Leaderboard

Here we go:

If they've read the thread there's nothing to be confused about: no active development for lack of motivation, followed by a show of support for the devs to boost morale, if not motivation. Go easy gents. The devs haven't ceased to exist and they know where we are. I know all this comes from a good place, but we've no right to a response in a particular timeframe. The point is to offer support, not demand it. Every time we tag them in a post, every question asked, every attempt to engage on our terms not theirs, we may well be making it harder for them. We don't know what's up, but we know where we're at so let's hang tight and continue to enjoy this amazing bit of digital craftsmanship The guys'll be back when they can, and we'll be here for them.

А за полеты на карте Кавказ будут курортный сбор взымать?

"Вычищать" будут специально обученные люди. Это их дело. Просто не любят ED на неудобные вопросы отвечать, проще тему закрыть. На западных форумах не закрыли.

Всё, о чём нам так долго врали, оказалось правдой. (с)

I'm not HB but here's the situation as far as I'm aware. As much as the JA 37 gets requested, there are two huge problems with it that make it unlikely to appear any time soon: Problem one: it's not like the AJS 37 A lot of people assume (quite naturally) that since it's a Viggen, it must be similar to the AJ(S) 37 and so a lot of code and assets could be reused from the AJS 37 module. This is unfortunately not true at all. The JA 37 looks like an AJ 37 from the outside, but internally and functionally it's an entirely different aircraft. The engine is different (one extra low pressure compressor stage), the airframe is different (the JA 37 has a longer fuselage, different control surfaces, a different tailfin, a different drop tank, and the 30mm cannon in a conformal belly pod), the flight control system is different (the autopilot and its SPAK damping mode is entirely different), the central computer is different (entirely new hardware and a completely different software suite), the HUD is different, and all of the tactical and weaponry stuff is of course completely different. The radar in particular has absolutely nothing in common with the AJS 37 radar. The PS-37/A on the AJ 37 is a mostly analog monopulse ground mapping radar that presents what is basically a raw video feed. The PS-46/A on the other hand is a fully digital, software controlled, TWS capable pulse-doppler contraption that is purely for air to air work. I don't think it even has a raw video output option; the presentation is fully digital too. The two aircraft share mostly structural components and some basic steam gauge instruments, but not a whole lot else. They share no weapon systems other than the rocket pods and Sidewinders. So, in conclusion, in terms of how much work is required to get a JA 37 in DCS, I think it'd basically be the equivalent of a completely new module from scratch. Problem two: we don't actually know how it works There is absolutely zero publicly available hard-facts documentation regarding how the JA 37's radar and tactical systems actually work in detail. Pilot anecdotes provide a few tantalizing glimpses, but they're understandably very vague. Then there's a few scattered pictures of the radar display and the tactical indicator screen, and the unclassified part of the flight manual has decent coverage of at least most of the nav mode stuff, but I'm pretty sure there isn't even a full symbology table for either display, much less any documentation about presentation in the many various different modes that are known to exist. There's an old article in Ericsson Review from the 80's that gets tossed around a lot, but while it's interesting, it doesn't actually say that much about the details of how to operate the thing. Essentially nothing is known about the tactical modes for the HUD either; there isn't even any good video footage of those modes that I'm aware of, only some glimpses in grainy amateur footage on YouTube (I say "modes" as if I know there's more than one, but I don't actually know how many there are). That doesn't even touch on the data link, which was very tightly integrated into the aircraft. The general principles of how it operated are known, as well as some details about how an older version of it worked on the Draken, but essentially no practical details about its implementation in the JA 37 are known, at least not nearly to the extent required to model it in DCS. We sort of know (mostly based on pilot anecdotes) that it could be used to present targets on the radar screen with similar symbology as targets detected with the aircraft's own radar, I guess? But even that is sort of speculative, I'm not sure how what that actually looked like in practice. Surely that is a solvable problem, though? I mean, the aircraft entered service in the early 1980's and was taken out of service about 20 years ago, it's pretty old tech. Documentation for at least the early versions should have passed the magical 40 year "shall-declassify" limit imposed by Swedish law. Still, there is no documentation out there, and there's a lot of internet mythology that attempts to explain why. For example, it's often claimed that the data link carried over to the Gripen and that's why a lot of documentation is still classified. I'm quite confident this is entirely baseless speculation, though. The reason I'm so confident about that is that when I emailed the Swedish national military archives last year to ask them to get the declassification process started for part 2 of the SFI (the flight manual part that contains the classified parts of the technical systems description for the aircraft), they replied that they do not have this publication in their library. They have part 1 (which is unclassified) and part 4 (declassified in 2012, contains aerodynamic performance charts), but not part 2. I didn't ask about part 3, which would contain mostly procedures and operational stuff. Either way, it's not that they refuse to declassify it, it's that we can't request declassification of a publication that doesn't exist. It is possible that the air force HQ or a similar institution has retained a copy of the documentation, but for complex Swedish bureaucratic reasons that we don't need to dig into here, I'd consider it extremely difficult to get access to that (in fact, I'd rate the odds of even getting them to give a straight answer if they have it or not as fairly low). The best bet for JA 37 documentation on this point I'd say is just straight up archival research. Go directly for the Defense Material Administration's classified project archives and start putting puzzle pieces together. Based on prior experience (I've done something at least vaguely similar for the strv 103) I'd say a conservative estimate would be that this should take at least a couple of years, if a decently competent researcher is on it on a regular basis. The main bottleneck is probably waiting for declassification of potentially-interesting document batches; the national archives has become extremely restrictive and careful in this regard in recent years, for reasons that are probably rather obvious.

С учетом того, с каким вниманием и любовью к технике реализованы эти вертолёты, это ED должны получать выплаты за рекламу от этой госконторки, а не наоборот.

I always hold out hope

So, the time has come... I can officially announce that the GV5Js Datacard Generator is discontinued as of today, and no more updates are to be expected. But fear not, this is good news. It basically means that we are close to the first release of its succesor tool. I am currently ironing out the last wrinkles, and adding back some data from the different theaters supported. I hope (no hard promise, though) to release a first draft version by next week. Some of the old functionalities will still be progressively ported, but it should nevertheless be functional, with the added benefit that the new methods used for parsing all the .miz information are deterministic, and no flights/assets will be missed as it could sometimes happen with the old tool. Stay tuned! PS: as a hint to find the announcement when it is time, the new tool is named "Mission Commander Toolkit", which also highlights the development direction more towards a tool to organize packages and provide briefing information

I'm pretty sure ED didn't ask for this situation. So it's something bigger. Perhaps convince the other party from Russia and ask for transparency there. Let's give ED a break about this one, at least before they can share more. This is hardly similar to the RAZBAM dispute.

А зачем закрывать темы было? Какую-то пояснительную бригаду можно?

@tobi @Eight Ball Where you at boys!!!! Check out the enthusiasm above! it is all because of you. We need some hope here the Empire did not win this war.

I'd obviously love it if you guys continued but let me say you've done an awesome job and deserve whatever length of time off you require. Do the things that make you happy. I wasn't planning to show anything so early on, but you inspired me to design an opensource DIY cockpit project for your OH6A. It's WIP but I'll be bold enough to say it's not vaporware. Below are pics of some of the prototypes. working idle detent ring the panel is cut with a diode laser but the rest just needs a 3D printer or service and basic tools

Немного бизнес-аналитики с дивана - мне кажется ЕД уже проще ликвидировать российское подразделение и передислоцироваться в европу, чтоб очередная богадельня "корыта России" не смогла достать со своими правами, не говоря уже о другой трехбуквенной богадельни с претензиями на гостайну. PS: Очень надеюсь что получится договориться.

Ok, that's enough now... now we are just getting carried away on the conspiracy train. We will share more info when we have it, but right now it's not a large impact on most.

I've asked about those aircraft, but I have no news to share at this moment.

Basically, and overall, the AMD RX9070/XT are supposed to be direct alternatives (at lower prices) to the more expensive Nvidia RTX 5070/Ti and also RTX4070/Ti Super (prices on these also went up recently). The upcoming AMD RX9070XT 16GB is supposedly as fast (if not faster) than the previous RX7900XT 20GB, possibly closer to the previous RX7900XTX 24GB flagship. Rumoured to be as fast as an Nvidia RTX4080 and RTX5070Ti in rasterization (so, if no upscaler is involved). The in-depth reviews from the usual tech experts will be out tomorrow (March 5th), so we'll see how it pans out. The two unknowns I see for DCS, yet to be clarified, is 1) how it works for VR and 2) if 16GB VRAM becomes short for the most demanding modules+maps combos in MP. Both RX7900XT 20GB and RX7900XTX 24GB of previous generation will remain as excelent options for 2D (non-VR) users, even at 4K resolution. But, while valid, they're not as good in VR as Nvidia's counterparts. There's also the issue of FSR, which is far less efficient as an upscaler, with inferior image quality (compared to Nvidia's DLSS and Intel's XeSS). So, one has to rely on MSAA when using these models. The new RX9000 GPU series will feature an all new and exclusive FSR4 upscaler algorithm (not available for previous GPUs) that is supposed to be a monumental improvement, but ED will need to update the old FSR version in-game. Until that happens, DCS users will still have to rely on MSAA with these new GPUs.

Oh, should have answered the question, without comparison: It is of personal choice. As I mention above, AB9 is a fully enclosed metal base with no external moving parts. All the controls and the connectors are in the front of the base, expect the part connecting to the stick, of which is also made of metal. It uses USB-B connector and a flat power connector with a clutch on it. As for the Rhino, both co-axial power connector and the USB-B connector is in the front, fan on the left and on the top, there is a knob for adjusting power level and one big red button to start/stop the force feedback. To turn on, one need to turn the knob and push it down to stop. Both are quite close together, it may cause a tiny problem when starting it when I am in VR for turning on the base may also changes to knob together. Or it is just me. Both do not have any lights to indicate their status, but Rhino does beep when startup, disconnect or the setting has been changed. Note that AB9 has ports to connect with its own throttle and pedal units. While, using Rhino parts, people can build their own FFB throttle, collective and rudder pedals. Rhino is a tiny bit taller, but the base area is smaller. I find the Moza base is heavier, nonetheless, I can still mount it sideways using regular universal desk mounts without problem. Since it does not vibrate that much -- there are still vibrations at times, mind you. So far so good. BTW, my Rhino base sits on the floor with a used chopping board to hold it in place. Apart from my pervious, Rhino software is very powerful, though not complete, and it may not be the most eye-pleasing UI out there. I am not fan of exercising my wrist and shoulder when flying, both are of the rating of 9NM. With the right profile, the feeling of both is quite fine and I have no way to know how close the profiles representing the real thing. From personal experience, after flying a 30-something minute mission with AB-9 using F-16 profile, both my wrist and shoulder ache afterwards, as I have been pulling the "pole" too hard and it barely moves. Note that Rhino can adjust the force amount using either hardware or software. And its profile for F-16C comes with the base does not make it a pole, but rather just move like any other planes. One can change the profile if needed.

I guess all those "why don't ED make more red air?" complaints can now be redirected to this thread. I suspect that whatever happened, it's exactly why ED preferred leaving Russian aircraft to 3rd parties in the past. That it happened to an already released module doesn't bode well for doing any further business with Russia.

I hope this gets follow up but whatever the case i profundly thank you for the work and this module.. Cause it helped me get into DCS Helicopters.. allways wanted the Huey and eventually the Kiowa but was allways afraid of them .. the OH-6 teached me to fly helicopters, made me get pedals ..and from there also to MSFS . Im allways recomending this module specially if they want to get into helos.. "its twitchy" yes it is.. but when you understand how to fly it you will have no problem with any other helicopter.. and its not a "its so hard that you get good" case.. this thing has a better refined flight model than the new Huey at least..once you get it trimmed and set correctly this cruises so nice and in no time you end up landing in ridicolous spots. So whatever happens thanks

All ED Miles prizes have been sent to our winners Thank you to everyone who participated in the Mi-24 livery competition

Сами ничего не говорят и другим не дают обсуждать))

Компетенций нет, осталось только жить с патентбомбинга. Особенно дико когда УВЗ патентует Т-34(который он не изобретал) как торговую марку. Еще характерно было когда начали требовать скульптуры и графити с персонажами союзмультфильма с детских площадок и детских садов ликвидировать. Дурдом.

Truly looking forward to this Mod, its looking pretty great

Oh you beat me to it. I hope you enjoyed the video!

It's an educated guess, though. Those things tend to happen in Russia. I've been always saying that, but some people just can't accept that working with both Russian government and their companies is hard. Everyone who tried says just that. Oh, and we're not likely to ever hear the reasons from ED. It'll just be "resolved" and either the modules will come back to the Russian store, or not. Transparency is not a thing in Russia.

I have both, you can check my video on the Moza AB9 Base and my Rhino order is #0888 (interesting number to some). I have had my AB9 since September (time flies ay?) and I can tell you I do not get it from the UK, I am not sponsroed, and that's it. I ordered the Rhino back in mid-November (crazy dude, I know) and it landed on my front door in early February, so less than 120 days, it is more like 90 days -- it involved the usual story of FedEx incompetence and the damage of Brexit to daily life in the UK. Cough, before I go on, I say earlier I am not comparing these 2 bases, I love them both. Nonetheless, here I am. Moza AB9 base, as many who follow this base, know it is a fully enclosed in a metal case, no moving parts exposed. Also the connector to the stick is metal, and the power plug into the base is a flat pin with a clutch which makes it hard to disconnect accidentally. Note that both do not have any visual indication that the stick is powered on or not. For AB9, you may find the stick is on when it remains stiff upright. For Rhino, you can say there are 2 stages of the base being "up", if the USB to it is connected, the base shows up on the Control Panel but the buttons on the stick work. However, the axis does not work and of course there is no force feedback, even if the power is connected. One needs to turn it on, which gives out a nice beep sound, in order to have the full function of the base. Well, this is not a downside and it is how it is. Note that if you spend a little more, you can buy a restrictor which limits the Y-axis of Rhino to 11 degrees each, which I do have it. Note that you have to install the limiter yourself but it is a not hard to do as long as you have the matching screw head. The Rhino software comes in 2 parts, one is general gaming and sensing the telemetry and the other is the control the various aspects of force feedback. The latter one is very complete and gives you total customisation most of the aspects of feedback. If you are just a regular guy who does not want to touch those overwhelming confusing details, one can stick with the general gaming application. Once nice thing you get is auto profile switching and it supports even third-party modules like OH-6A for DCS, though I have no idea if it is realistic or not but damn sure I enjoy the heck out of it. It should note that the Rhino software is not without bugs (aka all software do have bugs) and there is limitation as well. As any FFB base users can tell you, you should not mess with the axis curves inside the game, but with the base software. I asked and there is no such stick input curve to change with, only the force responses. Say, I do not like I can pull too much so I wish to limit it but there is no way I can do it directly. Also, FYI, the DCS F-16C profile/preset from the Rhino base does not act like the actual side stick of the F-16C (MFSSB or FSSB or whatever), but the Moza preset does. However, I am told that the author of the F-16 preset on Moza thinks it could have been better. I have some strange issues with Rhino base hardware myself, it is in the process of resolving with the builder and I do not want to elaborate it any further. If you have any questions on either of the base, please feel free to ask and I would try my best to answer.

threads merged

This OH-6A is the only aircraft I've experienced in DCS where, when flying in VR with the doors off and turning, I sometimes get a sensation like I could fall out of this thing and it's a long way down! I love flying it! I was flying a night mission last night in VR. The Moon was low, and I could barely see anything outside, or inside, just the glow of the instruments and console. I was maybe 200 feet above the trees with the crack of radar directed 100mm flak shells going off above me. And I could hear the popping rotor of an AI Huey close by somewhere, and dark, "Is he above me or below me...or at my altitude?" Don't want to go lower, don't want to go higher. "What are we doing out here?" I put my nav lights and red beacon on for a few moments! Yikes! Then I hear on the radio, "Colt 5-1 engaging triple-A at bulls 225 for 22." You're doing what?? Need some parachute flare rockets. But I made it out of there and headed back to base on an approximate heading, flying mostly by instruments. Stray a little too far north or south and red 57mm tracers come up from the ground, several miles away. I can see those things arc under me and flash with bit of thunder. But I landed safely at my base, 25 miles away, where the headlights of a Mutt (from Eight Ball & Tobi's Vietnam Assets Pack) were illuminating my landing pad on an unlit airfield in the Channel map. I'll be damned if Colt 5-1 didn't make it back to base 15 minutes after I did. To the makers of this mod: thanks!

Окажет ли эта "ситуация" влияние на разработку МиГ-29А? Почему продажи приостановлены только в РФ, но не в Steam и не в других странах? Повлияет ли это на поддержку данных модулей со стороны ED в будущем? Да и в целом ED-компания публичная и принято не блокировать темы, а давать информацию.

In my opinion it is absolutely necessary to use out-of-game material. I created my Yak-52 missions based on real training materials from the GST (kind of East German DOSAAF) where they flew the Yak-18U, so the instructions were pretty applicable. That way I also learned dead-reckoning, route calculations, wind calculations and all that kind of "learning flying from scratch" stuff. In this context, I also find it quite important to have performance charts, flight time and altitude diagrams, fuel consumption charts etc., for the particular aircraft. These tactically important things are completely missing from the DCS manuals, and everytime you get a new aircraft module, you also have to get yourself the real manuals. That's annoying. But maybe that's just me So yeah, DCS is giving you the simulated aircraft and environment, but it's up to you to fill it with life and passion

So somehow I managed to pull off good AAR with AV-8B and KC-130. THis is a end to end mission. From cold start, rendeivous, join, observe pos, pre-contact, contact, breakaway, re-contact, take gas, clear tanker, some AG gunnery, recover. X-wind landing on Nellis 21L could have been better Noticed that despite setting tanker TACAN at 33X, then tuning to it in A:A TCN mode, 33X ON, that tanker TCN symbol did not appear on left MFD. Otherwise no drama. I used that day's METAR data from METAR-TAF to set up weather at Nellis. In browser just type METAR Las Vegas or METAR Nellis. TRK has civlian and military traffic, and uses Civilian Aircraft mod for ambient air traffic. Lessons learned. KC-130 is awfully sensitive to closure rate on basket, and will "Breakaway" call. Just "Ready Pre-Contact" and continue . Real world planning requires joining tanker at 500 feet below , behind, and 500 to side of tanker altitude/pos. Well according to the former F-15E pilot with bushy mustache on YouTUbe. Who now flies A320 ATP. AV_8B_goodAAR.trk

Да, пары строчек, для пользователей , было бы неплохо..

Кстати, как я понял, купить через PayPal или зарубежную карту на свой аккаунт вполне можно. Тогда и бог с ним. При конвертации через всяких посредников там переплата будет совсем не большая, зато "Вертолёты России" поспособствую переходу личных средств покупателей в зарубежные банки. Какие молодцы.

Released 1.2.2 with a bugfix for a crash that could occur when responding to certain DECLARE requests. https://github.com/dharmab/skyeye/releases/tag/v1.2.2

I never claimed that you said it. I inferred there was a trademark issue from the information available because that's typically the cause of cases like this.

We have given you all the info right now. It is only affecting the Russian E-shop, that is it, everything else is as it was. I don't think I ever said "trademark infringement". What we have stated is all we have to share.

There's an old internal report about the missing Wingman 4. I'll bump it.

Ну вот и ответ, почему разрабы не делают наши модули... отовсюду лезут "травообладатели" которые не имею никакого отношения к технике по факту. Остаётся только один вопрос - помойки типа тхундёра как делают отечественную технику и не имеют претензий?

DCS Updater Utility v 03.02.2025 / 2.0.0.41 Change Log:

Okay, thanks!! With this solution should get my following issue resolved:

Thats what i mean, some sort of deck crew logic reboot command, keymap or radio order.

How about a new key bind in the supercarrier to release the looping logic for the deck crew manually?

Hi, I am using the picture to ... quite often and it works fine for me. Just tested it a minute ago. 1. You can use the "picture clear" trigger action to clear out all pictures shown at the moment the picture clear is triggered. 2. The "clear view" checkbox will clear the view, if there is an other picture shown before the one you trigger right now. 3. Not aware about any docu.

That is awesome news. Both the release of the code and the EFM work. "I'm just glad I kept a copy of DCS 2.8.6 on an external drive so I can still play this mod." I think there was a way to install an older version. I'll need to look into that.

А в русской части эти модули как покупать предлагаете? Нет, это, увы, только бизнес класс. Рекомендую остановиться в своей искромётности, это выглядит убого.

Yeah, the loss of both Tobi and Eight Ball, and the loss of the MH-6 is nothing short of a tragedy for the entire DCS community. The MH-6 was so eagerly anticipated by so many. It really is devastating. Especially given the volume of work that was already done for this. I sincerely hope that after some time off and a bit of fresh air both of them return with high spirits and continue their amazing work. I really hope they manage to see just how many positive and thankful people there are for their work, as opposed to the few muppets that were involved in them burning out and loosing motivation through this all too frequent social media effect - 100 positive comments are forgotten easily but the 3 bad comments stick like glue. There's no way those who were involved in them losing motivation and getting frustrated even account for 0.5% of users. Personally I'm so devastated over this. This was one of my most anticipated DCS modules/ mods. It's totally heartbreaking. Feels like Razbam all over again. @tobi @Eight Ball Please let us know as a community what we can do to help get things back up and running again

The guy is probably just trying to notice a difference, and feels that he's being brushed off. That said, we know you all do a lot of work with these systems and all. I fly the bug exclusively, and I can confirm that it seems no changes have been observed. Perhaps it's my technique, and maybe other variables, or maybe the sheet metal of the hornet is just really thin, and missiles kill it easy. The only frustrating part is usually that it takes a while to set everything up, and getting killed by an AIM-9 seems inappropriate, and frequent. Maybe it is more genuine now, but no less frustrating. I get both sides, and I still want the Development team to know I appreciate your work, even if we don't always see it!