Leaderboard

Texturing and 3D progress by our Artist David.

Since we have a timer for the fog and dust storm settings, a timer for cloud presets should theoretically be possible whereby the user can start the mission with one cloud preset, then at a defined time have the mission transition to a different cloud preset, e.g. starting off with "Broken 3" then at 2 hours after mission start transitioning into "Overcast and Rain 2" or somesuch to replicate changing weather.

В данном случае "SL PAK" наверняка издевается над "GrayZeeCat", когда говорит "про тень" и надо стремится к идеалу, слетанности. Попробуйте включить быструю миссию для поршневиков, например 2*2: Ме-109 против Спита и всё увидите: про тень, про слетанность, про идеал. Когда бот, находящийся на разной с тобой высоте и курсу (вплоть до противоположного) после кратковременно затишья докладывает - "противник на 2 часа". И противника не увидишь, и ведомый только тебя запутал. Ну правда, ну зачем такое подобие? Вроде "GrayZeeCat" предлагает что-то конструктивное и дельное, а вы делаете вид, что проблема сугубо только у "GrayZeeCat". Не очень хорошо.

Lucky you to have buttons to press and switches to flip. Well, most others are stuck pushing keys on a keyboard, in VR audible feedback is often the only way to know your keystroke was registered without looking down. Like it or not, most people don't have nearly enough bindings to cover the important stuff. Also, 3-position switches sometimes don't register properly if you move the real switch too quickly, the audio feedback is a lifesaver in those situations. Until DCS fixes problems of this sort, this will remain useful for, apparently, everyone who but you. In fact, for those without a full 3D audio system, bass shakers and proper headphones, the sound will always be "fake", since it's difficult to replicate a real aircraft's audio environment using just a pair of headphones. All in all, HB's standard on audio quality is still rather high. RAZBAM, for instance, seems to barely care what their modules sound like.

Damn straight! Where else can we get hyper-detailed military jets to fly around? The civvy sim military jets have FMs that feel like melted ice cream and don't look nearly as good. And they have no "Kaboom!" We get the tight FMs, the best aircraft eye candy, and the "Kaboom!"

Yes, because both F-14 and F-4 are in EA. Other devs don't provide options - you have clicky switches and audible speedbrakes in ED modules, for example. You don't even get the option to adjust AB detent in most of them. Those sound effects are a replacement for tactile feedback, not for the sake of sounding cool. On the kind of rig described in your signature, as opposed to a full cockpit motion platform you obviously use now, not having those sounds would be fake difficulty. We want to be able to operate the jet the way it's supposed to be operated, not constantly look at switches to make sure they engaged. If you think flying with what amounts to a full body loss of a sense of pressure is in any way realistic... well, I have bad news for you, pilots are generally expected to have all their senses in working order. Most people don't have a haptic suit (not that DCS supports one).

Even with the bugs, I still love this SIM.

Странно, я когда на работе БИНСы регулирую на 37, мне и в голову не приходило что под неё носителя нет. Спасибо за ответы, вопросов больше не имею.

Мне ведомые не интересны, просто жаль видеть как человек мучается в тщетных попытках объяснить... Итак, разница наглядно(Paint, автор Я):

Kneeboard, control postition indicator, radio dialog, Jester AI - allow custom permanent position for multimonitor setup If i edit manualy postion for kneeboard, i get MP client tainted ban from servers

It is something we plan on doing at some point, plenty of reports on it internally, but it just hasn't happened yet. I will make sure it's noted that this is a very desired feature. Thanks!

Bang! Pow! Boom! https://open.spotify.com/track/4JfcEkOP08hSwP7cSSz6AW?si=tUgjaFeHT460Q6DT-VQ_yA&pi=akSsDPhaQEWHn

"Kaboom!"

DCS это не про баланс

This is what I made

threads merged. A fix will be coming soon for this long standing issue. thank you

Hi all, sorry for the inconvenience, we will have a new set of banners soon. As a work around if you go to the bottom of the page and find theme, selecting dark will make the text black which will help. thank you

пробовал на Ка-50... отправил ведомого, в режиме "разведка". Он ушел строго по моему курсу (носу). Я встал в круг и начал принимать данные по целям. Доклад по целям и направление, ведомый давал по направлению, относительно моего положения. Групповая цель находилась строго на север. Я, шатаясь по кругу, менял положение , и доклад был примерно следующим: " - Бронетехника, на 3 часа. (В этот момент цели были по моему правому борту. У ведомого они были по курсу - на 12 часов) Я , следуя по кругу, сменил положение, и цели уже были позади меня. Последовал следующий доклад: " - Малоразмерная, на 6 часов." И пока я ходил по кругу, указание курса на цель менялось, относительно моего положения. Бот передавал мне данные по направлению на цель, относительно меня и как командиру.

Вы как-то плохо в своем же симуляторе ориентируетесь. Ведомый бот из группы игрока все целеуказания дает по циферблату относительно своего носа. Независимо от типа цели (наземная, воздушная). Относительно опорных ориентиров докладывают только боты, которые являются отдельными от игрока группами. В вашей идеальной вселенной почему-то ведущий и ведомый всегда летят с одним курсом. Только это может позволить ведомому давать направление по циферблату относительно своего борта. Я специально еще раз уточню, что ведомый даст направление на угрозу от борта ведущего, не от своего, не зависимо от своего текущего курса. Я ровно об этом же писал в сообщении выше Я не прошу из ведомого делать ДРЛО, я прошу заменить его невнятные и известные только ему "2 часа" на конкретный азимут. Не указывать азимут от борта игрока, а так же, как сейчас, указывать от борта ведомого бота, но азимут. Все. Либо надо ориентировать циферблат относительно курса принимающего целеуказание, иначе это не целеуказание, а пустой звук и засорение эфира. Я как раз про такой случай уточнял И RIO здесь ошибся скорее всего потому, что внутри экипажа именно такое целеуказание используется, но не между бортами. Видать ситуация стрессовая была) Я это имел в виду, а не то, что вообще не используется.

Доклад бота, как сейчас сделано у вас, кроме редких случаев, когда вы прямолинейно летите строем, не несет никакой полезной информации для игрока, кроме той, что бот где-то на каком-то удалении обнаружил цель. Если б он относительно игрока давал направление и дальность, этого разговора сейчас вообще бы не было. В реальных боевых действиях ведомый будет докладывать ведущему направление на цель или угрозу относительно борта ведущего, а не от своего, так как у ведущего нет времени сопоставлять курс ведомого с циферблатом. Сейчас есть много видео из зоны СВО с работой штурмовиков, бомберов. На некоторых из них по ведущему работает ПЗРК, ни разу не слышал на записи, чтобы ведомый направление на угрозу относительно своего борта давал, всегда от борта ведущего. Известная запись переговоров, где Су-34 от Патриота уводили, хоть раз в ней офицер боевого управления использовал направление на угрозу по циферблату? Нет конечно, только азимут и дальность. В приложенной цитате как раз описана ситуация как в DCS сейчас, вместо указания положения цели относительно опорного ориентира (H-3, codenamed “Manny”), RIO дал пеленг и дальность относительно Томкэта. Пеленг ≠ Азимут. Тут пеленг - это угол между направлением на цель и курсом Томкэта, тот же самый циферблат бота из DCS. Ну и результат точно такой же, ДРЛО пришлось гадать, куда нос Томкэта направлен. Очередное подтверждение всего выше сказанного. Уважаемые @Chizh @SL PAK, раз уж с вами этот диалог завязался. Дискуссия пошла уже на второй круг, если не на третий. Одни и те же доводы в разной форме. Я всего лишь прошу разработчиков изменить существующую форму доклада бота об обнаруженных целях, заменив указание направления с "циферблатного" хотя бы на азимут цели. Из плюсов вижу, что доклад бота, об обнаруженных целях, из бесполезного шума в эфире превратится в какое-никакое целеуказание. Как его использовать, это уже дело игрока, но его хотя бы можно будет с некоторыми оговорками использовать. Из минусов, разработчикам придется что-то поменять в коде DCSW.

I have to second this Kandy! I went off in the weeds on the F-35 and the HMDS, but I greatly appreciate the hard work they have put into this sim. It shows every time we fly. I would go as far to say that the aggressive criticism and flak they took from me is because my love for this sim and appreciation I have for ED and DCS World goes far beyond any hobby I have. Always looking forward to the next update. @Wags @NineLine Gents thanks for all the hard work on the new fog and continuing to make our combat sim dreams come true. We are grateful for all the hard work you do put into this. The team and I are doing our best to bring Vietnam to DCS until you gents bring the map our way. @Wags Wags, please don't take my visor comments personal as of late. Honestly, it's your fault because you guys made the sun so damn good in game, it will legitimately blind you in VR, which I greatly appreciate. Look forward to those tinted visors when you guys can squeeze them in! For the rest of the ITJ crew and fans, below was an A-4 video from this past weekend. Uploading a solo Huey video next from a flight I took today. Kandy has done a tremendous job with his scripting and dynamic spawns. Every group is continuously somewhere different now. You really need to watch the Jungle. Even better during an early morning flight in the fog.

Clipped-wing Corsair!Then we need British carrier

My guess is that it depends on your definition of "broken" i.e. the module has had "minor" issues since release (such as the HSI, GPS and TACAN using a mix of TRUE and MAG bearings) and it's taken IFE a long time to rectify them. DCS's 2023 multi-thread core update also broke some cockpit animations (i.e. canopy handle) that IFE retroactively "fixed". There's always been a minor bug(s) since I've owned the module, whether it be the gun sight mils or the current cold start ADI bug. However, to date, IFE have always found the resources/time to push fixes and the module continues to improve over time. Comment Although necessary to be patient for IFE's updates (i.e. the flight director, etc.), IMHO the MB-339 is definitely worth picking up in a sale (if looking for a modern/western trainer/COIN op platform). YMMV.

After many hours of perseverance I am now very happy with DLSS4. Yes, there are some downsides but the positives definitely outweigh the negatives. The clarity and AA is so good that I have been able to reduce the size of the foveated region (QVFR) which has really helped performance. For anyone interested: DLSS4 3.10.2 preset K VD Godlike at 72 Hz QVFR centre 0.2x0.2 at 1.4; periphery 0.38. Sharpness 0.9. (The boost in the foveated resolution combined with increased sharpening has reduced ghosting and improved spotting) Given that this is early days for DLSS4 the future looks promising

Just for a little reality check, I know you guys have seen @Massun92's in-progress Huey cockpit revamp but it's a useful reminder. A talented modder (well able to speak for himself so hopefully he'll swing by), even so it's a huge job. When I floated the idea of 'backdating' the commercial modules for the Herc and Wokka to give them C-130H and CH-47D cockpits (thinking this would be fairly low-hanging fruit, and a good way to encourage someone else to work on an updated FM, another person to look at the exterior etc), it was made clear by several that, although the idea had a lot of support, there really is no low-hanging fruit in DCS modding. Not to rain on anyone's parade, we just need to be sympathetic with our requests. The impression I get is that it's often harder to start with someone else's old work than it is to start fresh. If I were ED at this point I'd take a look at Il2:1946, start charging $10 on Steam for the base game and release a proper SDK for modders...but we're a long way from that yet. In the meantime, Per Ardua ad As Littlebird!

Можно попроситься полетать тушкой с каким-нибудь спортсменом. Тогда на отрицательные перегрузки в симе надолго выработается условный рефлекс. И даже может быть рефлюкс.

I think this has been raised before but just wanted to revisit the idea. A P-38 would suit both Normandy 2 and WW2 Marianas maps and 1944 setting.

This is probably the first VR-review featuring the 5090 and DCS. It also covers MSFS2020/2024. Spoiler: The 5090 is fastest Around +20 to 25 fps difference. Video:

F-22A, RWR Symbology and Modern missiles updates. I linked Modern Missiles in my drop box on the first page. I'm trying to update them on User Files but that's going sloooowly. F-22: I found out how to remove drag from the internal missiles in the current iteration of DCS. That's been implemented. Using a negative drag value for example cx_gain = -2.5 used to work, but now it literally applies a negative drag, not a drag reduction. For the F-22 what this did: You fire a missile from the left side of the bay, you now have two in the left and three in the right, the plane would start banking left toward the side with "more" drag since the left side now has less "negative" drag. It was weird, but that's what it's doing. Now there is no drag on the internal weapons and firing them does nothing to the bank of the F22. Now...super cruise....rest in peace. It's gone folks. I know the other release last week seems to super cruise at M 1.8...and it does, until you fire a missile. Then it starts to slow down. I do not understand how or why this is happening. I tested with just stock missiles and no other changes and it would still slow down. Sometimes it slows down faster than other times, I can use the EXACT same load out with only the pylon section being replaced with the EXACT same zero drag or even negative drag and one will slow down at a different rate than the other. I can't find any logic to it. I've spent hours trying different things and I'm done with it. As far as I can tell, we're now flying an F-15C (and a crapy version at that) that happens to look like an F22. All parameters related to thrust and drag and the simple flight model data no longer apply to the aircraft. It sucks in turns, it sucks in acceleration and it sucks in combat. It was a fun plane to fly while it lasted. I mean, it still LOOKS cool, just don't expect it to be king of the sky's. I know there's a working thrust vectoring version out there, Growling Sidewinder uses it all of the time, and its using a different flight model. You can watch any of those videos and see what the potential is. Unfortunately, they have chosen not to release those modifications. And since GS has it installed in his copy of DCS, its definitely accessible if they chose to make it available. Once it goes open source, perhaps someone will be able to unlock this thing finally. I don't know if there's anything more that can be done right now, if someone wants to take a crack at it, be my guest. RWR: Updated with current DCS version. If there are new mods/missiles etc missing, let me know where to find them and I can see about updating it. I've updated it with all of CurrenHills assets as of today. Modern Missiles: Updated with current DCS version, improves the AIM-9L/9X and AIM-120B/C to be 9X/9X2+ and 120C/120D. The 120C has a range ~85 NM and 120D 110 NM under ideal circumstances and provided your RADAR and lock a target that far away and keep the lock. The F-22 is STILL really good as a BVR platform.

I don't so you shouldn't feel that way. The discussion went different way since the Pipe's post. No, it does nothing for F-14. What I own is in my sig. Nothing more.

This is very situational and is quite bad in some conditions. However, I agree that overall this is offset by significant benefits.

I know Rudel. BTW, I did read that back when he wrote it. But it's deeply annoying how every now and again people write their essays on "why I leave DCS because devs don't do what I like how I like…", and then again those threads go on for months without an end with people really concerned and thinking about "leave or stay" like that was important. And I mean, yeah, we all do go through whatever it is and go and come back. I don't fly DCS right now since I can't remember when due to personal reasons, life and those silly things happening all the time, you know. Ok, so I don't fly, I can't fly, I whatever you wanna call it because I'm unable to do so or whatever. But who cares!!! It's a damn game, and entertainment, a pastime. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't, but, giving that much of an importance to a hobby is stupid on itself!!

Yeah, "students" with hundreds of flight hours already under their belt. Really, just check out Bio's recollections of how real TOPGUN training usually went. I can't point you to a single source about USAF, but Bio has great stories on how things were in USN. The Tomcat is a superior aircraft to the F-5, so by your logic, it should always win. Well, already elite USN pilots routinely got their backsides whooped by TOPGUN instructors flying F-5s. The trainees would indeed start winning eventually, as they learned and applied the lessons from TOPGUN, as well as from the previous experiences. My point is, skill matters more than the aircraft. In that case, it certainly did. No it won't, unless the F-15 driver flies a perfect game 95% of the time. Which most of them won't, either in DCS or IRL. No two pilots are perfectly equal, and in the end, it always comes down to who makes the fewer mistakes. The F-15 can afford to make more mistakes, or bigger mistakes than the F-5, so it's undoubtedly more likely to win, but there's always room for pilot error in a dogfight, including ones that will put the F-15 right in the F-5's sights. They're a good place to start, though. They showcase concepts than anything else, but learning concepts is good, because you can then apply them in an actual competitive environment. That's what flying a fighter is all about. Learning and adapting to threats. Seeing what worked for GS can give you a leg up in figuring out what works for you. From there, you can figure what kind of mistakes are the most important to avoid, and what kind of mistakes you can potentially goad him into making. In particular, those videos are very instructive on how both of those look from the cockpit, which I found very helpful. Oh, you mean those edge of envelope tweaks that happen from time to time? Exact performance specifics are not where those fights are won. Tactics are. As long as the essential relationships between aircraft performance remains correct, the results will be more or less correct. Would you fly the real Eurofighter exactly like you would a DCS module? Probably not. Could you learn what works with DCS version and then adjust for differences and apply it to the real jet? Probably yes (at least if you're any good as a pilot). You seem to be under impression that there's some "modern jet secret sauce" that will magically let newer technology completely dominate older one. There's no such thing IRL. Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter will not, and do not, beat the Vipers 95% of the time. They have an advantage, but in a dogfight, a single mistake can throw all that advantage away, if it's big enough. Eurofighter is not an automatic "I win" button IRL, it won't be so in DCS. So, constrained 1 vs. 1 gun/heater fights don't count, because they're too scripted, full package ops during Red Flag don't count because they're too realistic? Sounds like No True Scotsman fallacy to me. As a reminder, Vipers have trounced the newer jets in both. A Rafale driver even mentioned the Viper as the most challenging opponent he's faced. So far, only fights against the F-35 and the F-22 had been declared to be as one-sided as you'd like them to be.

The DCS EF is developed by us. TrueGrit helps us out with their expert knowledge and did provide the 3D model we used as base.

I thought TACAN was a late 1950s development, after the Korean War?

Нет, с наземными целями дается направление от статичного ориентира (как у нас сделано). Летящий впереди ведущий не может быть ориентиром в принципе. Какое отношение управление с земли имеет к летящей паре ведущий/ведомый? На земле люди сидят с аппаратурой показывающей те данные которые они передают в эфир. Ведомый же летит за ведущим и является его тенью и дополнительной парой глаз. И указывает направление по циферблату. Если ведущий отправил ведомого в атаку, то сам должен стать тенью ведомого и его дополнительными глазами. И если заметит справа от него след от ПЗРК, то он должен предупредить об угрозе на три часа, а не азимут 90 дальность 1200. -- То что вы хотите от ведомого с азимутами, у нас (и в реале) обеспечивают наземные и летающие юниты ДРЛО. Если в миссии есть такой юнит, то он сам сообщает вам азимут/дальность на воздушные цели и повторяет информирование по запросу через радиоменю.

It's not broken. There are bugs, but still worth it. Comes with a mini campaign you probably can play through during the trial. Wish they would have some more in depth training missions like the C-101 for new users. Cheers! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

OMFG I didn’t even see that! I assumed we would be getting a skin only…. I believe that the Royal Navy version never carried the rockets or rocket studs! HMS Illustrious please!

DCS was always JMSU. They just hid it behind appeals for counter-proof.

FONTE https://www.facebook.com/magnitude3llc/photos Bye Phant

Please give the Oceans some love!!!

Многие говорят что пиво вкусное, или Шаман хороший певец. А я как ни пытался , так и не смог пристраститься. Горькое оно для меня. И уши в трубочку Все индивидуально. Wow эффект от VR для меня продлился несколько часов. Далее произошло привыкание и осознание что , не стоит оно всего того геморроя что с ним связано. (Бесконечные настройки, грабли, тестирования, дорогое железо, коробка на голове с внешним миром на ощупь... т .д. ) Но однозначно, попробовать стоит. Можно в прокат.

Thought about hitting @Massun92 up to see if he would be interested in tackling the above since he is working the cockpit over. It would be awesome if he could take on doing an earlier variant like mentioned above. The desire is there for sure!

Hi, so - that was a long weekend with modeling only. I will not have the time for the next 2 weeks. So I can provide some latest updates: The different equipment and uniforms can be selected in the editor. It´s like a "what you want-shop" ... I´m really impressed by the 3d art made by EagleDynamics. The hole C47 is so wow and the pilots are so detailed and accurate - just amazing ED! On this picture you can see the different sets: Face shield and glasses, Night vision, just sun glasses and so on ... I think I have to prepare another rifle - I love the German G36 ... will see. Thats the news so far. Cheers TOM

I also like the idea of a separate Hangar "experience" mode, where you can walk around your modules in VR and maybe also have a look at AI assets. So kind of a VR encyclopedia/museum. Obviously not a big priority, but would be neat. The default hangar view in the backgrounds needs to go though!

Version 1.71 - Important performance/bug fix - 20250216 This update finally tracks down a bug in DCS that can potentially lead to crippling performance behavior in DCS - a bug in DCS-internal line-drawing methods. This update also patches a new DCS bug that appeared with the January 2025 update inside the way that DCS saves zone attributes. Other changes include some less generous scoring after players buy the farm, less aggressive AI on lower difficulty settings, and some other minor changes. Version 1.71 Changes in detail: • worked around a show-stopping DCS bug (performance killer) • patched a silly change in DCS mission data format • playerScore is less generous awarding kills • made playerScore less verbose • more mission difficulty balancing • setting difficulty to less than 1 suppresses RED repair/upgrade

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3336353/ Just a search in the user files, can do miracles...

I've never hit anything from up there. I was trying to test and illustrate a point. I realize now that they've thought of this, and they've probably done the best they could with a mod. They probably can't control the ballistics and air resistance to cause them to fall realistically...but close enough for low-level. Well, if you fly right over a guy with an AK at 100 knots, he's probably going to get you before you can drop a grenade on him...at least in DCS. I dropped 4 in quick succession, and they all missed him...but he got me. That's no way to go about business. Yes, it's fun!

You young sprog ... I'm 69 this year and still riding my Softail Slim S with the Screaming Eagle 110 engine!