Leaderboard

Here is what I have so far: As for the viewer, we are discussing some solutions right now. I will share when I have something firm on this. Thanks!

Well, what the tittle says, ED showed us this kind of clouds like 3 years ago, and since then not a word, and clouds are mostly the same since they came out in 2021. Are they still in the works, will they come anytime soon? They look very cool and thats something basic to simulate real weather conditions, weather right now is so limited and simple, beautiful to look at, but thats it.

With DCS lighting tech getting more sophisticated each year, this longstanding issue is getting ridiculous. I made my first post about it 10 years ago. Since then there have been dozens of posts, a lot of them in the bug section, because people rightfully felt that the current implementation is just "broken"... Since it's still not fixed i'll treat it as a "missing feature" and -again- do a wishlist post instead... Proper visibility for nav lights and beacons is way more important than sophisticatedly computed penumbrae while basic sprite lights don't even come with a performance hit: Flight sims in the 2000s could already render nav lights and beacons to realistic distances. It's just sprites! Tactical night flying is borderline impossible without modern jets' HMCS and buddy tracks. Aircaft beacon lights and landing lights should be visible at 25 - 50km Nav lights (green/red) should be visible (and distinguishable) several kilometers at least. Brightness settings should be respected, so that dimmed lights are less visible (obviously). Tanker aircraft should be lit realistically during AAR Weather and atmospheric properties would ideally be taken into account, however since opting to use external lights generally comes with the explicit intention to actually be seen, this is not even that important and could be crudely approximated There should be AI logic and ME options to control lights on AI units. Light status should be taken into account for AI spotting capabilities All this does not require new lighting tech or complex retooling. The engine can already render sprites at sufficient distances and do so without a hit on performance. With the upcoming PTO and CW Germany those improvements are needed even more. How would you even do a rejoin at night without all the modern gizmos if your external lights cannot be seen after a few hundred feet? If you like the proposed improvements, please rate this thread 5 stars: Thanks!

The guy has posted an excerpt from the actual maintenance manual. Also, a swiss documentary titled 'Helvetic Tiger' contains a scene from actual fire tests. At least one. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/153180-reportedgun-dispersion/page/2/#findComment-3171628 About relative differences: Please re-investigate the issue. For anyone wanting to investigate on their own, in accordance with a post by @Aries144 Posted December 23, 2017 New information incoming. I just discovered that it is possible to freeze the aircraft using active pause, decelerate time using alt z, and shoot the cannon in slow motion with no movement of the aircraft. This will make the next videos posted here as accurate as if the aircraft were stationary on the ground! Other references: @GGTharosmentions M39 here, plus other M39 mentions https://forum.dcs.world/topic/168522-bug-report-f-15-gun-accuracy-does-not-match-sources https://forum.dcs.world/topic/155394-f-5-gun-dispersion/ cannon mod https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3151874/ ED @NineLine@BIGNEWY@USSR_Rik@Mr.Pitt@f-18hornet SME @Kev2go @Gianlc@VPS_SPIT@GGTharos U @LazerPotatoe@Ramsay@Sarge55

@Wags @NineLine Wags, NineLine, can you please let us know if or how you plan on recreating the HMDS for the F-35 and how you plan to model the displays inside? Especially for us VR players. The HMD is the heart and soul of any F-35 and a DCS module could not be considered accurate without it. I would like to know if you have open-source information on the helmet system and what you intend to recreate with the F-35 module specifically regarding the helmet and what its capabilities are. The second HUGE question I have has gone unanswered for years now. Will ED incorporate tinted visors that work for VR players that simulate a tinted visor coming down over the players face to dim the light? It 100% makes a difference when flying into the sun while in VR. It allows the players to see the HUD. I would debate it is essential for the F-35 given the nature of the aircraft being flown by its helmet and not a HUD. The tinted visor has been incorporated in many different 3rd party modules to include the F-15E, Mirage 2000, Kiowa, and the Cayuse mod to name a few. I may be leaving a couple third party modules out, but NO official ED module has incorporated this. Is this a hard request to implement or is there a reason we have not seen the tinted visor yet with any ED modules?

nullAnimationen vom Aussenmodel: Deails : Augen und Kieferanimationen funktionieren wie erwartet. Vorausichtliches Release der BO-105 ist 2025 ! null 3dsmax_vf4VhZaFav.mp4

let BOOM = dist <= min || (d(dist)/d(t) <= 0 && dist <= max) When missile range to target reduces beneath the stated initial proximity fuse range [MAX] (50m for this example). The fuse then begins to take measurements of range over time for comparison, creating a rate. When the range rate is found to decrease under zero then trigger the fuse. This can make use of Kalman filtering to throw out any garbage positional updates that would prematurely indicate a negative closure. Once the missile either stops closing (decreases below zero or an other minimum closure threshold) towards the target, or the missile hits a set minimum range (for example, the previous 9m) it will detonate. This will mean that if a missile for example gets within the initial 50m range to the target, and makes it as close as for example 20m, it will detonate as soon as it stops closing with the target. The missile will now detonate, causing less significant damage instead of flying past harmlessly. This means realistic missile avoidance maneuvers that increase the missiles miss distance will be effective, possibly making a missile hit non-fatal. This allows for missiles that are near-misses to then become at least partially viable instead of a trashed shot. So here we have a system where missile avoidance maneuvers are still viable in reducing the lethality of incoming shots, but also a system where missiles that would have been worthless now still pose some sort of risk for the aircraft. I have included some documents on the history of proximity fuses [1] and an explanation of modern use FFTs for ranging of proximity fuses [2] 1. https://www.ijert.org/research/recent-advancements-in-proximity-fuzes-technology-IJERTV4IS041400.pdf 2. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10418854 Also, Thank you Coxy for your extremely valuable contribution to this discussion

External Model Crew animation (added eye movement): Everything is working as excepted: null 3dsmax_vf4VhZaFav.mp4

YoYo not ,work continues, but very slowly....... Im still looking for a C++ coder.

so... I will hopefully today or tomorrow upgrade to a 9800X3d depending on my cooler arrival. so i will let you know if i still CPU bottle neck... my own feeling on the 5090 is we just don't have enough data to make any informed choice yet, but for me its certainly not an "auto buy" I would like to get real world rasterization numbers before i even consider it ... my normal habit is to upgrade over 4 years for my CPU and GPU and offset that so CPU then GPU ( 2 years apart) I'm in my CPU cycle now... si I am not "due" for at least another 2 years. If DCS picks up the technologies provided in the RTX5x series of cards that might change, but, that doesn't seem like an immediately likely outcome ... and even less so for a VR player

working on it The missions created with DCS Web Editor dont have any additional dependencies. They load in DCS.

это когда? по фото вообще не понять какой год где то читал, вроде даже в книге по Р-27 @tavarish palkovnik null null

Wags definitely hit the nail on the head, and I really appreciate him saying that.

Possibly. And it likely was just a convenient way to say "no". Methinks that without a steady, secure income stream -- taking the path less well travelled will often bite you in business -- ED urgently need a hit product. The Mossie and Hook likely did not meet their income targets, and their last "hit" product (after Viper and Hornet) was the Apache (evidence: they receive the most attention and are arguably the only products still in active development). "Freebies" like ATC, Dynamic Campaign don't make money, and are 'forever WIP'. So (again arguably) ED have to switch to "lower-standard" products: cases in point: Afghanistan and Iraq map (IMHO sub-par products, too hastily pushed out to customers). We now see a somewhat obvious attempt at creating the next "crowd-pleaser", a cash-grab so to speak. Is that bad? Well, it'll be on a lot of 'fantasy tech'. To me, it helps shutting up those annoying "sim not game" rivet-counters. Overall, you, I, and all customers will be the judge. IMHO, if it helps ED to financially bridge the gap for the next 2 years, I don't mind so much. Then again, I'd be happy to pay a sub for 'DCS prime' (or similar) that secures an independent income stream for ED, and I will buy Fat Amy if that helps my favorite flight game moving along. I wish it were different, but that's what market reality can do to your production lineup.

The Extra radios would be useful in multiplayer gameplay, when you have a GCI/AWACS controller and want inter flight over SRS. So those would have an impact on gameplay, however compared to AAR, Quad winders and the INS system (or the option to 3d mount the 430) it is less impactful. I would sacrifice the radios and even the INS for AAR capability and quad winders in a heartbeat.

Heh.... exactly as expected. Now prepare for the even more disapointing reviews of the RTX5080 tomorrow.... Nah, no thanks. Rather get a nice second hand motorcycle (or "whatever"!) than overspending on power-guzzling GPUs in a revolting price gouging market, which will not make miracles in VR for a game that has its own long running issues yet to be solved.

I hope ole Teufelsberg station is going to be a thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teufelsberg I'm hoping for ED to open the Germany Map subsection soon, so maybe we can gather some info on special buildings for the larger cities.

The thing is, no one knows it ad-hoc. We can figure it out if you put a dev on, but right now we are all super busy (as usual). Your request has been heard and you will get a detailed answer from us at some point. Most likely at the same time when we want to expand this section in the manual with said details.

Hey Ugra, in case you read this, please also include the radio navigation installations for 1980s Berlin: NDB: Lubars DLS 413.5 kHz N52.613899, E013.363600 Tegel West RW 392.0 kHz N52.545067, E013.151062 Tegel East GL 321.5 kHz N52.572316, E013.426114 * Helmholtz DBR 347.0 kHz N52.463688, E013.288902 Planter DIP 327.0 kHz Mahlow MW 309.0 kHz N52.344471, E013.387504 Schonefeld SL 299.0 kHz N52.392601, E013.570000 Gatow GW 370.5 kHz N52.469628, E013.138005 VOR: Tegel TGL 112.30 MHz N52.561512, E013.287567 Havel HVL 113.30 MHz N52.461115, E013.142778 Tempelhof TOF 114.10 MHz N52.473120, E013.405401 TACAN: Tegel * N52.461115, E013.142778 * Tempelhof TOF * N52.473120, E013.405401 * * - Tegel East NDB coordinates is wrong by showing the 1990s location. This NDB had been located just within West-Berlin close to the border in the extended TXL rwy 26 approach centerline until the cold war ended. I yet have to find its precise former location - I do have published approximate coordinates for Planter NDB though I still have to investigate its exact location as I did for all the others (literally pinpointing locations), will update when I achieved satisfying precision. - I am 99% TOF VOR had a co-located TACAN and 30% certain TGL VOR did as well. I'm still investigating for original maps featuring these 2 VORTACs. last update 06.02.2025

From F-35 FAQ:

Allow me to explain my position a little bit more clearly here. You are ofcourse right that you cannot simply inject your knowledge about classified stuff into a public consumer product, but you can help and guide the developers and as is the case with True Grit reach out to the authorities (manufacturer and operators) and discuss and negotiate what can be presented in the public consumer product like an DCS aircraft module. If you have a clue about the subject matter it's also somewhat easier to make sense of material that you can find out there in the public domain. We are not talking about magic here at all. The general principles of how a hydraulic system, fuel system, radar etc. works is physics and you can obtain that knowledge from public sources. There are certainly aspects that you'll don't find, but just because there are some details missing doesn't mean you can't create a decent simulation of something. It's an unrealistic expectation to have a 100% accurate representation of such an aircraft and its systems in a public consumer flight simulator, produced for entertainment purposes anyway. The stance of "if it's not 100% right it must not be done at all" is something that I don't agree with and as outlined above it's simply an unrealistic expectation anyway. The eternal naysaying, doubting etc. isn't going to help the developers and is in my humble opinion discouraging and counter productive. If these doubts furthermore come from people who haven't performed hundreds or even thousands of hours in research, who don't even grasp how such technologies work in the first place and who couldn't even tell whether something is realistically implemented or not, I have little understanding for these eternal, ever repetitive complaints and doubts. Ofcourse you are free to doubt and question everything, but as said it's not going to help. I can perfectly live with with some omissions, if the end product is overall realistic and not a pure fantasy product. There is much more known about this aircraft than you and many others here think and the aircraft isn't that new either. We have seen aircraft being decently simulated before which have not been in service for that long as the Eurofighter is now. What you'll certainly not see is the latest and greatest build standard of the aircraft, even if some advanced features might be included. Same has been true for other aircraft that are also still in service as well, but that's surprisingly overlooked and ignored over and over again.

Ich denke, so schön und nötig eine längst überfällige "Überarbeitung" der Caucasus wie auch insbesondere der NTTR Map wäre, so sollte man die entscheidende Einschränkung nicht übersehen: "nach dem Fertigstellen" von XYZ... Ich mach mir in den nächsten Jahren deshalb Null Hoffnung, dass sich da etwas abseits der Modding-Szene ergibt.

That would make the aircraft appear on the RWR of any targeted aircraft and thus revealing its presence. But that still doesn't mean that those other aircraft can target the stealth plane with their radars, even though they know it's there. Then others know that there is a person with a flashlight, but if they are blinded by the light they still don't see the person itself

Not sure about 3 Teams I only know one Team, although I Think two teams combined to form this one.. All I know is it looks incredible and up there in quality, you can check it out and see what I mean. Here is their Discord https://discord.gg/fmgaav4g

Update January 22, 2025 - 1: TTI SP v2.6.1n Fixed an issue where KOREAN WAR had a startup issue due to the ground unit template having an incorrect lua array name Added the ability to change infantry unit types for each era, including the option to change which units appear when WW2 asset pack is enabled Added Russian AK soldier variants 02 and 03 to the unit spawning list and zeus list respectively. They were also added to the default spawning pool lists for infantry ground units. Added a method to change the JTAC/AFAC Drone Laser Code on the fly using a MAP MARKER COMMAND: "-change_jtac_code [enter 4 digit number code of your choice here]" Additionally to the above; There is an F10 Map Menu option to show how to change the laser code while active in-sim. Fixed an issue where Ship Convoy Map markers were not spawning in the correct location Fixed an issue where disabling EWR reports in the settings did not have any effect. Note that the setting "zeus_lz_innter_radius" typo was corrected in scripting and fixed/changed to "zeus_lz_inner_radius" Please change this accordingly if you are porting over old mission settings. - DCS 2.9.12.533 Changelog https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.12.5336/ should have fixed the issue for auto-fog making AI co-pilots being unable to see. If this is still an issue for you, disable auto fog in the mission editor for this mission. Any and all new features above have been updated in detail in the TTI SP Tutorials and Guides Documentation: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/177ydPq1tJsOli7tKKKAuPxybfOw2yAo5 MANUAL UPDATE INSTRUCTIONS: - Take all .lua files from v2.6.1i/h and extract them, then drag them into your previous version v2.6.1k TTI mission using 7zip. - NOTE THAT THERE WERE NEW SPAWNING LISTS ADDED: TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_MODERN TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_COLD_WAR TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_KOREAN_WAR TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_KOREAN_WAR_ASSETPACK TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_WW2 TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_WW2_ASSETPACK You need to add these lists to the ground spawning lists as these are new, nothing else in the ground or air spawning pools were changed. - Note that the setting "zeus_lz_innter_radius" typo was corrected in scripting and fixed/changed to "zeus_lz_inner_radius" Please change this accordingly if you are porting over old mission settings.

Okay, this explains the 747 at THF on that day (it's in frame at 10:52): Mr. Gorbachev, tare down this wall!

Guys, you need to settle down a little, I have asked about a solution to the model editor issue, but we need to protect our models, blame those who like to steal them. But I have asked for a solution that will work here. We have asked for the description.lua example and helmet and pilot textures. But please, let's not blow this out of proportion give us time to look into it, piling on will not help here.

I will go with this launcher, it's a close to the Chinese Version

Next Changelog will be pretty big, i'm still developing a few things, big necessary changes and stuff, when i get there i will release a new video, still some features missing id like to implement before. Meanwhile, just a quick video showing a bit of standoff attack, range is about 1nm and height about 300ft. Digital Combat Simulator Black Shark 2025.01.21 - 18.25.32.01 - Trim2.mp4

It's definitely down in the weeds - I agree. But ED has made tweaks "for the sake of entertainment value" on some modules, or has supported said tweaks, while also clutching the mantle of realism and dismissing customer (for the sake of entertainment value) requests on others. NineLine and BIGNEWY have said, probably until they're blue in the face (not throwing shade here fellas, just stating a fact) that the F-5E variant modelled in DCS (the F-5E-3) cannot have these highly requested additions because the aircraft never had those things in reality - or at least words to that effect. The MiG-21bis in DCS can carry older missiles that only worked with an older radar - which allows it to simulate very early Cold War MiG-21s - at least in terms of weapons. The MiG-21bis can also carry nukes in DCS (though they did to this in real life too, but DCS doesn't want nukes...but allowed them anyway...). The C-101 can carry the Sea Eagle missile in DCS. In reality, only trials were done in this aircraft - by ONE country. It was never adopted. But it was added "for fun". The F-16C can carry 4 AGM-88 HARMs. USAF jets (which we're reminded our F-16 is modelled after) never did so, outside of trials. This was added - and stated as such - due to high demand from the DCS community. The Mirage 2000C can carry the DDM - a system only ever used on the Mirage 2000D. But it was added because, in theory, it could be. The JF-17 (which is modelled after a Block I) can be fitted with an IFR probe, which Block Is never really had - that was a capability added to the Block II. Eventually, all JF-17s would have IFR probes (that was the intent in reality, unsure if they did this by equipping the Block Is or replacing them with Block IIs - or if they've even finished). So the decision was made to retroactively add the IFR probe, as an *option*. Which only reinforces my point re: the F-5E and an IFR probe. We can either go down with the sinking ship of realism, or loosen our grip to enable aircraft modules get interesting (or highly requested) capabilities that value add to the module, and to DCS. And I'm not just talking the F-5 here. There's plenty of scope (and demand) for things like AIM-120 capable F-4s. Upgraded Su-27s (like a Su-27SM - Deka did make the J-11A variant for the Flanker and ED adopted it) hell, even variant upgrades to the F-16 - like a Block 52 with CFTs (the Blackshark III and A-10C II Tank Killer do this exact thing). Realistically, the F-5E-3s used by the US could be fitted with an IFR probe, they just never needed or wanted to - but they were plumbed that way at the factory. Just in case. Realistically, at the time the F-5E-3 was flying, there were other F-5Es flying that had the capabilities listed in my original post that the -3 lacked (but could also realistically be fitted with, even now - there's a whole company devoted to this). From a gameplay perspective (Wags has, just recently, described DCS as a 'simulation game') an extra pair of IR AAMs, an IFR probe definitely adds to the entertainment factor without completely dominating PvP servers (not that I personally care about that aspect, but it's still a consideration) and still retaining the same AN/APQ-159 radar, the same engines, the same flight controls. It's the same plane. (EDIT: Wags also recently stated that this USAF F-5E-3 was actually meant to be a Swiss F-5E...which the US bought back for aggressor duties - which blurs the lines of this jet actually is even more). Even if they decided to add the Maverick capability, it's a display screen (that in reality can be unscrewed, unplugged and changed out) and an stores selector panel with an extra position (which can also be changed out/rewired by maintenance staff). Still the same jet under the hood. As someone who owns the legacy F-5E module who has not yet upgraded (because I don't see the point just now, I'm okay with the graphical representation of my current F-5E - I'm sure I'll upgrade eventually but it's way, way low on my DCS priority list), if they added these options then it's a compelling carrot to dangle in front of me that will force me to at least reconsider whether I commit to the Remaster, or remain intent on purchasing the MB-339 when I have the time and money to do so, or another jet. And it may just sway others who don't have the F-5E to buy it also. If ED choses not to (as they've repeatedly stuck to their guns on this in the past) then so be it. I still have an F-5E - the module that brought me to DCS in the first place. But TL;DR is this: Allowances, for the sake of fun, have been made in other modules. A module is coming out - in a year, supposedly - that will be chock full of allowances. And that's okay. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that it won't be fun to fly. Or that it won't 'feel real'. But why is the F-5E any different to any of the aircraft I've listed? Especially now.

I like the answer of wags, in last Q&A video, when he said that ED need to be more transparent and less mystery. But it’s not for today

I honestly don't understand how people can complain when you get not one, not two, not three, but FOUR modules, AND a carrier, for the price of ONE module, and it's the best module in DCS at that. So what the last 2 variants took longer than expected. Be happy you get them, for free. Can't wait for the B(u) and will happily pay for it to support HB.

We are looking forward to it as well. It's been a module I've been wanting to add to DCS for many years. Best wishes, Matt

Things like this will need to become the forefront of the F-35's development, honestly. This needs to be priority 1.

its still a no go my end picture is still much worse than without dlss, and add movement not even close to non Ai up scale especially in helis. We need more Raster performance not this

WirtsTools 2.2.0 is out Finally You can get the full docs on the readme there BUT in short it... Adds the following features: Weapon In Zone: Sets a flag equal to a count of the weapons currently in a zone that match your criteria (works for quad point and circular zones) Weapon Near: Sets a flag equal to a count of the weapons currently within a defined range of a given target that meet your criteria Weapon Hit: Increments a flag each time a weapon that meets your criteria hits a given unit (def read the docs on this one, there are some gotchas) Weapon system overhaul: Massive change to how existing functions Impact In Zone and Impact Near work, they and the above all use my new weapon filter system that lets you simply define criteria for weapons you want to match as a filter to pass to these functions You can do things like match on weapons that are missiles, are NOT IR guided and have a shaped warhead, and so on, full details in the readme Enjoy!

Ну в встроевой вешают оружие что есть на складах. Тем более они неоднократно светились. Уж 100 раз обсуждали. У этих ракет обтекатель ГСН ярко-желтый.

Hello Fellow Pilots and Friends, After a thorough review, we have discovered some significant problems within the campaign and are endeavoring to correct them as soon as possible. Please continue to post any problems you come across here in this forum so we con focus on correctly and updating as soon as possible. Thank you for your continued support, John

Solved internally. The fix will be included in a nex update.

It will defenitely help to detect a stealth plane by revealing where exactly to look for it. Then, There's that FSS radome thing. It needs to be transparent so that radio waves of the radar could go through it. I suppose that once a stealth fighter starts scanning its RCS should increase on around 0.5m2 because that makes its radar dish visible for other X-band radars

Update January 22, 2025 - 1: TTI SP v2.6.1n Fixed an issue where KOREAN WAR had a startup issue due to the ground unit template having an incorrect lua array name Added the ability to change infantry unit types for each era, including the option to change which units appear when WW2 asset pack is enabled Added Russian AK soldier variants 02 and 03 to the unit spawning list and zeus list respectively. They were also added to the default spawning pool lists for infantry ground units. Added a method to change the JTAC/AFAC Drone Laser Code on the fly using a MAP MARKER COMMAND: "-change_jtac_code [enter 4 digit number code of your choice here]" Additionally to the above; There is an F10 Map Menu option to show how to change the laser code while active in-sim. Fixed an issue where Ship Convoy Map markers were not spawning in the correct location Fixed an issue where disabling EWR reports in the settings did not have any effect. Note that the setting "zeus_lz_innter_radius" typo was corrected in scripting and fixed/changed to "zeus_lz_inner_radius" Please change this accordingly if you are porting over old mission settings. DCS 2.9.12.533 Changelog https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.12.5336/ should have fixed the issue for auto-fog making AI co-pilots being unable to see. If this is still an issue for you, disable auto fog in the mission editor for this mission. Any and all new features above have been updated in detail in the TTI SP Tutorials and Guides Documentation: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/177ydPq1tJsOli7tKKKAuPxybfOw2yAo5 MANUAL UPDATE INSTRUCTIONS: - Take all .lua files from v2.6.1i/h and extract them, then drag them into your previous version v2.6.1k TTI mission using 7zip. - NOTE THAT THERE WERE NEW SPAWNING LISTS ADDED: TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_MODERN TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_COLD_WAR TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_KOREAN_WAR TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_KOREAN_WAR_ASSETPACK TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_WW2 TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_WW2_ASSETPACK You need to add these lists to the ground spawning lists as these are new, nothing else in the ground or air spawning pools were changed. - Note that the setting "zeus_lz_innter_radius" typo was corrected in scripting and fixed/changed to "zeus_lz_inner_radius" Please change this accordingly if you are porting over old mission settings.

Update January 22, 2025 - 1: TTI SP v2.6.1n Fixed an issue where KOREAN WAR had a startup issue due to the ground unit template having an incorrect lua array name Added the ability to change infantry unit types for each era, including the option to change which units appear when WW2 asset pack is enabled Added Russian AK soldier variants 02 and 03 to the unit spawning list and zeus list respectively. They were also added to the default spawning pool lists for infantry ground units. Added a method to change the JTAC/AFAC Drone Laser Code on the fly using a MAP MARKER COMMAND: "-change_jtac_code [enter 4 digit number code of your choice here]" Additionally to the above; There is an F10 Map Menu option to show how to change the laser code while active in-sim. Fixed an issue where Ship Convoy Map markers were not spawning in the correct location Fixed an issue where disabling EWR reports in the settings did not have any effect. Note that the setting "zeus_lz_innter_radius" typo was corrected in scripting and fixed/changed to "zeus_lz_inner_radius" Please change this accordingly if you are porting over old mission settings. DCS 2.9.12.533 Changelog https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.12.5336/ should have fixed the issue for auto-fog making AI co-pilots being unable to see. If this is still an issue for you, disable auto fog in the mission editor for this mission. Any and all new features above have been updated in detail in the TTI SP Tutorials and Guides Documentation: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/177ydPq1tJsOli7tKKKAuPxybfOw2yAo5 MANUAL UPDATE INSTRUCTIONS: - Take all .lua files from v2.6.1i/h and extract them, then drag them into your previous version v2.6.1k TTI mission using 7zip. - NOTE THAT THERE WERE NEW SPAWNING LISTS ADDED: TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_MODERN TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_COLD_WAR TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_KOREAN_WAR TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_KOREAN_WAR_ASSETPACK TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_WW2 TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_WW2_ASSETPACK You need to add these lists to the ground spawning lists as these are new, nothing else in the ground or air spawning pools were changed. - Note that the setting "zeus_lz_innter_radius" typo was corrected in scripting and fixed/changed to "zeus_lz_inner_radius" Please change this accordingly if you are porting over old mission settings.

Update January 22, 2025 - 1: TTI SP v2.6.1n Fixed an issue where KOREAN WAR had a startup issue due to the ground unit template having an incorrect lua array name Added the ability to change infantry unit types for each era, including the option to change which units appear when WW2 asset pack is enabled Added Russian AK soldier variants 02 and 03 to the unit spawning list and zeus list respectively. They were also added to the default spawning pool lists for infantry ground units. Added a method to change the JTAC/AFAC Drone Laser Code on the fly using a MAP MARKER COMMAND: "-change_jtac_code [enter 4 digit number code of your choice here]" Additionally to the above; There is an F10 Map Menu option to show how to change the laser code while active in-sim. Fixed an issue where Ship Convoy Map markers were not spawning in the correct location Fixed an issue where disabling EWR reports in the settings did not have any effect. Note that the setting "zeus_lz_innter_radius" typo was corrected in scripting and fixed/changed to "zeus_lz_inner_radius" Please change this accordingly if you are porting over old mission settings. - DCS 2.9.12.533 Changelog https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.12.5336/ should have fixed the issue for auto-fog making AI co-pilots being unable to see. If this is still an issue for you, disable auto fog in the mission editor for this mission. Any and all new features above have been updated in detail in the TTI SP Tutorials and Guides Documentation: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/177ydPq1tJsOli7tKKKAuPxybfOw2yAo5 MANUAL UPDATE INSTRUCTIONS: - Take all .lua files from v2.6.1i/h and extract them, then drag them into your previous version v2.6.1k TTI mission using 7zip. - NOTE THAT THERE WERE NEW SPAWNING LISTS ADDED: TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_MODERN TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_COLD_WAR TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_KOREAN_WAR TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_KOREAN_WAR_ASSETPACK TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_WW2 TemplateTable_INF_GROUND_WW2_ASSETPACK You need to add these lists to the ground spawning lists as these are new, nothing else in the ground or air spawning pools were changed. - Note that the setting "zeus_lz_innter_radius" typo was corrected in scripting and fixed/changed to "zeus_lz_inner_radius" Please change this accordingly if you are porting over old mission settings.

Für DCS gilt folgende Gleichung: Eyetracking + Quadviews = bis zu 100% mehr FPS^ ^(Abhängig von GPU/CPU)

Full fidelity MiG-29 may be an impulse to take care about them.

9L, I think there's a misunderstanding here. It's not possible to paint the model at all. The file structure doesn't exist, and the LUA code is unavailable. That's the biggest issue. We can't make anything - not even the hard way, even if we wanted to.

Think business model. F-35 will be a big money maker for ED. F/A-18E not so. And now that there is a suspicion that Falcon 5.0 will include a F-35, it's a 'race' for the market shares... It might also explain why they chose not to develop red-air full fidelity (besides the upcoming Mig-29). What concerns me is two-fold: 1) Generally speaking, ED works on several aircraft at any given time (different stages of completions with overlapping teams I presume) but are announced at different stages. Generally one AC module per year, give or take. Now we have in the pipeline the Mig-29A (that was announced long ago) and the new 'banger': the F-15C full fidelity that was revealed at the end of the '2025' video. AND THEN, to add up, they annouce the F-35. They never announced 2 ED full fidelity AC in one go. From here, not knowing nothing (you can quote me on that ), it looks like a PR crash plan to deviate attention from the Falcon 5.0 rumors. 2) Now that they confirmed there is enough data in the public domain to model an 'enough-realistic' F-35, again thinking on 'business model', they would/could (I expect to see because it's logical) later focus on Red-Air full fidelity to balance the game. (Because yes, it's a game at the end of the day, simulating aircraft with acceptable compromises, but still with game mechanics). But I wouldn't hold my breath to see this happening before 2027 at best... So, for the F/A-18E... Well, I don't see it fitting into the accountant sheets.

People could not see the IFLOS, the brightness was increased and we made some fixes which helped a lot, now you are saying it is to bright, can you see we are just going to be going back and forth between different people with different preferences and different hardware specs. The answer can not be to add sliders to adjust for each issue. I have asked the team to review the lighting on the carrier for the deck, but at the moment it is lower priority while they work on improving the deck crew. thank you

The 4090 can't handle much more than the Quest-level of VR headsets anyway At least with that price/performance bracket, you can set things mostly at full fidelity

If you were happy with the G2, you should be happy with the Quest 3. The Somnium is enormously more expensive. The value for money is not really there, IMO, but it is better quality.