Leaderboard

Magnitude 3: New screenies:

If there is a Pacific Assets Pack and it's payware it's fine by me. As long as the toys are high quality I don't mind paying for them.

First time posting in this long thread, so first want to acknowledge the great work of Tobi and EightBall. The OH-6A is a total blast to fly and the Vietnam Asset Pack is one of the best of its kind, especially (as someone mentioned above) the Radio Hooch and its sound effects. The asset pack works beautifully in my Vietnam mission map my friends and I have been flying exclusively for the past 8 months with the F-4E, couldn't have done it properly without it! So, I wanted to mention if anyone had interest (and if the authors are ok with it), we made a little silly modification to the VC Bicycle ground unit that puts a smile on our face. On our startup parking ramps, we have the VC Bicycle riding laps continuously in front of our revetments (we've even given him an affectionate name I'll leave out here!) but we were always thrown off by his sounding like a truck driving by... it just didn't go well with all the detail EightBall put into the animation of the pedaling and such. So, we did a little modification to remove the truck engine sound and added sounds of squeaking chains/pedaling, some grunting here and there, and a few other sounds. I realize how ridiculous it is but I think it adds to the amazing asset pack! All that's needed is just a new sound file I can provide, a new SDEF file, and a re-worked database file. I'll wait and see if the authors respond to this with their blessings and then if anyone wants it, I can share the files here.

SOME ADDITIONAL NOTES FOR CLARIFICATION HIGH LEVEL OF GENERATOR ABSTRACTION Above describes the UI/UX for a (neophyte) player, to enable them to quickly generate a fun mission. The entire generator revolves around accessibility: it does not require the player to have specific knowledge about the era, area, aircraft or weapons and still be able to have an engaging mission. As such, the generator abstracts as much as possible, and uses accessible phrases and iconography and engaging UI to guide the player as much as possible; the results should be as forgiving for mistake as possible, and it should anticipate what the player may have intended, to have some fun. The generator's focus is on a fun experience, not an optimum of realism. To achieve this, the number of UI elements and choices is greatly reduced, and attributes that aren't strictly required are automatically fit for the mission by the generator. For example, setting the amount of fuel, chaff, flares etc are distractions that merely can confuse and do not significantly increase the experience or outcome. Therefore, this and similar settings (e.g., frequencies, gun ammo, flight formation) are abstracted and automatically filled by the generator. Similarly for enemy units, their AI, position etc - setting these up requires know-how of things that a new player may not have and lead to their frustration. It becomes a chore to provide, is unpleasant UX, and it is something that the generator can be much better at providing. Similarly, choosing Season, Time of day and weather can be abstracted into much easier terms that the player understands. Choosing "Dawn" as starting time does not require the player to know at what time the sun goes up on that map (Month), and that Winter on the Southern hemisphere is different from the Northern. Dawn means dawn, and the generator can sweat the details. It is this kind of smart player support that makes for an engaging interaction. THE GENERATOR MAKES OR BREAKS THIS APP! Providing many of the above 'nitty gritty' mission details (like enemy) the generator derives from the 'difficulty' attribute that the player sets on Panel 1. Abstracting so many different Attributes into a single setting will provide a challenge, and doing it well will decide the fate of the generator: since it is the generator's job to balance the mission, to make it a fun experience, not properly balancing a mission, not correctly anticipating what the player wants, not erring on the side of fun, and not being a fun experience can ruin the entire generator. Here is how I envision that this could work: Difficulty, together with the aircraft type that the player selects already yields an abundance of information: era, capabilities, potential enemies etc. We can use this with mission type to drive enemy unit selection, their number, placement, orders, alert status and AI settings. Examples: For example, the player does not have know which AAA are era era correct for his aircraft type, nor which of them are too lethal. Driven by the aircraft type and difficulty, the generator selects appropriate unit types and numbers for the mission type, and sets their alert status, skill level and how/when they activate (or if at all). For example, a difficulty setting of "Easy" can cause the generator to set all enemy units to ROE to "Weapons Hold", etc. Similarly, the difficulty attribute can control mission complexity for carrier ops: While "Easy" only has the player depart from the carrier, attack some hapless (weapons hold) unit on the shore and then proceed to a land-based airfield, a "Challenging" mission alters this so that the hapless unit now has teeth, some company, and the player has to return to the boat. This way, the generator can quickly automate mission generation without requiring the player to be confronted with settings that simply are too complex and ruin the experience. Note also that this UI (outside the theatre map) fully abstracts locality. The player is not required to place units nor their plane. This is done by the generator. It may be counter-intuitive at first, but not having to worry where the action takes place takes a lot of burden from the player, and also allows the generator to shine and keep generated missions fresh by leveraging map knowledge and always randomly picking the best locations for a particular mission type Mission generation The mission is generated after the player clicks on GO. Since there is no locality managed by the player (other than choosing the map/theater) loading and operating QAG is fast, and should on average only take a few seconds. QAG should retain settings between sessions, so subsequent sessions will be even faster (please see the note on Reuse below) Randomization This is an area where the generator can truly shine and leverage ED knowledge and experience. Each map has areas that are particularly well suited for certain engagement, and can show off the features of a map (for example, Caucasus can be drab in some places, while drop-dead beautiful in others). Picking the correct spot for a generated mission can make it an exponentially better experience. Since the generator places enemies and friends alike, it can randomize and optimize both at once and guarantee a steady stream of good experiences. Modularization, Templates (?) I suggest a heavily modularized approach to getting this version of QAG out of the door. Generation of mission types can be modularized (with planned missions already being mentioned in the Mission Type drop-down, but not yet available), as can be optimization for a particular map (leveraging/optimizing the beauty of a particular map can be a per map module that is added later). For example, an SAR mission type module can be added later. Since the generator picks the location of all action, it can also use an 'embellishment' module for 'eye candy' at the source and destination airfields, as well as the general location of the mission's action. This way, no matter which airfield is used, it can look good to the player and be era-compliant - the joys of automation. This embellishment module can be based on templates and be added later. I will not mention the potential monetization options.. ooops. API I strongly recommend that ED define and release the API for both QAG front-end and mission generator back-end so that the community can provide their own. The downslide here is that downloading and installing add-ons to DCS currently is not neophyte-friendly, so this will have to be a later development, when DCS's UX/UI matures sufficiently to integrate this. Reusability / Save / Retrieve / Exchange I'm assuming that the generator backend creates a '.miz' type mission as it does now, that is loaded into DCS like a standard mission created with Mission Editor, and that the output is compatible. If so, I strongly recommend that the generated missions are named sensibly (maybe ask the player) and are placed in a location where they can later be retrieved and re-played without having to re-generate them. I also strongly advise that QAG's GUI provide an interface to access and manage previously generated missions (it is trivial to store this version of QAG's settings within a .miz), so players can either replay a previously mission (if it was fun), or generate a new one based on the settings used (this was the origin of the 'Other' tab in the examples above. I merely chose to abstract that detail).

In no particular order: As to what I am showing here: The content posted is not the same at all. The entire 3d model of the cargo bay shown here is distinct/new relative to what was shown in 2022, or even the 2025 and beyond video from last December. More critically: In 2022 there was no such thing as airdrop in DCS. Now there is. That's what I am showing here (along with the new cargo bay). Regarding your "writing style": No, your writing style is just fine. What is less fine is your unwillingness (until now, more than a month after the first post), to respond in good faith, despite my efforts to engage with you earlier. None of this is particularly important. People are unreasonable on the internet all the time. But I would ask you: why? More generally: If your suspicion is that the flight deck doesn't exist or something.... I don't know what to tell you. It does, as do the systems (and oh my god are there so many systems). We are quite literally polishing things, finalizing the manuals, and doing a variety of other end-of-project tasks. With respect to why I have not posted more things: I do not believe in trickling out incrementally-less-incomplete-images. Those pictures will remain on the internet for eternity, and on account of their age, will rank more highly than new, polished, images that are representative of what customers get when they buy the product. So, I'm not interested in doing that. (And I'm not kidding. I will frequently need a quick reference to the Nav-Radar of the C-130J. I'll google "C-130J Nav Radar". You know what's usually the first result on the images tab? A picture of MY nav radar, from a few years ago. On more than one occasion I've looked at this picture, compared it to mine (not yet noticing that it is... not an authentic reference image), and concluded that "yep", all good. Life is a rich pageant.) In conclusion: You cannot look at the volume, or nature of the images posted by me and infer the stage of completion. This was the original sin of your first post. In general, I just post things that I think are a) cool, b) new, and c) fairly polished. It's not likely that I will ever show the entire cockpit in advance of opening pre orders. But that will be soon. Thank you for your passionate support. - Someone making an internet airplane

Any update on this?

Sometimes ED takes license to add things like 4 Harms on the F-16. Technical it is possible, but never fielded on operational use. For the Mig-29A as some has told us, is also possible as an upgrade for the Mig-29A. Not fielded but think about a war in Germany, that retrofit could be hurried up for the Fulcrum A fleet. I feel confortable sticking to reality on modules, not fancy scifi things, no impossible weapon combos. But certainly an ER or ET on a Fulcrum A is not scifi. Is just and opportunity on a What If scenario that is credible because it was possible at that time. Just think about Ukraine Mig-29A upgraded to use Harms, GBUs, etc. Now is realistic, not in 1989. But what if we want to fly a UKR Mig-29A attacking Caucasus Novorossysk Harbour with GBU? Those are opportunities that play a role inside what is realistic for a Mig-29A capabilites. But i understand your point also, purism on modules is a good thing but at the end DCS is only a sandbox for fun so ET/ER on an upgraded Mig-29A fielded on Damgarten against a NATO invasion? Why not?

Yes, there is. An official manual is an important resource and part of the module, therefore we paid for it, therefore it's far from unreasonable to insist ED provides one. Their logic is probably that it's a waste of time and resources to write a manual while features are in flux and thus the manual would need to be re-written every time they change something. But that logic falls flat on its face when you consider how 3rd parties do things. If a particular feature is WIP, simply leave it blank in the manual, stating it's WIP and add it later. This leaves plenty of opportunity to write the parts of the manual for stuff that won't see significant changes and/or is considered complete Besides, it's probably a lot easier for developers to explain a feature when they just finished developing it and is thus fresh in their minds. Compare this to writing about something years later after you have been working on other modules as well...

They're done! Just waiting for mod approval, so probably some time tomorrow. I don't think they do user file approvals this late?

With software update BZPP-44 the MiG-29 can use these weapons even if the customer did not purchase them. This software update was seemingly available around 88-89 when many MiG-29s were being exported to say Germany or Yugoslavia. In addition a US exchange pilot confirmed that the German MiG-29 he flew did show the expanded DLZ of 27ER when the 27ER training plug was mounted. It is the same seeker and the same missile electronics after all.

Quite pumped for this mean ol´relic aswell. Here´s hoping it whistles like a raving banshee

That is planned yes

I had this gripe a long time ago, and i thought it was solved but it sadly is not ! Situation: -Flight F16, 24000Ft, 300kts, Heading 360, with Cond trail , wind was 30kts/090. and NO Sideslip !! -External view, looking from the nose to the tail, exactly alligned with the longitudinal direction of the Airplane. Observation Contrail Direction: -The contrail is NOT in a straight line into the longitudinal axis of the airplane as it should, but it is in an angle as if the Aircraft is in a sideslip It seems that the contrail is not traveling sideways with the Aircraft in the volume of air after leaving the tailpipe. In short: flying wings-level, with no sideslip, the contrail is angeling sideways when it should be straight allong the longitudinal axis of the Aircaft. Hope it will be Fixed because it is strange to see smoke or contrails leaving the aircraft in an angle. because of this, It looks like Aircrafts in DCS are in a constant sideslip while they are not. Regards.

There is no need for this as we discussed this in other places the version giving KMOD is the same version which gave R-27ER/ET. So artificial nerfing you advocate is not needed. The only unclear thing is if we will get P version or not. I am pretty sure ED would like to add missile at some point in the future.

It seems to me that the best solution to this problem would be to give people a choice, just like in the Ka-50 III module, where in the mission editor we can select either the 2022 or 2011 version. A similar approach could be applied to the MiG-29A, where one version would be in line with the official documentation provided to the Warsaw Pact countries, and in the other version, they could, for example, allow the integration of the R-27ER or even the HARM, which are weapons that were actually used on this platform but not on the unmodernized version. Especially since it doesn't seem like we'll be getting a newer Russian fighter anytime soon. I think this would leave no one unsatisfied.

Just imagine we have very kind mechanics on the base that are willing to update your Mig-29A and enjoy the E familty. If not, just dont use those missiles in your missions. Is just imagination. Like a war on the Cold War Germany Map, when in reality there were no conflicts at all on that terrain ever NATOvsWarPac. If we stick to pure reality we cant make any other mission on the Germany map except Recon and QRA, or training over friendly terrain.

Am I the only one who believes that the entire earth is a supremely bad idea? It would be a nice novelty for, say 5 minutes where you visit the place where you were born, perhaps drop a bomb on your elementary school - and then? "Entire Earth" means a homogenous data source - all map data is sourced from some large DB. So say goodbye to historic era maps (say, Normandy, Germany CW). Also say goodbye to all missions that you have created to date, as the entire earth map data is guaranteed to conflict with your mission. Take DCS Caucasus, for example, then overlay a real map. Notice how almost nothing lines up, and all your carefully aligned units must be re-positioned and given new orders. Oh, and many airfields no longer exist. I've taken the other (non-boom) flight sim that does use a global earth map to fly from Batumi to Kobuleti. Yeah, Kobuleti airfield, as in DCS no longer exists. Many landmarks will be different. Ok, so the maps now are more recent. That's IMHO good for any engagement that takes place around now plus/minus ten years. Anything else - not so much. So, lose any historic map, lose all your missions for the benefit of gaining access to some locations. Location IMHO doesn't make or break DCS. Missions do, the content that mission authors place inside a map. Without a good mission to drive engagement, even the most interesting map turns boring within an hour. You can only land so many times in Lukla before that novelty runs out. Oh, and visiting Merrill Meigs in Chicago is out - it's gone. As is Hong Kong's Kai Tak. So, yay! to the idea, and technical accomplishment. And nay!! to the (expectable) result - at least how it's available today from other vendors. Of course, I'll be happy to be proven wrong. Until I see different, I think we might be better served with a hand-tuned static map that may not have as much detail, but that has (paradoxically) better (more precise) detail/resolution. A quality over quantity thang.

Have to agree - I'd much rather Ugra add the racing pylons to the static objects (though there is one already) and let mission editors decide whether to have them or not. I'd say the same for balloons. The sort of thing I love. I know the Saal site is currently missing, as is the S-125 site adjacent to it. There is a completely fictional tank range nearby though... Though we really need ED to implement that P-37 and PRV-11 that have both been in the files for over 12 years now and to implement the trailer mounted ST-68U as an EWR. But these sites should be in a more-or-less empty state, so we can place functional radars on them (these sites IRL were quite empty, with radars just sat on small artificial hills and concrete pads). From what I've seen so far, many EWR sites currently implemented in Germany feature tall towers with a small radome on top, I'm not entirely sure what it's supposed to be, but it doesn't look anything like the EWRs present in either the Cold War nor modern day (the linked post also shows that this EWR station is in the wrong place). The other, more pressing thing though is by making towers with radomes, Ugra is excluding the possibility to put functional radars there. Ideally they'd include a structure with a flat top and then a radome static object. Allowing them to be used as functional units, while looking the part.

Please don't forget: Chuck creates his guides in his free time and on his own 'account'. And we're all glad he puts so much heart and soul into it. I think we should also mention TOViper, who is responsible for the Viggen manual. However, I get the impression that manuals are generally the 'unloved child'. That there are no uniform specifications. But that's going too far and in a different direction that I don't want to go in this thread. If only they had treated the Mi-24 manual the same way as the F-16, FA-18, AH-64D, or Mirage F1... I've said a lot here, but my main message is: Please, ED Team, publish the manual for the Mi-24P asap. It's such a great module and deserves a good manual.

An update on my DCS freezing issue... DCS is no longer freezing for me. During my troubleshooting I found that there was a newer Intel graphics driver recommended. I downloaded and installed this and DCS is working perfectly once again with no freezing. Thanks @rob10 for your advice. Your recommendations were the next thing I was going to try. pngflyer

I already reported this for years (first report 2023), why still not fixed it ruined such a good map -camera 220.608005 0.051432 -36.080890 -cameradir 0.577317 0.009008 0.81647 This AFB has a well made uneven runway slope, but the marks on the runway could be seen through the ground, if you are in the low point and you may see the mark of the other end of the runway. if you are looking from the high point, you can see through the runway and see the runway marks.

The radar stations of the NVA in the GDR with coordinates and equipment FuTK-231 Pragsdorf 53.548781, 13.417390 P-18 / 2x P-37 / 2x PRW-17 / PRW-11 FuTK-232 Rohlsdorf 53.224068, 12.322375 P-14 / P-15 / P-18 / PRW-17 FuTK-233 Elmenhorst 54.000824, 11.110278 P-14 / P-15A / ST-68U / PRW-11 / PRW-17 FuTK-311 Döbern 51.611908, 14.574846 P-18 / 2x PRW-11 / 2x P-37 / PRW-17 FuTK-312 Altenburg 50.933772, 12.396322 P-15A / P-37 / PRW-9 / PRW-17 / Oborona (5N84A) FuTK-313 Neustadt 50.461361, 12.325844 P-15A / P-37 / P-18 / PRW-11 / PRW-16 FuTK-314 Meißen 51.112136, 13.498250 P-15A / P-18 / P-37 / PRW-11 / PRW-17 FuTK-331 Pudagla 53.955419, 14.047722 P-15A / 4x PRW-13 / P-37 / Komplex K-66 (Kabina) FuTK-332 Saal 54.319947, 12.486608 P-18 / ST-68U / PRW-13 FuTK-333 Putgarten 54.676417, 13.385056 P-18 / ST-68U / Oborona (5N84A) / PRW-13 / PRW-16 / PRW-17 FuTK-411 Holzdorf 51.810114, 13.190711 P-18 / 2x P-37 / 3x PRW-13 FuTK-412 Hinsdorf 51.702556, 12.135444 P-15A / P-37 / PRW-11 / PRW-13 FuTK-413 Taubendorf 51.889072, 14.605194 P-18 / 2x P-37 / 3x PRW-13 FuTK-431 Parchim-Dargelütz 53.503711, 11.850822 P-15A / P-18 / P-37 / PRW-9 / PRW-11 / PRW-17 FuTK-432 Groß Molzahn 53.740614, 10.848256 P-15A / P-18 / PRW-16 FuTK-433 Banzin 53.411033, 10.930656 P-15A / P-18 / P-37 / PRW-9 / PRW-11 FuTK-434 Karenz 53.225300, 11.348519 P-15A / P-18 / ST-68U / PRW-16 FuTK-511 Sprötau 51.098428, 11.187031 P-15A / P-18 / Komplex K-66 (Kabina) / 2x PRW-13 FuTK-512 Steinheid 50.457611, 11.093558 P-15A / P-18 / PRW-16 FuTK-513 Breitungen 50.744786, 10.244250 P-15A / P-37 / PRW-9 / PRW-13 FuTK-514 Kreuzebra 51.334022, 10.256158 P-14F / P-15 / PRW-9 / PRW-17 FuTK-515 Lehesten 50.447586, 11.452933 P-15A / P-18 / ST-68U / PRW-16 FuTK-611 Müncheberg 52.513194, 14.165936 P-18 / 2x P-37 / 3x PRW-13 FuTK-612 Wusterwitz 52.364053, 12.409625 P-14 / P-15A / PRW-9 / 3x PRW-13 / Komplex K-66 (Kabina) FuTK-613 Athenstedt 51.931944, 10.901017 P-15A / ST-68U / PRW-13 / PRW-16 FuTK-614 Altensalzwedel 52.774781, 11.155789 P-15A / ST-68U / PRW-13 / PRW-16 FuTA-4101 Ladeburg 52.717647, 13.600153 P-15A / P-18 / P-37 / 2x PRW-13 FuTA-4301 Rövershagen 54.165989, 12.214900 P-18 / ST-68U / Komplex K-66 (Kabina) / 3x PRW-13 FuTK-28 Laage-Kronskamp 53.896069, 12.354536 P-18 / P-37 / PRW-9 / PRW-13 / PRW-16 FuTK-37 Striesow 51.827694, 14.249811 P-18 / P-37 / PRW-13 / PRW-16

13. Juni 2025 Liebe Piloten, Partner und Freunde! Die Kola-Karte macht stetig Fortschritte. Sechs neue Flugplätze, verbesserte Bodentexturen und kürzere Ladezeiten sind für das nächste DCS-Update geplant! Bitte lest die Details unten und halten die Augen für das kommende Update offen. Entwicklungs-Screenshots. In Zusammenarbeit mit Magnitude 3 und zur Unterstützung der Veröffentlichung der F4U-1D Corsair entwickeln wir die revolutionäre Waffe der US-Marine im Pazifik-Theater: die ASM-N-2 Bat, die erste vollautomatische, radargesteuerte Gleitbombe der Welt. Die im April 1945 eingesetzte Bat war dank ihres aktiven Radarsystems ein Pionier der modernen Raketentechnologie, die Ziele mit tödlicher Genauigkeit autonom anvisieren konnte. Bitte lest die nachstehenden Einzelheiten. Die Corsair wird derzeit gründlich getestet, und wir planen, dieses Modul mit dem nächsten Update zu veröffentlichen. Wir freuen uns auf euer Feedback. Vielen Dank für eure Leidenschaft und Unterstützung. Viele Grüße, Eagle Dynamics DCS: Kola – Ein Jahr der Entwicklung Ein Jahr der Gestaltung des Schlachtfeldes Nach einem Jahr wird die Karte DCS: Kola als dynamischer und strategisch wichtiger Schauplatz in DCS weiter ausgebaut. Entwickelt von Orbx, einem führenden Szenerieentwickler, erstreckt sich diese Karte über 1,35 Millionen Quadratkilometer arktisches und subarktisches Gelände, das Nordnorwegen, Schweden, Finnland und die russischen Regionen Murmansk und Karelien umfasst. Seit der Veröffentlichung hat die Karte umfangreiche Aktualisierungen erhalten: neue Flugplätze, Infrastruktur, visuelle Verbesserungen und Leistungsverbesserungen haben sie zu der detaillierten und reaktionsschnellen Umgebung gemacht, die sie heute ist. Die Karte wurde für groß angelegte Operationen entwickelt und verbindet komplexe Infrastruktur mit Fjorden, Tundra, Wäldern und Gebirgszonen, die mit historischer und moderner militärischer Relevanz überlagert sind. Mit mehr als 20 funktionalen Flugplätzen, detaillierten Häfen und wichtigen Industriegebieten unterstützt Kola eine Vielzahl von taktischen Szenarien. Ende des Early Access – 22. Juli 2025 Die Kola-Karte wird den Early Access am 22. Juli 2025 verlassen. Dies markiert das formale Ende der ersten Startphase, aber nicht das Ende der Entwicklung. Orbx setzt sich weiterhin für kontinuierliche Verbesserungen ein, wobei neue Inhalte und technische Updates bereits geplant sind. "Die Entwicklung der Kola-Karte endet nicht mit dem Early Access. Wir verpflichten uns, Inhalte hinzuzufügen und die Karte im Einklang mit den technischen Innovationen der Plattform zu aktualisieren. Orbx hat vor über drei Jahren mit der Arbeit an der Karte begonnen und es war ein großartiges Projekt für uns. Wir haben viel über DCS gelernt und werden dieses Wissen zusammen mit unserer Leidenschaft für die Erstellung von Geländen und Landschaften nutzen, um diese Karte noch weiter zu verbessern." — Anna Cicognani, CEO, Orbx (Zitat frei übersetzt) Was euch geliefert wurde 1,35 Millionen km² Land- und Meeresabdeckung Mehr als 20 Flugplätze mit umliegender Infrastruktur und Navigation Eigene Häfen, Radaranlagen, Stadtzentren und militärische Einrichtungen Kostenlose und kostenpflichtige Missionen über Orbx und dem ED-Shop erhältlich Erhebliche VRAM- und Leistungsoptimierungen Geplante neue Inhalte für die Veröffentlichung im Juni 2025: Kilpyavr (XLMW) Luostari (XLML) Koshka Yavr (XLMY) Kalevala (ULPK) Poduzhemye (XLPU) Afrikanda (XLMF) In den nächsten 3-6 Monaten: Flugplätze und umliegende Infrastruktur ESPG, ESNG, ENKA, ENVR und EFRU Verbesserte Bodentexturen für Tiefflüge Fortgesetzte VRAM- und Rendering-Leistungsupdates Warum Kola wichtig ist Die Kola-Region ist seit langem eine kritische militärische Grenze - sie beherbergt die russische Nordflotte und eine dichte Infrastruktur aus der Zeit des Kalten Krieges und grenzt jetzt an den Luftraum der NATO. Ihre geografische und strategische Rolle entwickelt sich ständig weiter, was sie zu einem interessanten Schauplatz sowohl für historische als auch für moderne Szenarien macht. Was kommt als Nächstes? Sagt Orbx, woran sie eurer Meinung nach als Nächstes arbeiten sollten, indem ihr eure Kommentare hinterlasst und über die Kommentare anderer abstimmt: Anregungen für DCS: Kola von Orbx. DCS: Kola befindet sich weiterhin in aktiver Entwicklung und wird im Laufe des Jahres 2025 mit weiteren Inhalten und Verbesserungen aufwarten. ASM-N-2 Bat Amerikas erste radargesteuerte Gleitbombe Die Veröffentlichung der ASM-N-2 Bat in DCS World stellt einen bedeutenden Fortschritt in der Kampfsimulation des Zweiten Weltkriegs dar, indem die erste einsatzfähige radargesteuerte Gleitbombe auf dem Schlachtfeld eingeführt wird. Diese Waffe erhöht die strategische Tiefe und die historische Authentizität von Szenarien in der Spätphase des Krieges und ermöglicht es den Spielern, feindliche Schiffe aus der Entfernung mit einer für die damalige Zeit noch nie dagewesenen Präzision zu bekämpfen. Die Einbeziehung der Bat zeigt die sich entwickelnden Luftangriffsfähigkeiten und bietet eine einzigartige taktische Option für Piloten, die Flugzeuge der U.S. Navy fliegen, und unterstreicht die technologische Innovation, die die Luftkriegsführung in der Endphase des Zweiten Weltkriegs neu zu gestalten begann. Entwicklung und Design Die Ursprünge der Bat (deutsch: Fledermaus) gehen auf das Jahr 1941 zurück, als RCA eine ferngesteuerte Anti-Schiffs-Waffe namens Dragon vorschlug, bei der ein Bediener die Bombe über eine Live-Kameraübertragung von ihrer Nase aus lenken sollte. Das National Bureau of Standards (NBS), das später zum Army Research Laboratory gehörte, wurde mit der Entwicklung des Flugkörpers beauftragt und baute auf demselben lenkbaren Geschützrahmen auf, der auch im früheren, aufgegebenen Projekt Pigeon verwendet wurde. Bis 1942 entwickelte sich das Konzept zur Pelican, einer halbaktiven radargesteuerten Bombe für die U-Boot-Bekämpfung. Mitte 1943 wurde das Konzept erneut geändert und ein aktives Radar-Zielsuchsystem von Western Electric eingebaut, das mit einer 454 kg schweren AN-M65-Allzweckbombe kombiniert wurde, der gleichen Munition, die auch in der Azon-Lenkmunition der USAAF verwendet wurde. Der endgültige Entwurf der Bat, offiziell als SWOD (Special Weapons Ordnance Device) Mark 9 bezeichnet, war für seine Zeit ein technisches Wunderwerk: Die Bat verfügte über einen Sperrholzrahmen, der von der Rudolph Wurlitzer Organ Co. hergestellt wurde, die für ihr Know-how beim Biegen von Sperrholz für Orgeln und Musikboxen bekannt war. Die 12 Fuß lange und 10 Fuß breite Struktur war mit einem Autopiloten von Bendix Aviation kreiselstabilisiert, wobei die Steuerung über Elevons (kombinierte Quer- und Höhenruder) erfolgte. Kleine windgetriebene Generatoren trieben das steuerbare Höhenleitwerk an, das mit einem S-Band-Radarsuchgerät im Bug verbunden war. Die Bat trug eine 1.000-Pfund-Allzweckbombe, die für die Bekämpfung von Schiffen optimiert war, aber auch für Landziele wie Brücken eingesetzt werden konnte. Corsairs über den Marianen im Jahr 1944 Juni 1944. Die Morgendämmerung gleitet über den Pazifik und glitzert auf den blauschwarzen Flügeln der brandneuen F4U-1D Corsair, als sie auf das Deck der USS Essex rollt. Unten nähert sich bereits eine wütende amphibische Armada den Korallenstränden von Saipan. Flugleiter Leutnant „Duke“ Klein zieht seine Kabinenhaube zu, öffnet die Kühlklappen und lässt den mächtigen R-2800 hochlaufen. Der „Knickflügler“ schüttelt sich wie ein Vollblut, das sich gegen die Blöcke stemmt. Ein letzter Magnetcheck, eine grüne Flagge vom Deckoffizier, und der Vogel wird in den feuchten Morgenhimmel geschleudert. Diese Startsequenz ist genau das, was ihr in DCS mit der DCS: F4U-1D Corsair von Magnitude 3 LLC erleben werdet. Das Modul nähert sich zuversichtlich der Fertigstellung, und unsere jüngsten Tests zeigen vielversprechende Ergebnisse für einen Early Access. Bleibt gespannt! Abermals vielen Dank für eure Leidenschaft und Unterstützung. Viele Grüße, Eagle Dynamics

Here is Spangdahlem, sorry for the wait. Will sit down to scan the rest of the Germany airbases later this weekend. Hope this helps, have fun! Hi-TCN Terminal SPANGDAHLEM AB (EDAD) DoD FLIP 1987 .pdf

Time to add some catastrophic smoke!

Hello, I’m re-making them for the upcoming T-45 v1.2, they will be included within the updated version so it won’t be neccesary to download them from user files. The older missions are not available anymore as they didn’t work properly on the current DCS version. best regards, Eduardo

I hope so. Carrier was in the latest shorts from ED.

@NRG-Vampire Made my own custom editable RoughMet texture. More shinny or is this good? Looks way less 'flat' then my post (2 above middle pic).

The HI-TCN Terminals for all US bases in the Europe, North Africa and Middle East from 1987 are here with me. Gonna take a while to get to scanning all of them in decent enough quality without destroying the booklet. @Volator This is already on your Discord, maybe you did not see it before. Hi-TCN Terminal RAMSTEIN AB (EDAR).pdf

EA-6B Prowler ICAP II E-2C Hawkeye Group 0 SH-3H Sea King S-3A Viking EA-3B Skywarrior Preferably, in that order - then alongside Heatblur’s AI A-6E and KA-6D Intruders (if they ever materialise), the early F-14A-135-GR and FlyingIron’s A-7E Corsair II we’d have a complete air wing for the Forrestal’s (and fleshing out late Cold War USN aviation nicely). Beyond that: Tu-16 family (chiefly the Tu-16K-26P [Badger-G Mod], Tu-16K-10-26P [Badger-C Mod], Tu-16P Buket [Badger-J] and Tu-16RM-1 [Badger-D]), preferably in that order. These aircraft would do wonders for fleshing out Cold War - Soviet VMF aviation on the Kola map. Then to flesh out Cold War-era maps and aircraft carriers. Sea Harrier FRS.1 - HMS Invincible, South Atlantic Harrier GR.3 - South Atlantic, Germany A-4Q Skyhawk - ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, South Atlantic Super Étendard - South Atlantic F-4G Wild Weasel V - Germany, Iraq The Invincible and Veinticinco de Mayo are completely devoid of applicable aircraft, so getting at least one AI type for each would be fantastic. The Harrier GR.3 would work wonders on the Germany map (particularly if we get RAF Gütersloh) and would fit very well on the South Atlantic map. The Super Étendard on the South Atlantic map was one of (and if it weren’t for limited quantities of AM39) the primary threat facing the Royal Navy task force. The AM39 would also fit Iraqi Mirage F1EQ-5/6 aircraft (and Aerges already have an AM39 Exocet model). The F-4G would also be a great addition, though probably for Heatblur - making alterations to the F-4E model (hard wing, AN/APR-38/47 antennas, Heatblur already have an AGM-78 Standard ARM model)

As I wind down on the F-14, I decided it was time to get back to the cockpit I started before that. Before I got my 3D printer I bought a bunch of AH-64 panels from TekCreations, but after getting my 1st 3D printer I took a several year detour to working on the Tomcat. It's time to go back to the Apache one and use all those panels I bought. But I obviously have to fill in the gaps on the parts I don't have. I thought I would start with the trickiest one which is the Keyboard unit and how it mounts to the controls. I'm still having issues with some of the buttons not contacting the microswitches cleanly so I'm going to try 6mm length switches instead of the 5mm I'm currently using. My plan is to build a purpose built console for the panels instead of the modular boxes I used on the tomcat. It will sit on an 2020 extrusion box like the Tomcat cockpit so I can move them out of the way when I need to use the desk. Storage is becoming an issue, so I don't know what I'm going to do about that. Here's the current state of the keyboard unit. No plans to put an LCD in. As it's hard to source a single line LCD that's about 4" long. If anyone knows of one let me know. I tried the 40x2 that some people are using but the dimensions are off. Same for the 24x2. So for now, an empty hole with some light gels taped in

It would be nice to see options to import the entire DEST tab (OA1/2, UTM, DIR), VIP and most importantly VRP via DTC using MPD format. Manually entering this data every sortie is cumbersome. This is a must-have for many squadrons.

опросник вообще снести надо, он был приурочен к переводу Мига с SFM на AFM в 1.5 (если память мне не врет)

So we need to relief on Chucks shoulders EDs work on complete module manuals? Dont get me wrong, Chucks manuals are excelent. But if ED is not going to provide one after so many years just offer him a job as an official partner for manuals. ED can dedicate resources and time in other things and we can have manuals from a dedicated and profesional fellow, quicker. Like CurrentHill, or Massun92, i think an official partner with Chuck is a win win

My understanding is both the carrier and ground units will be part of DCS core. You don't need to own the Corsair. So if you don't want the Corsair. But buy the Hellcat. You can use the Essex carrier with the Hellcat

I have to say that I'm more excited about the Corsair than I am about the Mig29

Any updates on this?

Right? I've been wondering the same.

Thanks RustBelt, this makes a lot of sense, and would go some way to explaining why even the briefest application of braking (100% full brakes due to key/axis mapping) would start an irrecoverable loss of traction.

This must be kind of a record, reviving a 20-years old thread to add a pointless remark

I just recovered on a pitchblack deck following a Case 3 approach after a mission, followed ground crew's orders and.... immediately crashed into a SH3 that I couldn't see, we both exploded. Delightful experience, thanks ED.

The real question is how many variants do we need of a given unit? That would need to be dictated by whatever the minimal number to cover the service period and major weapons changes For example let's take a look at the B-5 . Only 3 B-52 variants saw combat the D, G, and H. I have the H in a modern configuration which will only be correct for scenarios before 1992 when they removed the tail gun. I believe when the H had the gun the only noticeable difference between the G and H were the G had .50 calibers while the H had a vulcan. The D had a different vertical stabilizer. I think if we went by the "good enough standard" So at a bare minimum the only additional Buff we would need is the G as we would get the tailgun which be necessary for a period correct cold war B-52.