Leaderboard

Hiya folks been working hard on getting the k4 cockpit up to par as much as humanly possible with obvious constraints and limitations of this old DCS bird but I am pleased to give you proper cockpit mod. Here's what I've done Every texture was upscaled to 4k, then every single line, scratch, wood grain, edge was refined to 4k standard giving a much sharper image. Colors were corrected to historical late war RLM 66, with aid of research and AI. In game shade and direct sunlight were cross referenced for honing in proper lightness and hue Revi 16b Gunsight changed to more plausible black configuration along with historically accurate base mounting plate and mounting bracket being in the correct color configuration Cockpit floor was basically redone from scratch. Panels, rivits, dirt, oil, wear and tear were added carefully cross referencing historical photos Please keep in mind this is what I produced with the most available data and a super smart robot that talks to me. It was not uncommon for pilots and crew to modify parts and use paints to their liking which is why you almost never find a 109 cockpit that looks the same even if its the same variant. Obviously being 4k the file is too large to upload to the user files section of the DCS website so here's a download link...... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BbPf3NWLRkW50KoQ27-7Up6i8hiKHFgS/view?usp=sharing Please note i have corrected the flare gun since these screenshots

Release Version Current version number: DCS 2.9.13.6818 Next planned update: 5th March 2025 - Campaigns only update Dear all, the first patch for March 2025 will be a campaigns only patch, I will post the change log just before we go live. thank you

Yes there are updates in the works, it is not abandoned.

the dora is next

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.13.6818.2/ DCS Campaigns DCS: AH-64D Outpost Campaign by Stone Sky Mission 2. Fixed problem with landing on Arleigh Burke. DCS: F/A-18C Operation Green Line by Badger633 Mission 1: Boat movement fixed. DCS: F/A-18C Rise of the Persian Lion 2 by Badger633 Missions 13: Carrier parking conflict on return resolved. DCS: F-16C Last Out Weasels Over Syria 2 Campaign by Ground Pounder Sims Mission 10 - Rotor engaging Migs when already clear of the fight - fixed. DCS: F/A-18C Operation Cerberus North Campaign by Ground Pounder Sims Mission 5 - Various minor updates and fixes. DCS: F/A-18C Raven One: Dominant Fury by Baltic Dragon Mission 4: fixed issue with mission not progressing after overflying Power Chord. Mission 8: general overhaul of the mission, with new prompts, fixed datalink, updated comms and several smaller bug fixes. Note: known issue with overlapping comms during departure, will be fixed for next patch. Mission 9: fixed issue with Scuds shooting too early; fixed garbled comms from Cutlass towards end of the mission; added missing prompt for freq change to Strike; added unlimited fuel for flight lead. The following campaigns had issues with broken file names fixed, and now the campaigns are fully playable: DCS: F-14B Operation Sandworm Campaign by Sandman Simulations DCS: F-16C First in Weasels Over Syria Campaign by Ground Pounder Sims DCS: MAD AH-64D Campaign by Stone Sky Mi-8MTV2 Oilfield Campaign by Dmitry Koshelev DCS: F/A-18C Rising Squall Campaign by INVERTED DCS: UH-1H Worlds Apart Stormfront Campaign by Low-Level-Heaven Mission Development

Thank you all for the many warm words. The OH-6 is in a good and enjoyable state. There will be support for this but no further features are planned for now. A/MH-6 is cancelled

It is the best WWII US aircraft module in the game (until now) and has no screenshot thread of its own?? Unbelievable! I create one.

We have no desire to copy BMS sorry. The dynamic campaign will be based on our own vision and gameplay needs. Just a reminder, please keep the discussion here about DCS and not BMS. thank you

I’m proud to say that the project is still active, but progressing slowly due to: A- I got an exciting new job. B- I’m in the middle of a home renovation. C- I was contacted by a couple of developers to model the interior of a well-known mod. With the cockpit of that aircraft about 30% complete, I put my personal project (the Huey) on hold to support that other one. However, they suddenly stopped all communication without prior notice, and all my attempts to reach them were unsuccessful. It now seems like they won’t continue the project. So, once I get my life reorganized, I’ll definitely be able to dedicate more hours to the project. thanks!! I will read it when I find some free time

Great Mod, this is ED's default: and this is Sabot's Thanks again for sharing it

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.

In a multiplayer session, when a player controlled aircrat rolls and pulls fast (barrel roll), it starts teleporting, making the player invulnerable to missiles. Sometimes the teleporting is so severe that it can make you lose tally on the teleporting player during a dogfight or in a close range combat. This issue has been present in DCS for a long time and its a game breaking issue for the multiplayer community. On larger multiplayer servers, like Contention, GrowlingSidewinder or Buddyspike blue flag, the issue gets worse, sometimes even small amounts of roll can cause teleporting. I hope that ED takes a close look at this issue, because we reached into a point that MP servers are banning people from doing barrel rolls to avoid this problem. Even in serious competitions like SATAC this maneuver is banned. It's hard to grasp that in a flight sim game you can't maneuver your aircraft freely, in order to not risk making an unfair game to your opponents and avoid a potential ban on some of the most renowned MP servers. net_code_problem_2.trknet_code_problem_3.trk Here are some trackfiles of the issue.

I don't think he was being mean, more jokingly suggesting people are braver online than in person.

The 101 is adorable and really rewarding. So I'd say it's absolutely worth it. Another plus of it is that you can get some "Airliner feeling" when you want to. Just make it heavy and suddenly you have to worry about runway length/take-off performance and the window between "to fast" and "stick shaker" becomes really slim on approach. So no more excessive power surplus in every situation like you get with most fight aircraft in DCS.

Just wanted to make sure Mutton’s following the correct guidelines and protocol while continuing his work seen above. We wouldn’t want to see that amount of design and building being done without the prerequisite ‘Magnum Moustache’ and Hawaiian shirt & flip-flops. Proper Lab conditions, health & safety n all that. Well done for doing this Mutton but please, let’s be careful out there ok .

I added the Matra 250kg Chute Retarded Bomb yesterday. Should become available with the next patch.

I hope it lives to the hype... for those curious of what ive been doing heres and example of the Dora's headrest... upscaled and refined. Its a subtle difference but very noticeable in the big picture and brings new life to these neglected birds

Не баг, а так скажем "недофича" с отображением леса и возможностью настройки его детализации. Подробно изложил тут:

its been a LOOOONG time since Ive flown the 101....I didnt know about the training missions, Ill have a look-see at it, thanks! As for IFR in another sim, I have MSFS and all those missions there. My biggest pet peeve for that sim is setting up my controls for ANY aircraft. They've made that whole thing an ordeal.

Community/mods, please let me know if this content is all in the right place or I should be posting this somewhere else. As I think more about mission creation here, allow me to share an important concept to think about while editing. I don't know how common knowledge this piece is. The Stack In the OEF Afghanistan campaigns around 2010-2013 (my time there) the US usually employed a “stack” concept when providing close air support (CAS). At its most basic, this meant placing multiple aircraft at different altitudes, each with distinct responsibilities that together created persistent coverage for ground forces. Below is a simplified breakdown of how that often looked: High altitude/ on call strikers Aircraft such as B1B Lancers or even B52s (in certain cases) could orbit above 20,000 to 25,000+ feet. Their primary role was to deliver heavier ordnance if needed, providing a large weapons payload and long loiter times. The B52 was the ONLY aircraft I didn't see while in country. Because they were high above the fight, these bombers could remain on station for extended periods and quickly respond when a JTAC on the ground requested precision strikes Mid altitude CAS and overwatch Fighters like the F18, F16, F15E, or sometimes A10s would orbit at medium altitude (15,000–20,000 feet). They offered a mix of precision-guided munitions and the ability to drop quickly into lower altitude if needed for more direct engagement. They often acted as armed overwatch using targeting pods to keep eyes on the ground situation, track movement, and coordinate with the JTAC or an airborne command element (like an AWACS). Low altitude / direct attack layer Closer to the ground, rotary-wing aircraft (AH64 Apache, UH1/AH1 in the Marine Corps) might operate for immediate direct fire support. In certain situations, AH64s orA10s or even armed UAVs could orbit lower if required for more precise strikes or to maintain sensor coverage. This lower altitude “layer” was more intimately involved with troops in contact, conducting shows of force and direct strafing runs if needed. Supporting elements AWACS could remain on station even higher up or off to the side of the operations area, providing big-picture radar coverage, deconfliction of airspace, and communications relays. KC135 or KC10 Tankers loitered in safe zones, enabling fighters, bombers, and other aircraft to quickly refuel and remain onstation for longer periods this was essential to maintain a persistent presence Coordination and deconfliction A key part of the CAS stack concept was strict altitude separation. Each flight would “own” a particular block of airspace, preventing accidents and ensuring quick maneuverability without colliding or interfering with the other aircraft. The JTAC on the ground used radio nets and datalinks to talk to the different layers, requesting strikes or shows of force as the ground situation evolved. The overlapping fields of sensor coverage and ordnance meant ground forces could quickly receive the best suited air asset for their immediate threat. If one layer was busy or low on fuel, another layer could hand over coverage. This fluid hand-off minimized “gaps” in CAS availability. By stacking aircraft at multiple altitudes, the U.S. could keep eyes on the ground, quickly move fighters or bombers into strike positions, and respond to dynamic threats with minimal delay. When setting up a scenario in DCS to replicate this doctrine, you can simulate each “layer” at different altitudes (and possibly different orbits or racetracks). Incorporate AWACS for overall awareness, include tankers to keep your fighters and bombers on station, and ensure that a JTAC unit on the ground controls strikes, if mission dictates. Most of the time there was not a JTAC unless it was an offensive raid of some kind, or a TIC (troops in contact). This approach will give you a realistic feel for how layered CAS was typically executed by US forces around 2010. As the lowest layer AC supporting the TIC would run out of fuel or munitions, the stack would all go down one level. It would not be uncommon to have 8-10 aircraft during the fighting season. Khost's fighting season was longer than the rest for the reasons I mentioned in post 1. I couldn't find a diagram online so I made a crappy one with chat gtp Altitude (High) ┌───────────────────┐ │ B-1B/B-52 │ (Long loiter, heavy payload) └───────────────────┘ Altitude (Medium) ┌───────────────────┐ │ F-15E / F-16 / A-10 / F-18 │ (Precision strikes, armed overwatch) └───────────────────┘ Altitude (Low) ┌───────────────────┐ │ AH-64 │ (Direct fire support) └───────────────────┘ Ground Level ┌───────────────────┐ │ JTAC / Troops │ └───────────────────┘ Tanker & AWACS often hold in adjacent orbits off to the side (not shown) to handle refueling and overall command & control. Does all of that make sense? ASk me any question here, or if you want me to give a scenario. What I don’t know is how it would work in the editor.

They actually started this last year. [emoji6] Awesome decision if you ask me! [emoji1319] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Campaigns-focused patches are very welcome. It's always a downer to be unable to enjoy a campaign for a month because of an AI or trigger bug that's fixed internally but waiting to be shipped with a larger package.

Хотелка не столько для ДКС, сколько для игроков в ДКС - присоединяйтесь к нашим дуэльным ивентам Приветствуются игроки любого скила! https://virpil-servers.com/events

We will try to have a campaigns only updates when possible, obviously it depends on what fixes and updates have been made by the campaign creators.

I tried the 109 4K cockpit and looks great, thanks for your work.

The FAA Instrument Flying Handbook is as good a place as any to start. Military procedures vary, but the basic principles translate well. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/FAA-H-8083-15B.pdf Honestly, if you are learning this for any current or future real-world requirement, I'd look beyond DCS and at one of the civvy sims. Far more suitable training aircraft there.

Hi The team have reproduced and reported this. Hopefully we will have a tweak soon. Thank you for your report.

The C-101 is the only aircraft in DCS that simultaneously supports TACAN, VOR, ILS, marker beacons and the in-cockpit GNS430. Can't do better than that for IFR. As for the map, get whichever has the best navaids coverage and charts availability. I would recommend Nevada. Finally, the training materials. You can go easy mode by looking for specific stuff on youtube (e.g. "how to intercept a radial"). Or do it old-fashioned way with the AFMAN publications, such as the 11-217V1.

Best News ever. Thanks

Extra credit for challenge yes. [emoji6] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

V2.4.2 now available which contains a lot of fixes, including the infamous carrier park fix.

@NineLine you and the rest of the ED team (including testers and helpers) on these forums deal with a lot of crap from some posters. all of it anonymous posting so they would not have any juevos to say something to someone in public. especially in a Walmart (in the US) where they would surely get their face punched. rant over. ED, you are doing a great job! you will work out this latest setback.

I always hold out hope

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.

Here we go:

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

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

yes! thank you NL. i was joking. people sometimes are mean for whatever reason. more so when it is anonymous. it really is a shame.

Just upgraded my CPU motherboard and RAM and a clean w11 install. DLSS 4 is looking better. Less ghosting against the ground. Also updated to today's release of NVIDIA driver so not sure if it's this or hardware!?

Agreed, would be nice to have a proper Seahawk mod. I think there was an incompatibility in 2 files - please see update note March 5th 2025 in first page.

This is very true. Furthermore, navigation in DCS often feels like an afterthought. One could spend more time dancing around missing navaids, frequencies that don't match the charts, and beacons that don't work as expected than actually navigating. It is certainly doable, and could be quite enjoyable. But if OP wants to learn it for something more substantial than finding their way back to base at night, I'd look elsewhere.

Aircraft assigned "Takeoff from runway hot" in the mission editor will spawn on the catapult specified in the mission editor by the mission designer. From parking you will spawn depending on the deck configuration - parking spots taken by AI and static aircraft. All is in the Supercarrier manual and forum.

He's a bit more capable than that, actually. Once he acquires contacts in TWS, he will try to keep as many of them as possible within scan zone. You do have to tell him where you want to search in first place, and his way of prioritizing targets isn't always best, but once they're in view, he should operate the radar in a way that makes at least some sense.

Alright, so I overcame the issues with #B07 by using the alternative attack profile with SAMP-250s instead of Belougas. However, I've just done #B09, the LGB strike, and, probably because of changes to DCS's fusing and arming windows, the laser code is not set correctly on mission start. Its on the default 1688 instead of the 1588 the drone is using. This could be fixed either by just briefing it or updating the default in the mission editor. Great campaign otherwise, I'm having a good time!

100% Agree. But there is one downside to the C-101. No Autopilot or attitude hold systems. Having the head a lot inside the cockpit trying to set up and figure out the systems can easily lead to loss of situational awareness and upset attitudes. Especially at night or in IFR conditions. So, basically what I'm saying is, the C-101 is learning IFR in difficult mode. If you want an easier time, use an Aicraft that at least can hold wings level and altitude on its own.

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.

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!

А за полеты на карте Кавказ будут курортный сбор взымать?