Leaderboard

Hello, everyone I ran some test on CCIP (too many unexpected misses) and wanted to share the following: Basically I used 40c weather with no wind or turbulence and two 30m marked radius with a live tank in the middle as targets for FA-18C & F-16CM while I use CCIP bombing in both platforms. The Hornet CCIP is accurate enough to shack the target & hit inside of the 30m radius (marked with green smoke) While the Viper hits always fall short and well outside 30m target radius (marked with red smoke). * Looks like the F-16 CCIP inaccuracy grows with the mission temperature value (20C hits closer then 40C ). Mission file: #REL - Dead Sherman Range - Nevada.miz .trk files: CCIP Test 2.trkCCIP Test3.trk Videos links: 1. first run 2. second run 3. Third run 4. BDA run Mission details: null null null I hope that's enough data to help ED team to investigate & fix the issue.

МиГ-29 в полном модульном исполнении прекрасен сам по себе. Как уже заметил Aero, у нас открывается возможность летать с полным погружением с полноценной авионикой. Навигация с помощью РСБН в СМУ, коррекция увода навигации, работа с чеклистами - все это становится реальностью. Для офлайна открывается фактически новый фронт миссий и песочниц - МиГ себя будет отлично чувствовать и в Сирии, и в Ираке и на карте Кольского полуострова и особенно в Восточной Германии и на Кавказе. При небольшой доле воображения можно даже в Афганистане применять. Что касается применения - несложно себе представить МиГ в той же Сирии в роли прифронтового бомбардировщика. Или работу по более продвинутым F-15 и F-16 из засад, используя его сильные стороны и тактику. Возможностей много

Dear all, as soon as I can let you know about the patch date I will, but it will need approval from the QA team who have to check the whole of DCS, at the moment I do not have a patch date to share with you all. Thank you

Magnitude 3: More new screenies from M3, F4U-1D + asset examples.

Hi I'm wondering why the devs aren't answering more about the bugs reported in the bug section? Or eventually here too? I can imagine that you have a lot to do, but a small message to say, ok we've saw that, and it will be taken in account in a further update, or something like that would be great. I didin't make some stats, but in the bugs and problems section most of the post seems even not to have been seen by the dev crew. I'm not complaining, as I can figure you guys have a lot to do. It's just a suggestion By the way, thanks for the great work you've already done, and all the work that will come in the future.

null

"Subject to additional days and/or hours", thats brilliant

That's not a beginner's item, that simply the price of admission, and it applies to everyone. To me, it's like saying that for a beginner Paraglider the upfront cost are too high. Lowering the cost of admission is not making DCS more beginner friendly if for the full admission you still have to spend. It's a data point, surely, and maybe there is something that ED can do to lower the cost across the board - but I doubt that there is much that they can do. After all, complaining that playing Half-Life Alyx has high upfront cost (you need a good VR set) is similarly missing the point entirely. The game costs a small fraction of the hardware required to play it, and with DCS it's similar. IMHO DCS's challenges lie elsewhere. Now, that is indeed a big challenge, and it is painful to me to see how much the kind folk at ED fumble this one over and over again. Terrible UI/UX, terrible tutorials, nothing to do, and content creation tools that harken from a millennia past. Look at the current implementation of DCS's control configuration. It's unintuitive, badly made, and squanders one chance after the other to make getting into DCS a quick, fun experience: Have a fun, interactive experience for a newcomer to set up a simple aircraft, the core controls - after all you only need a few inputs to control any aircraft: pitch, bank, thrust. Gear and Flaps. Optionally Yaw and perhaps wheel brakes. That's it. Enough to fly most planes. If you are smart, you also allow the player to copy your current settings for 'core' controls to all your planes. Because I wager that they are the same for all planes. They are for mine, and I own them all. DCS squanders this chance by displaying a user-hostile interface with myriads of unintelligible (for the beginner) choices, burying the few important settings in an avalanche of unimportant ones. Some hard-core people confuse complexity with sophistication here. It's not sophisticated. It's just crappy UI/UX design. Making this simple step of getting into the cockpit more fun and simple could go a long way. DCS has been obnoxiously bad in this regard for decades. Similarly bad are the experiences to be had for content generation. Be they Instant Action, the new Quick Action Generator or Mission Editor, they simply are user hostile, badly designed, and could be so much better. Worse, there is phenomenal community-created content available (which is great), even hosted by ED (a phenomenal chance). Getting it into DCS is an exercise in futility and bad UX. WTF does a player need to go to ED's web site, use a decades old, really bad web design and navigate to some content, then download and manually install the files? We live in past 2005! Discovering, contributing and managing content should all be integrated into DCS. After all, Unreal Tournament showed us in 1999 how it can be done, and 25 years later there is very little excuse why it's not done here. I hear that a lot, and unfortunately sometimes have to concur. The blame for this IMHO can't be squarely placed at ED, and I hope that if they improved their engagement with the community, that this can change. Community integration still seems underdeveloped as a discipline for ED - tbh, if you read "We do not have time to read through a 30 post thread of two people arguing why something is bad" as your welcome message, you know that there's room for improvement. There is. Which makes it so bewildering that so little effort is done to flatten the curve, or built in steps that make the curve more accessible. This does go against the grain of the more toxic "git gud" people of the community, and I still think it could help DCS become more popular. Again, a missed opportunity. If this is a common question (and I do NOT doubt that it is), there are a lot of things that can be done in DCS to alleviate such basic beginners pains. Just how difficult would it be to tell someone who tries to autostart the A-10A that, when it's not zero, the throttle MUST be set to zero, else the sequence would fail? And how difficult would it be to simply go the logical next step and make the experience better by simply starting the effing plane? When the user presses 'start engine' on the keyboard, their intent and desire is clear. Adding complexity (throttle must be zero) without reason is the realm of really bad design [and IMHO having to manually turn on bat power and EO is just adding insult to injury]. It just results in frustration from the players. I think that this is one of the biggest barriers to enter DCS, and many people fall into the 'it is sophisticated because it is complex' trap. The tutorials are bad. They are often written for the wrong audience, and, on top of that, badly executed. Some people think that because they are difficult they must be good. They aren't, they are just bad. If you, as an instructor, fail to get your point across, you fail as an instructor. Flying isn't difficult. DCS, unfortunately, often makes it unnecessarily difficult, and I hope - since I do love DCS and want to see it flourish - that this can be overcome soon.

Also: zunächst "Saved Games" gelöscht. Ebenso Metashaders 2, fxo, und Logs. Danach mehrmals gestartet inkl. CWD Map. Jeweils unter 3 Min. Da kam Freude auf... Da ich all das schon mehrfach zuvor gemacht habe, jedoch nicht den "Saved Games" gelöscht und auch die Mods existierten, sollte der Fehler wohl da gelegen haben. Der Form halber die letzten Log Dateien anbei Und natürlich ein großes DANKE für die Geduld und Hilfe dcs.log dcs.log.old

There's a lot of misconceptions and pure lies here. You don't need $4k PC with every possible sim hardware to run DCS. You don't need to buy any module to start learning and flying. You don't need paid campaigns or MP to enjoy the game. Being Steam user doesn't lock you from downloading DCS from ED site and taking advantage of free trials. Caucasus is pretty decent for a free starting point. MP community isn't toxic or rather it depends on where do you enter and how you start - you can find toxic people in any community. SP is limited? By what? Creator imagination? OK. Training and learning takes time and dedication? Yeah it does. You're getting into full fidelity aircraft simulation. What did you expect? There are a lot of ways to learn - everyone can find their own which fits them best. Mustang isn't appealing? It's legendary but I'm not into props either. Take Su-25 for a spin then. The choice is yours. It's there to introduce you and let you try but if it's your kind of aircraft you can end up flying it as your main ride. Let's not get into another discussion of EA, new free module or marketing. I was beginner once too. I started with low end PC, $50 HOTAS (already had one bought for LOMAC) and $5 FC module on sale. Took me over 200 flight hours to get confident and combat ready. I spent a lot of time on the forum, reading DCS and RL manuals. I play almost exclusively SP and enjoyed it very much for over 7 years. I find DCS community very helpful and some dedicate a lot of their time and talents to create content and share with other players... for free! I stayed with DCS - you seem frustrated a lot but you're still with us

Only on the DCS core side, because, as has been told numerous times, ED doesnt have any code from any RB module. Resuming, as the dispute is not resolved, ED can only make DCS compatible with RB modules as they are now. No updates, no changes to RB modules can be made by ED. Supporting only means try to make DCS compatible with the modules. Until the dispute is resolved. Or ED offers RB to buy the code. Or the worst scenario, no solution, RB is out of DCS and one day an update for DCS will advertise... "RB modules are no longer supported in DCS version 3.xxx. Please use previous versions of DCS to fly RB modules"

Beneficial in what way? The title reads "beginner-friendly", the contents focus on WW II aircraft, which are decidedly not beginner friendly to fly. And that makes DCS more beginner-friendly because...? Also, keep in mind that in DCS, we look at geological timescales for new aircraft - "several" aircraft equates to 10 years+ Uh. Normandy and Channel are dead last when it comes to players, at least on servers. Last week-end I counted 3 players total for Normandy and Channel (ok, dead last is Falklands with 0, and 1 for Iraq. I consider both maps dead, along with "Halfghanistan"). So how is creating a worse version from one of the most unpopular maps (by server player count) going to make DCS more beginner-friendly? So those "several WWII aircraft" you talked about were full fi? ED wants to make money. Iconic planes make money: Hornet, Tomcat, Fat Amy. The others - not so much. Creating several warbirds in lo- and hi-fi? Unlikely to the extreme to become funded. And it's still a mystery how adding aircraft - any type - makes DCS more beginner friendly. Making DCS more beginner friendly IMHO would be things like A UX/UI that is usable Make it easy to view and get into your aircraft, and especially reduce the pain to configure your hardware for your aircraft Provide some decent tutorials Make it easy to create a quick engagement (the new QAG isn't there yet. Not by a long shot) Make it easy to create missions (Mission Editor really isn't there yet, not by a couple of light years) Make it easy to discover (find, download, manage/update, remove) new content, especially user-created content like missions, liveries, mods Much better improved multiplayer support: find who is online, join them, invite them etc, create groups, arrange meetings etc. There are tons of things to improve DCS's decidedly callous approach to welcoming new players. Adding new planes or maps seems not to be among them for me.

There's a countdown on the Magnitude 3 website that ends tomorrow. Is the official launch tomorrow? https://magnitude-3.com/

Согласен. 29му найдется применение практически на любой карте, что есть в ДКС. На Кавказе и Сирии он принимал участие в БД, а на карте Германии можно разыграть гипотетический конфликт. Жаль, что на карте Афганистана авиабазы смоделированы по состоянию на сегодняшний день. Была бы возможность переключить их внешний вид, времен присутствия СССР в Афганистане - было бы супер.

Какой маникюр у тётеньки...

Keyword here: "CW design". Not "CW-operational aeroplane" or "aeroplane that flew in the CW". FFS, sometimes I wonder if people read or are just in a hurry to reply

A small update to AI_ATC Nellis AFB is available. Improved the ground control logic on Taxiway Alpha. I've also added the ability to request an Unrestricted climb out.

Nice!

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.

Indeed. I feel that there are currently two main avenues that ED should pursue to help people like and retain DCS: first, getting people into DCS and not scare them off. Currently, to me so many things in DCS scream "go away" instead of being welcoming. Setup, understanding what fits together how, getting into the cockpit for the first time, actually doing something fun. So many things seem like a chore, and people are left to their own devices to find out what to do, in one of the worst possible UX. So step one would be significantly improving DCS's accessibility. Second, keep them in DCS, keep them interested and occupied. There simply isn't much to do except learn a plane. Using really, really bad tutorial missions. The Quick Action Generator may one day fill part of that need, currently it's not there - IMHO by a long shot. Mission Editor isn't for the casual user, and can't really be used by a neophyte to quickly create a fun and engaging mission. Discovering User Created content at ED User Files is a trip to the bad old days of 1995's way of doing web stuff. Really bad. Getting good content into DCS that way, and keeping it current is not a good experience, even though there is a ton of great content available. This should be integrated into the main game (and publishing/updating content should be integrated into Mission Editor). So, step two is creating, discovering, sharing and keeping current content much easier

couldn't agree more, its an amazing fact. On my case, I did flew multiplayer for about a year, even got to install a dedicated server ... but after a while all the flaws of social gaming convinced me that I'm better off playing SP only and I'm much happier now

Having just recently retired, LtCol Marks offers a very candid and detailed interview of his 30+ years and 7500 flight hours in the A-10C including his 16 deployments (I thought I had a lot at 11) from Desert Storm/Shield through Iraq and Afghanistan deployments. Being the highest time (most experienced) A-10 pilot in it's long history, LtCol Marks offers some VERY interesting insights into flying and employing that weapon system and I think anyone reading this forum will really enjoy this interview. At 5+ hours, this was really enjoyable and I didn't think it was long at all. It's available on You tube and also as a podcast through your preferred podcast app.

13 June 2025 Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, The Kola map is progressing steadily with six new airfields, improved ground textures and reduced loading times slated for the next DCS update! Please read the details below and keep your eyes peeled for the incoming update. Development Screenshots. In collaboration with Magnitude 3 and to support the release of the F4U-1D Corsair, we are developing the United States Navy’s revolutionary weapon in the Pacific Theatre: the ASM-N-2 Bat, the world’s first fully automated, radar-guided glide bomb. Deployed in April 1945, the Bat’s active radar system made it a pioneer of modern missile technology capable of autonomously homing in on targets with deadly accuracy. Please read the details below. The Corsair is undergoing thorough tests, and we plan to deliver this module in the next update. We look forward to your feedback. Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics DCS: Kola – One Year of Development A Year of Crafting the Battlefield One year on, the DCS: Kola map continues to expand as a dynamic and strategically significant theatre within DCS. Developed by Orbx, a leading scenery developer, this map spans over 1.35 million square kilometers of Arctic and sub-Arctic terrain covering northern Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia’s Murmansk and Karelia regions. Since release, the map has received substantial improvements; adding new airfields, infrastructure, visual improvements, and performance enhancements that have shaped it into the detailed and responsive environment it is today. Built for large-scale operations, the map blends complex infrastructure with fjords, tundra, forests, and mountainous zones layered with historical and modern-day military relevance. With more than 20 functional airfields, detailed ports, and key industrial zones already in place, Kola supports a wide variety of tactical scenarios. End of Early Access – 22 July 2025 The Kola map will exit Early Access on 22 July 2025. This marks the formal end of the initial launch phase, but not the end of development. Orbx remains committed to ongoing improvements, with new content and technical updates already planned. “The development of the Kola map is not ending with Early Access. We are committed to adding content and updating the map in line with the platform technical innovations. Orbx started to work on the map over three years ago and this has been a great project for us. We have learned much about DCS and will use that knowledge together with our passion for creating terrain and sceneries to enhance this map even further.” — Anna Cicognani, CEO, Orbx What’s Been Delivered 1.35 million km² of land and sea coverage 20+ airfields with surrounding infrastructure and navigation Custom ports, radar sites, urban centres, and military facilities Free and payware missions available via Orbx and ED stores Significant VRAM and performance optimisations Scheduled New Content for June 2025 Release: Kilpyavr (XLMW) Luostari (XLML) Koshka Yavr (XLMY) Kalevala (ULPK) Poduzhemye (XLPU) Afrikanda (XLMF) Coming Over the Next 3-6 Months: Airfields & surrounding infrastructure ESPG, ESNG, ENKA, ENVR, and EFRU Enhanced ground textures for low-level flight Continued VRAM and rendering performance updates Why Kola Matters The Kola region has long served as a critical military frontier — home to Russia’s Northern Fleet and dense Cold War-era infrastructure, now bordering NATO-aligned airspace. Its geographic and strategic role continues to evolve, making it a compelling setting for both historical and modern scenarios. Drive what’s next Tell Orbx what you think they should work on next by leaving your comments and voting on others’ here: Suggestions for DCS: Kola Map by Orbx. DCS: Kola remains in active development, with more content and improvements on the way throughout 2025. ASM-N-2 Bat America's First Radar-Guided Bomb The release of the ASM-N-2 Bat in DCS marks a significant advancement in World War II combat simulation by introducing the first operational radar-guided glide bomb to the battlefield. This weapon enhances the strategic depth and historical authenticity of late-war scenarios, allowing players to engage enemy ships from stand-off distances with unprecedented precision for the era. Its inclusion showcases evolving aerial strike capabilities and provides a unique tactical option for pilots flying U.S. Navy aircraft, emphasizing the technological innovation that began to reshape air warfare in the closing stages of WWII. Development and Design The Bat’s origins trace back to 1941, when RCA proposed a television-guided anti-shipping weapon called Dragon, where an operator would steer the bomb using a live TV feed from its nose. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS), later part of the Army Research Laboratory, was tasked with designing the airframe, building on the same guidable ordnance frame used in the earlier, abandoned Project Pigeon. By 1942, the concept evolved into the Pelican, a semi-active radar-guided bomb for anti-submarine warfare. In mid-1943, the design shifted again to incorporate an active radar homing system from Western Electric, paired with a 1,000-pound (454 kg) AN-M65 general-purpose bomb, the same ordnance used in the USAAF’s Azon guided munition. The final Bat design, officially designated SWOD (Special Weapons Ordnance Device) Mark 9, was a technological marvel for its time: The Bat featured a plywood frame, constructed by the Rudolph Wurlitzer Organ Co., known for its expertise in bending plywood for organs and jukeboxes. Its 12-foot-long, 10-foot-wide structure was gyrostabilized with a Bendix Aviation autopilot, using elevons (combined ailerons and elevators) for steering. Small wind-driven generators powered the controllable tail elevator, linked to an S-band radar homing device in the nose. The Bat carried a 1,000-pound general-purpose bomb, optimized for anti-shipping strikes but adaptable for land targets like bridges. Corsairs over the Marianas in 1944 June 1944. Dawn slides across the Pacific and glints off the blue-black wings of the brand-new F4U-1D Corsair as she taxis onto the deck of USS Essex. Below, a seething amphibious armada is already closing in on Saipan’s coral beaches. Flight-lead Lieutenant “Duke” Klein pulls his canopy shut, opens the cowl flaps, and spools the mighty R-2800 to life. The gull-winged fighter shudders like a thoroughbred straining against the blocks. One last magneto check, a green flag from the deck officer, and the Bent-Wing Bird is hurled into the humid morning sky. That take-off sequence is exactly what you’ll feel in DCS with the DCS: F4U-1D Corsair by Magnitude 3 LLC. The module is confidently approaching finals with our recent tests showing promising results for an early access launch. Stay tuned! Thank you again for your passion and support, Yours sincerely,

Speaking for myself I'd always prefer quality over delivery date. I don't like a delivery ontime and endless hotfix patches afterwards. Take your time ED team.

First of all thanks a lot, it’s really rewarding seeing people enjoy the campaign! for the number one I’m ashamed I didn’t think of it! Hopefully you didn’t get to many spoilers! for the numer two, I wasn’t aware that magnetic variation in dcs was correctly modelled with the mission’s date. I honestly didn’t think much of the approach angle because most VOR approaches come with an angle: the VOR station sits next to the runway, so flying the radial parallel to the runway would align you with the grass. Usually the approach radial intersects the runway threshold or is calculated in a way that would put the plane in a position where you can easily manoeuvre to align to the runway at minima. I will correct both mistakes as soon as possible. and no, definitely not too nitpicky! All criticism is more than welcomed! thanks again for the time you spent on it.

See the clock, looks like patch Tomorrow, 18 hours (from now) to the DCS June patch + F4U! M3 has started the countdown. https://magnitude-3.com/

Just finished the campaign and I'm really impressed - the missions feel realistic (of course with the historic scenario and research you put into it), but at the same time entertaining with all the custom voice-overs and triggers. Things I noticed so far: 1) The pre-flight "Mission Planner" gives away trigger zones and general spoilers - I know mission makers often are incoherent with this, but I suggest either adding a note that players are not supposed to look at it, or even better hide all the "non-intel-known" things (there is a boolean setting for hiding elements in the "mission planner" view) 2) In M2, I did manage to land but was wondering about the crazy angle - turns out there were two things coming together (and fully looking into the "why" took me quite some time): * It seems you modified the approach chart delivered with the game which states a final approach course of 270° magnetic - which is correct for 2019 with 3° E MagVar * But the mission is set in 1982, for which DCS models 6° MagVar - already giving a 3° E error * Then this specific approach seems to have a peculiarity where you should always come in at a 4° E angle right until the runway threshold (runway is at 269° true and the DCS 2019 chart has an approach course of 270° magnetic + 3° MagVar = 273° true) * for real life verification check link 2.24-3 at www.falklands.gov.fk, which states 271° for 2025 with 2.2171° MagVar - so again making you come in at 273° true while the runway is at 269° true - this also becomes very apparent when zooming into the approach in navigation tools) * In sum this currently results in a 7° E error even when perfectly flying the charted approach, which at that visibility is extremely challenging. So I suggest reducing the plotted courses by 3° to conform to what a 1982 approach chart would have looked like and maybe even adding a note that the approach by default is planned from a 4° E angle Overall a great campaign - rivaling some paid ones and definitely better than some stock ones . (hope my #2 does not sound too nitpicky, I had fun researching those details and might be wrong - always open for inputs/clarifications)

NVA / Volksmarine bases / POIs in the north of the GDR Erste Flottille der Volksmarine in Peenemünde 54.135895, 13.764711 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erste_Flottille_(Volksmarine) Vierte Flottille der Volksmarine in Rostock 54.174120, 12.117819 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vierte_Flottille_(Volksmarine) Sechste Flottille der Volksmarine in Dranske 54.595763, 13.231286 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sechste_Flottille_(Volksmarine) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksmarine ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marinehubschraubergeschwader 18 (MHG-18) in Parow 54.368872, 13.084064 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinehubschraubergeschwader_18 Kampfhubschraubergeschwader 5 (KHG-5) in Basepohl 53.745865, 12.950729 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfhubschraubergeschwader_5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NVA base in Prora 54.440522, 13.570984 https://www.seebadprora.net/ddr-militaer-prora/ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prora ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kernkraftwerk „Bruno Leuschner“ Greifswald 54.141365, 13.663644 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Greifswald Jagdschloss Granitz 54.380685, 13.627575 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdschloss_Granitz

threads merged

Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, ob ich die Problematik richtig verstanden habe. Der Task "Follow" hat die Option "last waypoint", da musst Du einen Haken setzen und genannten Wegpunkt X festlegen. Zu beachten ist, dass sich "last waypoint" immer auf einen Wegpunkt der Einheit bezieht, der gefolgt werden soll, nicht auf einen Wegpunkt der Einheit die den "Follow" Befehl erhält. Beispiel: Du lässt die Helikopter zu ihrem eigenen WP1 fliegen, ab da sollen sie dann dem Konvoi folgen. Der Konvoi fährt seine eigenen Wegpunkte 1-5 ab. Du setzt den Befehl "Follow" unter "Advanced (Waypoint Actions)" für die Helis ab deren WP1 und setzt als "last waypoint" dann WP4 des Konvois. Wenn Du nun möchtest, dass die Helikopter bei WP4 des Konvois auf einem nahegelegenen FARP landen, setzt Du WP2 für die Helis auf das FARP und definierst diesen WP als "Landing". Die Helikopter werden dem Konvoi bis zu dessen WP4 folgen und dann direkt zu ihrem WP2 fliegen und landen. Die Einheit die den Befehl "Follow" erhält wird, nachdem der Befehl ungültig geworden ist, immer zu dem WP fliegen der auf den WP mit dem "Follow" Befehl folgt. Das funktioniert allerdings, soweit ich weiß, nicht mit WP0 der Einheit. Zumindest war es mal so. Die folgende Einheit muss immer erst WP1 abfliegen. Erhält sie schon bei WP0 den Befehl "Follow" wird sie, nachdem der Befehl ungültig geworden ist, zuerst wieder zu WP0 fliegen und dann zu WP1. Warum und ob das tatsächlich immer noch so ist, kann ich Dir nicht sagen bzw. konnte es jetzt nicht extra testen. All das trifft so übrigens auch 1 zu 1 auf den Befehl "Escort" zu. Zumindest in der Theorie, in der Praxis wissen wir ja alle... bugs und so Zeug... Ich hoffe, dass das in etwa die Information war die Du gesucht hast

My pleasure. I was also thinking of listening again next week in my commute.

This has been reported, thanks.

Some parameters on the MiG-15bis guns do not match the historical data. These errors tend to reduce the effectiveness of guns. I’ve created a mod to match the historical data as closely as possible. You can find a link to that here. Of particular concern are the dispersion values and weights of the projectiles in DCS. Perhaps some of these proposed changes could make it in before Flaming Cliffs 4 comes out. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/0vg8jko4cdn5dsfx4k3ri/AFeR-Qst2XAl69xxI6Wx_LY?rlkey=vevkaqfqxvt4hkw3k0pxyekyq&st=5dcqhkr1&dl=0 Of particular concern are the dispersion values and weights of the projectiles in DCS. The proposed changes to the bullets are: 23MM HEI-T 23MM API 37MM HEI-T 37MM AP-T Dispersion Old 0.0007 0.0007 0.0017 0.0017 Dispersion New 0.0012 0.0012 0.00083 0.00067 Bullet Weight Old 0.196 0.199 0.722 0.765 Bullet Weight New 0.196 0.199 0.735 0.753 Filler Weight Old 0.011 0 0.41 0.41 Filler Weight New 0.014 0.006 0.041 0.008 Tracer Off New 2.5 2.5 3 3 life_time New 8 8 8 8 The 23MM and 37mm should also be changed to match the data from the historical data. Those proposed changes are: NR-23MM N-37MM Rate of fire Old 850 400 Rate of Fire New 860 400 Ratio of HE/API in Gun Belt, Old Ratio 2 HEI-T / 4 API 2 HEI-T / 4 API New Ratio 5 HEI-T / 2 API 5 HEI-T / 2 API The proposed values correspond to data from official documents. The primary sources are: The Soviet Technical Manual for Aircraft Guns https://disk.yandex.com/i/YVj0XI6O3Mu4LM MiG-17 The Flying Techniques and Combat Manual: Link below https://annas-archive.org/md5/bd31e5163d094e0ba055e8dccaaa0a0c Volume of 2 of Technical Manual for the MiG-15bis: Armament. Evaluation of Soviet Automatic Aircraft Guns 37mm NS and 37MM N 1952 Link: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0004232.pdf The change are discussed in detail below 37MM The dispersion is too large on the N37 HEI-T. Currently Da0 is set to 0.0017 The weapons manual indicates the mean error is 0.5 meters at a range of 600m The appropriate value for the DCS N37 HEI-T is = 0.5 / 600 or 0.00083 In DCS the mass of projectile is off, It’s 0.722 kg and should be 0.735 kg The weight of the explosive in DCS 37MM HEI-T is 100 times greater than the data from the technical manual. In DCS the charge weighs 0.410 kg. The weight of the HEI charge in the real shell is 0.037kg. The weight of the tracer chemical is 0.008 kg. So max weight of explosive should be between 0.041 or 0.037 in DCS. The tracer in DCS also turns off too early. In DCS it shuts off after 1.5 seconds. Based on the time of flight of the projectile from the American evaluation. The DCS tracer turns off after traveling 1000 meters, 500 meters short of the burn distance given in the Russian Aircraft Weapons manual on page 47. From the previous TOF chart. We can estimate the TOF at 1500 meters to be around 2.5 to 3 seconds. So I’ve set tracer_off to = 3 for both the APT and HET projectiles. Given the duration of the tracer burn, I believe the life time of the projectile should be increased to at least 8 seconds. In DCS the projectile life time is set to 5 seconds. Thus after 5 seconds the DCS bullet explodes. The manual does not indicate there is a self destruction feature on this shell. So the lifetime of the bullet should be greater than the burn time of the tracer. 37MM APIT The dispersion is also too high for the 37MM APIT shell in DCS. In DCS the dispersion value Da0 is set to 0.0017. That value corresponds to a probable error of 1.02 meters at 600 meters. The Soviet Manual notes the largest acceptable probable error at 600 meters is 0.4 meters. Thus, the appropriate value for Da0 is = 0.4/600 or 0.00067. Similarly to the DCS 37MM HEI -T, The API-T tracer turns off too early, at 1.5 Seconds. It also self-destructs after 5 seconds. Based on the time of flight of the projectile, Both the tracer duration increased to 3 and the projectiles lief time to 8 seconds. 23MM Bullets: The dispersion in DCS is too low for both 23MM projectiles the MIG-15bis fires. The dispersion for both, the API and HEI-T, is Da0 = 0.0007. The DCS version of these bullets have a probable error of only 0.35 meters at a range of 500 meters. The actual dispersion for these bullets was 1.714 times larger. As the Aircraft weapons manual gives the probable error as 0.6 meters at 500 meters, Da0 should be = 0.6/500 or 0.0012. An increase in the dispersion will likely improve the effectiveness of the 23MM in game. An appropriate amount of dispersion keeps a lethal density of projectiles down the entire range of the sight line. As indicated by the MiG 17 Combat Manual, the designers at the BBC optimized the sight setup to account for this. The sight was angled downward to account for the angle of attack at the assumed optimal firing parameters as well. Given the 50 meter boresight target in the Armament Technical Manual for the MiG-15bis is identical to the one in the MiG -17 Combat manual. We can assume that, the MiG-15bis sight and weapons are angled the same. Above MiG 17 50 meter boresight target. Above: MiG 15bis 50 meter boresight target. For the 23MM HEI shell I also increased the weight of by 3 grams to account for the tracer material. As the tracer substance can have an incendiary effect. A payload of 0.006 kg of incendiary was added to the 23mm API. As the real projectile contains 6 grams of incendiary agent. The tracer time for the 23MM HEI-T was increased to reflect the tracer length of 1200 meters given on page 34 of Soviet Aircraft Weapons and Bullets manual. The current trace duration is 1.5 seconds and seems low based on the ballistic tables for similar projectiles. I’ve set changed to 2.5 seconds based on the ballistic tables for the 23MM Vya For comparison, The HEI fired from 23MM VYa cannon with a muzzle velocity of 890 mps takes 1.81 seconds to travel 1200 meters. Given the lower muzzle velocity of DCS projectile, the tracer is likely to burn out before it travels 1200 meters. We can use this table to estimate the tracer burn time for MIG-15’s 23MM HEI-T bullet. The velocity of the VVY projectile at 600 meters (675mps) is comparable to muzzle velocity of MIG-15’s HEI-T (680mps). If the firing table listed the time of flight to a range of 1800 meters. We could have used the TOF’s to 600 and 800 meters as the duration of the tracer lifetime. As the Tof 1800 - TOF 600 = TOF over 1200 meters = Tracer burn time. However, the chart only goes to 1200m meters. We are forced to make an estimate of the TOF to 1800 meters. We’ll do this by examining the rates of change of the TOF and the change of this change. Thus we estimate the TOF to 1800 meters as ~ 2.95 seconds. As the TOF to 600 meters is 0.774. We compute the tracer burn time as 2.2 second, as: TOF 1800 - TOF 600 = Tracer Burn Time 2.98-0.774 = 2.21. We can assume this estimate is somewhat accurate, as the projectile stays within the linear part of the mach drag curve. Thus a tracer burn time of 2.5 to 3 seconds seems reasonable. The ammo belts of all the guns have been changed to a mix of 70% HEI and 30 API. Which are the proportions given in the MIG-17 Combat Manual. Currently the NR23 fires belt consisting of 2 HEI and 4 API. The N-37 fires 3 HEI and 1 APIT. I chose to implement a ratio of 5 HEI and 2 API on the 23MM and 37MM. This makes the ratio of HEI to API equal to 2.5. Close enough to the ratio given in the manual 70/30 or 2.333. To ensure both 23MM cannons do not fire a tracer at the same time. The placement of the tracers is 23MM cannons are different from one another. These changes are made at line 375 in the lua file in the Guns table. The rate of fire of the cannon was changed in this section of the LUA to. The ROF of both cannons is offset by +-1 RPM. DCS doesn’t always deal with two guns with same rate of fire on the same aircraft. The RPM offset mitigates this. The rate of fire of the 23mm cannon was increased to 860 rpm. 860 being the mean rate of fire given in the MiG-15bis Technical Manual Volume 2 Armament. The variable which controls the range at which the AI will open fire, tbl.effective_fire_distance,was also changed of both the 37mm and 23mm cannons. It was reduced from 1000 meters to 600 meters. 600 meters was chosen based on the effective range of the weapons and sight system as described in the MiG-17 The Flying Techniques and Combat manual. As a result of this change, the highest skilled AI will only open fire at 600 meters or less. The lowest skilled AI will begin shooting at approximately 420 meters. These values are based on the notes in \Scripts\AI\Skill_Factors.lua. CANNON_FIRE_DISTANCE_COEFF = 29 --effective fire distance = fire distance * fire distance coeff The value of lowest skilled AI is set to 0.7 and the most skilled is =1 [CANNON_FIRE_DISTANCE_COEFF] = 0.7, For testing purposes, I’ve disabled the barrel heating mechanic by setting shot to 0 on all the guns. This was done to verify the accuracy of the dispersion changes. It may also be worth considering reducing the recoil coefficient on all the guns. The magnitude of the effect seems overdone, shaking the aircraft considerably when firing. While the N37 is a large weapon with considerable recoil force, it does have a muzzle brake to reduce these forces. The recoil effect is governed by the parameter, recoil_coeff. It is currently set 1 on both guns. At 0.5 the forces are reduced considerably. When computing the recoil force DCS only seems to consider the projectile mass and the muzzle velocity, whatever other transforms it applies . If you made it this far, Thanks for taking the. Please let me know if you have any question or concerns.

This is using the F-15C avionics. It doesn't have an advanced radio. All available commands are in the controls and they're mostly limited to either the comms menu or a few commands to wingman, awacs or tanker.

That's probably why ED is not going to say that but we can on the forum Here's a thread already made by ED where anyone can share their contribution to make DCS more beginner friendly:

Let me express my humble opinion. Personally I'm a little surprised and a little worried. I fear that we are distracted (or led astray) by too many sometimes useless novelties. There are dozens of messages/posts commenting on insignificant details for a military flight simulator and almost none that support discussions on essential points such as ATC communicating wrong approaches to runways. Staying on graphical details, there are also significant errors in UgraMedia's maps, such as bridges lying on train tracks or shelters invading the tracks in stations. Don't get me wrong. I love DCS but the more you put in the fire the more bugs are left behind and it becomes difficult to manage and fix them. Honestly I would rather pay something to buy an enhancement that fixes the bugs still in circulation before moving on to new scenarios, planes and features.

LOL I really wanted to mention the F-22, but I skipped it because I was concerned people would miss the point. Although, reflecting on it, for the F-22 it's more that its raison d'être dates to the CW (reaction to new Soviet tech, MiG / Su, A-50, etc), but the tech and the design were futuristic for the era. The Typhoon still fits in the CW thought process, but, unless we are playing an European Cold War version of The Final Countdown, I don't see it fitting an 80s scenario Anyway, we are totally OT now...

Just to be extra pedantic, the EAP first flew in August 1986. The YF-22 even first flew in 1989.

Наверное глазами посты надо читать... Не запихнули а построили вокруг. Там борт хранит коды ошибок и интервалы замены агрегатов, как современный нам автомобиль. Это очень сильное преимущество над прошлыми поколениями в боевой обстановке - можно подрубить диагностику между вылетами и быстро все понять и сделать. Больше самолетов боеготовы, короче время ремонтов и обслуживаний.

seeeeeeeeeeee, I would agree with you because I was the same way about the Phantom. But yet, here I am, getting stoked that we might be getting close to having both my favorite jet and prop in the sim.

Yeah, it came at the end of the Cold War, but it is a Cold War aircraft. It went into service with the Soviets in '83 and changed little from 9.12 to 9.12A. Yes, most of its service wasn't during Cold War, but its avionics and performance are representative of the era. It represents the last batch of truly Cold War era designs. It is an 80s aircraft at the core. Also, the Cold War ended in 1991. What started in 1989 could have ended very differently if it wasn't Gorby leading the USSR. Indeed, that transition period is quite a fertile source of alt historical timelines when the USSR wasn't accommodating of its satellites revolting as it was IRL, so to speak.

Ha, I feel like I've been burnt by the DCS hype-train too many times to count. At this time last year, the release of the CH-47 was "imminent" and then was delayed for a few months seemingly out of nowhere. I've learned that no matter how much I like the subject matter (and I definitely like the Corsair), it is good to manage my own expectations until the product is actually released.

Could you maybe consider adding Wittmundhafen and Jever AB to phase 3 please? JG71 "R" needs some love. You even have the Federal Road B210, going past both bases, already depicted until Aurich on the map and inside the phase 3 area.

I'm a closed beta tester, but only for Heatblur - which does not mean that I don't raise issues for other products if I run into them. I am not following the Fulcrum much at the moment, since it's de facto a post-CW aircraft, but I'm curious since the -29 is the first FF redfor released in years. Updates will come as soon as there is more to share. For example, recently, there was news about the Corsair.

We are truly blessed to have Such amazing Mod developers such as CH, The Admiral, and the VWV guys bringing us such a great collection of the necessary naval ships for our scenarios. The unfortunate aspect is that the consistency of color between the 3 mod makers, and even ED for that matter is anything but. I am working on a little Project to make the US navy ships from all the mod makers a consistent "Haze Gray." The ED ships are a much too light washed out gray, almost white, so that's Where I started. Note the Oliver Hazard Perry in the Photos below. CH's Alrleigh Burke Flight 3 was a little too warm/Brown, and the Constellation class was much too blue. I hope you guys like. -Preston

June 15, 2025 - New Release Announcement The new version (v2.017g) is now available for download in the files section here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342301/ Highlights Triggered Air Attack - Air Attack of Andersen when Alpha/Bunker/South Island destroyed. Hopping in fighters to intercept is the only way to prevent Andersen's bombing. Activated sitting ducks script - Any stopgap client destroyed prevents client spawning for 30 minutes. Thanks cfrag. This matches up with the Triggered Air Attack. If bombers reach Andersen and take out stopgap clients, players cannot spawn into those spots for 30 minutes. The Slot Select won't allow you to select the slot. Removed C-130 Hercules - There were a variety of reasons for this decision. In my group, we simply had trouble with performance. It was also a very niche unit that we all agreed didn't bring enough value to overlook our perceived shortcomings. Not a dig at the mod at all. We just opted to remove it. If you want it back, simply change the MIZ to add client slots for the HERC. Pilot death voiceovers - added several additional voiceovers whenever Player pilots eject. There was only one VO before and it got old pretty quick. Tactical Changes : Replaced insurgent AAA ZSU with VAP VC Zis 150AAA : Reduced explosion size on Alpha/Bunker/Cocos : Updated splash damage script to v3.1 : Further reduced initial fog settings : Added SPAAA ZSU23 Shilkas to several random groups : "Named" several additional prominent places on the map : o South Island is now "Cocos Island" RL name of that small island off of Guam : o Flatlands between the South FARP and Jungle FARP bordered on West by Diamondback and Copperhead is now called "Serengeti" : o The "nub" peak that sticks out on the Southwest of Diamondback is called "Bunion" : o Properly named the lake as "Fena Lake" as it is IRL On a personal note Devil referenced this back in May. I won't go into details, but I will share that I was unexpectedly rushed to the Emergency Room and spent 3 weeks in intensive care. I am very fortunate to be sitting here typing this today. Life is fragile and none of us knows when our ticket for the next chapter gets punched. While I am now back home, I still battle symptoms on a daily basis. I2J Future I share this because it gives some perspective on why I2J went "dark" for so long. It also is a big reason for me to call this mission "done". From this point on, I won't be adding anything to the mission. Whenever the cobra arrives, I'm sure I'll update for everyone but nothing more. When I set out to create this originally, it was for my small group of friends. A way to simulate a jungle coop experience that was different each time played. Over the past couple years, it went from concept to a pretty solid offering considering all the limitations of the ME, base units, state of AI, etc. Hopefully nothing comes out of ED that breaks this mission. Regardless, it was fun bringing this experience to the community. I hope people keep enjoying this for quite some time. Thanks! -Kandy

What are you talking about? Most missions I played in SP don't involve that much aircraft in total. "Just" 12 human players online in one mission can be really engaging providing they play their roles instead of goofing around. @ALFA-62 Making everything free and dumb down can bring more players in but will also kill DCS financially, lower its simulation quality and make it different game out of it which none of us want to happen. If you want more relaxed gameplay there are already other titles for that.

+1 for Basepohl, GDR Mi-24P base