Leaderboard

Even no one line for WW2 in 2024 summary. I suppose it says “everything“

New teaser --- I cannot say WHEN .

Heya Gents, Quick update from me. My HSD is fully functional using an Arduino Leonardo. The ACM Panel housing and acrylic came up really well with my custom Korry Switches from 737DIY Sim. (They are excellent parts). I'm just tinkering with the VDI before I release the lot. I'm not happy with the left and right indicator housing and wire routing holes on my current design. Cheers, Mumbles

Yup. 2024 was a pretty bad year for ED (from a PR perspective especially), so let’s hope 2025 can turn that around.

I would like to see RAZBAM and Eagle Dynamics get along again. That would be the best thing for 2025.

That family and modernized variant Hawker 800 . Earlier HS (BAe) 125 -400 will be tried after ....

When I say "promise" I'm not talking about a legally binding, enforceable contract. I'm talking about a loose understanding made in mutual trust and respect. For example, when ED state on their home page that, with regards to how long EA would last they tell me I fully accept 'as short as possible' to have a loose meaning and I contend that it includes goodwill on both sides. They already have mine: I purchased. It's like a friend telling me "if you ever need help, call me at any time, and I'll be there for you". It's a non-binding understanding of mutual trust and respect: I won't call for silly things, and my friend reliably has my back in times of need. Now, some friends are good to their word, others... After more than 5 years of waiting for some EA modules that I purchased to improve, with ED it feels like I've called them, and they weren't there for me. It's not the end of the world, but disappointing. I lose trust in them, perhaps some respect too. We are still friendly. And I wish that we could return to the time when I felt that their word had some worth. I'm hoping that the implied (and unenforceable) promise of "as short as possible" may become something meaningful. To me, ED's "as short has possible" now is an empty phrase, just marketing speak - devoid of meaning. I'm hopeful that ED can fill this void and I'm hopeful that they start now, in 2025.

Hi, DLSS 4 is something we will look at once we have vulkan implemented in public release version. thank you

Adding another static template for some of FOB's in use around 2012 in the Harat and Farah Provinces. Many of these are were closed after 2012, Included in this template are: - FOB Shewan - FOB Khak-E-Safed - FOB Pusht-Rod (JCOP) - FOB Leimbach/Tobruk - FOB Shouz These FOB's were instrumental in gaining control of Route 517 the main Insurgent east - west supply line. Unfortunately I was unable to add Camp Stone, FOB Bakwah and FOB Delaram due to the auto generated commercial textures over their locations. FOB Shewan requires an mission trigger to remove some scenery near the main VCP (or you can remove all of it), it looks reasonaly effective leaving some of the random Commercial textures. To Install, add the STM file to your Saved games/DCS/StaticTemplate folder and you will find it available in the Mission Editor under EDIT>Load Static Template Enjoy! Herat and Farah FOB's 2012.stm Some random screenshot of these FOB's

Was one of the top years for me so many new toys.

Ol' Spudknockers's last survey (3600 responses) had the NTTR map as the third most owned. I'd be delighted to see it get a paint job. And I'd be delighted to pay for it. I think it will be the secret reveal... NTTR 2.0

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 really hope that's true: Normandy is the best looking map in DCS down low. There's something about the vegetation and colours that just *clicks* for me.

For those who want the standalone version (added TugRam) OvGME Ready without unzip https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hfzg60ncutwat87i3wl1j/Massun92-Outpost-Mod_V2.1.zip?rlkey=x9znr6nv95j6nsu7jat2pxigf&dl=0

So.. Saturday Morning and I'm actually kinda back up and running! Thank You everyone for the help. Turns out Alex Maximov responded to my ticket and told me to reload Microsoft Visual C++ and for some reason, that did the trick! However.. not with a few other issues. Still could not get the F Drive to update. Would fail every time I tried. So, clean loaded the game into the new G Drive and works. But- had to download EVERY module again. Took a while. Weird thing was that some of them were being transferred from the E Drive? Either way, everything is now there (But get a message that my authentication for Supercarrier is not valid?!) and when I went to missions, my old missions I built and downloaded were there too! SCORE Not sure how or why, but I'm kinda back up. Now the next fun thing- Bought a Reality Motion Sim P3 and will have to get that all up and running. Used the Quest 2 last year for VR but will be planning on going with a new VR headset sometime this year. Seriously, you guys are the best and as an old guy who is sometimes technology0 challenged, great to come here and get answers. Owe you ALL a Bier~ Always Motch (NYC/NJ area.. and fly for one of the big guys~) Hope to meet ya all one day

Massun92-Humans Massun92-Assets old.zip

Speed is life -> Starfighter is fast as **** -> Starfighter is life I don't know where the idea comes from that the F104G struggled to carry its payload as a fighter-bomber. It was designed to carry a 2000lb B28, and only carried ~2000lb of iron on a typical conventional mission. Unimpressive for its empty mass, but also not a problem to fly. That's single-digit percent increase in takeoff weight compared to a clean intercept mission with the same fuel. Long-term operational issues in specific peacetime context are important but not directly related to combat capability.

Agree, DCS really needs a better handling of the Static Templates, it should never corrupt a mission no matter what.

DCS' my drug. Just sayin'. [emoji4] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

The 104G is basicly 105D avionics (with an INS instead of a doppler*) shoehorned into a smaller airframe. The 105 scored a 1:1 kill ratio against MiG-17s. Now imagine what a jet with roundabout the same Ps at 5g as the 105D at 0g (SL) could possibly have achieved. *INS was only available starting with the "Thunderstick II" modification in the late 60s.

This is survivor bias at its best. The Tornado contingents were tasked with some of the most dangerous missions of the war into the thickest air defenses. The A-10 was not. And yet only one of the airframes was forced to fly into zones with effectively no air defenses, despite "making it back to base with epic amounts of battle damage". Bro is really ignoring the fact that the TAC had 70 F-104Cs vs hundreds of F-100s and F-105s. And also, funnily enough, that the F-100 barely flew North because its performance and avionics weren't up to the deep strike mission (guess what the F-104G has in spades compared to the Super Sabre...). edit: literally nobody flew the F-104 this way, that mission was mostly taken up by the G-91/F-84F/F-5/Hunter depending on the operator. The main tasking of a2g F-104s was to make small suns in Eastern Europe, not to plink tanks like it's a War Thunder match. Its secondary a2g missions were recce/interdiction/deep conventional strike/anti shipping. CAS (which people think is the only a2g mission for whatever reason) was much farther down the priority list. And on a related note, all the above (and interception) are missions that the F-5 is thoroughly mediocre at.

Why would the 104 be able to deliver inaccurately only? The jet had the same limitations as the others mentioned. Manual bombing was the norm back then. The reason why the F-100 conducted more missions was that there were a good deal more of them around, which is mostly down to political reasons in the USAF internal power struggle between SAC and the other commands, which SAC won. By 1965 (first 104 deployment to SEA), only one active fighter wing of 104Cs was around. What exactly did the Luftwaffe learn? During NATO meets, F-104 squadrons would often come out on top in both recce and bombing. Not just Luftwaffe, but also RCAF and other NATO air forces' 104s.

Just a line saying “several fixes on WW2” would be enough. When people (customers) complain about ww2 being abandoned, and @BIGNEWY or @NineLine replay “they don’t” or “just a little team”, I will be the first remembering them that officially ED agreed in their 2024 summary they don’t do nothing for ww2 in 2024. ED shot themself in the foot (again)

Yes: both companies already lost credibility and goodwill, which will only get worse if they don’t reach a satisfactory agreement. Also, think of ED’s launches in 2024 and how they were received. Afghanistan wasn’t a smooth launch; the Chinook wasn’t a good launch, the F-5 remaster was close to disastrous, …

Я пилот-инструктор вертолета Ми-8, а вы с фоксером кто? Работаю от северного полярного круга до юга. Был командиром Ми-24 в свое время.

At the risk of sounding like a panting Labrador, aha aha aha a-has to be sometime this year surely…

I’ve taken an Orion 2 throttle apart as part of the diagnostic process on a defective unit that WW eventually replaced. To get to the friction surfaces under the split collar on the throttle axes, the unit has to be completely disassembled. I’m pretty sure it’s every last last nut, bolt and screw is undone. I should add, I explored the axle assembly after the throttle base was replaced by winwing, but I did not reassemble the defective unit. But I’m sure it’s possible to take it apart, grease it, and reassemble. It’s just not a job that should be done in any sort of hurry. Lots and lots of tiny screws, uncaptured nuts, and lots of fiddling with connectors, so it’s best to be organized about it if you do decide to grease it. If it was me, I’d just tighten to the point it doesn’t fall forward and leave it be.

Yep, Kola and the Phantom. That's some top shelf flightsim goodness right there.

January 10, 2025: Small update coming Happy New Year everyone! After one heck of a Jungle battle last night with the team, I finally got around to updating this mission with a couple of tweaks. 1) Per @352nd_Oscar suggestion, I dropped in some USMC client A4s out at Andersen 2) I went in and updated the fog settings so the fog dissipates as the sun comes up. The mission now starts at 0615LT at dawn. The fog will gradually reduce over the first couple of hours of gameplay. By 0900LT, the fog will be completely gone. Below is a quick 20 second video showing this using time compression to show the entire duration to dissipate. I'll update this thread when I get the file uploaded. File uploaded to ED Files (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/userfiles/84b/l8zh91o50hfkkwl2cadgf4fljkc622vn/Into_the_Jungle_v2_002.miz)

The DRG-86 Train has not show animations, on traffic trains and on editor maked trains (DCS World MT) Add mission and track. Tested on Normandy map. WW2_DR-90_tank_problem.trk 2_9_9_WW2_train_test_2025.miz

The Yak-52 has gone 7 years without becoming final, and with no damage model to speak of... And what is the intended timeline for finalizing the Viggen? It's also 7 years since I purchased it in EA.

NTTR 2.0 would be fantastic, if it would include detailed Southern California (NAS /MCAS Miramar!!!!!) and more detailed northern Nevada (NAS Fallon). Throw Edwards AFB and Fort Irwin (NTC) in for good measure, and it would be a great map for mission/ campaign creators. Might even be an incentive for module makers to create the X planes from the 40's and 50's, and we could have a historic test pilot campaign. And for the Apache and/or Combined Arms (once that has been reworked), an NTC campaign. As an extra special bonus, add Yuma Training Range, and we can finally have an on-location cold-war-era TOPGUN campaign (paging Mr. @Reflected ) (Would "Zone 5 II" be called "Zone 10"? Zone 5: Part Deux? Zone 5 Two: Electric Boogaloo?)

First flight of the new year gents! @tobi @Eight Ball If you guys need a fey boys to test the new/upcoming Little Bird in VR, we are intimately involved with the Cayuse every week. Would love to be a test bed if you need one for the Iraq or Afghanistan map. We also use the UH-60 mod so we could get some good shots of both in flight together.

Daily MiG-29 Swifts 9.51

Thanks for the model. I would like an animated ramp and a door.

Let's just say that should I ever sit in a real fighter plane, something really, really wrong has happened already. That being said, although I own all maps, I detect a distinct pattern: most played maps for me are Caucasus (performance), Syria and Sinaï (simply great maps, but performance is killing my rig until that dang 5090 finds its way into my home). And, strangely, I really like South America - something with the light, I suppose. Kola leaves me cold. "Halfghanistan" and "Iraq" are simply more "dust map" to me, with nothing (no personal attachment) to keep me. NTTR bores me to tears, and after I landed my Hind at the alien inn, I got nothing good to do there. Paris and London kill my VR performance, but Normy 2 will come to my "twilight zone helicopter missions" once my new rig is ready. And I hate the primitive SOH "Persia" map ever since I laid eyes on Syria, that "new lighting model" be damned. I'm old, I fly daylight.

Maybe in 40 years when all the tech it uses is no longer classified.

That's okay. I use it enough for the both of us. The little people in the little planes are simulated. You can make them go "Boom!" and have a mostly clear conscience.

I didn't. What I said was that the F-104 was the "cruise missile" of the 60s/70s and that suicide drones have created an entire new logics. What Luftwaffe learned was that Luftwaffe needed to re-structure everything starting with basic training. Operating the F-104 as if it was some kind of IL-2 or later incarnation, is obviously stupid on several levels. That's what Luftwaffe learned (the hard way) amongst other things. The F-104 was very good at the things it was good at, but it was no multirole fighter, like the F-5 or F-4 or later the F-16 which pretty much has re-defined the term to another level. We have to look at the F-104 for what it was, not for what it never was. What it was good at was interception and fast pin-point strike missions, especially at sea. Both are very difficult operations and are today done exclusively by missiles, launched from air, sea or ground. It never helped that the F-104 was a handful to fly either. Again, it really is back to economics. What an air force needs is a fleet of multirole fighters that do everything well. The few things that the F-104 did well, can be done better with any 4th gen fighter due to cruise missiles and BVR, not because they are better aircraft for those particular roles. Even though the F-104 in principle could be modernized with modern radar, modern avionics, modern weapon systems etc, this would make zero sense because you would still need another sort of very complex and expensive aircraft for all the other roles. There's no economic incentive to have an F-104 (or similar aircraft for that matter). At the end of the 70s, the F-104 was already a dead end, economically speaking. It's an interesting matter IMO. Looking at the F-104 and F-5. Norway got both in the early 60s. The F-5 was the multirole fighter that it is. Very economical and does the job well, especially CAS. The bang for the buck is almost impossible to surpass. They doubled the number of F-104 in the early 70s. 2 squadrons, one for interception, one for strike attack at sea primarily. Both are tasks for which the F-5 is ill suited (I mean they simply won't work in that role). When the F-16 came in the early 80s, all F-104s were retired immediately. Now, one would naturally believe that this would also lead to retirement of the F-5s, since the number of F-16s almost doubled the number of F-104s, and the F-16 is a much better fighter-bomber than the F-5. This did not happen. The humble F-5s were kept another 25 years, but of course gradually decreasing in numbers due to age/fatigue and cut backs. They were even modernized, at least 2 times. There's only one reason for that, and that is economics. In the CAS role, bang for the buck is king. Today Norway got F-35 exclusively. Economically it must be the most expensive thing ever for the CAS role, but perhaps survivability makes up for it? Who knows. IMO it's a bit odd that no modern "F-5" exists; simple, cheap and does the job well.

TBH, I think that they are compatible, just not very intuitive. I can visit Rome and the Colosseum today and be reminded of its history and the many tragedies and fights that happened in the past there, and the historical importance it played. Now, if you wanted to accurately re-enact some historical event concerning the Colosseum of antiquity, I agree that modern-day Rome wouldn't be as well suited as, say, a replica of Rome from AD 50. And I believe that is wat you mean - that it would have been preferable to have the SinaÏ map based on the 1970-1980 era if we wanted to re-enact the many important conflicts of that time. I agree. IMHO, what ORT said was not contradictory; it merely is marketing to sugarcoat a drawback. Most maps in DCS are similar in that regard - usually because it's a) very difficult to accurately depict maps from an era where no or too little accurate data exists, and b) if the map was too era-specific that would lock out other uses (accurate helicopter missions in Normy 2? Unfortunately no). If there is going to be a Fulda-Gap (late 50s- early 80s) map, or a Vietnam Map (mid-50 to mid 70), the map creators face the same conundrum, especially since some of DCS most popular modules (Viper, Bug, Flanker) are 80s and younger (with cold warriors finally (!) becoming more popular, and younger aircraft like Typhoon emerging). So they compromise on an in-between map and use more easily accessible (low-cost) grid and model data. Since I'm primarily interested in fun over historical accuracy, I don't mind too much, yet I do see the missed opportunities.

I finally fixed it. Thanks guys---From a computer illiterate.

It has been a while, I'm hoping there's some more eye candy.

I meant the CPU in the Quest. It clearly takes a lot of resources to decode AV1, since there is a lot of latency, and even then the bit rate is limited to a level far lower than when using H. 264. So it's pretty pointless to use it, if you use a good cable. I just use H.264 at 500 Mbs. You're not making much sense here, since DP doesn't supply power. The Crystal Light has a powered USB cable, so that's effectively the same as using a powered USB cable with the Quest. And there are dedicated PCVR headsets with a USB C port like the Bigscreen Beyond. And the reason why the Quest doesn't have Displayport over USB is not because they have to 'learn a thing or two,' but because they made a conscious decision to cut costs. They are selling a headset that is primarily used for standalone, but it is still good value for PCVR. Yeah, I haven't really had any issues.

If we had some more options and civilian aircrafts it would be a great map Lol, wish, my country's map (that will 100% come someday) was as "boring" as Australia as @Gunfreak just said, if those 50 assets are correct it will make it great. If they are propper ground units for Vietnam war era, for example, the upcoming map's (we're gonna get Vietnam someday) gonna feel different, but if it's just 10 variants of M1 and 40 variants of T-72, there will be no difference. Yeah and most campaigns on NTTR map are all about Red Flag, training etc. Of course, maybe @Oesau would like to drop few MK-82s on his nieghbor's house, who owns him money, but most of us are not interested in that map

Я и не собираюсь ничего понимать. Я человек простой - вижу вытягивание денег и прочий лохотрон, шлю лесом. Все взрослые люди, все прекрасно понимают, в чем на самом деле цель помойных механик в MMO играх... сверхмаржа сама себя не заработает. Это я тихонько молчу про инженерный шедевр во всех этих ваших MMO - хитрый и малозаметный алгоритм "повредил\не повредил" искуссно удерживающий игроков на 50% побед. Я человек простой, люблю игры но ненавижу когда под видом игры преподносят казинок, который, как все знают, нельзя обыграть.