Leaderboard

I reworked the left MFD so it is more close to the original one. Still working on animations. mfd smt rework.mp4 przepa animacja lq.mp4

Our project was kindly mentioned by DCS ONE on YouTube: https://youtu.be/j-jo6Eqrao4

Some update pics from yesterday: The IRST pods are new. I bought the model and Spino helped convert it. I redid the textures and positioning and hope to use it for a future purpose. The same goes for the Mako missile. I bought the model and Spino helped with it. Oh, and the fuel tanks are the ones I did from the F-16 CFT mod. Since they're 600 gal ish and don't have the plumbing at the rear, they're a better option until we can obtain the Low Drag Tank and Pylon versions that will use the same pylon as the IRST with a stealthier tank. The added benefit is that when you jettison them, the pylon goes with. I redid the textures on those tanks and made an F22 specific version to match the RAM coating paint. Because I was inverted:

Hiya! When building multiplayer missions having runway strikes being done and available always adds quite a thrill. However, when it succeeds it's hard to continue to adapt the balancing. Currently runways are only repaired after 60 minutes (hardcoded) as far as I can see. What would be awesome if would for example be something like: ---repair the given runway for operations ---@param runwayName string @the name of the runway, as also specified in Airbase:getRunways() function Airbase:repairRunway(runwayName) end ---OPTIONALLY ---sets whether or not DCS will automatically repair runways after 60 minutes ---@param autoRepair boolean @true or false function Airbase:setAutoRepair(autoRepair) end The idea is that in bigger dynamic missions it would be awesome to balance the runway repairs ourselves. (eg. faster when the resources/personnel at the base are higher and slower when certain resources are lower). The second function would be to disable automatic repairs. This would be in line with the logic of airbase captures, where you can also enable/disable the automatic capture and then force the capturing yourself. PS. Removing the craters itself doesn't repair the runway it seems via world.removeJunk() as AI doesn't want to take off even when the runway is pristine after that. PPS. To all those having the itch commenting underneath here that it wouldn't be realistic. Please just don't. This would just add options, and options are what us mission makers can use.

If only it were just 13 pages....

Thanks everybody for the kind words! Here is a clip of the rockets in action. Apologies for the low res, my laptop can't handle any higher graphics settings. rockets.mp4

Hey everyone I've been working on a full-fidelity Piper Cub mod, specifically the WWII L-4A variant, for quite some time. Now that it's getting close to completion, I figured it was time to share it with you all. I started this project because I wanted to learn about aircraft physics and flight modeling, so I chose the simplest aircraft that came to mind, thinking I would just write the EFM and use a free 3D model as a stand-in. Eventually, I got tired of looking at ugly models and decided I wanted to take a stab at 3D art, so I ended up creating a 3D model, textures, and animations to go along with the EFM. Currently, the Cub mod features a fully custom EFM that uses a blade-element theory approach to model aerodynamics. This method divides the aircraft's wings, tail, fuselage, propellers, and other surfaces into multiple components and calculates the lift and drag forces acting on each aerodynamic component. These forces are then summed up to produce the total force acting on the aircraft every frame. This approach is really cool because of its simplicity and how it naturally captures complex flight dynamics that occur at high angles of attack, such as spins or snap rolls, without relying on large datasets stored in lookup tables. The EFM also includes a realistic simulation of the Continental A-65 engine and propeller, including effects like p-factor, gyroscopic precession, and propwash. While my primary focus has been on the flight model, I've also taken some time to make sure the model looks decent and is realistic to the L-4A. I chose this particular variant so it can be used in various WWII scenarios, whether early or late in the war, and it will have skins appropriate for the ETO, PTO, and MTO. Additionally, I've included some M1A1 Bazookas, so it has at least a bit of firepower, and we can recreate the exploits of Bazooka Charlie. Some parts of the 3D model are still WIP, but here are some pics of the current state of the Cub.

I have spoken to the team, they are aware and a tweak will be in a future update. thank you

Nope not bald, but I have a lot of headaches

And here's a stall and spin from the cockpit spin.mp4

MiG-29 SMT - update on cockpit textures

The F/A-18C must be the 15th module or so I am dabbling with and the 5th I am actually trying to learn thoroughly. Learning the F-16C, the A-10CII, the M-2000C or even the very Early Access, training-wise utterly incomplete F-4E was a demanding but straight-forward task. Now, after almost 200 hours of DCS I come to the F/A-18C and the training missions are a slap in the face. Tutorial for waypoints? A 5-minute show in which you learn to push two buttons to activate a waypoint in the HSI and then you fly through hoops. That's it. Next training mission. The Cold Start Procedure? Leaves out all of Bit tests except for one and also leaves out half of the necessary procedures. There are zero training missions for the Supercarrier. There are only two, very rudimentary training missions regarding take-off from a carrier and Case 1 recovery. Again, most of the important stuff, including ATC procedures is completely left out. Now, I am learning this module still with relative ease. I know my Youtubers by now, I know how stuff works in DCS, and by now - thanks to DCS by the way - I also have quite a understanding of fighter jet procedures. But I must wonder: the F/A-18C is your best selling - and probalby most expensive (regarding the need for the Supercarrier addon - module, and yet it has the worst tutorials of all the modules I've encountered so far. Worse than the Mig-21, worse than the F-4E in its current state. Don't you realize that if that is the first experience for most players after they've spent 70 bucks or even +100 bucks for the module plus near-mandatory additions, that the training missions should at least be on the same level as the F-16C? Or put differently: have you ever thought about how many people just quit DCS prematurely and talk <profanity> about it just because they were nudged into buying the F/A-18C as the alleged top module and then they just found it inaccesible, poorly explained and overall way too complex? (Which is funny because I find the F/A-18 the least complex module I've experienced so far.) Inb4: And no, it doesn't matter if there are myriad of 3rd-party training sources out there or even 1st-party videos by Wags from 7 years ago. People are not out of their mind for wanting a proper in-game tutorial for their premium-priced module and even one or two voiced tutorials for its premium-priced addon that in the end of the day just adds people on a carrier... I am not hating. Please consider it passionate feedback from someone who is rather perplexed by the utter lack of QoL-additions to the beginner's F/A-18C experience.

I know very well the person making CWS for Su-30 and Su-34 that I'm a tester of. CWS is not impossible there but I don't promise anything. Yet.

Marine F4U-1's went into combat there from the middle of February, 1943, on Guadalcanal. And, for the next 15 months... Fighter One (Guadalcanal) and Banika (Russell Islands), then "Toenails" and Segi/Munda/Ondonga (New Georgia), after which the Navy F6F's and F4U-1's joined in the Fall, and then Barakoma (Vella Lavella Island) in support of "Shoestring II", and finally Torokina/Piva Yoke on Bougainville, and Green and Imirau, for the destruction of Rabaul. Not to mention a Carrier raid by the brand new USS Essex/Bunker Hill/Independence TG 50.3. Bowie

If anyone has been wondering why the blue instrument-lights are always turned on at daylight when starting up - there is a solution. the oh6 coding has a daylight recognition - but there is a little bug which leads to having the 4 light-knobs always on. i have a fix in ...Mods\aircraft\OH-6A\Cockpit\Scripts\Systems\light_interface.lua for lines 110-113: (commented out is the original) now the daylight recognition works and turns the knobs to 0 at daylight times. (this gives a little FPS gain too because the ca. 20 lights are not needlessly rendered anymore) for everyone wanting the fix right now - drop the zip-content into your Mods folder OH-6A_1.5_Lights_always_on_FIX.zip

Here's a stall, the green boxes are all of the aerodynamic components of the flight model. stall.mp4

Hello! The draw tool needs refinement. Having used it quite extensively I have a few important changes/additions/fixes that, I argue, are essential to make the draw tool user friendly and thus faster and more efficient to use. There are several topics regarding different wishes and discussions regarding the draw tool, but none that quite list everything needed in my opinion. I do second every one of the suggestions I found with a quick search. Links to the respective threads at the end of this post. Absolute priority number one!: Add the ability to lock drawings As a set of drawings becomes increasingly comples and large drawings overlap, it is extremely easy to accidentally pick the wrong drawing, then move it only to realise a bit later that you just messed up a drawing, say, a circle, that you now have to eyeball to be positioned back to where it was! When a drawing is done, the user generally does not want to move it further. Having all the drawings be there waiting like traps to be selected accidentally has lost me hours of work trying to fiddle with the tool. Expansion of the draw item -list The draw item list occupies only a small set amount of screen space. With dozens of drawings having the list window as small as it currently is is a total waste of screen real-estate and makes the tool more cumbersome to use. Either have the tool resize it self according to available space, or at least give users the ability to resize the list window themselves Allow arranging/filtering of drawings by name Again, as the list grows longer different items are really hard to keep track of unless one constantly arranges the items manually. This again wastes serious amounts of time that could otherwise be spent actually using the tool! I understand that the items in the draw list are in drawing order, so probably give the items a visible draw order index (per layer obviously), and then give the user the ability to order the drawings by name. Layers/categories can stay separate - those are easy to handle. Fix the item movement in the list Re-ordering the items in the list currently jumps the user to the beginning of the list! With dozens of drawings that one may want or need to arrange this is a horrible UX bug. Please fix! Allow the user to change the anchor-point of text labels Often times a drawing needs to be anchored from other points than the top left corner. Plenty of texts would need to be anchored from either the middle of the text-box, or from the mid-point of either the top or the bottom edge of the text rectangle. I would recommend all the corners, edge-midpoints and the whole shape mid-point to be added as possible anchor points to allow for most flexibility An improper anchor point makes drawings really messy and hard to look at especially when zoomed a lot from the intended viewing zoom-level, making large draw sets appear really cluttered Add air navigation symbology Please add default symbology (Jeppesen or otherwise) for NAVFIXes, VORs, TACANs, DMEs, and such shapes as default triangles etc. At the current state the user has to create these by-hand which is cumbersome and unnecessary. Allow drawings to be set invisible by zoom-factor A lot of the time on congested drawings some details might want to be omitted when looking at a large scenario from smaller zoom-levels (e.g. from far away). An per-drawing adjustable invisibility range (both ends!) would really be useful for decluttering the drawing and allowing for additional details to be drawin, but only as the player zooms in enough (or out for that matter) Add dedicated arc-drawing tool (with and without lines to origin) Arcs and sectors are needed to draw more complex shapes without resorting to freehand drawings constantly. A simple circle does not cover all the cases. There are, for example, a lot of airspaces that are built with several arcs IRL. Building similar airspaces with drawings currently is a time consuming process of using circles to help draw freehand - these could be bypassed by simply allowing for an arc-draw. Add racetrack-shape (see "racetrack polygons in Draw function" below) I second this wish. Being able to draw racetracks would be really useful Add editing, adding and removing of shape points (see "Draw Tool - point mode" post below) I second this! So many "oh whoops, wrong button!" -mistakes costing me a lot of time after making a complex shape just because I cannot edit the shapes afterwards. Definately a feature that is needed! EDIT: In fact the existing points can be moved, but more points cannot be added or removed once the shape is completed Allow the user to change the amount of vertices on a circle On the same lines as point no.10. As the circles become larger the amount of vertices is really apparent and may not be sufficient in all cases. Please add a value to change the amount of vertices on a selected circle. EDIT: Suggestion number 12: Allow the user to set text size that is either tied to the screen size/zoom (the way it is now), but also set an absolute size, so that the text size stays the same compared to the background map and other drawings regardless of zoom. There are plenty of instances where you do not want the text to change along with zoom. EDIT: Added some screenshots to illustrate the points above EDIT: Added a commenter's suggestion to the list EDIT: Suggestion number 13: ability to snap route-tool waypoints to existing drawings. To make sure the route would not snap to anything-and-everything a toggle "route too snapping" for a given drawing might be wise to add, as well as to have the snapping be togglabe (much like how in vector-drawing software you can toggle snapping on and off). This way you could keep, say, waypoint symbols (see suggestion number 6) with option "route too snapping", and as you actually do your route, you could eithre allow snapping as a user, or toggle it off for completely free placement of route points. The possible points to snap to could be waypoints, text-field-anchor points (I would imagine these would most often just be left OFF by default) and any polygon/line vertex (i.e any corner point), on a per-drawing basis. This would help out a lot on larger missions where the mission maker wants to give players a lot of possible waypoint references to be used, but not all of them are needed for any one flight. It would also ensure that a single waypoint shared between two different flights would actually be the same, instead of being approximately the same. For additional functionality, the snapped route point could actually inherit its name from the waypoint. Here it would be best give the waypoint a third text field "route tool name", because I bet most ME users would like to name their points akin to "blue_wpts_ABCDE" instead of just ABCDE, that you would then want to show as the route name in the route tool. Previously suggested improvements: Regards, MikeMikeJuliet Image 1: text as intended by the author Image 2: text and image gets cluttered because text scales with zoom Image 3: a cluttered image when zoomed out - this could be alleviated either by being able to set some of the drawings invisible as you zoom out and/or by setting an absolute text size instead of zoom scaling text Image 3: Unused space around the drawings list. This particular list is probably some 150 drawings long and going through it to find a specific drawing (especially if it isn't in order) wastes time completely unnecessarily.

Reproduction: -SP mission. One house in the middle, first ring of houses 250 ft, second ring of houses 500ft. STP in the exact middle on the middle house. Make sure its altitude sits on ground level. -F16 with three bags, hot start, so everything is set up correctly -fly for 2h in any direction, and return and check the waypoint that should be in the exact middle -check INS drift after 2 hours = 400 ft -refuel, repeat: INS drift after 4 hours = 1000 ft -refuel, repeat: INS drift after 6 hours = 1300 ft This was the maximum INS drift I could measure. If you fly around the STP you can bring it to match better due to paralax. I suspect a higher drift in altitude to contribute to the big visible offset. Track attached. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vb32dm3o09bztxvyvjiry/ins-drift-6-hours.trk?rlkey=50p1ixlfl17rg6b536zremeit&st=7hm9nemo&dl=0

1. Get rid of ALL the random rocks and stones laying around. They are totally out of place, and even show up on tennis courts and football (soccer) pitches - ON A MILITARY FIELD! They only belong in gravel quarries and on mountains, above the tree line. See pic below 2. Need to remove trees from Helipads. Noticed on H FRG-51 (see pic below) 3. The infields of large airfields need to be smooth, short, cut grass, without rocks, scub, or bushes. This is between runways and taxiways, and at least 500 ft or so from the runways. This is maintained to keep birds and animals away, and for safety if a plane leave the runway. Also, unless there is construction, there shouldn't be any exposed dirt. Espcially on NATO bases, these areas are meticulously maintained (gotta keep those draftees busy). See pic below. 4. Is there any way to make water LEVEL? It is disorienting down low, especially in a helo, to see water banked up around a curve or have a steep drop-off. Noticed a particularly bad example just south of Kessel. I realize this may be a baked-in feature of the DCS terrain... Pic attached Otherwise, LOVING THE MAP! Vulture

Thats the end goal - to make at least basic clickable ussability, or maybe even cold start procedure.

Not sure I understand the hostility here..... the F-14 at the end of her life had no "New" parts available. What parts were ready as spares had been through "I" level maintenance (where they also had no new replacement components) or "D" level maintenance 10-15 years ago and just sat on a shelf. Also, remember on a ship you have very limited space for warehousing all those spare parts. You have to also stock all the parts needed for F-18's, S-3's, H-60's, EA-6's, C-2's and E-2's. The situation was such that during OIF the F-14 did the lions share of strike missions, the F-18 at the time couldn't stay on station long enough to be useful. So we found out the hard way that the most useful strike aircraft on the ship also had no spares but had to stay "UP" no matter what. So, what are you going to do? Tell a Marine platoon in Fallujah that is about to be overrun that no help is on the way because of a loose button?

And before anyone asks how I used the outboard wing pylons, no I wasn't able to add new pylons. I tried; they worked in Mission Editor but crashed DCS when you went to fly. So, as you can see in the one picture with the bay doors opened, if you're using larger missiles there's no room on the center stations. In those circumstances, I enabled the use of the IRST pods on those stations and adjusted the positioning to put them out on the wings.

Hello everyone, Unfortunately, it seems that large aircraft such as tankers, AWACS, or similar types currently cannot be placed at Wunstorf Air Base in DCS. This is somewhat inaccurate from a historical and operational perspective. Since the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) took over the airfield again in 1958, Wunstorf has continuously operated large aircraft. This includes the Noratlas N2501, followed by the Transall C-160, and today the A400M Atlas. Given this long-standing role, it would be great if Wunstorf could accommodate aircraft of this size in-game as well. Kind regards

Hello. When you plan do to a flight with friends. It's often that you spawn further from your friends, I think such a future would be a quality future for the dynamic spawn system.

It's functionally complete. I'm pretty much just finishing some textures, playing with the sounds, and fixing bugs that have cropped up over time. Right now, the biggest barrier to release is that I decided to re-architect my flight model codebase for the third time. It won't have any effect on the aircraft itself other than hopefully making the code run a little faster, but it should make it much easier to create other aircraft in the future.

Even the Mudhen, which had development ceased before Afghanistan, has a functioning map at all zoom levels. The Kiowa's map functions at all zoom levels as well. There's no reason ED modules shouldn't have this by default when 3rd party modules have them from the get go.

Agreed - would be nice to have as many objects as possible in the Cold War Assets pack, including static - especially the Soviet Airlines Currently I'm replacing / adding existing civilian static AC with the Civilian Aviation Mod to add airline liveries for Western aircraft, but noticed some issues when removing some aircraft with triggers, where it removes some nearby buildings as well? Most noticeable on the Tempelhof Airport in Berlin Removing all aircraft in ME with triggers also removes part of the terminal, 2 statics marked in red are the problems When replacing statics with mainly Civil Aviation Mod, I am getting around by just placing a bigger aircraft over the problem aircraft

A pretty cool game that, after you get going in a nice groove in one aircraft, renders a bunch of other games stale in comparison...

Thanks to everybody so far, pretty bussy with texturing and creating textures mostly so far, experimenting and all that.. no joke gimme that terrain editing tool and i fix most of the wrong ground detail, roads, missing lakes around Gütersloh in no time... its not that much. .. and uhm.. sorry Ugramedia...what is that building you placed at the spot where the Storage shelter should be.... here we go...

With all the excitement from the WWII Pacific Group I'm a part of (vCTF-58), One map comes to mind that would be incredible as a WWII map in the Pacific. The Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands campaign, specifically the Guadalcanal campaign, was a six-month-long, brutal series of battles in the Pacific Theater of World War II. The initial landings on Guadalcanal and Tulagi in August 1942 by US forces were aimed at securing an airfield, but it quickly became a fierce, prolonged struggle for control of the islands and the surrounding seas. This would be a perfect playground for the Corsair, Hellcat (and not to hope for too much other) and other related assets that could expand upon the playability of the Pacific in DCS. Key aspects of the Solomon Islands Campaign: Initial Landings and Objectives: The US Marines landed on Guadalcanal, Tulagi, and the Florida Islands in August 1942, aiming to secure the airfield at Guadalcanal and disrupt Japanese supply lines. Prolonged Struggle: The campaign was characterized by intense naval and aerial battles, as well as fierce ground fighting, for control of the islands. Naval Battles: The campaign involved numerous naval battles, including the Battle of Savo Island, the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, and the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Importance of Henderson Field: The US airfield on Guadalcanal, later named Henderson Field, became a crucial strategic asset, and its control was a major objective for both sides. Lessons Learned: The campaign provided valuable lessons for the US military in terms of amphibious operations, logistics, and the importance of air power. Beyond Guadalcanal: The Solomon Islands campaign also included operations in the Central and Northern Solomons, including the Bougainville campaign. Japanese Defeat: The Japanese, despite their initial successes, were eventually forced to withdraw from Guadalcanal and the other islands in the Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands campaign was a crucial turning point in the Pacific War, demonstrating the US military's growing strength and its ability to overcome significant challenges. Not to mention the number of land based marine corps squadrons that could open the door to campaign missions that highlight operations in the Solomons. Thoughts?

My name is Enrique, I’m a 3D artist with experience in visualization and game development, and I’d like to introduce a personal project I’ve been working on: the Fokker Dr.I Triplane, a highly detailed and historically faithful recreation of this legendary aircraft for DCS World, currently in development as a future free mod. The goal of this project is to pay tribute to aviation history by bringing to life one of the most iconic fighters of World War I, famously flown by the Red Baron. I’m focusing on historical accuracy and professional-quality modeling and texturing to ensure an immersive experience. The mod is still in progress, but I plan to share regular updates. I’d really appreciate any feedback from the community, especially from those with experience in historical mods or an interest in WWI aviation. The gauge textures are temporary, the entire cockpit will be fully interactive." Thanks for the warm welcome to the forum—I'm open to suggestions and collaboration. For more pictures of this project: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/JvXOYa Best regards. Enrique

With the Cold War Germany map, i think it's really imperative for ED to focus on filling in the missing cold war assets. Based on what modules we the primary fovus should be on things that left service after 1972 but entered service before 1991. The secondary focus should be assets that could do double duty for wwii maps. I think we need more Korean era modules before worrying about the ai assets.

Wishlist of specific improvements for the Ground Player Experience: Dynamic slots / dedicated spawn for ground vehicles. Repair trucks (repairs damaged unit over x-minutes). Vehicle ground traction / friction so vehicles stop handling like they're skating on ice Player controlled vehicle headlights. Player controlled vehicle smoke launchers. Updated industrial 3D assets: eg. factories, etc look terrible. Realistic looking FARPs. Source these assets from 3rd party if you have to, like you are doing with Current Hill, etc. smarter / pre-plotted AI pathing. Roads should be pre-plotted paths (server doesn't need to do any work) that AI vehicles will opportunistically use to move around more efficiently. Larger concept: As for dynamic slots / vehicle spawns, and this is a bigger ask, the ability to spawn a small group / platoon of 4-6 AI vehicles that will follow the player occupied vehicle in commanded formations (line, column, etc). Think sims/games like Gunner HEAT PC or M1 Tank Platoon. If player vehicle is destroyed, they can easily jump to another vehicle in the platoon and continue. This will dramatically change the ground game. Even a few players followed by their platoons will make the ground battlefield look vastly more dynamic and real. Thanks.

I found one! There are currently trees growing on it and there is no road going through, but it is something. I suspect @MAESTR0 and team made an infrastructure "module" similar to the SAM positions that they are going to place around the map where they were located historically? Maybe you can shed some light on this. Here it is for comparison: https://www.mil-airfields.de/deutschland/autobahn-notlandeplatz-nlp-adelsheim.htm If anyone finds any more of these, post them here!

£445 on Amazon https://amzn.eu/d/i9l6pwN A 5080 for £949. Availability 10th May ZOTAC NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SOLID CORE 16GB Blackwell Graphics Card LN157281 - ZT-B50800D2-10P | SCAN UK https://www.scan.co.uk/products/zotac-nvidia-geforce-rtx-5080-solid-core-gddr7-ray-tracing-graphics-card-dlss-4-10752-cores-2617-mhz?utm_source=webshare&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=share Plus about £400 for motherboard and RAM for a total of £1800. £100 less than the cost of a 4090.

in fairness, ED has stated they cannot fix the current system. they need to create a new system from the ground up.

Hey everyone, Orbx have another community flight night coming up! Event: Kola Flight Night with Orbx Date: Saturday, May 17th @ 5PM UTC Where: The Panther Den & CVW-1 Join the Orbx & Panther Den team for a Community Flight Night. Preview upcoming airfields, ask questions, and dive into a dynamic PVE multiplayer campaign in the EUCOM theatre. Experience high-intensity, persistent warfare on the Kola map—designed for teamwork, immersion, and realism. This mission features persistence, real weather, Live ATIS, modern NATO airframes, dynamic tasking, ISR, ELINT, CSAR, CTLD, carrier ops & air defense. Server Requirements: Mods: https://tinyurl.com/yc8s6749 Map: Kola Discord: https://discord.gg/nsVystXf7T Don’t own Kola? Come watch the stream as we will be giving out three copies of the map! Watch live: https://www.twitch.tv/indynavy To play on the server you will need to download some mods. The mods don’t come pre-packed with the install paths, so you’ll need to manually place them in the right folders. 1. Download the mods: https://tinyurl.com/yc8s6749 2. Unzip the downloaded files. 3. Navigate to: C:/Users/<YourUsername>/Saved Games/DCS/Mods/ 4. Place the unzipped folders: Place Hercules, MAM, UH-60, and T-45 into the aircraft folder. Place 476 Range Targets and HighDigitSAMs into the tech folder. 5. Once everything’s in place, you’re good to go! Hope to see you all there as we enjoy flying with the community!

You are right about the clickbait. I hate clickbait. But the more I thought about my learning experience with the F/A-18C, the more I got triggered (here's another buzzword for you) and I basically got pulled into a clickbait rage mood. It's all DCS' fault, you see? Joking aside, I changed the title. For those rebelling against self-censorship, the original title was: "Learning experience of the F/A-18C is abysmal --- and it is hurting ED directly" And to digress even further, your training missions are the only selling point for the Sinai map for me right now. As soon as I am finished learning my current modules, I will finally learn the Mig-21 with YOUR help. And I am already looking forward to it.

Came here because of the click-bait title… but it’s hard to take the thread seriously, as the -21 is the one that has the dubious award for worse training missions

Oh I dunno this Hornet driver did just fine with the manual and chucks guide.

Have you tried reducing axis travel limits in the Axis Travel window? Kiowa and Chinook are not "officially" supported by the software. Here are modified export scripts to make them work (they'll pretend to be Ah-64 and Ka-50 respectively, so you will need to switch profiles manually when using them). To install replace the 2 files in the %userprofile%\Saved Games\DCS\Scripts\MOZA directory MainRotorRPM.lua MOZA.lua

+1 I wish we could bring all FC modules to FF standards.

Agree, needed for the A-10CII as well. It boggles my mind that an A/C module made by DCS for a map made by DCS doesn't have this from day 1.

Believe it or dont. We dont make things up, have to take guesses or similar. All of this was modelled directly after first hand evidence. We didnt put all of what we found into the game as not everything had nice and detailed pictures to recreate it correctly. Heck, they even put folded paper between the buttons to keep them in.

Кто на QPro сидит - НЕ СТАВЬТЕ АПДЕЙТ V76! Обнова руинит скорость по воздуху до 200 мбит. В результате VD только через HEVC может адекватно работать. Благо в его бетке сделали 2-Pass encoding и артефактов сильно меньше.

It's crazy ED can make the F-35 full fidelity but they can't do an aircraft of 1975.

Guys, time to reveal a secret for you:

@The_Fragger Cold War Germany is on the doorstep, prime PAH-1 territory. Do you have any progress news?