Leaderboard

Spino made a new tank to represent the LDTP (Low Drag Tank and Pylon) that the Raptor will be using. I modified a copy of the pod textures and here is the result:

Thanks a lot !! I had to create my own PBR textures and tryed different colors schemes that would work, I still need a few more but so far, things are going well. For the first time i also played around and created some Roughmets. Sure there's a lot when it comes to the landscape detail itself which is missing, even the small lake which is located north west of the base is missing and yes the Ems river is wrong.. don't know UGRA should work with Google or Bing maps so at the least the landscape and roads would be accurate. The "Killer High Grass" is a problem no matter what you try.. Roughmet..

We're all waiting on an update. GD is still working on the merge. In other news, @plott1964 helped me out with some code for the VVI pages. I had modified them to allow for the EFM's capabilities. +- 100 degrees AoA, +- 17.5 G and +- 100k FPM. However, with the new capabilities you can easily exceed 100 AoA either direction, and you can exceed 100k FPM going straight down. Not for long mind you, the ground has a PK of 1. Now the actual gauge indicators will "go away" if you exceed the scale of the gauge. Say you pull 120 degrees of AoA, which is really easy to do with the TVC, the gauge will read up to 100 and digital readout will still show whatever it actually is, but the gauge stops reading at 101 and will start again when you drop back down into the scale. It works pretty well. I don't think you'll ever hit 17.5 G's but you can hit 12-13. And I had it up to 110k FPM in a full power vertical decent from 50k feet. And she can hit 60k FPM in a vertical accent under full power. This thing is a beast with 70k lbs of thrust. That was the last existing page that I know of that needed adjusting. Things are looking good.

Hope that answers your question

We have just reached 90% of the development. Enjoy and fly safe

Mirage III would be an excellent addition. Considering the Arab-Israeli conflict we are rapidly reaching the point in which all modules are featured. Syria, Sinai, F-4 Phantom, MiG-19, MiG-21, soonish MiG-17. Having the Mirage III would be the real icing on the cake to fill out that theatre

On the west german airbases the shelters & hangars aren´t correct. F.e. Pferdsfeld, there are installed Warsaw Pact style shelters.... This is a German style shelter:

In game test:

Unfortunately, the only real image is a blurry rear aspect shot from a distance. Based on the artwork:

Finally got all the parts of my 9950X3D + PNY RTX-5080 OC + 128GB RAM machine, brought it up and seemed stabilized. And got some DCS modules installed with minimal setup. Jumped into an F-16 on both Mariana and NTTR maps. Texture and Terrain Texture both set high, DLSS on, QuadView on…. Quest Pro device res. set to the highest, 90Hz, PD 1.0. Got pretty much 90fps all around. Have not done much testings yet, like with a lot of explosions, AH64, F-4E etc. yet. But, the first impression is very smooth and very little to no stuttering.

Read that on an ipad and crept straight back to boot up the desktop . 2am and I should know better but had to have a proper look. hmmm, night ops, nice

West German airbases did not and do not have perimeter walls, they are protected by wire fences like the ones around SAM sites (see screenshot 3): It should look like in the third picture.

No, I understood what you said. I'd like to try and explain myself with some contextual points: 1) Every other third party developer I've interacted with has cared about their modules. However they work within the capacities they have available and sometimes that just means they don't have the resources to maintain older modules at the expense of working on new projects 2) Adding to the above, I don't think you understand the 'drop off' in sales after a release and just how severe that can be. DCS for developers is like a dog - it's not just for Christmas, it's for life. A DCS module has no finite end. It goes on forever, yet the money it is making later on is just not enough to justify the investment required to renovate it. You'd have to most likely pay tens of thousands of dollars for a full art overhaul, for example - which is one of the most obvious and common issues with older modules - and it simply will not make that money back. There are ways to do this e.g. BS3 or A-10C2, but in order to justify selling an update you end up having to invest even more because you need developer time to design and create marketable features on top of QOL or art updates - or risk the wrath of the community. It's not easy. 3) There are legal methods in place that guarantee modules do not simply disappear. I realise the irony of saying this after Razbam's modules have been removed from sale, but again, that situation is not comparable to what happened with PC. 4) I'm grateful for your thanks regarding the quality, professionalism and communication that people like Dan, Rober, Joose and I brought to Polychop. We worked very hard on that. Especially Dan. It was not easy. 5) I think that most of your ire is directed at Razbam, and I get it. But that's an extreme situation and I think it's fair to say both parties have learnt a lot from it. I don't think it's fair to point to that situation and declare that PC is special - rather I think you should recognise that the RB situation is what is special, or unique, or more extreme, whatever comparison you want to make. And the reactions of the people involved reflect that. I certainly can't hold a moral high ground on those developers who spoke out, because I haven't been through what they went though. But given what we ex-developers of Polychop went through, I can absolutely understand the emotional distress and difficulties experienced having put so much of themselves into their work. Losing the Kiowa and Gazelle wasn't easy for us, especially after all the work we did to fix the reputation of Polychop, but at least it was our choice to do so. They didn't have that choice. Anyway, I hope this helps clarify my position a bit. I do understand your feeling, but I feel directing it at Razbam is pointless and possibly unfair given that situation, and aiming at any other developer (including ED) would similarly be unfair.

Also, to not get confused, some screenshots above have different external 3d model - those are before the model was made into M4 variant of the su-22 (2 extra R-60 pylons, countermeasures pods, extended vertical stabiliser). Here is how the external stuff looks now, as well as some liveries that will be included. Right now there are Luftwaffe, Hungarian, Libyan, Peruvian, Czech, Soviet, Syrian, Polish and Ukrainian liveries. Stay tuned and have a nice day!

Are you ready for takeoff?

Su-22m4 for DCS World! Mod developement thread. discord: https://discord.com/invite/6yqcEngfE8 First of all, this is separate project from Sniper's and Octopuss Su-22. I'm making Su-22m4 with custom cockpit and external model, based on FC3 (Su-25A) avionics with PFM. Mod will be released soon as a AI 3d model replacement for Su-17m4 and then, in the meantime I'll work further on developing the flyable mod (mainly working on cockpit) External model is 90% done, with most of the animations, and some liveries. Liveries include Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Russian, Syrian, DDR and some other. Cockpit needs to be animated as well with making all the scripts and logic in lua. Yes, it will have variable sweep wings! It will carry a lot of unguided weaponry such as bombs and rockets, as well as guided munitions such as Kh-29 missiles family, ARM and more. Maybe I will be able to add TV seeker view into the cockpit CRT without switching to Su-25T avionics, but I dont promise anything yet. No ETA, stay tuned, the AI replacement will be public soon.

DME not working for Y channels has been an issue for years (always?), and after some digging in the LUAs, I think I have identified why, and how to fix it. First, in order to avoid confusion (which I have seen a bit of when VOR, DME and TACAN is discussed in the forums), here is some technical info (feel free to skip this paragraph if you already know this): VOR: an omni-directional beacon operating in the VHF band between 108 and 118 MHz, that radiates 360 radials you can tune your receiver to intercept. It also gives you the direct bearing to the beacon. The "R" in name VOR can be a bit of a misnomer, since a VOR does not provide range info, but it is due to the term "radio range" being used as a colloquial term for radio naviagation aids back in the day. DME: provides the slant range between the aircraft and the beacon. Each beacon operates on two frequencies in the 960-1215 MHz range; the interrogation frequency (transmitted by the aircraft) and the reply frequency (transmitted by the beacon), which are separated by 64 MHz. The frequencies are never set manually, instead they are assigned fixed channel numbers and a mode (X/Y) for ease of use. The X and Y modes refer to different spacing between the pulses used when determining the range, allowing twice as many DMEs to operate within the same frequency band. VOR/DME (or VOR+DME): A VOR co-located with a DME, giving you both bearing and range info. The VOR frequency and DME channel is paired according to ICAOs Annex 10, and every DME channel except 60-69 has a paired VHF frequency (either localizer or VOR). TACAN: This is where it gets a bit more complicated. A TACAN is a DME where a rotating, slightly directional, antenna generates a rotating radiation pattern that aircraft equipped with TACAN can use to determine the bearing to the beacon (like a VOR). All aircraft with TACAN can get the range to a DME and all aircraft with DME can get the range to a TACAN, but only the combination TACAN/TACAN will give you range and bearing. VORTAC: A VOR co-located with a TACAN. Works just like a VOR/DME for aircraft without TACAN, and like a TACAN for aircraft with TACAN. Now, on to the bugs: Test info: Testet on the following map: Kola, with Evenes VOR/DME (117.35 MHz / 120Y) and Andøya VOR/DME (112.20 MHz / 59X). No unofficial mods installed (before testing my proposed fix for the bugs, which requires changes to BeaconSites.lua and BeaconTypes.lua). The frequency / channel pairing is according to ICAO Annex 10. The channels are not included in the beacons.lua entries for the airports, but this parameter only displays the channel number in the ME/F10 map. The actual channel use is set up based on the paired VHF freq. Plane: Mirage F1EE (TACAN for range to DME, VOR for bearing to the VOR) and F16 (TACAN for range to DME (no VOR in the 16..)) F1EE: Evenes: bearing, but no range. Andøya: both bearing and range. F16: Evenes: no range. Andøya: range OK. See \DCS World\Scripts\World\Radio\BeaconTypes.lua and BeaconSites.lua for context (variables, function names etc). Issue 1: The function "getPaired_DME_ChannelBy_VOR_Frequency(VOR_freq)" in BeaconTypes.lua returns channel numbers correctly for X channels, but the function return value (return channelX2 / 2 + chStartVal, channelMode) does not take into account that the variable channelX2 is an odd number for Y channels, and thus returns a non-integer channel value for Y. Two examples: #1: Channel 19X: VOR_freq = 108200000 (108.2 MHz) freqToSubtract = 108000000 chStartVal = 17 channelX2 = (VOR_freq - freqToSubtract) / 50000 with numbers filled in: channelX2 = (108200000 - 108000000) / 50000 = 4 Determine X or Y: channelX2 % 2 = 0 => channelMode = X return channelX2 / 2 + chStartVal, channelMode with numbers filled in: 4 / 2 + 17 = 19, X --------- #2: Channel 19Y: VOR_freq = 108250000 (108.25 MHz) freqToSubtract = 108000000 chStartVal = 17 channelX2 = (VOR_freq - freqToSubtract) / 50000 with numbers filled in: channelX2 = (108250000 - 108000000) / 50000 = 5 Determine X or Y: channelX2 % 2 = 1 => channelMode = Y return channelX2 / 2 + chStartVal, channelMode with numbers filled in: 5 / 2 + 17 = 19.5, Y (Non-integer channel number!) The return from getPaired_DME_ChannelBy_VOR_Frequency is used by the function getTACANFrequency, which returns the wrong reply frequency if the channel number you pass to it isn't an integer. Changing the return to "return (channelX2 - channelX2 % 2) / 2 + chStartVal, channelMode" fixes this problem in the tests I have performed. This will give you the DME IDENT tone in the plane (tested in the Mirage F1EE), but no DME distance. The distance problem is described below: Issue 2: The DME part of the "[SystemName.VORDME]" section in BeaconSites.lua only contains the following signals: signals = SIGNAL_VOICE_AM + SIGNAL_DME + SIGNAL_TACAN_X. Adding "+ SIGNAL_TACAN_Y" is required for Y channel DME range (which is the same signal as TACAN range, hence the name). So, TL;DR: these two changes fix the non-working Y-channel DME (actual changes highlighted in green): BeaconSites.lua, change line 403 to: signals = SIGNAL_VOICE_AM + SIGNAL_DME + SIGNAL_TACAN_X + SIGNAL_TACAN_Y, BeaconTypes.lua, change line 199 to: return (channelX2 - channelX2 % 2) / 2 + chStartVal, channelMode Screenshots from my tests: Mode X DME working (+VORin the F1EE): Mode Y DME NOT working before fix (VOR works in the F1EE): Mode Y DME working after fix:

I would like to see Nordhorn on the map in the third phase. Established as the Nordhorn Air-to-Ground Weapon Range by the Royal Air Force, the area was and still is available to NATO forces for training exercises. Coordinates: 52° 26′ 9″ N, 7° 12′ 29″ E (some miles NW of Rheine-Hopsten AB) Good information (and pictures) can be found here: https://www.relikte.com/nordhorn/index.htm or on Wikipedia

Hi Update today East Germany added and corrections on the western side. File in the first post. All feedback of lack or mistake welcome. Complete ILS frequencies on the Beacon information window in the mission editor

@Porco Rosso I, too, am eager for the F-104.

Thanks all, will investigate this 900ish AGL performance hit.

Modders are absolutely CRUSHING the DCS scene lately. Su30SM from CodenameFlanker and now this! Amazing, amazing work guys - we cannot wait!

The folder you are showing there lacks the ImagesGUI and Encyclopedia folder, which makes me believe that you did not replace the base pack files with the patch files. Or you have the base pack and patch separately in your tech folder, which would be wrong. 1. Download the base pack and place it in the tech folder. 2. Download the patch, drag and drop the contents into the base pack, and replace the files when prompted. If done correctly and there are no conflicts with other mods, all units should show up in the Mission Editor. The historical filter/mode should be off as well.

Ah, this again. Months in advance we new it's going to be the same variant. A large number of people fell for nothing but their own uncurbed imagination. The cockpit and the external model alone are worth 15 USD and there are several additional features on top of that. Some not mentioned enough: * next gen pilot body model (on par with the F-16 one?) * cockpit buffetting feedback: component vibrations, audio! * the above is combined with reworked wing flex and added over wing vapor effects * and finally, reignited bug fixing and improvements - in the mere last months we saw more work done on the F-5E than during several years preceeding the Remastered announcement. A good example is the cannon dispersion adjustment.

Saved Games is a windows folder, it can be moved by going to properties on the folder and the location tab. Default C drive is usually the best option.

Ну что ж, поздравьте и меня с выпуском из лётного училища, пусть и виртуального, пусть и прошёл я только экспресс-курс - добил кампанию на майских. Здесь хочу коротко расписать свои впечатления от самолёта в целом и от кампании в частности. Вдруг для кого-то окажется это полезным/интересным. Элка сначала мне показалась немного неказистой. Были сомнения, покупать ли этот модуль, ведь в игре применений ему маловато, а официальная кампания всего одна. Но однажды во время очередных скидок я таки отбросил сомнения, взял самолёт вместе с кампанией "Курсант" и принялся за изучение. Сходу аппарат обескуражил способом руления - первая же учебная миссия чуть не завершилась заездом на газон. В обучении ничего не говорят про то, как надо рулить самолётом, а после ГС пытаешься по привычке просто вертеть твистом, но это letadlo почему-то продолжает упрямо катиться вперёд. На взлёте нос поднимается очень резво, из-за этого РУСом необходимо орудовать двойными движениями. Со временем я приноровился взлетать с тангажом около 10°. Иногда даже получается идеально ровно, почти как у ботов. Хорошо, поднялись в воздух, летим. Это ведь учебный самолёт, так почему его, чёрт побери, так сложно пилотировать?! Управление очень острое, как на МиГ-29, самолёт так и норовить убежать от заданных параметров. Парадокс, но на истребителе лететь проще, чем на Элке. К этому я тоже привык и через некоторое время уже мог уверенно держать стрелку вариометра на нуле (ну или с минимальными колебаниями). Но до самого конца кампании случались ситуации, когда надо было отвлечься от пилотирования на несколько секунд (тумблерами пощёлкать или канал радиостанции переключить). Возвращаясь к управлению я обнаруживал самолёт летящим на 100 м. выше/ниже заданной высоты и курсом, перпендикулярным требуемому. Ладно, преувеличил конечно, но от истины ушёл не далеко. Пишу отзыв, а в голове слышу "высота 200". Подозреваю, что в реальной жизни пилотировать Элку попроще, т.к. есть обратная связь на РУС от управляющих поверхностей, да и сам РУС длиннее (у меня настольный вариант), что нивелирует его небольшие отклонения. Зато посадка очень проста. В отличие от того же МиГ-29, посадить который плавно и без козления - целое искусство, здесь можно зайти по крутой глиссаде, на торце полосы изломом траектории перейти в выдерживание и мягонько коснуться ВПП. Единственное, не всегда удаётся удержать нос, чаще всего он быстро опускается вслед за касанием основных стоек. Кампания "Курсант" - отличная. Конечно не без недостатков. Я сталкивался с дымами, почти полностью закрывающими мишени, низкой громкостью переговоров по радио, опечатками в брифингах, но это не слишком сказывается на игровом процессе. А вот суровый инструктор и необходимость по-настоящему готовиться к миссиям однозначно идут в плюсы кампании. Да, мне было не запомнить портянки брифингов и я делал краткий план полёта на листе бумаги и держал его перед глазами во время прохождения миссии. Так было намного проще. Большинство заданий удавалось пройти лишь со второго, а то и с четвёртого раза. Самым сложным для меня оказалось бомбометание с полупетли. Когда выходишь из манёвра, пока прицелишься, пока пробежишься глазами по приборам, уже надо сбрасывать. На исправление косяков времени практически нет. В итоге часто мазал. Наверное после множества тренировок возникнет мышечная память и будешь просто на автомате выводить из манёвра с нужными параметрами. Я не стал особенно заморачиваться - один раз удалось попасть и слава богу. Самой простой миссией была воздушная разведка. После прохождения последней 11-й миссии даже немного взгрустнулось от того, что всё закончилось. Резюмируя, могу сказать, что нисколько не пожалел о приобретении Элки и "Курсанта". Самолёт классный, хоть и не без косяков в 3D модели. Охотно верю, что пилотирование виртуального самолёта близко к реальному. По моему мнению, сам по себе он представляет интерес больше для реальных лётчиков, желающих вспомнить свою курсантскую молодость. Для остальных строго обязательно приобретать его комплектом с кампанией. Если вам, как и мне интересно не только "нагибательство" в online, но и сам процесс пилотирования, его приближённость к реальной жизни, то этот модуль определённо должен понравиться. Уверен, даже искушённые игроки, у которых за плечами сотня-другая online-сражений могут с удивлением обнаружить, что пролететь банальный круг, выдерживая заданные параметры - не самая простая задача. Да, и ещё кое что, уже не по теме. Примерно за полтора года, с момента, как я открыл для себя DCS, я успел потратить на железки и модули уже около 200 тыс. руб. Друзья, вы мне скажите, может я в секту какую попал и мне помощь требуется психологическая?

Mannn, It is so nice to see the Redfor aircraft getting some love for once.. At that, Cold war era ones! Seriously, thank you for this.. One of my favorite aircraft from the era.. Now, just need the Mig-27 and 23!

Its being tested and tweaked currently. I hope we can share more news soon. thank you

After a previous post on runway attacks — “Is (Almost) Everyone Doing It Wrong???” — I thought it was time to look at another area where fundamentals are often misunderstood: formation flying. Yes, it’s fun to fly tight and get the perfect screenshot, but tactical formations aren’t about looking good — they’re about mutual support, survivability, and combat performance. And just like with runway strikes, a lot of DCS players are unintentionally flying in ways that greatly reduce their effectiveness. This post intends to highlight two of the most common mistakes that show up again and again in MP flights and training servers. Tactical 2-Ship Formations: Quick Overview Line Abreast: the default combat geometry. Both aircraft fly side by side, offering full radar separation, 360° visual coverage, and flexibility for offensive or defensive turns. Wedge: wingman is 30–45° back and offset. More maneuverable, better for terrain or fluid situations, but reduces rearward lookout — especially for the wingman. Fighting Wing: tight and offset behind the lead. Works for training, weather, or short strike runs, but has nearly no place in contested airspace. Limits visibility, and reaction time. Common Mistake 1: Flying Too Close Flying tight may look sharp, but in combat it kills effectiveness. The wingman becomes fixated on avoiding the lead, leaving little mental bandwidth for scanning threats or managing weapons. Visual scan collapses. Radar coverage overlaps. Mutual support disappears. Tactical spacing should allow: A break turn toward your six without risk of collision. Enough distance to remain outside minimum range for your own weapons. As a rule: the faster and higher you go, the more spacing you need. 1.5 –2.5 Nm at low level is normal. At altitude or during supersonic cruise, 4–5 Nm may be required. If you're flying that close in combat, you're too close... Common Mistake 2: Flying on the Wrong Side Wingman position is tactical, not cosmetic. You're not just mirroring your lead — you’re scanning a specific part of the sky. The wingman is responsible for a visual and radar sector. Flying on the wrong side creates blind zones and ruins mutual support. Here’s how to choose the correct side: If there's a known threat — fly opposite. If not — position opposite the most significant air traffic. Still nothing? — avoid terrain hazards like antennas or cities. Clean airspace? — fly opposite the sun. That old trick of diving out of the sun still works, especially when nobody’s watching. Want More? This post just scratches the surface. Read the full article to know more!

What she does best!

Su-34 is already being developed by small team (separate from Su-30 guys) and I'm lucky enough to be a tester for their team. Also no ETA yet but the project looks promising, it has CWS like in su-30. This livery will go hard on Fulda map

12 Ship Luftwaffe F-4 strike to take out 3 Soviet reinforcement columns, some 150 tanks, APCs, trucks, fuel, SHORADs and AAA.

Added custom PTB-800 drop tank to the Su-22m4. I also added pylon extensions/adaptors as well as properly positioning all of the ordinance placement

Yes should work still, the bin-mt is just a copy of the bin folder. Its best to start ignoring the bin-mt folder as it will be removed in the future.

Mirage IIIO

This is not entirely true. The bug OP mentioned has to do with the TSD desync (or a lack of sync) after using CURSOR PAN or adjusting map heading with arrows in PAN. There's little known workaround to create PFZ and NFZs as CPG: 1) Don't PAN map with the cursor - it will cause a desync 2) Don't adjust map heading with arrows - it will cause a desync Instead, 3) PAN on POINT and not with the cursor (enter point you want to PAN to via keyboard). 4) Enter desired heading manually to sync it between stations (you can adjust it with arrows to get desired angle first and then re-enter the same heading with keyboard to sync). This way you will be able to create accurate PFZ/NFZ zones as CPG. We'll write a detailed report on this issue soon, for now it's possible to use the method presented above. P.S. This only persists for BAM and PILOT/CPG cursor show on TSD, points created on TSD using CURSOR PAN are accurate despite the desync.

a "please confirm, target appears friendly" prompt when George is set to Weapons Free and a friendly is selected from the list would be nice.

Да.

I know it caused some controversy, but in my opinion the graphical difference is huge. The Tiger II simply looks amazing in game now, arguably one of the best looking aircraft. Well worth the 15 USD upgrade I think! Also, if you don't think it's worth it, you don't have to purchase it

Thanks for your work! FC3/4 aircraft will become more popular with the release of the Cold War Germany map... and so will your mod.

There is actually no tail wheel lock. And did you make sure the gear level is mapped correctly and the correct lever is moving? Because the gear lever is the middle one and has a travel lock to prevent it from being put into the retract position. So make sure you lift the travel lock before trying to raise gear.

I'm not. ED clearly stated RAZBAM asked them to take down the modules. They also clearly stated (after people were complaining they were still selling RAZBAM modules) they were obliged to keep selling them until RAZBAM asked them to stop. There's no conspiracy, only Ron Zambrano posting reckless public statements about a private court case. If you did some research, it would have become fairly obvious.

Not sure the following thread has something to do with 24H2: or more or less.... Need to test when the patch is released.

More work is being done in terms of MFD's, still a lot to do.

MiG-29 SMT - update on cockpit textures

My windshield is full of insects and I keep asking my navigator to lean out the window and wipe them off with a rag. He won’t stop bitching about it. I even tilt left and stall the plane for the ungrateful bastard while he’s doing it!