Leaderboard

Pictures of Italian pilots returning to C550 Cavour after shore leave on Guam

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.

12Jan25 - Added SWP, VRS, Rotor Droop & Power Limited Approaches video.

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.

A lot to unpack in this thread, but I'll do my best to explain it in the clearest but briefest of terms. First, when using TWS it takes several moments to build a radar track (large, solid square) from a raw radar return, or "search target" (small solid square). The longer the scan time, the longer it takes to build a radar track. For example, if using a 1-bar scan with a narrow azimuth, the radar track can be built faster since the target aircraft is scanned multiple times in a smaller time frame, allowing the radar to establish the track. This is especially important when building a track against maneuvering targets. In the first image below, several radar tracks have been established. In the second image below, other aircraft have been detected by the radar enough times to build additional radar tracks, which is an automatic process. Once a radar track is established, it can then be upgraded to a system track within the system track file. Once a system track is established, it will appear as a large, hollow square if not correlated with any offboard datalink information. If no system tracks have been established from radar tracks, TMS Right will command up to 10 radar tracks to be upgraded to system tracks within the system track file, since a maximum of 10 tracks within the system track file can be derived from radar tracks, and will bug the closest as the highest priority target, or Target Of Interest (TOI) with a circle. (The remaining solid white square on the FCR MFD below was established as a radar track after already upgrading the other 9 to system tracks.) Once any system track is bugged as TOI, this will also command the radar to a +/-25 degree azimuth scan centered on the TOI, which may cause some existing tracks to be dropped if they remain outside the FCR scan volume for several moments. In the image below, TMS Right was used to step the TOI through several tracks. Several moments of the state shown in the image below will cause the three tracks on the left to be dropped. When TNDL is incorporated, datalink tracks are contributed from offboard sources and are contained within the F-16's system track file like the radar tracks that have been upgraded to system tracks. However, if a target aircraft is being tracked by the F-16's FCR and is also present within the system track file from an offboard datalink track, the two tracks will be correlated and the track information from the offboard datalink source will be added to the system track sourced from the onboard FCR. Under these conditions, the radar track is essentially upgraded to a system track automatically by the fact it is being correlated with information from an existing system track. Pressing TMS Right will immediately bug the closest target as the TOI since the radar tracks are already upgraded to system tracks, and since they have inherited the datalink information from the contributing offboard source within the system track file, the target symbol reflects this added information. In the image below, since a target has been bugged, the FCR scan volume is reduced to a +/-25 degree azimuth scan as before, dropping one of the radar tracks, which reverts to a surveillance air track being received from a nearby E-3 AWACS aircraft. If the pilot wished to bug the far right target for an engagement, it must be one of the 10 system tracks that have been established from a radar track. Once the cursor is slewed to that datalink track to steer the FCR scan volume to re-detect the target, it will still take a few moments before the target can be bugged as TOI, so that the FCR can establish that track as one of the 10 system tracks based on reliable radar track information. However, as can be seen, other tracks will be dropped to only offboard tracks as they lose their radar track information. __________________________________________________ Now, having said all of that, before the posts start appearing regarding radar tracks that have been correlated with offboard surveillance tracks and leading to differences between the colors and shapes when they become correlated/uncorrelated, it is a known issue that will hopefully be resolved in the near future.

Good Morning Everyone! You're welcome Buur, it was a simple fix. You all should see better FPS results when landing on the Allure of the Seas Cruise Ship. Hey Beldin the Cavour has a full load. Nice photos. Is that a Corvette on deck? Maybe that's the Captain's car. Thanks McFly29 for the SeaCeptor update. I think Beldin may have found the reason why the missiles dance like that. Credit goes to you McFly for fixing the missile issue. Thanks again. As promised i've released the updated Allure of the Seas Cruise ship. FPS lag and bow wake has been corrected. Enjoy

Indeed. At that time, it made sense since The Hog was DCS's premier attraction, and it was rather well known that NTTR was where the hottest Hog action was taking place (in the form of training of course). It may also have been a nice way for ED to monetize work that ED did for their military customers that used the Hog sim, and quite likely also wanted/used the NTTR map.

EXACTLY A 50lbs warhead exploding 60ft from you aircraft may not cause immediate violent disassembly, but it sure as <profanity> would have an effect. I am very much inclined to believe that with modern target detect devices, a generous proximity fuse setting is given for the inital tripping, and then if the range continues to measurably decrease, the detonation is held. How else would you design a missile that must engage everything from drones to large bombers with length and wingspans over 30m?

I wonder if this is ever going to get fixed - what we had before was almost perfect, what we have now is garbage. I live in hope !

After spending a lot of time with the latest civilian simulator, my god, what a disaster! After that I love DCS more than ever

I called the secret reveal for the 2025 video as being he Yak-52 getting illuminated cockpit dials.

I still can't believe the RN let the Top Gear guys drive an old Jaguar ofF the deck of Invincible

Perhaps it is that, but think for a moment the kind of behaviour such measures would induce on the playerbase, especially in multiplayer. Wouldn't you rather see that people fly around with a feeling of responsibility for their aircraft and their own virtual wellbeing? I think there should be MORE incentives for people to behave responsibly in their aircraft, not fewer. This is a flight simulator after all, not Unreal Tournament where you drink a health potion and can jump back into the melee again

Its TMS down twice (A HOTAS shortcut to CZ) if your have created a track in the TGP. First press comes out of point/area track to IN, second press CZ's, if no track, just one press and yes it works, has done for years. As soon as you start slewing off a steerpoint with either the HUD or TGP you will have to CZ to get rid of that offset you have just created to your steerpoints.

Daily MiG-29 Polish 9.12A

i can understand your position. but i would highly recommend Currenthills mod´s. they are on a high standard and i think more will come in the future.. just threw them in the mod folder and if you didnt want them anymore just delete. for me his mods are high valuable for doing my own missions and i enjoy them a lot Currenthill MilSim

Thank you @Admiral189, very kind. All, fix to the dancing SeaCeptor on the Type 23 HMS Richmond mod. Replace in the Weapons folder in the mod's Database. I cannot and do not claim any credit for the work done here. All credit goes to Admiral and CurrentHill as it is their work that I have blended for the fix. Thanks all Richmond_SeaCeptor.lua

threads merged, a fix is coming in the next patch. thank you

In November 2015, DCS World 2.0 was released as an open alpha while 1.5 continued to be supported as a stable release. 2.0 added support for more detailed terrain including the Nevada Test and Training Range map.

Iskra is fully Polish product, not Soviet. That's what he meant.

On the map discussion, I got NTTR initially with Mirage 2000 for the red flag campaign and never regreted it. I fly realistic missions with my multiplayer group over there utilising all the real procedures and the add on assets available (in terms of ranges - freely avaialble in ED's user base). At the end is how you want to use each map. Definitely NTTR needs some TLS and Nevada 2.0 will be more than welcomed but I prefer this over any empty Afganistan type map. As mentioned by others the bar has been set high by Ugra media and Syria and Normandy 2 (for me the best map vailable in DCS in terms of detail and quality) I also like South Atlantic but it still kills my system at low altitudes (below 900FT). Kola is coming close but still needs work

Did you have a really close look down low in Iraq? I was talking about low-level from a helicopter: Iraq has a long way to go when it comes to low-level detail. Look at small villages for example: houses are just put down in the sand like Lego blocks without any cohesion or connecting roads. It’s quite immersion-breaking actually. Yes Iraq looks a lot better than Afghanistan in the sense that it doesn’t have those sudden sharp borders between various ground textures, and yes it’s EA but there is a long way to go.

Would be good to get the trains running properly. Glad to hear they may get looked at after all. Silver seems to have rubbed himself up the wrong way here. All I see is Waterman having a chuckle, it gave me one anyhow. Be good to roll out the ‘fachengraat kaboomundsplaaten’ on rails. Hope you’ve made some glorious damage models too for the rail network as I plan to target the bloody lot of it someday. Hopefully in a Typhoon (we live in hope) … and you know better water, it’s a ‘s i m u l a t o r’. I’m too old and crotchety so let’s have less of this ‘game’ nonsense thank ya possum.

Please, discussions are great, but remember to keep things civil.

Привет! При запросе АПА Вы делаете это с открытым блистером и выключенными двигателями, поэтому техник Вас слышит. После раскрутки движков более ~15% оборотов звук шума движков как бы заглушает Ваш голос, поэтому техник вас непонимать)) Для того чтобы отключить АПА нужно перевести радио в режим СПУ (над головой КВСа или правака пульт управления радиостанцией) и только тогда отдавать команду. Не забудьте вернуть режим обратно в РАДИО, иначе вас не услышит РП ))

This past weekend I started working on cleaning up a few things and making some new additions to the North FARP, West Olof Airfield FARP, and adding a section to Andersen for the USMC aircraft. The Northeast side of Andersen is now reserved for A-4's, F-4s (when we get some USMC liveries for them), Huey's (Marines) and future aircraft. The idea is to have Andersen a joint operations base between the Army, Air Force, and Marines while the Navy primarily operates off the carrier task force. Two sections at Andersen, Northwest and Southeast, are dedicated to the USAF whereas the Army Helo units and fixed wing will operate out of the Southwest. With numerous 3rd party Vietnam Aircraft in the works, I thought Andersen would be a great place to house them as they roll out. As it stands now the F-100 Super Sabre, F-104 Starfighter, A-1H Skyraider, A-6 Intruder, A-7 II Corsair, and F-8 Crusader are all in the works. Really hoping to see the Super Sabre and Starfighter make it out in 2025. Both Airforce but we have some major contenders above for USN and USMC operations. Future content will be added for sure as we continue to beef up Andersen and ensure it is performance friendly while adding more and more assets. Take a look at the two videos below. The first goes into detail what I worked on updating and adding to the two FARPS and the second video is flying around Andersen showing off what is in the works. We will release an updated ITJ when we have completed some new scripting and other neat additions we are kicking up. No time frame as of yet, but we will work hard to get it out when it is ready. More to come.

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

Pretty sure this has been around a while, but I may try and replicate this later in a track if it's not a known issue. Just stood out to me today as it noticeably changes from the as-expected black to bright blue when it's against the ground vs the air here.

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.

AIr refuelers, some new AI tankers (like older planes) and the respective cold war era skins like 1960s 1970s (SAC, airforce, vietnam era etc) older awacs / elint planes, adding some older awacs models with reduced capacities would be cool like the EC-121 Warning Star B-52 vietnam era skins? Infantery, new "textures" for soldiers: soviet, iraqui, vietnam NVA / Viet cong Ships, older models of destroyers, pt boats, etc, with no phalanx systems. AAA, some more like vietnam era AAA like fixed dshka positions or similar with sandbags maybe vietnam era buildings? stuff to blow up with napalm NAPALM!!!

Me. I should be ashamed at how happy I am about it, but I'm not.

Hey everyone. There has been an update to the file above fixing yet another strange error. This will be included in the next patch but for those who want to get in on the action now can do so with the updated file as seen in the original post.

Проблема возникает где-то после 1.5 часов сетевых полётов и из-за ограничения форума на размер файла не прикладывается трек. Тем более, что англ. ветке форума при проигрывании трека не воспроизводится данная проблема. З.Ы. О это уже исправлено! Отлично! А можно в 2-х словах, в чем был замес? Интересно до жути! Честно. А то я, грешным делом, уже начал косится на свою видеокарту. З.З.Ы. Приношу свои извинения за предыдущий пост. Слишком эмоционально, да.

Another big problem is that missions makers often try to make their missions with as few mod dependencies as possible. If assets were included in the vanilla base game, using them would be much more accessible. E.g. imagine a mission or even campaign maker invests dozens or even hundreds of hours to make a campaign and then the asset mod isn't work on anymore. The whole mission could be broken! This! It's not that they are not doing this already. And yes, I would pay for HD asset packs, too!

ah ok, that's very ... odd... i must admit when @MAXsenna said CZ the only thing i could think off was CZ on the targeting pod... and assumed it was something else ... thanks for the clarification

the current damage model for the ww2 locomotives is wacky. The locomotives continues to release a steam stack even after it's been completely destroyed, requiring very close passes to confirm if it's dead or not..

This mod isn't accurate as its a fictional upgrade to what modern mpds have like some uses purple or blue as ownship. Editing and setting most elements to white will lean towards the superhornet and the Canadian hornets (Though the SA page has added elements taken from the superhornet like mid circle and radar arc). Sorry I missed your comment. I'm not sure how to do that. Only thing I figured out was making the TV colored instead of grayscale.

You're correct. It has been asked many times, and it's the way to go. Same here, while others will claim "it splits the community"! Have paid high resolution packs then, and release very low resolution for free? I'd pay for sure.

What makes you believe that there isn't any in DCS? Can you put a number on that? I believe that you mean to request 'occluded object culling', i.e. that objects (geometry) that are behind other objects or terrains should be culled (removed) from the rendering pipeline before they are submitted to rendering. I believe that DCS already uses object culling for the viewing frustum. Adding a visibility pass to determine which objects occlude others doesn't add much, and may even be more expensive - this is especially true for large objects like carriers or buildings that may be partly occluded and require tests to determine if all their geometry is occluded. So simply rendering all geometry inside the view frustum can be a much more cost-efficient approach compared to trying to cull objects/geometry by determining if they are obscured (occluded) by other objects/terrain. I believe that since around 2005 most render pipelines support a 'bounding box' check for early culling, and it's usually applied for initial view testing/culling during the render process. Applying it after view (frustum) culling on the remaining geometry, to determine mutual occlusion requires that the (massively parallel) GPU first waits for all view culling processes be complete before it can start on mutual occlusion culling. This forces a global synch of all parallel operations in the pipeline. That breaks the rendering pipeline into discrete steps and I believe that it will induce a heavy performance penalty. I do not fully understand what you are recommending here, and why that would improve performance. But it's been a couple of years since I last worked on render processes, so maybe things have changed drastically. (Note: I think it best to disregard 'client-side' from the title, because I think that all rendering in DCS is done on all clients exclusively, no rendering is done on the host.)

IIRC there is AI dataling frequency you have tune into - 300 MHz

THIS! SOMEONE needs to develop a Mirage III. My guess is that it would be nearly as profitable as the F-4.

As I understand it, both fixed and eye tracked have the options of varying the size of the fully rendered area (let's assume the middle) and the decrease in the number of pixels being rendered outside of that central area. So if the size of the middle area is the same and the decrease in pixels outside of that middle area are the same, from a performance difference, there should be nothing in it. The key point is that eye tracking ensures that if you move the focus of your eyes to a different point with the VR display, that the centre of that area fully rendered follows it. With fixed, look at a corner, and it'll be a blurry mess. With eye tracking it won't. The implications being that with fixed, you're likely to have a large "middle" area at full resolution. With eye tracked, you can run using a smaller central area and still see full resolution wherever your eyes look. In short, eye tracked, when configured correctly "should" result in not only a better performance, but also a uniform visual experience.

That will perhaps be a thing with the F-104. There has to be an environment where it will work well. It's no F-16/F-18 that anyone can jump into and do an OK "job". It's probably better suited for well crafted campaigns or dedicated servers focusing on the 60s/70s era.

Many thanks. I'm able to see a black screen, not exactly what you are seeing, but it's a nice bug, indeed. I'll retry the mission without the CTLD script.

Gotta love those BTR-80s driving around during the Yom Kippur War! (different map, I know)

I am all in for NTTR 2.0.

Agreed. I would love to have this become a setting in Mission Editor: Instant Repair checkbox. It's completely unrealistic anyway (3 minutes or 3 seconds or instant), so let the mission designer decide if they want this arbitrary element of annoyance.

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.

Iraqi T-72M1, updated T-55, T-62 and Type 59... Or even IFA trucks from East Germany in service both in Iraq and Iran.

UPDATED 2024 12 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331353/