Leaderboard

Я могу сказать что песочница или "цифровой музей" значительно более долгоиграющи нежели сценарные игры (впрочем и такие у нас есть). Была такая замечательная, без подколок, игра Half Life. Игра с большой буквы. Ну вот прошел я ее за несколько дней и все. На полку. Вот весь цикл жизни сценарной стори-лайн игры. Кампании в DCS именно такие игры, где авторы продумывают фабулу сюжета, ставят сцены, наполнение, расставляют интриги и прочие драматические фишки. Это и есть игра. А сам DCS это набор инструментов с помощью которого умельцы делают игры для себя и публики. Хотите сценарную игру - вот вам кампания. Хотите рубилова с друзьями - вот вам миссия для рубилова в МП. Хотите отдельных быстрых приключений - вот отдельные миссии от ED и кучи мишнмейкеров со всего мира. Сейчас мы делаем динамическую кампанию. Это будет еще один инструмент, дающий пользователям новое измерение.

Я вот за 18 лет активного использования симулятора в онлайн заходил раз 10 от силы. И основная причина, думаю, кроется в том, что ,действительно, игроку-одиночке очень сложно понять после того как вошел на сервер и прогрузился на аэродроме что вообще теперь делать...возможно если поизучать углубленно этот вопрос на форуме в соответствующих ветках, то что-то прояснится...но просто зайти и поиграть не получится. В этом плане для новичков DCS в онлайне это что-то очень недружелюбное. Порог вхождения в симулятор весьма велик, и в этом его прелесть, как мне кажется, но порог вхождения в онлайн это просто нечто труднопостежимое... разобраться одному в этом очень сложно, как по мне. Поэтому я лично очень жду динамическую компанию, пусть даже сырую на первых этапах. Пока же все эти годы очень сильно выручает замечательный редактор и хорошая фантазия.

No. We know the exact mass of the fuel, the specific impulse and the masses of other missile elements. Yes, I am inclined to think that the range of the proximity fuse should be increased.

I still belive in Nevada 2.0

A Korea paper where the PK and its effect on different ranges is investigated. Original: Development of a Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Program for the Lethality Evaluation (5)-1.pdf English translation: Technical Paper-2.pdf okopanja has uploaded several reports in the Mig29 forum where pilots have survived an Aim120 hit and were able to land with some minor damage, possibly a hint that it is not always 9m but a little more PF range so that the damage is less. DCS it is always 99% dead and complete destruction of the aircraft Mig 29 Forum 159 (11-7) in the p-825 manual (public) NAVAL AIR TRAINING.pdf (all other missiles have the same PF and kill radius as in DCS only exception Aim120) I don't know what flying object the kill radius stands for, jet maybe drone in any case, the system seems to recognize something at 15m and also kill it? I don't know but if the kill radius of 15m is there wouldn't it be a plausible assumption to set it to 15 fuse? why keep PF artificially smaller than the kill radius for whatever? @Default774 has also tested 15m PF and it would drastically limit the bug or explioit discussed here, the roll would still be an effective maneuver, the difference would be that an Aim-120 with enormous energy would no longer be so easy to defending, as I said currently it is very easy to replicate with 2-3m. There is an irl shot where the Aim-120 explodes on a very small object if you go through the video pixel by pixel you get to ~9m. It is a drone the RCS or the reflections were sufficient from this small object that the missile exploded at 9m, a jet like a F16 or Su27 are much larger and therefore much easier to detect by the TTD in old SA-2 documents(I can send you if you want) this aspect is discussed where the reflections have an influence on the PF fuse. also that generally Searchhead and TTD work together for a good PF solution. Why not Zero or negative closure == detonate? and why should a modern Aim120 have worse TTD than a 27R ER or other old missile with more PF range?

Перефразируя одно выражение о этапах формирования летчика, я бы предложил так : Идеальный симулятор доложен отвечать на 3 вопроса: 1. Как летать ? (вызывает интерес) 2. Куда летать? (развивает интерес ) 3. Зачем летать? (закрепляет интерес) На первые два вопроса DCS - отвечает достаточно утвердительно (особенно #1). Однако есть проблема с вопросом #3 Поэтому да! DCS - сегодня, больше напоминает тот самый цифровой музей. (или тренажер) И с одной стороны это тоже неплохой формат, но с другой - это всегда временное развлечение ограниченное экскурсией Для постоянного интереса Пользователям нужно нечто большее. Вот к примеру BMS - несмотря на свой внушительный возраст, и технологическую ограниченность, он то сих пор сохраняет и даже привлекает новы игроков. И все это благодаря наличию элементов дин.кампании , соответствующих механизмов. Потенциал у DCS шикарный, но надо только его расшевелить, а для этого ответить на третий вопрос.

Hi Guys, the Allure of the Seas FPS issue has been resolved. I will release an update tomorrow. Monday, Jan 13th. I also centered it so the bow wake has been corrected as well. On that note I have some Civil vessels I'm working on in the background. One of them is shown below. Small Trawler.

As a sailor I'm going to start complaining about the sailboats that fly their spinnakers (a downwind type of sail) and do not heel over no matter the wind direction or strength! Totally immersion breaking for me. Or maybe I'll just focus on the amazing flight dynamics modeling. Thanks ED! BTW, I agree that things we paid for should get fixed when they break. The MiG-19 campaign for example. But I think there are probably higher priorities for this than sailboats and trains.

Hello, Here is a video of the final 5 switch row. I will post the files soon A+ Commutateur X5.mp4

And I hope that in Q1 we will see at least this for F-16 :

In that mode the tape is not a compass, it's the distance to your locked target.

Generally, I don't see why a MiG-21 package couldn't be priced at $79 from the get-go. Some of those members who joined DCS in the past couple of years, are a strange breed - there is little thought of what they are actually paying for. Those of us who have been here from the beginning, have gotten over 15 years out of modules like Ka-50/A-10C, and we still continue to invest time into them. Therefore, acting a cheapskate and claiming $10 and $15, becomes outright silly. This is further exacerbated in the fact that we finally have a chance to start fresh here with the MiG-21. There is little point in pulling a dying cat. Times were different when our current MiG-21Bis was released. Particularly, few acted on accountability due to lacking in-depth systems modeling (sight, ++++). It was as it was something fresh and new, thus much was forgiven. Something that might be difficult for new members to understand is that DCS only started to dish out new modules every year (or two) in recent times. BS1 was out for years, before A-10C came out (not even in the same environment, it was either or). Patience and proper planning ahead, is key here. Getting to the point; considering the state that the MiG-21Bis is in, and the fact that solutions were made by customizing the production process, it only seems logical to me to start fresh from scratch. You already have one variant which is wanted - MiG-21Bis. M3 has info on it (granted, more might be needed for some systems to be properly simulated). Still, much of the hard part is finished (getting reliable information). MiG-21Bis is a dedicated A-A variant, with secondary A-G capability. As such, the second variant would logically be a A-G focused one. Multiple factors considered, a PFM would be a solid second choice. Here's the reasoning: a) It would finally introduce a Russian fixed wing with guided weaponry (Kh-66 GROM). It would also allow to use the weapons listed on MiG-21Bis, which Bis cannot use (due to the radar sending out two beams, instead of one - has to do with targetting). b) It would fit very well time-wise with current AJS-37 and F-4E, +++. In particular, we should consider the fact that it's better, in this case, to have a more advnaced variant, as it can be adjusted for backward (in time) compatibility by limiting its ordnance. Particularly in early-to-mid Cold War, the major improvements were in weapon capability. While MiG-21s generally behave relatively similarily, you can, by adjusting available weaponry/cooling fluid for radar, simulate a MiG-21 A-A variant which has no radar and only access to R-60s... This is just an example, but it fits well with the AJS-37 and F-4E as well. With a bit of creativity, and smart thinking, you can easily replicate 3rd gen MiG-21s with the Bis. You can even simulate 2nd gen., if you go back all the way with weaponry (R-55). c) We would gain a different layout MiG-21, which would have an earlier fuselage revision (smaller spine), thus allowing any future ventures to expand from two different types of MiG-21 that we have. While I mention that two distinct MiG-21s could be made for $79, honestly, with a PFM, you are already well above a PF. With certain adjustments, that could be brought in. Equally, with a MiG-21Bis, you have most of a MiG-21M. All of a sudden, we could be talking about four variants of the MiG-21, alas that of what Aerges is doing with the F1... Again, imagination sets the limits, but with a little common sense, it would allow the studio to earn money, and appeal to those of us on the RU-side. BTW. From a MiG-21PF, you are much closer to a MiG-21F-13, than from a MiG-21Bis again. d) With some clever technologies in house, and modern techniques, the MiG-21 should sell like hotcakes, as it is a historically accurate competitor to some of the most popular modules here. M3 - Think over it. It could be a good business, granted - this time, it has to be done right.

Nobody is going to discredit them. We're just talking about one of DCS large problems - some modules just exist on their own, with no proppers assets around them. At this moment, I'm talking about about Mig-15, Sabre and I-16. I own both Mig and Sabre, but last time I flew them was, like seven or eight years ago. Those are good modules, but there will never be any immersive to fly above Caucasus or Persian Gulf an imagine it's Korea, shooting B-17s and imagine it's B-29s. At leas they can fight each other, I-16 is all alone though. Same problem we have with NTTR, there are few Red Flag campaigns and that's all. There is nothing else you can do on that map.

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.

You can do the same thing with the NTTR map that you can with all the maps; fly on it. It's up to each person to make his flights enjoyable. As stated, I use the NTTR to try out new modules and figure out weapons and systems. That round patch of salt flats just touching the north end of the runway at Groom Lake has seen megatons of destruction in my DCS world. It's my test bed. Now I know this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but that's why we have multiple planes and maps, something for everyone. I think the NTTR map is far more popular than thought and when NTTR 2.0 is announced on Thursday, there will be lots of happy people. Including me.

What we need is content for the already existing maps, IMO.

Happy Sunday everyone. Sorry, i haven't been monitoring the Forum. I've been working on the Horizon Class. I have been cleared for back surgery. Just waiting for it to be scheduled. --Until then I will try to catch up on some old mod fixes. Western JPN, thanks for the error update. I will add it to my work list. I wasn't aware of that issue. Hey Buur, that is a collision model issue. I will alter it so you don’t have to deal with that lag. Thanks for letting me know. Thanks, Roobarbjapan, Thanks, it’s never too late. Wishing you a wonderful New Year as well. Great photos Beldin you will have a couple more Warships to add to the Italian and French Fleet soon. Hey Triton08, I will be working on all the Amphib ships after I finish the Horizon Class Destroyers which includes the USS America. Also, I have 2-3 more big decks to create so I’m hoping by summer you will have plenty of ships to spawn on. Hey McFly29 please share the fix if you have it. I can upload an update as well on my site. Honestly, this is the first I’ve heard of it. – Thanks McFly29, yes I rest when I can. Sometimes I’m forced to rest because of my P81n but I’m careful not to push myself too much. Horizon class update. The Andrea Doria is 80% complete. I need to completely redo the textures but that’s easy. All the weapons work as they should at the moment although they still need to be tweaked. Once I finish the ITS Andrea Doria D553. I will import/merge all her weapons onto the Forbin Class. Below is a snapshot. Lots more work to do. I was going to hold off on showing her until I finish but at least you can see she is operational somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Stay tuned everyone and thanks for your interest in my DCS AI Ship mods.

Work in progress ! HUGE!!!! what is the space between each button please ? from center to center ?

No. The reason why the 104 wasn't bought in great numbers was stated above: USAF internal political games, where SAC came out on top and everything else kind of had to fall in line. That's mostly a nuclear primary role and no light dual role aircraft for the air superirity mission with the secondary ground attack mission - literally what the 104 was designed to do, which was in essence take a Sabre, install a large-a$$ motor, take most of the wings off and go vertical. Contrary to popular belief, the Super Sabre wasn't all that super and quickly was handed down to TAC as a fighter-bomber with the C and D versions. On top, most Super Sabres were on the way out, when the war got interesting in terms of electronical warfare or they had their stage shifted into the South. Late in the game, besides Misty, it was mostly an ANG show of Hun deployment into SEA. The Hun was a cool jet for 1957, but it was out of place a decade later. It was there, in numbers, however. Most ANG squadrons in the F-104 community flew the A model, which had been a stopgap for the F-102A fiasco during the late 50s. When the taylor-made-for-ADC Dagger and later the Dart (which also underperformed at first) came about in greater numbers, the 104A was handed down to ANG and out of there quickly. It also had no AG capability other than the gun (if installed). The lack of 104s in country was mostly for reasons other than the aircraft's capability, which included a fast reaction time to station for CAS work. And it mostly failed, just like all the other jets and whizz-bang gadgetry did. Because they were there. If there's only one fighter wing of 104Cs about, they'll get rotated in and out of country quickly, while the Hun community had more wings and squadrons to rotate into action. Including ANG squadrons. If there's only one wing operating the jet in country, you'll run into logistics (parts) issues quickly. Also, you'd want to rotate personnel in and out of country on regular basis, which is kinda hard when there's a small pool to draw from in the first place. Here's what Tom Delashaw had to say about it - he kinda had to know as he had been there: https://www.i-f-s.nl/vietnam/ Most european based NATO Air Forces disagree with your assessment. WARPAC countries (namely the EGAF) found themselves very challenged at intercepting aircraft in the 104G's projected role - low, fast and deep in any weather.

Ну во первых , мне не особо важно как Вы летаете. Садится взлетать умеете - и в целом достаточно. Оценивать никого не буду, не тот возраст. Во вторых : Я был в онлайнах. (правда не в коопах, но какая разница) и все проблемы и нюансы прекрасно знаю. Вопрос же был задан на основе следующего видео (длительностью 3 с лишним !!!! часа ) которое я зачем то честно посмотрел (фоном естественно) Итак: Сперва все было штатно. Приветствия, подготовка к взлету, взлет. Однако на 22 минуте автору позвонили и он вынужден был бросить самолет (и кстати, а если нет автопилота ? и надо срочно) далее самолет 5 минут просто летит пока летится и на 27 минуте врезается в гору. Следующие 20 минут просто смотрим как горит огонь.Потом автор возвращается. Просит своих напарников начать заново. Один говорит что пойдет спать. Другие перезапускаются прямо в воздухе. Еще 50 !!! минут все по новому стартуют, настраиваются. (справедливости ради еще BMS тупит то у одного то у другого, вынуждая перезагружаться по новой. ) К этому моменту уже примерно 1,5 часа прошло. Ну в общем , потом все куда то просто летят, и BMS вылетает. Итого: 3 часа просто в трубу [где то могут быть неточности, но факт остается фактом ] И вот это и есть основная причина.

I agree completely. I still think a zero/negative closure == detonate solution is the right way forward, although simply increasing the proximity fuze range would work as well. The anti-missile maneuvers mentioned by Chizh would absolutely still work, in the sense that they would increase the miss distance of the missile, perhaps, the missile may detonate at 20m instead of not detonating at all. This would add some much needed dynamics into the equation where not all missile hits are always 100% guaranteed death as they are right now, which would also help in lining up with real scenarios of AIM-120 hits where full destruction of the aircraft is not always guaranteed. Realistic anti-missile maneuvers would still be effective, just not a binary instant death or zero damage

The map of Australia has been controversial from the start. I hope that the palm tree on the poster does not mean Australia . I bet on Vietnam (most obviously I hope so and fingers crossed!) but as someone here has noticed it could also be a map of WWII Marianas only, so you have to take that into account. At least for me the map of Australia would make big sense but... as World War II version (with big part of the sea and a fragment or the whole island with Papua New Guinea).

У комьюнити есть час жизни. И не каждый день. И выбор: полетать в на все деньги , или поиграться с бесплатным редактором. (?) Сингл миссии, на один раз. И хочется этот один раз не потратить за зря. Поэтому перед полетом надо изучить мануал., освоить самолёт, потренироваться. Потратить дни и даже месяцы времени. Что бы потом за час слетать, ни чего не понять. Чтобы сингл миссия была интересной для оффлайна - она должна быть нелинейной, с различными вариантами и способами прохождения (примеры кстати есть, но это тяжелый кропотливый труд). Психология оффлайна такова что нужна хронология событий, наследственность из вылета в вылет. "День сурка" не интересен. Мультиплеер это другие условия и совершенно другая психология.

Я купил Half Life сразу как она вышла. В то время не было никаких аддонов. Поэтому, прошел и на полку. CS это другая игра. Суть в том что в конструкторе типа DCS каждый имеющий желание может сделать для себя или для комьюнити игру любой сложности, в зависимости от своих навыков и энтузиазма. В файлообменнике DCS сейчас более 3000 сингловых миссий, более тысячи мультиплеерных и полтысячи кампаний. А еще есть 85 платных кампаний, это на не один месяц прохождения.

Я в РОФ уже 3 год карьеру прохожу. И в данный момент только на середине войны. И это только один самолет. (ну ладно - два... с половиной) А их там несколько десятков помноженных на эскадрильи. Тут при желании лет на 30 хватит. Куда уж еще долгоиграюще ? При этом сама по себе Карьера довольно однообразна и с сильно ограниченным набором заданий. То есть не то чтобы " Боги горшки обжигают...." или другими словами Запросы то не велики . Вечерком, после работы, на часик, полтора - годится По поводу DCS Музей то может и хорошо. Но долго ли будут покупать билеты ? з/ы: Пример с Half Life не совсем удачный. Это другой жанр. Это сюжетная история. С завязкой и неизбежной развязкой. Более сложный с т.з. сценария , но и более короткий. В случае с авиасимулятором - художественности и триллера никто не требует. Тут все намного проще. Сильно проще с т.з. фантазии. Можно зацикливать одни и те же события до бесконечности. Кампании в DCS может и хорошие но во первых очень короткие, и не позволят даже привыкнуть в модулю. Во вторых не используют потенциал модуля. В третьих благодаря наличию сюжета слишком линейные, что не есть хорошо. Отдельные миссии хороши только с т.з. тренировки. Летать в оффлайне разовые миссии не интересно. Точнее, не так интересно, как в кампании где есть хронология и некое развитие персонажа. Разовые миссии хороши для онлайна, потому что там другая психология процесса. Там основа - игроки. Живые люди. Сценарий сильно вторичен. Вот и ждем динамическую кампанию. Собственность это то о чем и говорил выше. Это ответ на вопрос #3 но как известно, "принца можно ждать всю жизнь, а мужик нужен на каждый день". поэтому моя идея была лишь в том чтобы - уже сейчас добавь в мир DCS немного простых игровых механик, сделав это мир более живым "из коробки". Это же не так сложно.

Question: as many things in DCS are based on guesswork, why would you need this data to tweak the missile to solve this problem? the DCS Aim-120 perfromance is purely based on speculation (as per your white paper), so, why the approach to the PF needs to be so different? Sure, it would be very nice to have this data to model it more accurately, but if the data is not present, why can't you do an educated guess, just like everything else coded in this missile?

Я согласен со всем, что вы сказали, но меня сильно огорчает слабая поддержка контент-мейкеров, особенно касаемо скриптового движка и мультиплеера. Многие багрепорты вообще остаются без какого-либо внимания. Новая функциональность вроде добавляется, но недоработки или неочевидные моменты тоже остаются без внимания и ответа. Очень хотелось бы, чтобы приоритет этих вещей был для вас выше, чем сейчас.

I finally found a solution to the flicker. It was all about the anti-aliasing settings. When using MSAA, I got flickering. There is no flicker when using DLAA.

Yeah, trains need mucho love.

Version 20250111 - Initial Release Download: (here - ED User Files) Save evacuees at sea! A fire has broken out on "GeOil Empress II", a gas platform some 10 nautical miles off the coast west of Batumi. There is personnel requesting emergency evacuation, so you and your crew are ordered to take your helicopter (Huey, Hip, Hind or Hook, others can be added easily), land on the burning platform, and rescue as many groups of Evacuees as you can. Return them to the reception and triage point at Batumi's airfield near the green smoke. Note: If you find this mission to be too easy, try turning on fog. If you manage 'Pea Soup', you are ready for some of my other helicopter rescue missions. This mission is entirely non-violent and features live civilian helicopter traffic, optional fog, and a mission log (persistent if enabled) that logs your time in the various airframes. Comms: There is an emergency locator beacon active on "GeOil Empress II" (at 121.5 MHz). Batumi TCN is 16X, Batumi TWR 131.0 MHz Weather: Winds: 0kts Clouds: CAVOK (player-option: fog with variable visibilities) Mission Tinkerers: Although I created this mission for Hueys, Hinds, Hips and Hooks, it is pre-configured to automatically work with other helicopters, including mods like a Blackhawk or Loach. Simply add them with Mission Editor. Enjoy, -ch

Like explained in this very thread many times... it does not work in the first mission you run in DCS session. Any other mission runs fine after that. That's why the only workaround is to reload the mission you just started. Sometimes I forget about it after all the startup and try to consider... oh, will I need LANTIRN or TCS in this mission?

It used to be correct in DCS. Now the stars and moon position is incorrect. Should be reported.

Not so weird if it's the old LOS bug kicking in tbh. It was always hard to replicate it and it still pops up, albeit infrequently.

Starting now to consider making some adjustments to damage settings. Read more here

This is a bit like saying that VHS is better than Betamax because VHS "won". All by gone history now, and everyone knows that the "best" format didn't win Anyway, back to topic. The F-104 (G) was used primary as interceptor and in the deep/precise strike role, particularly naval role the last 10-20 years of operation. With INS, suitable radar, RWR and the Bullpup or Kormoran missile + rockets/bombs, as well as being small and fast, it was pretty much state of the art in air to sea until the late 70s/early 80s as far as fighter-bomber/attack aircraft go. In many ways the Mirage F-1 is the next logical step after the F-104. A direction in fighter development largely abandoned today, replaced by the more cost effective 4th gen aircraft, and now 5th gen. A German FB version of some kind could easily work as any f-104 FB version. But we must also have an interceptor variant IMO.

maxsenna and zabuzard - miraculously, after the last patch at christmas this is now working. Took 7hr download and didnt run game until this mid week so was stunned to find the phantom missions now work by me able to enter cockpit. Have no idea what might have changed at your end of the dll for it to now work (it does have a new delivery date but do not know if there were any changes you made to it). The only other possibility for it now working, I (dare I say it), re-installed BMS Falcon4 beginning Jan and left the visual studio install checked. Latest version was already installed (checked it so many times even before F4 trying to get A4 mod to start working again). Maybe that bms fixed some sort of broken link so F4(dcs) could find visual C library now (have doubts cos the A4 still dont work). Regardless, finally got a working phantom, brings back 45yr old memories of working in the snow and ice at leuchars attempting to fix its recalcitrant radar. Thanks for time you both spent trying to help me, glad got my reward for not accepting your offer of a refund

Using the Mossie on the Channel map to do precision strikes on warehouses and such in the towns leads to the target burning, but no crumbling rubble like in other maps. Would be nice to have some destruction.

+1 Including more culumus cloud types and generally more sh1tty wx options like cold front passages and lines of storms passing through.

One significant change was the landing gear (tyre and suspension) updates from Mosquito (late 2023) implemented in P-51 and P-47 (04/2024). Unfortunately you are right that since then it seems the work stopped and we are still waiting for Spitfire and all axis planes (BF-109 and both Fw-190) to be updated...

Звучит красиво. Но можно всего один вопрос... Что делать если во время полета и выполнения задания нужно срочно отвлечься по делом внешнего мира ?

Some helicopter flying as 1./HTG64 within our 1./JG71 squadron.

True. When it comes to number produced: MiG-21F-13 - fourth most produced variant, relevant in the same wars as PFM, Vietnam War, Six-Day War, War of Attrition, Indo-Pakistani Wars, Yom Kippur War. By far the lightest and the most maneuverable MiG-21 variant, good visibility bubble canopy, internal guns, entered service 1960 F-13 didn't lag far behind the best light fighters of the era like F-104, Mirage III, J-35 Draken. No radar, just radio rangefinder. MiG-21PF - third most produced, not as relevant as -PFM though stil used in many wars, introduced in 1961, it didn't have internal gun or gunpod. First with radar. MiG-21PFM - secund most produced, the most relevant in real conflicts including Vietnam, Six-Day War, War of Attrition, Yom Kippur War, Indo-Pakistani Wars, Iraq-Iran War and many more. No gun, just a gunpod like F-4D. Still a potent fighter when entered service in 1964. MiG-21bis - the most produced, relevant in Soviet-Afgan War, Iraq-Iran War, Angola Civil War, Ethiopia-Somali War, Gulf War, Yugoslav War, Libya-Chad War. Already a bit outdated when introduced in 1972. Though number of specific variant produced differ from source to source, plus license production in different countries etc.

hey guys another trend I seen on fleabay was they are selling "PICS" of 4090 and state that in the description and making hundreds of dollars in Bids.. So People are paying near $1000 for a "Picture" of a 4090 BUYER BEWARE..

VAICOM Pro integration and instructions by @sleighzy are now live https://github.com/nikoelt/WhisperAttack/blob/add-vaicom-integration-instructions/VAICOM PRO/VAICOM_INTEGRATION.md New version is now up- WhisperAttack Changelog VAICOM Support Thanks to @sleighzy For integration instructions, see: VAICOM PRO Integration Guide Script will now Auto-Install Missing Dependencies A mechanism has been introduced to automatically check for and install any missing Python packages required by the script, ensuring seamless setup and execution. Just double click and you're good to go Buuut you still need Python and Ffmpeg! Support for External Word Matching and Replacement Added configuration to dynamically load fuzzy matching terms (fuzzy_words.txt) and word mappings (word_mappings.txt) for direct word replacement - thank you @sleighzy for external file handling Enhanced flexibility for text correction and fuzzy matching, allowing dynamic updates without modifying the script itself. Feel free to edit either file with more keywords! We have pre-populated examples Fuzzy Matching Implemented functionality for fuzzy matching of DCS callsigns and phonetic alphabet terms. Integrated RapidFuzz for more robust and accurate text correction using configurable thresholds for both phonetic terms and DCS callsigns. Introduced weighting adjustments to control the level of correction interference: High thresholds: Minimal correction, preserves user input closely. Low thresholds: Aggressive correction, may be "trigger-happy." Configuration Example: dcs_threshold = 85 phonetic_threshold = 80 Improved Clipboard and Kneeboard Handling Revised logic to distinguish text destined for the clipboard versus text forwarded to VoiceAttack. To transcribe speech directly into the DCS kneeboard and clipboard, users now need to say "Copy" followed by the text they want in clipboard/kneeboard This bypasses VoiceAttack entirely for faster processing and will only copy to Clipboard and DCS Kneeboard!!! End users can change this key phrase to whatever they like within the code For standard VoiceAttack commands, the script no longer copies text to the clipboard or DCS kneeboard, improving overall performance. Enhanced AI Initial Prompt Whisper now has an optimized initial prompt for voice recognition, significantly improving its handling of DCS-specific callsigns like Deathstar and Enfield. This ensures more accurate transcription from the start. Bug fixes Coordinates starting with 0 will now populate VoiceAttack commands - thank you @sleighzy Many more code revisions to keep the code tidy

Since we're on the subject of navaid corrections: Dubai International: - Missing VOR/DME (as far as I can tell it's 108.4 MHz, 21X, callsign either DUB or DXB). Historical satellite imagery shows a VOR/DME station existing as far back as 2007 (should be off the foot of RWY 30R). Al Bateen: - VOR, incorrect NAVAID type. Should be VOR/DME according to charts. Also incorrect DME channel (119), should be 87X (paired to 114.0 MHz). Abu Dhabi: - VOR and DME stations should be co-located at the current DME location (VOR frequency, DME channel, and callsign are correct as far as I can tell). Historical satellite imagery shows no VOR station at its current location where the new control tower was under construction throughout the general time period the Persian Gulf map represents. Ras al Khaimah: - VOR/DME, incorrect callsign. Currently uses the ICAO code ("OMRK"), should be "RAV" according to charts. Lar: - NDB, incorrect callsign. Currently uses the ICAO code ("OISL"), should be "LAR" according to charts. - VOR/DME, missing DME channel. Should be 126X (paired to 117.90 MHz). Sirri Island: - VOR/DME, missing DME channel. Should be 84Y (paired to 113.75 MHz). Qeshm Island: - VOR/DME, missing DME channel. Should be 118X (paired to 117.10 MHz). Shiraz: - TACAN, incorrect callsign. Currently listed as "SYZ1," should be "SYZ" according to charts. Bandar-e-Jask: - VOR/DME, callsign uses the same as Qeshm ("KHM"). Not sure what the correct callsign should be as the charts and the Iranian AIP doesn't list Jask as having a VOR/DME station, and it conflicts with the nearby TACAN on 110X.

FYI Jester is not tuned for landing with a flare. We compute the physical force that acts on his body after the gear and OLEOs absorbed parts of them, this is what he measures and comments on. If you watch any of our Phantom SMEs do the landing, they do it the way they did it back in the days - no flare. And Jester always says it was a perfect landing when they do it. You need to maintain your AoA but also the sinking rate. Remember that the engines are slightly tilted, so playing with power at these AoAs will also affect your sinking rate. Obviously these people are experts, but the point is that it is rather the lack of skill executing the proper landing perfectly as virtual pilot if you _need_ to flare in order to do a smooth landing that Jester is fine with. It absolutely can be done without. If you found a technique that works for you thats great and no one will judge [emoji106] Practice, practice, practice :)

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.

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.

Looks like many of you would not survive DCS A-10C and Ka-50 early days.