json file it works as it should.

As usually - yes and no. Quality MODs like A-4 or OH-6 or AI asset packs usually don't require anything to work so they are 'one time ON and leave it like that', no need to disable them so they wouldn't particularly benefit from the launcher. What would benefit from such launcher are mostly 'try and forget' lowest quality, most bugged, least maintained 'FC3 F-15 retextured as XXX superfighter' MODs - and branding such lowest quality, often broken, completely unrealistic and game-crashing MODs through the official launcher would be a shot in the foot for ED. I think this few small additional steps required for the MOD to work right now, is a great natural filter, preventing the most inexperienced guys from breaking their DCS, often beyound repair, without complete reinstall, all the time.

My overall sentiment is the opposite - literally hundreds of thousands of people all around the world, not knowing DCS at all (including a few of my friends), are watching all these "Rafale vs. Su-57" videos, attracted by the titles. They have no idea that these are not the part of DCS, but amateur made MODs of very different quality (generally the more 'modern' the more fictional and 'patriotic') because usually content creators deliberately don't indicate this to attract more viewers. Unconsciously these masses of potential future playerbase are developing the false impression that DCS is a totally unrealistic airquake not different than Ace Combat, with fictional systems, generic FC3 F-15 avionics everywhere, 1990s-era cockpit textures with like 5 switches, going Mach=3 and spinning like your first Kerbal prototype, with unlimited engine power and zero damage model. If anything, I would say MODs should be separated more clearly, not less, from the quality controlled DCS, but this is mostly for the content creators decency. On ED side it's ok as it is right now - all the MODs are ok, but clearly separated and on your own risk. PS. Absolutely not mocking non-modern declassified fantastic MODs like A-4 Skyhawk or OH-6. Or many AI assets and other things made by talented guys. And quality of these has been verified by the reality - they are included in many popular MP servers, because people find them very well made, fun, fitting and realistic.)

Version 2.3.7 -- 20241121 - maintenance update The past few weeks have gone by in a blur. Accordingly, this updates contains some QoL additions, and the "shock block" received some linguistic polish. All Changes in Detail Documentation Main - Worked on many small unclear passages in the hopes that they become more clear - some module updates Quickref - Updates in line with module updates Demos (no changes) Modules - cfxZones 4.4.4 - Support for "drivable" spawns - countDown 2.0.1 - deconflict "count?" attribute: removed - messenger 3.2.1 - removed typo in verbose mode - smokeZones 2.0.1 - deprecated attribute "f?" - spawnZones 2.2.0 - new "drivable" attribute Enjoy, -ch

I know it's not yet released but better call it sooner rather than later. Please make the new automatic 180 rotation optional at parking after being directed by new deck marshalls after trapping. The auto-180-rotation is immersion breaking and unrealistic. Many sim players appreciate doing full uninterrupted missions from cold start up to full shutdown in real time, without unrealistic features. Ideally we would be directed to the parking spot and just be given the shutdown signal For those that want to rearm and stay in the mission for next launch by all means keep the option to autorotate/teleport. Thanks

Is there a plan to animate the buttons etc on the throttle and stick? Coming from the F-4 it feels a bit weird that nothing moves on them. I was hoping that this latest update would have them, so I was a bit disappointed.

But actually, it would be good if ED adopted: - official standards for mods, - introduced a path directly in the Launcher for management, quick enabling, disabling - based on ZIP, RAR file in the appropriate structure. This is a good and convenient way. +1.

Daily MiG-29 Bulgarian 9.51

Hyperbole is a poor replacement for insight, indeed. Yeah, Fishbed needs work, but find me any FM in DCS that is devoid of inaccuracies. At some point, you have to accept that DCS is a video game and that is that. And besides that, there's not THAT much wrong with the Fishbed. Just long standing issues at low speed and avionics that need addressing. At this point, passive aggressive posts replete with plenty of '...'s and what not aren't exactly going to speed up Mag3's development. We wait, it's all we can do.

I would tend to agree. End it right there at the final stop, or let the player choose to reset to a new spot if they plan to continue on. Or even just another pop-up message “ salute to return to available parking spot”. Either way they did accomplish a long awaited feature (directors). I also wonder how many players will even follow the full parking procedure. I’d bet the majority would still land on the deck and end the mission right there. (Purists excluded of course). Thats probably what I would do

Indeed, i hope ED give us the option for disable/enable the rotation snap. I´m one of those cases that likes to do a uninterrupted sortie from cold start to full shutdown. A must have in my opinion, or else, i just won´t see me using the flight directors that much and disable them in DCS options.

So Leute Ihr könnt Euch beruhigen, nachdem ich MSFS2024 probiert habe bleibe ich bei DCS als meine Hauptsim und nutze MSFS nur für Flüge in bekanntem Terrain. Die Einrichtung aller Features ist noch lange nicht abgeschlossen, aber ich kann schon sagen, wie das Cockpit aussieht und wie sich alles bedienen lässt ist nicht vergleichbar mit DCS. Alleine die Einrichtung aller Komponenten ist bei DCS viel einfacher und funktioniert dann auch... Vielen Dank nochmals für die positiven Hilfe-Angebote! Paraherby @ Admin: Wir können den Thread schließen.

I thought the directors were a nice touch, even thought I’m not much of a carrier ops guy. The fog off the carrier looked super cool. But then it got to the end and the teleporting started, I just had to literally face palm myself. I get the teleport to an entirely new free spot if necessary , but I 100% was expecting a pushback. Not even with the tractor, just the plane to move and at least simulate getting backed in. I’m no developer so I don’t understand if that is really that difficult to do, but imo that should have made the cut. The 180 or 90 degree teleport after stopping is VERY cheesy… but the fog and directors ,

Wait until you feel how basic the grass feels. Yeah, DCS is very lacking in that kind of feedback, even with FFB. But, honestly, what sim isn't?

Hi! Thanks for the report. AI taxi was bugged often a year or so ago but I thought ED fixed it. Mission 3: ground AI pathfinding has been broken for about 4 years, the soldier shouldn't go anywhere near you, but they jsut do whatever they want. I removed it now, but it will make the scenery less alive of course. Mission 4: I played it 3 times, and only saw what @jackill's video depicts once out of the 3 times. I rearranged the parking spots to make it less likely to happen. If it happens again, please post a track. I cannot fix these AI taxi bugs, only ED can, but they won't even talk to us without a track. Thanks!

ED modules take some of this into account, RB even more. Here are a few points I have observed from your list. I haven't tested everything, so I won't include it. 1. Cell Resolution. I haven't tested it yet. 2. Target’s Aspect. ED,RB,HB 3. Cloud Attenuation. Nope 4. Mutual Interference. RB 5. Range and Speed Errors. RB,HB,ED 6.Fake Targets. RB,ED. Additionally Aircraft flying in formation increase the RCS value and thus drastically increase the probability of detection at long range. Tested with ED and RB, this applies to both. Payload has an influence. RB,HB this applies. ED does not.

I miss his brilliant mods and performance improvements.

Thanks for the photos guys. Keep them coming. I didn't realize until now that the Spruance Class Destroyer is more of a Tomahawk Missile launch platform and it doesn't carry many anti-Air Missiles. I see why they decommissioned it. It would have been great if they added some SM-2 missiles to the VLS Cells. I haven't added the weapons to the USS Kidd yet. I will import/merge the weapons from the Ticonderoga Class.

We are not going to provide any statement yet. "Probably" would be the word.

It must have been too many I get emotional when that happens

There needs to be more emphasis on this issue, as the recently added behaviour and what the developers seem to be planning to do is wrong. Let's look at the facts: MiG-29B technical description Yandex OCR Translation: So the Radar and the FCS are indeed able to deal with interruptions in the target signal and able to extrapolate based on the memorized movement. Yandex OCR-Translation: Here we can see that a loss of the target signal can be dealt with by extrapolation for up to 4 seconds. Also we see at which period the algorithm is repeated. 20.48 ms when no missile is launched and 51.2 ms when targets are illuminated for semiactive missiles (which adds ~30 ms of illumination after each radar cycle). Now the question is what happens when the gimbal limit is briefly exceeded while an R-27R/ER is still in the air? It is very clear. The target signal is briefly lost. But that is not a problem, the computer will extrapolate based on the memorized target movement, and if the pilot quickly corrects his mistake, the antenna can be pointed at the extrapolated target again without leaving the target tracking mode. The illumination will of course not stop as it does right now in DCS, as we could see the algorithm respects the 20.48 ms and 51.2 ms working periods. MiG-29 HUD FOOTAGE R-73K_shot - YouTube It is in IRST vertical scan mode, locks a flare target and fires a missile. Then it rolls 90° to the right and pulls away. This quickly puts the target outside of the vertical gimbal limit of its IRST. You can even see the exact moment where the flare leaves the IRST limit by imagining a line going from the visible IRST along the radome towards the target. Yet, the single target tracking mode does not instantly stop. It keeps going for 2 seconds. And, even more interesting, it even seems to indicate to the pilot at which corner it lost the target by wiggling back and forth the target circle. Note also how the HUD briefly disappears at the exact moment where the gimbal limit is exceeded. As if the aircraft is aware that the target just got lost, and now it is entering a dedicated mode to deal with this situation (via extrapolation for limited time). (Note that the HUD symbology in close combat modes is very different from what we have in DCS. In the real HUD in close combat mode, the target circle will be placed in a roll stabilized view. This means that the position of the circle is correct in relation to the aircraf siluette on the HUD. The siluette is rolled 90° to the right, and the circle is in the upper left of it. This means that the target is somewhere on the lower left in releation the real aircraft. And that is exactly where the flare was when it left the gimbal limit.) Picture of HUD when the target left the IRST gimbal limit but target tracking mode remains active for 2 seconds. Conclusion There is clear evidence that the MiG-29 (and so most likely also the Su-27 series) will extrapolate the last known target movement even when it exceeds the gimbal limit. And since the working period of the radar is kept accordingly (~20 ms or 50 ms), the target illumination for semiactive missiles will be able to remain. In DCS it doesn't work. The target illumination instantly gets disabled, and will not even continue when the target is back within gimbal limits. On top of that, the plan of ED seems to be to remove the extrapolation mode entirely when the gimbal limit is briefly exceeded. This is very wrong as we can see. But on top of that, the issue we have in DCS is exactly the opposite. Instead of removing the memory mode feature, it needs to be added into the close combat modes where it is entirely absent right now. As we can see from the HUD footage, it is present in close combat modes. Meanwhile in DCS, there is none. Even slightest interruptions in target signal (target notching, zero closure or exceeding limits) instantly stops the target tracking. So this is what should be worked on, not implementing imaginary limitations:

Die Base kommt morgen an… Das ging ja fix! Ich freu mich wie ein Kind an Weihnachten. Sonnige Grüße Andreas

Well out of 31 built in the class only 6 reserved Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers (ABL), 24 ended up being upgraded with VLS, and 1 USS Harry W. Hill (DD-986) had its upgrades canceled, but still went ahead and removed its ASROC box launcher. The 6 with ABL kept them until the ships were taken out of service. This is not much of a list, but it gives you an idea of where to start. I could try to make a list for you, but it may take a day or two because I have some projects going on right now that are eating up my time. Or the link that @Citizen posted work to LoL.

I thought you guys were riffing on the bit about needing to see wear tests before you'd consider touching them, per the moza ffb thread. We need to see loadtimes after a week at persistent 100°C!

Oder umbenennen, z.B. in: DCS [am Ende doch keine] falsche Entscheidung Aber ohne Witz: freut mich zu hören, und zwar für dich.

I hope so but got to wait for patch notes.

Working just fine for me

It’s not an effect like in reshade. Effects of reshade are some shaders applied on last render target. Haze removal (as for other features) is modifying the way original shader is building haze.

OK, I get it now. I don't think they have a plan for that. I said they add missions to new maps but not specifically "basic" ones. These are rather meant for Caucasus (since it's the free map) or NTTR (since it is friendly territory and dedicated training area). I can offer creating such missions for you if you wish.

It is a big deal if the place is tight and you have to care for collisions for different aircraft shapes and sizes, so I get that they were trying to avoid that (for now). But the AI can already get near the parking spot and do the pushback so the code is there. I'm not advocating the pushback for players though since the mission is over for the pilot anyway and he should not be sitting in the cockpit during tow operations.

Yep, official missions always come from aircraft devs - give it time and they will show up eventually, at least for most popular modules. I remember HB being rather quick and one of the firtst ones regarding that. Quite a surprise though seeing Orbx presenting recent missions: https://orbxdirect.com/product/orbx-kola-dcs-missions These are however provided outside of official DCS update process. btw: @Youtch the title is misleading. Persian Gulf is a single map and has plenty of missions for the Tomcat already. For missions for other maps you can always look here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/type-is-single/unit-is-f-14/apply/ or here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/81-user-created-missions-general/

This is another really good one showing the attack run, how hard the pilot is jinking, and fighting g, also get a flash of his wingman - Would be great if Aegis decide to implement this system.

My submissions for the Mi-24 livery contest. 2 liveries based on the Peruvian Air Force's Mi-24; standard green and a low visibility variant. All PSD files are available on request. Fuerza Aérea del Perú Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335536/ Fuerza Aérea del Perú - Low Visibility Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3335537/

Unofficial mods are unofficial. I don’t think it’s ED’s job to manage or support them. Putting a manager in the launcher implies official support and work on that drains resources that can be used elsewhere. Good. It keeps a lid on people going overboard with them. The devs would get flooded with bug reports if these were overused. Mods don’t necessarily make the game better

Есть проблема с которой сталкиваешься часто при посадке на палубу. Запрашиваешь посадку, тебе разрешают, работаешь с подходом, заходишь на посадку, получаешь разрешение на посадку (чарли). Тебя уже ведут , ты на последнем этапе....на 1/4 мили... вдруг перед тобой заходит на посадку "Бот" или уже зацепился за тросы и стоит на палубе.. особенно это "приятно" при посадке в условиях "минимум"... На земле происходит то же самое, тебе дают разрешение на посадку и на полосу может выехать борт ИИ... С этим нужно что-то делать, друзья мои.

Guys, this is internally fixed after being broken by Ugra with their Syria map update. They basically killed all the Gamblers missions without any communication from their side. It should be working fine as of the upcoming patch. Completely out of my hands and probably even more upset then you are with the whole situation...

A problem with that wish is that if ED were to incorporate it on the base game, then people that run into problems when loading a Mod would clog-up the support center ... it is better to have Mods clearly separated, so that users understand that they can use Mods "as is" and dont expect tech support for those.

Slugmouse cases are now available to order at £10 plus postage and packing.

Hi all! would it be possible to add a value in HPa/mbar for the QNH in the briefing text? A few modules have this setting in their altimeter (e.g. MB-339)... Currently, HPa(mbar) is indicated in the QFE but not in the QNH. Thank you!

With the next update, we will be adding this new Supercarrier feature. To add additional detail for players, and particularly mission builders, we have attached an updated version of the Supercarrier guide that discusses the new director features in greater detail. Best wishes, Wags DCS Supercarrier Operations Guide EN.pdf