Leaderboard

Military Asset Pack Russia 1.2.0 released! Changelog Version 1.2.0 Added 9M133 ATGM Infantry Added BMD-4 IFV Added Buk M3 SAM Added Kord HMG Infantry Added Mi-28N AH Added Project 20385 Gremyashchiy Class Corvette Added T-80BVM MBT Added T-90A MBT Added TOS-1A MRL Fixed Ka-52 9M120 launcher textures Fixed Ka-52 Vikhr-M and Igla-S pylons collision Distribution model This Military Asset Pack is available in the following versions: The standard full download. Remove old asset pack version and unzip this in your Saved Games mods\tech folder. The incremental download which updates your full download and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your current installation. Special thanks A big thanks goes out to @daskjdhjah for yet another tremendous testing effort!

I think it is time to lock this thread, at least for the time being. The fact remains that we have data on the motor, which we will not share, which we deem more accurate than what has else been presented here. Please be so kind and accept that. The remaining issues with the phoenix are something that both ED and us will continue to work on. But we are starting to turn in circles here, and a back and forth will not get us anywhere. Thank you all for your kind contributions and understanding. Once more progress has been made, we will open a new thread, or re-open this one.

sorry folks Current version number: DCS 2.9.9.2474 Next planned update: 4th December 2024 ( Subject to change ) During final checks an issue was found and the patch has been moved by one day to the 4th of December 2024. thank you

Because of the heavy fog, Patch couldn't find the way..

Thanks CH. This is one great update

Given EDs huge developement backlog and the amount of stuff that was supposed to be out by now according to ED themselves (Vulkan 2024 anyone? GFM to come in 2022..etc etc ) I dont care much anymore for what they tease. I would go for more delivering and less teasing /hyping. And seriously prefer Nick Grey not doing the "passion and support" talk bit again .It is a bit tone-deaf and ill fitting by now.

separating my own liveries topic here

Thank you CH, I love the new Russian Assets. In particular, the Mi-28N is truly amazing! Helicopters are really needed in DCS. Thanks again CH for all your hard work!! Timex 3

На чем тогда изволите летать тем, кому не интересны разные "хорнеты", "миражы" и т.п. На И-16?

Good morning. Weather forecast for today. Today, we will have foggy day, at everyone’s!

Уж полночь близится, а "Панциря" всё нет.

The PLA Navy is retiring its Ka-28. A lot of them have been given to museums for free. If Deka decides to make it a module, it will be the first Anti-Submarine Warfare helicopter in DCS. https://club.6parkbbs.com/chan1/index.php?app=forum&act=threadview&tid=14622106

Hey all -- I'm a fan of ED's products, and a DCS nut. I love flying, I love creating missions, I host two public dedicated servers (at >100 USD/month), I adore most of the modules for DCS - and own them all (yeah, that includes the Hawk). As the year is drawing to an end I looked at my hangar, and thought "well, there now sure seem to be a *lot* of unfinished 'Early Access' titles in here". A full 18 of them are slowly leaking an ever-increasing bit of frustration onto the well-lit floor. To me, each and every Early Access title that ED sell to me comes with a promise: that they will work diligently to finish as quickly as possible. Why do I think that? [source: Eagle Dynamics Home Page] Being an Engineer by trade (even though I'm a management goon for the past 30 years) I took stock of my EA module stable, fired up Excel (don't judge) -- and these are the cold hard numbers: Top Sheet Results: I currently own 18 EA modules that have accumulated 49 Years of EA Time. That is a lot, and my tiny mind immediately spat out another number: Assuming (educated guess) that the EA models on average require an effort of 18 person months to complete, ED's total Early Access Debt (to complete all modules) are 27 person years. So please hear my plea: Dear ED, please remember the promises you made to me and all your customers. I understand that you must sell modules to survive. And please understand that I also measure your efforts on how well you keep your promises. In that regard I think you can and should improve; the numbers currently are not in your favor, I know that you can do better. Please strive to be better in 2025 and the years that follow. I think it would befit a company of your status and reputation to reduce the Early Access Debt at the end of 2025 by 10 years, to 17, and I think it realistic that you can get under 10 years by the end of 2026. Here are the numbers, lest you want to check them yourself Module Released EA Time (Years) Remarks F-16 2019 5 F4E 2024 0.5 F-15E 2023 1 Assumed discontinued Mirage F-1 2022 2 Mosquito 2021 3 JF-17 2019 5 F-14 2019 5 YAK-52 2018 6 AJS Viggen 2017 7 CH-47 Chinook 2024 0.5 AH-64 Apache 2022 2 Mi-24 HIND 2021 3 Afghanistan 2024 0.5 Kola 2024 0.5 Sinai 2023 1 Normandy 2 2023 1 South Atlantic 2022 2 Assumed discontinued Super Carrier 2020 4 Total EA Modules 18 Products Total EA Time 49 Years Est'd Backlog 27 FTE (1 FTE ~ 1 Person Year) Data Source: Eagle Dynamics Web Site, as of November 2024 Yes, it's a simplistic world view (I am a manager after all). I hold ED accountable for everything that they sold me. I do not care if some subcontractor acted up. IMHO, ED are run by adults, and they know what accountability means: no excuses, no finger-pointing. They took my money, they made the promises, and I think they are good for the trust that I placed in them to keep them. And occasionally, they may need a soft push to remember that we believe in them and have not forgotten their promises.

I just noticed a strange behaviour in the Hornet (possibly any fast mover). Curious if it is possible to shoot my own jettisoned fuel tank somehow I never was able to catch up with a free falling tank or in this matter any stores. Even when dropped at angels 40 and 90° upwards and then going 90° downwards it is impossible to get faster then the falling items - even with AB. It seems like a strange bug, where the stores can reach up to Mach 1.3 just by pure gravity. Einstein would have loved this...

This line in entry.lua works as enabling the folder of ...../Saved Games/DCS/Mods/aircraft/An-12/Liveries/An-12/ path. But I don't plan to place my skins under there. No need to retouch entry.lua . ...../Saved Games/DCS/Liveries/An-12/ path is already enabled for custom skins and I aim to install my works here.

It was finally released last week! ED approved it. Getting positive feedback so far. Hope you enjoy. Feel free to post on the forum with what you like or dislike about it.

Status update Thanks everyone for the kind words, I really appreciate it! I had fun making these assets, especially the helicopter. And speaking of the Mi-28N, my friend @xboxshark21 noticed that its rotor sound is missing. It seems like I made a typo in the configuration. But until I release a fix update for the pack, here is the fixed file if you want correct sound for it. Mi-28N.lua

Bear in mind, I did no calculations prior to see if this is possible or not, but my gut feeling tells me that something is wrong. In this scenario, I've first jettisoned all stores (with a bit of fumbling in the cockpit) So I had fueltanks and Mk-82s being jettisoned. Both objects reached speeds well over Mach 1 before impacting the ground. Drop tanks reached ~900kts (M1.35), Mk-82s reached ~780kts (M1.18) before impact. That seems crazy high. My aircraft after being destroyed (I've also shut down the engine to minimize its impact) first fumbles in the air, maintaining ~180-200kts of speed and then when it turns near vertical with the nose pointing upwards it just starts accelerating without stop, reaching 600+kts before impacting the ground. Attached are tacview file showing the ordnance speeds and a track file in which you can see the aircraft speed before impacting the ground. There's also another track where I've tried to be as fast as possible before getting destroyed. Regardless, when I got shot, aircraft started to tumble and lost a lot of speed (~400kts -> 180kts) but again, as soon as the nose pointed up it started accelerating and impacting the ground at ~680kts. Can someone smarter than me double check this? Is this legit or is something off with the physics? aVeryFastCrash_startSpeedHigh.trk Tacview-20241203-202018-DCS-crashTest.zip.acmi aVeryFastCrash.trk

Im a bit out of the loop on this topic specifically but you should note that the Bombing Tool (due to engine limitations) currently assumes CBU would never open in-air and fly all the way to the ground - and that is the solution the tool spits you out. You can counter that by artifically telling the tool that the target would be higher than it actually is, namely at the altitude above the real target where the container would open. That should then give you better values for the WRCS.

A bit more about impulses, nozzle expansion ratios etc etc. Once upon a time Phoenix in DCS if I'm not wrong, you guys will confirm, had specific impulses in range of 250s. Internet said it is specific impulse of CTPB and HTPB types of propellants and how not to accept it. However, there is so many behind it and simply it was wrong. Developers either figure it out alone, or somebody draw attention to them or simply with time some documents of various motors appeared where miraculously specific impulses were more about 230 than 250 and propellant inside were CTPB and similar. Hmmm...what to do now...all right it will be 230 or something like that in Phoenix as well...wrong again Let's see something about these AP aluminized propellants with polybutadiene rubber as binder. Here I drew two RDS propellants, one with 14% of aluminium and 69% of ammonium perchlorate and second with 4% of aluminium and 82% of ammonium perchlorate. This second one is what I believe similar to what was in Phoenix. So these are theoretical values of specific impulses for such composition, maximal values, but only if ratio between chamber pressure and atmospheric pressure is 68. This is from American literature so it is chamber pressure of 1000psi vs atmospheric pressure of 14,7 psi (1000/14,7=68) or 69 bar / 1,013 bar. Russian standard is 40/1. All right...maximal theoretical specific impulse for 4% aluminized CTPB would be 250s. We need not theoretical value but delivered value, what exactly nozzle gives, and it is hard study, but generally bigger percentage of aluminium is always with bigger losses or better to say with lower nozzle efficiency. It is not huge difference but few percent and for 4% it shouldn't be more than 1 or 2%. Let's say 1% so delivered specific impulse would be 247,5s ... again ... only with ratio of pressures as 68. Some imaginary motor with chamber pressure of 69 bar to fully expand all to the atmospheric pressure of 1,013 bar needs to have nozzle with expansion ratio of 8,8. I don't have diagram for 8,8 ratio but this one for 8 could be easily used. What we see, if chamber pressure would be 1000 psi (69 bar) such nozzle at see level (atmospheric pressure 14,7 psi or 1,013 bar) will deliver specific impulse of something like 245s. Great, that is what we need. By the way, this delivered specific impulse is also with additional reduces, major reason is losses in divergent zone, again only about few percent we are talking. You can see that on these 3 nozzles and 3 chamber pressures, delivered specific impulse at see level vary a lot, from 220 to 250s but neither of these 9 cases, except marked one, is full expansion, either over expanded either under expanded nozzle. All right, so nozzle should be with expansion ratio 8,8 that chamber pressure of 69 bar fully expand to 1 bar That is case of these ''red'' marks, and this Phoenix propellant like most of other similar propellants is with heat ratio of 1,2 or very close to 1,2. This is perfect, line of 8,8 nozzle expansion ratio and curve of pressure ratio 69 perfectly hit curve of optimum. Let's see Phoenix with its 18,5 nozzle expansion ratio. To hit curve of optimum chamber pressure should be 175 bar to have full expansion to atmospheric pressure. Chamber pressure is not even close to 175 bar but average pressure is something like 46 bar...take a look how much it drops in overexpanded zone at see level. Thrust coefficient is only 1,4 ... 1,4*4,6*55,372˄2*3,14/4=15500 N ... looks familiar isn't it ... actually now I remembered that it was 45 bar in my calculation but it doesn't matter or change things in principles. I've already showed how much this motor is different from other motors of tactical missiles, this is just other form of same. This ''blue'' area is where most of other motors fit and take a look how much Phoenix is far a away of that. For questions at disposal of course, what ever is in my power and level of knowledge I will try to explain. This has nothing with sources but just common theory of rocket propulsion, sorry guys but without this it will be hard to understand how Phoenix motor worked

Absolutely love what your group has done here. Great stuff all around. Maybe you could send a message over to Sedlo simulations for scripting tips. He's known for making free missions and campaigns and I have seen him referenced for assistance/tips&tricks by other mission/campaign makers, including the paid ones.

Apart from basically disagreeing with you about everything you just wrote I guess we should just remove everything based on information we can't show you guys? Edit: You don't need to answer. I think I'm quite done with this thread.

Any updates on this? It is a bug because the operation changed after an update which it appears ED was unaware of as it wasn’t documented. Why would you want to zoom out to every Viper on the map how would that be useful to anyone you already have the HSD. Speaking to actual viper pilots the pinky zoom feature is used for maintaining formations at tactical distances such as an offset container. It should zoom to show your flight not every viper in the theater. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Patch Tomorrow! Ooooh yes! So I hope that we will get fixes + a full set of sounds compared to what we got on October 30. Cant wait!

Великолепная идея!!! Современные самолеты, которые невозможно сделать full fidelity выпускать в рамках модуля "Горячих скал". И баланс будет восстановлен ( и играбельность), к тому же это не остановит поклонников от покупки полного модуля, если он со временем появится.

В рамках сегодняшнего подхода к реализации самолётов ГС, появление Су-27СМ или МиГ-29СМТ, даже с учётом определённых "допусков" в реализации, было бы вполне себе. В конце-концов, тот же Су-27С в игре тоже не совсем советский 27С в плане БРЭО...

An-26B Historical skinpack 1 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342246/ An-26B FAKE Nordic skinpack https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3341085/ Skins should be installed under ...../Saved Games/DCS/Liveries/An-26B/ path instead of ...../Eagle Dynamics/DCS/Bazar/.... An-12 AI mod skinpack 1 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342352/ Skins should be installed under ...../Saved Games/DCS/Liveries/An-12/ path instead of /DCS/Mods/aircraft/.... Link to An-12 AI mod topic --- An-26B skin 2k template (GIMP xcf) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342431/ An-12 skin 2k template (GIMP xcf) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342396/

Guys, I need you to read through. This is the first part of my change regarding the B-scope. Another one regardin the distances will follow. I divided the content, now spread over chapters 3 and 5: Chapter 3 now contains only a very rough description of the B-scope (changes on page 97), and chapter 5 now hosts a detailed description (new on page 266). This chapter is not easy to change, thus I am asking you for your opinions. null

according to some docs i found sponsored by the US navy, a free fall bomb should never reach this speed. "It is here referred to as “terminal velocity” and depends on mass and shape of the bomb. How closely a bomb can approach its (computed) terminal velocity depends on the altitude from which it is dropped. A bomb of about 550 pounds gross weight has a terminal velocity of 918 feet per second." 918fps = 543 knots https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1941/december/how-about-penetration-bombs

Bei 150 Kilo wäre ich nackt ohne Sitz und Controls, nur mit der Reverb auf'm Kopp schon am Limit... Sorry, aber der musste jetzt.

Dear Currenthill, thank you for your efforts! Thank you for the update!

The best and cleanest way ist to proceed a cleanup and a repair including additional files.

HB have given us the logs for this time so should be fine.

I can wait.

Hmmm, it seems it's not just the stores, I've seen on a few times that when I get shot down my wreck ends up smashing at the ground supersonic. It's been a while since I've sat through a physics class in the school, but that doesn't sound plausible. It's almost like the falling object doesn't have any drag whatsoever and just keeps accelerating at the steady pace. I'll spend an evening trying to reproduce this now that I've seen I'm not the only one to observe it

Hey Bunsan, you have multiple download links available via his website try the second one Thanks CH as always you dit great art

+1 on this, I fly with the pilot body off because I don't like switching on / off all the time. But it looks better and more realistic with the body in place.

I understand your point, but many people prefer to fly and shoot instead of spending time planning. This is a hardcore sim with an already steep learning curve, and spare time is limited in your adulthood. Leave the decision to ED, it is just a proposal. And you can always do the maths on your own if you prefer.

Well from the 2024 video we got this year, F4E, Kiowa, Chinook, Afghan, Koloa, tree and rotor wash & jet wash effects. So for the 2025 Beyond video it will be more of the following, Iraq, C130, F6 Hellcat, Corsair, LA7, Ai A6 Intruder, A7, WW2 Carriers, WW2 Marianas and the new Abrahams model in many shots, they will then add in some stuff that is further developed through 2024 from 3rd part devs and also maybe the Mig29A and of course the surprise which I think will be a Fulda Gap type terrain. We will also get lost of pseudo Vietnam and WW2 type looking cut scenes showing off stuff that is in the pipeline but many years away.

Are you starting in a shelter? If you don't have visibility to the sky for the GPS it will show IFA RDR until shortly after you leave shelter and it can get GPS signal.

Hi Mike, we're about a year later, Being shot in the rear and having to bail via RIO (who should be just as dead as the pilot) every time, is getting kinda stale

New flying movies of A-1 Skyraider, F-100 Super Sabre, MiG-17, Tornado and Kfir ?

Are we hoping this is in tomorrow's patch or has other stuff come up to prevent that? Really excited for these two!

Look harder...

You guys are welcome to use it on your servers and add your stuff to it for sure. Feel free to drop videos on this forum while you guys play it. Love to see the feedback and good times you are having with it. A lot of comments have been asking about someone posting it on a server, so I think it would be good for the community. Just show us some love when you host and so they know who is putting it all together if you don't mind. That is why we created this separate forum. We wanted people to get involved and bring ideas to the table.

The 8400 was a very solid CPU. I enjoyed it for quite some time. If you wait then the prices for the X3D parts will probably come down a lot over time. And Zen 6 may be another big step if the speculation is true and they are working towards putting the IO die under the compute die, which should reduce latency a lot, which is very important for gaming.

So…I (we) just had a quick chat with 2 RL pilots. One of them Super Hornet, the other Legacy and Super Hornet. Now both of them haven‘t touched DCS in a while, but from what they know, the FM of the Hornet might not be perfect, but it’s fine. Interestingly, they also mentioned that certain types of „missions“ or parts thereof are not even practiced in the real life military simulator because it lacks too much of that „pants in seat“ feeling (feedback) that one would have in the real jet and that you need for that kind of nuanced flight. AAR is one of those things.

Just to add, love mine. Ref the licensing issue. Yes, clearly it appears to be an issue. Is it our problem? IMO, not really. Above all, it’s an issue between the initial developer and Moza. So just as I stay out of the Razbam/ED discussion, I see little value in debating it. Ref Moza as a company. Yes, they are Chinese, but they do have what appears to be a track record with the Sim racing gear, which gave me more confidence. As for their ethics, that’s a bit of a mess, but where do you stop on that? Tesla are now associated with a Trump, Ford operated car manufacturing in Nazi Germany etc.

The reason 2x makes aircraft look “correct” is that any sort of approximation of a wide field of view results in “zooming out” essentially making what you are looking at farther away. ED has been captured by a subset of players and, possibly, employees who are not interested in making appropriate allowances for the limits of simulation. They actually believe they can create and inhabit a perfect replica of reality and cannot imagine any deviation from that ideal. It is frustrating. You say that someday there will be an alternative. Personally, I doubt that very much. I think air combat simulation is dying just as technology is making it exciting. My recommendation is to enjoy what you can, while you can. This is probably much nearer to the end than anyone realizes. And attempting any sort of discussion with SharpeXB is time wasted you will never get back.

Would be great if the arms move out of the way when you look at the side panels, just like a real pilot would do.