Leaderboard

Greetings All, We would like to announce the development of the SEPECAT Jaguar GR.1A Mod For DCS World The Jaguar was a key ground attack aircraft for the RAF, designed for high-speed, low-level strike missions. This mod aims to bring an authentic and functional representation of the GR.1A to DCS, focusing on a detailed flight model, accurate systems, and an overall high-quality experience! Current Progress: We are actively working on: 3D Model & Cockpit – Building a detailed external model and high-quality cockpit Flight Model & Systems – Developing a realistic EFM using real-world data Stay Updated: We’ll be sharing development updates, screenshots, and progress reports as we move forward. Follow us on Discord for updates Community feedback is welcome! – Let us know what you'd like to see More details to come soon. – SkyForge Studios

Sorry guys/gals/fans, There's a slight delay, as the testers found some issues that needed to be fixed. For the most part everything was functioning as intended, But I had to make revisions to the new version parsing system as I did not include provisions for Hotfixes or Assembly.PrivatePart version fields. That fix plus a few other changes are now being testing, and I might have to adjust a few other things. Hopefully Next weekend, or if I can get remote access from the Hotelli, mid-week.

Reflected Simulations:

@tobi @Eight Ball F***** love yalls work man!!!!!!! I think we have flown the Cayuse almost every week since it came out. This past Friday was hands down our best flight yet! The video is a little long winded, but worth seeing your hard work at play. Had some bad ass coop time with the guys. Watching the CH-47 come in to pick up a downed pilot from the Cayuse is beyond awesome! Time stamps in the video so you can see. We are posting all our stuff on our ITJ thread now. Link is in the video. If you want to see your stuff in action every week, I usually post one or two video a week. Any more Vietnam assets or aircraft on the horizon? Again, cannot thank you gents enough!

I've had AI P-47s laden with 1000lbs of bombs and a drop tank, not jettison them, and maneuver like a Spitfire, so I'm pressing X to doubt the claim that the AI SFM is tuned to realistic energy states. It's also well documented that AI Mustangs, Jugs, and Spitfires maintain unrealistic energy in climbs making it impossible for the player to maintain formation in Reflected's campaigns.

Me too, with many more units to have an entire theatre, like Combat360 SAAFOPS was planned to be. The biggest issue for these kind of assets is 3D modelling, especially a map which is more modelling than programming compared to an aircraft module. During last year I tried to find someone who can help with the 3D modelling. What I found was a few who were interested from eastern Europe but that is paying someone's full time salary for a few months out of my pocket because they would only be doing it for the combination of income and experience/portfolio, with no real interest in the specific aircraft. They were looking for full time employment and not a hobby. Another issue is the specificity of the aircraft, making it a hard sell on model market websites for those artists, especially at a higher quality and price. I can't pay someone's full time salary for a few months but I was able to pay for something at times. I discovered that the quality I was aiming for was in this gap between "cheap" and modern module quality, i.e. I can pay for more than cheap but no one is interested in doing more than cheap but less than modern module quality. (I'm aiming for old F-5E level at least). I am not interested in taking the cheap route as I know I will want to redo it again and that is a waste I am not willing to pay for. My financial situation also varied, at times I could do it, and at times I rather spent it on something that was more immediately useful. I also looked around locally where there would be people who have a genuine interest in the aircraft and the history and who might share the same goal. There are very few people in South Africa with the skill set, and those that do have the skill set and passion are like many others rather spending their spare time doing side jobs that produce income to supplement their main income as the purchasing power is really not that great here and declining rapidly. Something good that came out of last year was the 3D scans that were done at the Swartkop AFB museum. I purchased an iPhone 15 Pro specifically for the photogrammetry capabilities and then I flew there to get scans and take photos of the Cheetah C's undercarriage (the other one I took photos of had an incomplete undercarriage) and to do a scan of the interior cockpit shape as that is quite a complex shape. I also took the opportunity to take photos and scans of the aircraft itself as well as some of its munitions and a bunch of other aircraft that were available. The people at the museum were very enthusiastic to help me and they even opened the Cheetah E's cockpit for me that has not been opened in at least 10 years, it was quite a struggle (the hydraulic piston no longer works so it is not really safe). They also don't usually open the Cheetah C's cockpit, it is quite incomplete with missing components which doesn't really matter since I already have all that, but I got to meet the legendary Cobus Toerien who helped to open the cockpit of the Cheetah C. I am attaching some photos of the scans, some of the exterior scans drifted, they are from an iPhone, it is not a professional scanning device. The scans aren't copied and pasted into a DCS model, they are used as a reference for the positioning and size and shape, so the model is modeled on top of the photogrammetry reference model. There are different levels of scanning that I did, some are more detail oriented, and other less detail but more reliable for larger objects.

LCT 2 Ship Conversion to Vietnam APB A Lego conversion

Hi mates . Here are my home works for the week end !! 20250209_170912.mp4

У вас гораздо лучше получается переходить на личности и давать оценки, чем изучать матчасть вверенного вам симулятора. Это ничего... встречается время от времени. Хорошо, правильный ответ: Такой инструмент есть, называется СТРОКА СОСТОЯНИЯ, которая вызывается внизу экрана. А на ней есть скорость, которая переключается между IAS и TAS (так для экономии места было исторически сделано). А на самом деле, как давно уже мы честно признали, обозначения TAS не соответствуют общепринятому, но так повелось исторически и поэтому решили ничего не менять, потому что места есть только на три буквы. В действительности, это скорость объекта в мировой системе координат. Дальше просто - ставим ветер 30 м/с на 10 м встречный вдоль полосы и летим на самолетике с четко выставленным режимом двигателя с постоянной скоростью и постоянной высотой метров в 10-20 над полосой Держим режим сколько можем, не менее 10 с. Потом проигрывваем трек и смотрим разницу между IAS b TAS,которое с ветром уже и не TAS вовсе, а в случае горизонтального полета ground speed. Затем все то же повторяем, установив на 2000 м ветер в 50 м/с,нам не жалко. Наслаждаемся результатом. (Зачем я все это сам проделал, я же вижу в коде, что в расчет никаким образом не идет скорость ветра с 2000 м... Догонит ли в воздухе или шалишь Летучая кошка летучую мышь, Собака летучая кошку летучую. Зачем я себя этой глупостью мучаю... )

This is something you will need to practice, but every time you are flying in formation, you need to try and find the rough throttle position that keeps you at the right speed, and then make very small adjustments from there. You need to remember that even with the most modern jet engines, they still take several seconds to respond to a throttle input, therefore you REALLY want to avoid making large throttle movements when in formation, because you'll never really know if you've applied way too much throttle until its already too late (and you're going to overshoot).

Practice, practice and more practice. You will eventually get so much routine that you get more capacity for other things and then formation flying will be easy.

Thank you, we fine-tune all the tests before the release, always the same "no bad surprises".

Полностью согласен. Раньше в редакторе миссий этот параметр по ветру на высоте 500 метров подобной привязки к нулю не имел, его можно было настраивать вручную. Слегка изменить скрипты и вернуть, как было - ой, велика работа... Причём ведь ничего принципиального для них самих не изменится, пользователи лишь получат дополнительную возможность в настройке миссии. Ибо карта большая, разница превышений аэродромов на карте существенная, и инструмент для более правильной настройки ветров тут просто необходим. Вот даже сейчас, сию минуту смотрю карту ветров и вижу: Анапа (Н=0м над уровнем моря) - ветер 10 м/с; Беслан (Н=500м над уровнем моря, примерно) - ветер - 2 м/с. Вот выстави на карте Кавказа десятку на нуле, и получишь в Беслане не 2, все 20... Но нет, эти кренделя будут до последнего доказывать тебе, что ты баран, а они всё делают правильно. Гении-метеорологи, ля... И кстати говоря, сей параметр для Н=500м далеко не всегда выдаёт в миссии по факту тот ветер, который для него рассчитан редактором. Если, скажем у земли выставить 2 м/с, то на 500м редактор покажет автоматически рассчитанные 4 м/с, но, если на Н=2000м выставить 15 м/с, то градиент изменения ветра по высотам меняется существенно, и 4 м/с получим уже на высоте 50-100м, а может и ниже. То есть, в нынешнем виде этот параметр сколь нелогичен, столь и бесполезен.

We are asking them to whitelist it. And it does work, it takes a few weeks. It is just that as soon as the file slightly changes with the next DCS update that these Antivirus softwares will flag them again, as the changed file is not whitelisted already. So the whitelisting process has to be repeated (which we and ED do with each update). This is normal. AAA studios suffer from this as well - normally these companies pay for business accounts at MS, Kaspersky and Co to speed up the process and they typically also delay their planned updates until the files have been confirmed to be whitelisted before sending them to users. Since this part isnt done for DCS (for a few reasons) you experience this problem as end user. If you do believe ED or us are shipping actual viruses then I do not think there is much we can do to convince you from the opposite. Then you either have to stop playing DCS at all if you do not trust the publisher or at least have to stay on an old version and wait with updates for ~4 weeks to be sure the whitelisting for those files specifically has been done already.

Ich finde WW2 in DCS viel besser als den ganzen modernen Kram und habe auch extra dafür damals in den Kickstarter investiert. Bin begeisterter Dora-Flieger wie onlinetk. Wenn Flugzeuge Bildschirme haben statt Uhren, ist es bei mir schon ziemlich durch, hatte ich in RL genug. Den Eurofighter kaufe ich mir natürlich trotzdem. Schon aus nostalgischen Gründen. Auf Pacific freue ich mich tierisch. Auch wenn ich dann das geniale Kommandogerät der Focke-Wulf gegen die mühselige Bedienung eines Pratt&Whitney R-2800 eintauschen muss.

Regarding the search for the radar positions of Taskforce Normandy, I can perhaps make the following contributions: I found a “Task Force Normandy Virtual Staff Ride” on the website of the “Army University Press” including accompanying documents. Task Force Normandy Read Ahead Guidance and Packet Task Force Normandy Visuals (Exportable) The documents provide some good information, including MGRS coordinates from the used VBS3. However, the coordinates did not quite match the time and/or distance information. A search in the immediate vicinity via. Bing-Maps, Google-Maps and Apple-Maps produced a position for the western destination that actually matched quite well: Target West: Bing Maps: 32.47863, 40.178294 Apple Maps Beta: 32.47863, 40.178294 There is even a flight plan in the documents for the eastern target, which I was able to match quite well with the maps available in DCS, except for the actual target. The actual possible target area is very “rugged”, but even there I was able to find a possible position that would fit quite well with the distance information: Target East: Bing Maps: 31.825167, 41.040554 Apple Maps Beta: 31.825167, 41.040554 The target positions should be compared using the following information from the sources mentioned above: • The early warning radar targets were just north of the Saudi-Iraqi border. • The sites were separated by approximately 40 miles of open desert. • The two Teams (White and Red) lift of from Al Jouf, a joint airfield with a small single runway staging strip, northeast of Tabuk, and it was the closet Saudi airfield to the Iraqi border • The planned times were: Team White, would lift off at 12:56 a.m., followed five minutes later by Team Red. If all went according to plan, both teams would arrive at their destinations at exactly 2:38 a.m. • At 0056 on 17 January 1991, the first helicopters took off from Al Jouf headed toward their assigned targets. • Taskforce White had 10 Waypoints (See slide 23 in the visuals download (PowerPoint)): WP1 Starting point at Al Jouf, WP2 checkpoint, WP3 checkpoint with a course change, WP4 last checkpoint prior to crossing the border, WP5 green chem light, WP6 target location, WP7 checkpoint after re-crossing the border with a course change, WP8 checkpoint and course change at or next to Ar Ar, WP9 final checkpoint and course change, WP10 landing at Al Jouf end of mission • At 0212, the Task Force Normandy helicopters crossed into Iraq, varying their flight path as necessary to avoid known or suspected enemy observation posts or Bedouin locations. • The western target was 13 miles farther; the eastern target, 23 miles. - (If the above-mentioned positions, or the positions to be found in the training documents, are even approximately correct, then this information (seen from the border) is exactly the opposite, namely the western target is further away from the border than the eastern target!) • To help the Apaches navigate during their final approach, the Pave Lows would drop a bundle of green infrared chemical lights at a preset point 9 miles from each target. • Taskforce White: After traveling approximately 5-7 kilometers north, they reached their planned release point, which was northeast of the target site. Coming in from this direction would hopefully help confuse any Iraqis on site who may have seen or heard the Apaches prior to execution. • Taskforce White: At exactly 0237:50, White Team Apache pilot Lieutenant Tom Drew keyed his radio and broadcast, “Party in 10.” • Taskforce White: Precisely ten seconds later, all crews began firing their Hellfire missiles. Twenty seconds later, the deadly weapons began to detonate against the structures. • The target sites each consist of 1x Spon Rest radar, 1x Squateye radar, 1x Flatface radar, 1x troposcatter communication shelter and antenna, 2-4 Generators, 1x operation van, 1x electronic warfare van, barraks and 3x ZPU-4 antiaircraft guns, divers fuel containers and additional trucks with trailers • The final configuration for the TF Normandy aircraft was decided to be 1200 rounds of 30mm, one 2.75-inch rocket pod, two Hellfire missile launchers, and one 230-gallon Extended Range Fuel System tank • The concept for the attack was to engage the target with Hellfires at approximately 6 kilometers. After all of the Hellfires were expended, the Apaches were to move to 4 kilometers and started firing Multipurpose Sub-Munitions (MPSM) rockets and at 2 kilometers from the sites, they were to engage with their 30mm chain guns to destroy whatever remained of the compounds until they were out of ammunition. • Taskforce White: The Apaches then flew south, crossed the border, and linked back up with the Pave Lows, who led the team back to Al Jouf. And yes, I know there's a lot of speculation in the whole thing!

Hatte nie Intresse an WW2, aber einmal die TF51 Mustang ausprobiert und das fliegen ist der Hammer, gleich die Dora gekauft und ist ein super fliegen. WW2 macht Spaß

The Type-2, 95, 97 were claimed by ED. Of course, we have our own models too, but we didn't know they had started any assets then. In place of those, we developed the Type-98 Ke-Ni and So-Da. Our original wheeled/track models.... Type-94 Truck, Type-2 Kai-Mi, Type-89 I-Go, Tye-95 Ha-Go, Type-97 Chi-Ha

The latest Nvidia Inspector allows you to pull the latest DLSS .dll directly from the Nvidia driver installation, i.e. you no longer need to replace the DLL inside DCS install folders. Check it out here: NVInspector Revampled link: https://github.com/xHybred/NvidiaProfileInspectorRevamped?tab=readme-ov-file

In the F-104G: For air to air it's similar-ish - you have a search mode, manual acquisition, a boresight/dogfight type mode, and STT. Depending on the exact variant/era G aircraft you may or may not have access to choosing between 1 and 2 bar scans. In air to ground it's in a completely different league from the F-5. The radar has two air go ground mapping modes (depending on beam size - one is more appropriate for high altitude mapping of large areas, one for low altitude), and two ground avoidance modes (terrain avoidance, in which the antenna is stabilized along the flight path direction, and contour mapping, in which it is pitch stabilized). Also, the antenna is not roll-stabilized so that makes things pretty interesting if you're maneuvering at low altitude. Navigation is mostly just INS/TACAN with help from the radar. The F-104 was actually the very first fighter aircraft to fly with an INS. Weapons delivery is mostly manual; there is a bomb timer very similar to that in the F-4E, but just like in the Phantom it's most appropriate for either extremely large targets (think bombing in the general direction of an airfield) or nukes (which won't be a thing in DCS - maybe we could get a practice round though, that'd be cool). I do not have as much info on earlier variants, but I imagine they are much closer to the F-5 (no INS for sure, likely no ground mapping modes or bomb timers, although the C had LABS iirc). The S had a radar with (some) improvement in air to air modes (and a bit more with the ASA upgrade), and eventually had GPS integrated as well with the ASAM upgrade.

Part of upuaut's Addon Tents, Watchtower, UH-1-Cargo pack Old pack, so not everything works but his 3 river boats still do.

The ZPU series is the last missing piece of post-war soviet AAA. It's a 14,5*114 gun and comes in single, dual or quad-barreled versions. Somewhat related to this, DCS also needs blufor "equivalents", namely GPMGs or HMGs in AAA mounts. For example the M2 or MG3 (Picture below: MG3 in "Zwillingslafette" AAA mount) Thanks!

Since I cannot post images at Orbx, I hope someone at Orbx can see this. I'm trying to make some reinactments of scrambles from this station, and it would be so cool to actually have the correct shelters.

I really appreciated Tensors 5090 results, although they were a bit disappointing. I expected more in VR because of its massive VRAM bandwidth improvements: which is needed for super high resolutions and positive effect on 1%. This review actually confirms my expectations. So I am a little more excited and hopeful again about the 5090 (when I can buy it in 2037). Also: in this 4090/5090 MSFS comparison below up to 25%-50% improvements are seen (although not very precisely measured).

Такой темы по DLSS на форуме не нашёл, решил тут похвалиться. Может кому нибудь интересно станет. Раньше я DLSS не включал, т.к. мыло было. Хотелось очки одеть, что бы резкость навести. Сегодня через костыли установил крайнюю версию DLSS на свою полудохлую старушку RTX 3050. Качество картинки впечатлило. На Марианах у земли теперь картинка плавная без рывков. Мыла почти нет. Картинка на удивление резкая. Даже при ФПС 48 плавно без рывков. На карте Сирии на аэродроме Хмеймим есть у меня миссия на стоянке куча техники и юнитов. При МSAAx4 был ФПС 47 и тормоза, сейчас стабильные 60ФПС и загрузка видео 70%. Я доволен как слон. Кому будет интересно. Могу скинуть ссылку на ролик в ТыТрубе с инструкцией по установке.

Manny thanks ggrewe, I`ll give it a go.

Yes, big guns need big visuals. Was playing around with some older WW2 mods and thought the big guns were too similar to the smaller guns and was wondering if I could double the size of the visual. Will follow up with Hawkeye and see what I can convince him to do seabat

In this case I would not argue..

@Yo-Yo said that realistic energy states are not limited by the SFM and therefore the GFM will not change AI aircraft in that regard. So... let's bump this thread then: *bump* ps: I think @Skuva might be right with the assumption that the FM doesn't take relation between airspeed and max thrust into account.

I own all 3. 16s and 18s don't make the 15E superfluous. Neither 16s to 18s and vice versa. Reading the list of advantages as the larger payload, fuel, A2G radar, etc... that you wrote, one by one as individual advantages is one thing. The actual practical effect is all those things together. The 15E is a BEAST without comparison to the 16 and 18 with its capability of time on station and payload combined with its avionics. You're basically inside a medium bomber without having to think about fuel for quite a while with also being a self escort platform with those huge engines and Aim-120s. F-16s doesn't have the legs to do that with such heavy payloads, and the 18s doesn't have the ordinance capability for the amount of different tasks in one go the 15E takes. So, the question of: I'd say it is combining the advantages in one instead of knowing the advantages separately. In practice they stack impressively. I love what this plane can do. With a full load of CBU-97s, you can basically delete anything remotely hot in a town size radius like if a platoon of explosive Predator Paratroopers dropped from a plane above. "But F-16s also have the 97s" Not in this payload size. The thing is wild, man. Although I prefer LGBs and some Jdams.

Thanks Tonker. The changes we've made are happening at a fairly rapid pace. At such a rapid pace that Devil and I are struggling a little bit to keep things coordinated as we both make changes. The videos from Feb 7 were recorded using v2.009 and we're already making some changes and working on v2.010. There's been some good work since the release of v2.006 and I'd like to get most of these changes into your hands as soon as possible. We're always flying the "latest" version which makes getting the community "caught up" a little more difficult because I don't want to drop bugs on you all. BTW, the pace comes because we continue to have epic experiences in this mission (like you saw in the recordings) and think up ways to make the experience even better. As a little "tease" here are some of the things coming soon™ : Devil's changes to Andersen - moved units down to Antonio B. Won Pat Intl to reduce performance requirements at Andersen : Restructured all random group spawning to leverage MIST to randomize placement of groups on the map. : Labeled Southwest mountain range "Copperhead" on map : Fixed Chinook name in the CSAR script - the unit name should be "CH-47Fbl1" : Removed most of the static planes at Andersen as we now use StopGaps and have plenty of statics there because of it. : Added 8Ball CAP-Navy v2.1 This is REQUIRED (more to come on this) : Added new voiceovers to the mission initialization trigger. These new voiceovers are randomized in the CSAR script so we now have different voiceovers for pilot pickups and dropoffs at MASH. Gives a bit more variety and life to the CSAR element. By far the biggest update is the randomization of the group placement using MIST. You likely noticed some of our commentary on the videos regarding this change. Placement of random appearing groups is now also randomized and makes the map feel very different each time you play. As for "when" - I am planning on pushing the update sometime this upcoming weekend (Feb 15/16).

The bomb timer thing basically is made of two timers - a run in timer, and a release timer (although depending on the variant/operator/era the names slightly differ even though the systems do the same exact thing, go figure...). When you're planning your mission you pick an ingress point, an ingress speed, a release maneuver and a release point. You then work out how long it's going to take you to fly from the IP to the release point at your chosen speed, and how long it's going to take you to go from the release point to where the bombs need to come off the aircraft to actually hit your target. You then set those two times on the bomb timers. When you're flying your mission, once you're over the IP you depress the weapon release button, and the run in timer starts counting down. Once it reaches 0 you're (in theory) over the release point; the gunsight turns off and you hear a sound to warn the pilot, the release timer starts counting down, and you begin your pre-planned release maneuver (say, a 4g pull to 30 degrees nose up or something). Once the release timer reaches 0 the bombs come off the aircraft automatically. The IP is something you can identify by overflying visually, or with the radar (e.g. once I see this feature at distance x, y degrees to my left/right, I'm over my IP). You can see how all of this wouldn't exactly be great for accurate conventional bombing. Roughly half the Italian S had it from the get go - "S" literally stands for "Sparrow", and that version first flew in 1965. You had to remove the gun to carry the CW illuminator to fire it though, so in practice the interceptor squadrons flew with Sparrows and the fighter bomber ones kept the gun (with some exceptions, e.g. when the interceptor folks got hand me down fighter bombers as the Tornado was coming online). The recce squadrons kept the G. The ASA update in the late 80s/early 90s (among other things) essentially replaced the AIM-7E with the Selenia Aspide, which is based on the AIM-7E but with improved electronics/motor/seeker. It should be somewhere between the AIM-7F/M in terms of capability/performance, and it's still in use to this day as a SAM.

All of them! Not needed. They are all "broken", or WIP, or whatever.

It also means less polygons, which is always good news in a video game!

Next batch of liveries are almost done...see attached for more details... I also uploaded a better version of Let's Make a Deal with improved graphics.

Please don't listen to Razor. He's an ex-Army Egg Beater pilot, and he's crazy. Razor really wants an Avenger...... Most of the pilots hated the SB2C (Son of a Bitch Second Class). But I still want it, too.

Hi, I’d like to thank you again for making our VR dreams come closer to reality with your Quadviews implementation. It blows my mind and frustrates me that game developers are still not catching on. Releasing new MSFS, or even ACEvo without this kind of support for high-end VR users. I also appreciate ED and DCS for having this kind of compatibility. I know you have stopped working on this. But is there a way where we can still thank you for your developments? Looking for a way to donate. thank you again!

ED do seem to have nailed the actual Mozzie manual well in that "The undercarriage warning horn sounds when the main wheels are not locked down and the throttles are less than 1/4 open" - as using the VKB config software my throttles are outputting exactly 25.0% at the warning horn (note it must be BOTH throttles at 1/4 or below to sound horn). However, there definitely seems to be something funky going on with how much boost is being applied at low throttle openings! Watching the formation flying of of Mozzie KA114 fitted with Merlin 25 engines in Auckland and you can catch a glimpse of the boost gauges sitting around 0 lb boost and he is just dropping in and out of the horn with the throttle pretty much stood up - prob dropping into the negative boost area to slow it up now and then. (non-historic boost gauges but 0 lb boost is still at 12'oclock.) He looks to be flying around 180 MPH - but don't know if he has a little flap out or not - prob not. Doesn't really matter as it is more the throttle postion to boost output ratio that is the problem, not how much power it has.....that's for another post lol. But definitely not sitting up at 7 lb and dropping in and out of the horn as we are in DCS! Something else quite strange is how there is no manifold change or effect on the engine at all during flight in the DCS Mozzie for the first 1/2" or so of throttle travel. then it jumps up to 0..then races around to 8 at very low throttle settings? This would definitely have an adverse effect and also indicate that the throttle/boost curve is not quite right. I have attached the ref vids below - first one is quite dark so only catch a glimpse of the settings, but it is stable flight the whole time as he is in formation. Second vid is in same aircraft with much better view of gauges. Interesting to watch the takeoff and how the manifold pressure reacts at certain throttle settings. Also interestinig to note in second vid he is flying around at -1 boost at around 180 MPH - no warning horn. EDIT: Was also thinking this could be related to why the DCS Mossie throttle stops are located at +14 lbs, instead of the actual figure for the Merlin 25 of +12 lbs. Further to the above - I have also included the boost curve info for reference/comparison purposes. Firstly some information from the Merlin engine manual regarding the PROGRESSIVE boost cam. Below is what I would consider a reasonable boost/throttle position progressive curve that more closely matches what can been seen in in-flight videos of the Mosquito - I note this is not specifically based on any info as I have been unable to find any. However, you will note it is a lot more likely example of a PROGRESSIVE boost curve than that shown in the second graph in red - which is what we currently have in DCS. All figures taken from a Mosquito at Channel map at 1,000'. I think most people would agree the Blue curve would be much more likely than the Red curve for a progressive relationship between throttle position and boost - and would also enable lower power settings that don't require the throttles to be below 25%. I specifically note the settings for 0 lb boost as seen in one of my ref videos just skirting the upper limit of the 25% mark. I realise the Mosquito doesn't really get any attention regarding development any more - but as a Kiwi I feel it is my obligation to try and fix her up lol. I understand ED may not have the available manpower to address the issues with the Mozzie and would happily change the values myself if ED would point me in the right direction.

Aquorys, By the extaordinarily in-depth, and passionate description of your dogfight, sounds like it must be the most immersive air combat simulation you've ever experienced, and you really love it! You aren't "underwhelmed", you're addicted to it. Or else, you're just being snarky.

I found the Mig-21 to be the most overpowered when flown by AI (but haven't tested in a while, so would not know if it changed recently). It's a third-party aircraft though. Does ED do AI setup and tweaking for all third-party aircraft as well or is it the responsibility of the module developer?

Jawohl. Radar aus, Licht aus und nur wenige Fuß über dem Boden. Die KI verhält sich ja auch nur so allsehend, wenn man ihr den Radargebrauch erlaubt. Verbietet man ihr den, ist sie verhältnissmäßg blind ohne Updates durch das EWR. Für meine Mission ja eigentlch genau richtig...

#1: Download and install the F22 v3 mod from GD here: F-22A - GrinnelliDesigns (You have to own the F15C or the new 2024 Flaming Cliffs) At least I don't think it will work with the old version any longer, someone correct me if I'm wrong. #2: Ensure that it works in game as is by making a test mission or something to fly it. #3: Download the version of the enhancement mod from page one of this thread. Single player or Multi, if you want the weapons etc, single player. #4: Extract the zip file and then copy the contents to your ..\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\aircraft\F-22A folder overwriting what's there.

The exocet is operational again https://youtu.be/0dV1zfCvkyg

All is good, nothing overly dramatic, it will resolve itself over the next week..

Hello, I mean - It´s the wrong section for wishes but I do it anyway: Please ED- If you guys can do a deep simulated MiG29 then please give me a full fidelity Su-27 Flanker. Cheers TOM

In my logbook Hornet: Deaths 438 Ejections 42 = 9.5% M-2000C Deaths 102 Ejections 52 = 51% Big difference.

hello. i just cloned my 2 TB nvme to a 4 TB nvme. purchased an NVME SSD Reader Adapter, a 4 TB nvme, and used free macrium to clone from 2 TB drive to the reader. took under an hour to do the copy. turned off computer, and replaced the nvme. windows never knew the difference. example gear https://www.amazon.com/dp/B084ZKLQR8 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CHGT1KFJ https://www.macrium.com/reflectfree#backup-and-recovery-software-for-home-pcs about $350

I can hardly recall ever just being damaged by any missile when flying the Hornet. It always seems like I’m killed. In the M-2000C it’s much more probable to be just damaged. Or so it seems. I’ve never done any sort of testing though so who’s to say if anything’s wrong.

@NineLine Hi men! I hope it's very good!! Friend, have you had time to look at the document? In addition to that, this topic was delved into at the IRAQ nuclear research center, perhaps the most important point of interest in all of IRAQ. He has already appeared in several videos by big Youtubers. Please tell me, if this work and the one I am continuing is interesting for the map development team, it would be a great motivation to continue collecting information and images of other points of interest. PD: in the Next post will going in deep of The Al-Mamoun Solid Rocket Motor Production Plant related to the production of ballistic missiles launches from SCUD. A huge target!!!