Leaderboard

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.

And some screenshots from Whiplash:

Берегите этот форум, избавьте его от праведного гнева. Не хватало ещё и сюда через VPN и другие костыли ходить…

Did you know that the Virtual Turkish Stars fly Veco Simulations' custom-built NF-5's? These aircraft share a flight model closely based on the Veco T-38A. The team played a crucial role in early stage testing of our Talon, before the final tuning was handed over to the very experienced SMEs for refinement and testing. With the team now flying in 8-ship formations, the flight model has demonstrated impressive close formation capabilities and reliability.

День победы \= карнавал и сомнительный повод для веселого празднования в стиле "можем повторить", как и не повод для скидочек в игрульки. Это в первую очередь день памяти и скорби о большом количестве жертв и огромной цене которую заплатили наши предки. А скидки в dcs и так довольно часто проходят по поводу и без. Уж в этом упрекать ED смысла нет.

With help from RamaMarines and NodUnit, we were hopefully able to overcome the texture/models problems of the MiG-21MF. It seems the normals were badly broken, we reset and recalculated normals for different parts of the plane. There were also some triangles which were sort of collapsed on a single edge. We dissolved and re-triangulated those areas and it looks better now. Right now we're waiting for tests to be undertaken. On the ships, a certain class of Destroyer Escorts will make it to the mod, thanks to James - once more. We're looking forward to publish all updates as Vietnam War Vessels 1.1.0 later this month (May 2025).

Razbam subcontractors = Razbam responsibility Razbam Subcontractors working on a project without financial back up contingencies= Sub contractor responsibility. Putting all your eggs in one basket= Rookie mistake

Quite possibly, yes. The bellows-bobweight stick forces would be just a bit higher than the friction forces and relatively small to other flight regimes. The figure below comes from a publicly available document: VALIDATION OF THE FLYING QUALITIES REQUIREMENTS OF MIL-F-008785A (USAF) null It's for the B version, but the changes between the systems were minimal and shouldn't impact the bellows behaviour at this speed. Higher speeds are not visible here, but you can extrapolate and roughly get the idea of how much they would increase at high speeds. Note that the takeoff pitch controls will change in the next update as we added a more detailed stabilator simulation close to the ground, significantly improving and simplifying handling and making it more realistic.

[MOD RELEASE] F-5EM / F-5E Tiger III – IAI Upgrade & Brazilian Upgrade Pack Hello everyone, I'm excited to share with you my custom mod for DCS: the F-5EM / F-5E Tiger III, an upgraded version of the classic F-5E Tiger II, inspired by modernized variants operated by Brazil, Chile and Morocco. The F-5EM will be released in few days, while the F-5E Tiger III will be released in few months, we still need to work on the RMAF F-5E Livery ( F-5E 2024). Also we are looking for some Livery Artists to work on it, feel free to join the Discord server below, and contact me in private for the RMAF F-5E livery. Download link: https://discord.gg/RPbTDw7x4x Features: Python-5 missile (by IDF Mods Project) Python-5 Training version (by IDF Mods Project) Derby missile (by IDF Mods Project) AIM-9M AGM-65A/B Mavericks Litening targeting pod Reccelite reconnaissance pod (custom-made by me) DASH Helmet Cueing System (helmet wire model) (made by me) Fuel probe (by denissoliveira) FAB Livery by Abitar FACH Livery by Midgard This mod adds multirole capability and advanced air-to-air weapons to the F-5E, giving it a modern feel while still respecting its classic roots. Installation: Extract the contents of the mod into your main game folder ( you can use OVGME) Make sure That YOU HAVE THE F5E 2024. Launch DCS and enjoy! Screenshots & Media: Credits: IDF Mods Project – for the Python-5, Derby, and training missile models Abitar ( FAB Livery) Midgard (Fach Livery) denissoliveira – for the fuel probe Myself – for the DASH helmet wire, Reccelite pod, and overall integration A huge thanks to the DCS modding community for tools, knowledge, and inspiration! Download link: https://discord.gg/RPbTDw7x4x Let me know if you encounter any issues, and feel free to share your feedback or suggestions for future updates! Fly safe and have fun! — Chahine.

The football fields are way off scale [emoji23] Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk

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

Но разве не 22 июня день памяти и скорби? 9 мая это День Победы так-то.

WWII Development is in progress, but it is at a slower pace, we have WWII Marianas terrain in progress, the Hellcat is in progress also. We do plan on doing more in the future, and when we can share more we will let you all know. thank you

Even taxi directors are far from finished. Leaving aside the obviously placeholder (and annoying) magic teleport, they're very limited.

I was thinking it could be a good adition to have assets covering this aspect, for some scenarios with asymmetric wars. We have a few but i was thinking this could be the perfect oportunity to have some new ones, and/or have some of the older ones receive a facelift. Could be to name a few: - Motorbikes with armed insurgents - IEDs related: infantry hiding/planting one, Barrels and stuff use to made those, etc. - Improvised technicals (that encompasses many options, i know) - Infantry: AKs, RPGs, Recoilless rifle, etc - Encampments Assets - Cave entrances - etc Maybe even adding to the mix some civilian assets, that are in some cases similar to this ones. That way it could be hard to discern those from the armed ones, creating more variety and option to create scenarios of COIN in DCS.

Good suggestions all around. While we're at it I'd add to the list the ability to import drawings to ingame maps (TAMMAC, TAD etc.) as Polychop did with the Kiowa. Their method isn't necessarily the most elegant when creating larger missions with multiple assets and it does require some effort but it's a proper start and shows it can be done in engine. null

Вся суть же, разве нет? Вот наш патриот и спалился. Плевать на праздник, дайте под повод на халяву самолетик. 27 миллионов же за это погибли, чтобы на майские алкомарафоны самолетики давали в играх.

If you have physical 64GB RAM and you require page file, something is very wrong. Is the whole map trying to get loaded in RAM? Having large page file is not a requirement, the page file is the offload for when there is not enough RAM. That helps when you have 8-16GB RAM, sometimes even with 32GB if what you're doing is very resource intensive, but there is no requirement to have a page file size = x2 of your physical RAM, that just doesn't make any sense.

You still haven't answered the most important question. Are you saluting through the radio/comms menu or via the catapult salute hotkey that can be bound in the controls options? For the F-14 only the hotkey will work but NOT the comms menu option. Which means you'll have to bind the command to your joystick or keyboard first. For the F/A-18 BOTH methods are working. Edit: Are you saluting this way? Or that way?

Ты видимо самый умный? Имелось ввиду совсем другое.

Version 2.4.9 - 20250508 - Update Another DCS patch, another hot mess. Somehow, the kind people at ED managed to FU a longstanding method that chugged along nicely for a decade, and broke with the last release. As I spent time to conduct more testing, it seems to mostly affect single-player, with at least local hosted missions being in the clear, and dedicated server hopefully also being unaffected (I'm still running tests on that, but testing dedicated server can be tricky). Bug Description: DCS currently cannot correctly ascertain the name of the mission that is running. The bug makes DCS always return "tempMission" as the name of the running mission. I've reported this bug to ED. Upshot: the bug affects at least the 'persistence' module in single-player, and if you are using persistence with SP currently, you MUST use the "saveDir" and "saveFileName" attributes. If you do not, persistence will not fail in SP, but it will silently write all information into a folder named "tempMission (data)" and inside that foldeer a file called "tempMission Data.txt", potentially overwriting another mission's data that wrote to this folder because it, too, believes that its name is "tempMission". I've spent a lot of time updating some of my more popular missions on UserFiles to work around the bug, yet, judging from my inbox, a lot of damage is already done (meaning: some save games got overwritten). The updated version help avoid this happening in the future, and may allow some servers to revert to an older version that was saved before the bug hit. Other than that, there was very little time to work on DML. All changes: Changes Documentation Manual - general persistence note and how persistence relates to "save state" QuickRef Demos - CSAR of Georgia: update Modules - airtank 1.0.3 - new 'chatty' attribute - CSAR Manager 4.5.2 - remove smoke when mission times out - FARP Zones 2.4.1 - better zone redaw on start-up - Reaper 1.3.2 - corrected typo in code (bug) - SSBClient 5.0.1 - reduced verbosity - valet 2.0.0 - new 'groundonly' attribute - migration to dmlZones Enjoy, -ch

На хелуин зато у них скидки! А такой велики праздник у них праздником не считается. Очень странная контора.

I'm just throwing out an idea... what if you took the same terrain and just updated the buildings with WW2 vintage structures? It would be amazing to have a late war Germany map with both the western and eastern fronts surrounding Berlin. I would buy that.

They are probably working full time on the F-1M, and after that the F-104 will be their focus as its sale potential should be great as I understand that the CW Germany map has sold very well and the 104 would be a natural on that map. So, a Mirage 3 would be quite far away … even if I would like to have one to fly on the Falklands and Sinai maps.

Like it or not, it was done at least once, on at least one aircraft. No word whether it took of like this, but it seems like it flew like this. That said, perhaps the reason this photo exists is that the pilot "fixed" it mid-flight, with nothing better available, and then snapped a photo because he thought it was funny. Even if you're out of spares, kapton or 100mph tape would've been available, and would've done the job better. I wouldn't trust scotch tape to hold up under Gs (that said, it likely wouldn't be the only thing not to trust on those Tomcats...).

There are now quite a lot of air bases. They are mostly adding infrastructure around these places. Which means that between these strategically important places there still isn't that many towns and villages. Some ports are added though. The second biggest city on the map Tromsø is still missing. But given it's quite large and have some unique architecture. It's probably a bit of work to get done.

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.

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...

Has anyone found a workaround to ignore the directors or to not get sent to the fantail every single time you land? I had been away from Naval ops for some time (AH-64 and F-4E are way too fun) and recently tried the Tomcat again with the Supercarrier. I thought that I would start with CQ...wrong! Forget about going to the CAT after a trap, nope. You go all the way to the fantail (not in a very realistic way either) and must park. I was a yellow shirt once upon a time and the directing was triggering me something serious (not really but). Add to that, I had a brown shirt directing me (blasphemy to a yellow shirt)). I eventually ended up going back to using the Forrestal for CQ. It was more manageable albeit, quiet as a church mouse (no deck crew at all)! I sure hope that ED is actively working this. It would be nice if the menu included: 1. Relaunch 2. Bingo state, refuel 3. Park/turnaround/shutdown This way, the directors know what you want/need. Also, the director (gear puller) getting me out of the LA (landing area) should get me clear of the foul line at least. Btw, he's standing in the wrong place. He should be slightly forward of JBD #2, but clear of the foul line. He clears the deck after passing you off to another director, then clears the deck for the next aircraft. I'm also surprised that the ball call and LSO are still rigged for a Hornet. I'm still getting called "slow" even when I'm fast! A Tomcat kneel would be nice to have from the directors as well. I'd like to add that aircraft do not go aft immediately after they land. They go to the fighter line along the foul line, or they go to the bow (1 row/ 4 row). Sometimes, the last 1 or 2nd aircraft down will go to the fantail but that's after the "recovery complete" call. Depending on space available, the 2nd to last aircraft will spin around in the de-arm area and wait for the last aircraft to land. The last aircraft lands and then spins in the LA, (under yellow shirt direction of course) and is sent back aft. BTW, I should not have to call the marshal controller just to get the LSO to acknowledge me when I go into the CQ pattern off of the CAT. When I perform a touch and go, that should be noted that that's what it is instead of a bolter! I know that this is all very complex as carrier operations are IRL, but I just hope that ED takes some of this onboard and improves upon what they have now. It was not my intention to rant; I just got carried away. I try and throw a bit of humor in their as well. Love what you guys are doing and have done. JJ

Yeah. So the upcoming patch will include slight changes to slat behavior in such configurations IIRC and also plenty of hydraulic fixes. So possibly after the update it might be better. But in general it is definitely correct behavior that you can end up in a situation with the slats going out, that causing you to change angles and speed, causing them to go in again and vice versa. IRL they would just grab the stick and throttle and just change the setup so you are not crawling around this edge case anymore.

You mean "cockpit mods", my English cockpit mods? If so, yes some friends have already reported that problem. I need to check all of my mods. Please stand by.

Sooo great - thanks for your tireless effort!

You need to change the uv map of the object. In Blender try the uv editor and scale the uv. You can load the texture and see how it will look like. I guess there are plenty of youtube tutorial for uv mapping/editing with Blender around. Good luck, TeTeT

There is absolutely no need to have such a large pagefile. These suggested sizes are a misconception related to the need to have your RAM amount as pagefile to be able to hybernate your system. I doubt that is still required these days, even when you do use hybernate. In many cases you can even turn it off completely if you have that much RAM. However, it's best to have at least some pagefile as some applications might rely on it being present.

How about doing as Oban suggests instead - a UK German Airfield asset Pack - there are very few vehicle and/or airfiled buildings asets of that kind in the game. They would be very welcome.

В самом деле, граждане, держите себя в руках. Если хотите устроить очередной срач, то это неподходящее место и очень неподходящее время. И тем более не ведитесь на малолетних троллей.

I interpret that text different. Nineline said "The DCS: World War II Assets Pack will continue to grow [...] and free asset additions that includes". I do take that as a confirmation that we will get them, as AI of course.

ja da hast du volkommen recht Ich persönlich denke dann immer in alle Möglichen Richtungen aber nie an die einfachsten Aber doch immerwieder schön, dass wir hier eine echt gute Community haben die sich hilft Also einfach nochmal danke

Lancaster, Typhoon, Bf-109G6, B24, B25, B26. As per:

Тебе скидки дали. И дают их даже на Хэллоуин. Опять не так. Зарплаты на модуль не хватает тебе, но виновата ED.

I've released 1.4.3, fixing an issue where sometimes broadcast calls in situations where some, but not all, of a flight's members were the target had the callsigns out of order ("2 3, EAGLE 2 1" instead of "EAGLE 2 1, 2 3") https://github.com/dharmab/skyeye/releases/tag/v1.4.3 (1.4.2 was a small dependency update for a very niche use case far off the beaten path, so I didn't bother telling anyone except the one person who reported the issue)

У конкурентов то скидочки на праздники поболее будут 80% на всё. В конторе DCS не хотят как то подравнять скидочки для конкурентноспособности? Я за прошедший год тут купил 1-2 модуля и то долго думал ещё с год пожалуй. А там купил 4-5, причём один-два до кучи. А сейчас вообще всё скуплю ради любопытства, облетать разочек.

Welcome to the forums. Razbam pulled the product off stores due to the current dispute between ED and them. See the first post of this thread:

It's the wish list make it big and see what people want Moscow would be nice- good one. I figure you could get a couple maps out of that operation Tunisia would be awesome I think Hawii, Midway, and Wake could be a single map. You can draw a triangle between the 3. Midway is about 3000 KM Northwest of Hawaii and Wake is about 4000 KM due west most of that is going to be ocean Looks like we have a lot of the same ideas I see I missed the P-40. Even though the focus is 1942, I'd make it just an early war request so that we can get BISMARK a what if duel between BISMARK and an Iowa would be awesome

Maybe it happened from time to time over the 40 odd years the tomcat was in service, maybe it’s just a tall tale from a few pilots, it doesn’t really matter. Heatblur have made the best flight sim model of an F-14 to date, I’m not going to lose any sleep over what methods they might have used to hold some worn out buttons on the ACM panel while deployed in a war zone. I wasn’t a pilot, but I have seen fellow soldiers do stuff to kit and equipment while deployed that would make the civilian maintainers back home cry, sometimes you just have to make something work for the mission, when you’re deployed it’s about lives the equipment is just a tool.

Sorry to see you are struggling with the F/A-18C, the manual which is 424 pages and translated into many languages is usually a great resource for people to learn, it has been fundamental to thousands of people already learning the F/A-18C which is a complex aircraft to master and one of the most sold DCS modules. But thank you for your feedback, if you have any suggestions to make it better in your opinion please let us know, we know not everyone can learn in the same way, some prefer a more visual learning experience or a more curated experience. best regards bignewy

Rather sure it's been discussed before. But could you not consider to turn the replay system into an actual replay system instead of debug tool? I mean, yes, the track files could still exist as a debug tool as they are today. But please, please, please consider allowing a functional replay system that will allow you to fast forward/rewind etc. This will make it so much easier for people making DCS content to create awesome DCS videos which in turn is more or less free advertisement for DCS.

Not going to lie, this makes me moist !! Release those vehicles as an asset pack too would be awesome !!