Leaderboard

Я вообще не понимаю о чём спор. Вот серьёзно. Оценить модуль можно только исходя из качества его реализации. Ни больше, ни меньше. У кого какой радар лучше или вооружение, это всё вопросы к реальным самолётам. Модули же в игре это модели, по сути копии(виртуальные) объектов-оригиналов. И качество модели можно оценить лишь по качеству моделирования, много ли признаков оригинала воспроизводит данная модель и насколько аутентично. Всё. Жду Миг-29А, который как правильно кто то подметил выше, позволит нам насладиться погружением в атмосферу полётов на этом прекрасно смоделированном самолёте!

It's over 24 hours since they added an extra day. So not news for us with no life who keeps close eye on it.

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

I am one of the minority users who has most every module, and while I do not mind paying for WW2 PTO assets pack, I am worried about total community adoption and success of WW2. It is already enough of an obstacle that users need to purchase not only a plane module but also an asset pack for WW2 (which many might expect to be part of the base game). But if WW2 is split into two separate asset packs, this creates further confusion and friction and will hamper adoption of modules, campaigns, and multiplayer. Alternatively please consider an update to the WW2 assets pack to "2.0" (even with the same or a higher price tag) + an upgrade fee for existing users to update to the PTO assets. Even with a higher upfront price, simplicity and clarity for users is increased and it feels less "nickle-and-dime-y". On the other hand, there has as of late been a habit of splitting maps into multiple zones to achieve lower price points, but I have always felt this is needlessly complex and hurts optics more than anything. Obviously ED knows their own internal numbers. If you have seen great success with this approach, so be it, but I must wonder. If only a small minority of customers purchase a specific map portion, is it worth the confusion? A single WW2 assets pack would seem to be a more elegant solution that would reduce obstacles to WW2 adoption.

More hype! ;> 19h to go.

Adding background activity by area would be really nice. We do have civilian traffic already, but it's a bit weird when it decides to keep driving through a chain of Mk84 explosions. Having it be disabled within a radius of combat activity would make it look a bit more authentic. X-Plane also randomly spawns police vehicles with flashing lights that move faster than normal traffic. These are pretty visible from aircraft and could be a nice touch in DCS. Powergrids having an effect on lighting, or the ability to enforce black outs would be another nice feature. Hit a powerplant, nearby city goes dark. Maybe a few lights come back on with backup power. Civilian air units need an expansion and it would be nice to have some kind of optional automated civil traffic.

What happened is exactly what it says underneath the timer...

Yes, i already told Whiskey in a Discord DM to fix this. Open the S-200 Launcher.lua, find this line... GT.attribute = {wsType_Ground,wsType_SAM,wsType_Miss, SA3_LN, and make it this... GT.attribute = {wsType_Ground,wsType_SAM,wsType_Miss, I got it to launch the second anything enters the red ring using a P-14, 2 luanchers, and a STR

Actually I got my last order within 2 weeks even with back ordered items.

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

525th TFS, 36th FW 1984 BITBURG AB, GERMANY v1.1 (22JUN2025) DOWNLOAD: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-k1hoeAV6fX0WDv2JFYmE6a8WLeBN250/view?usp=sharing AF79-058 UPDATE DOWNLOAD: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IcviAKkBlywPF54FcELoIA5VOmXVdYk_/view?usp=sharing ENJOY MY FRIENDS

DCS desperately needs lots of civilian characters. It's extremely boring when streets and squares look like scenes from Omega Man or I'm Legend. The characters don't have to be animated either. The main thing is that it looks like “life”. Please make something like this possible.

Please review the WW2 assets pack damage model, especially for the Samuel Chase. Some ships seem reasonable to sink with dive bombing, but the Sam Chase seems invulnerable to 500kg bombs. Have ship AA guns destroyable. Currently they are invincible until the ship is dead. Maybe separate out the AA guns as objects linked to the ship object instead apart of the single object? Additionally would like to see sinking animations that line up where damage happens. Ships always sink the same no matter where they get hit. Would be nice to have a few new sinking and damage animations. Listing to aft, bow, port, starboard, etc. Add some oil slicks,etc around the ship when damaged. Example, Rollovers in old WW1 and WW2 footage are pretty terrifying.

Hi everyone, It seems the AGM-154A JSOW-A does not account for the drift of its bomblets when correcting for the wind. The weapon seems to correct to fly itself directly over the target, but the bomblets will encounter drift due to the wind as they fall. In order for the bomblets to actually impact the target, the JSOW should fly such that its flightpath is upwind of the target, so the bomblets drift into it. With high-enough crosswinds (the track below is tested with a 15 knot perpendicular crosswind at 33 ft), small-enough targets and high-enough function heights (tested with it set to 1000 ft, with an actual functioning height of ~1340 ft AGL) it can lead to a total miss, doing no damage. With 0 wind however, the same target set-up has all targets destroyed. I am waiting for a 01 GOOD alignment (testing with the F/A-18C). AGM-154A_WindCorrection.trk AGM-154A_NoWind.trk

@Qcumber Hey, I got a very good deal on a used Crystal (OG) last week which I could not let pass. I haven‘t used it extensively, so can only give you a first impression comparison. The additional clarity is very noticeable on the MFDs/DDIs in the cockpit and also noticeable on objects in the distance. Downsides compared to the QP are the weight and formfactor. But the one thing that makes the biggest difference are the lenses. The pancake lenses of the QP with the edge to edge clarity are a class of their own. Even though the „sweet spot“ in the Crystal is huge compared to a G2, I still noticed the blurriness when dogfighting, where the opponent might very well be at the outer edge of your FOV… What I missed as well first, was that gap at the bottom, but I flipped up those nose-flaps and I can now take a peek through there a little. I could probably modify (cut) the foam as well in order to increase the gap. I didn‘t do any scientific or systematic tests by any means with regards to performance, but it‘s my impression that I can run the same DCS settings with the mentioned added clarity at 72Hz just like the QP. Mind you, that I have the Crystal OG so I still benefit from QVFR. And on a 4090 that is… my verdict so far: To be honest, I‘m still not completely sold on the Crystal. I will keep it for now though and try it for a few MP flights in my virtual squadron. From my point of view, I would never want to opt for the CL and lose DFR.

Why the hell would Magnitude 3 post a clock when the release is entirely dependent on the patch and the patch is entirely dependent on ED? Seems like a recipe for getting peoples' hope up and then seeing it crushed.

Seen a few bird impacts, had 2 myself (one delaminated a radome, the other made a bit of a mess of a gear door retract mechanism). Given the airspeed of the Spaniard, it sure had the ability to severely endanger the pilot where ejection may have been the only saving grace. In some videos, it appears that the majority of the birds carcass bounced off the windshield as it shattered - what appears to be the body can be seen spiralling down behind the aircraft, along with some bits of windshield. The pilot would have certainly had a shotgun blast of windshield shrapnel to contend with though. An emergency that was well dealt with in my opinion, climb away from crowd to evaluate any detrimental effects to control, then land. Well done.

30 years ago we could get all the planes, all the battles, all the ships, maps, great realism, ubeatable immersion in one package - on a few floppies... Now we are happy if we get one plane with not much else after years of waiting...

Contrails are not heavy on neither CPU or GPU. You can have dozens of aircraft 'contrailing' in a scene easily. Missile smoke and others are already affected by wind, perhaps there is an easy fix from an oversight for aircraft contrails. One of the weakest parts of this sim. Weather. Hopefully a revamp is near.

Not sure if it's already posted, but came across this site, and there's tons of info hidden in here. Site with cold war airfields and sam site satellite images.

I understand that DCS is a complex simulator, and the team is working on numerous priorities, but this issue has lingered for too long without a clear resolution or timeline. For a WWII simulator, where clouds should force tactical decisions (e.g., diving through cloud cover or delaying attacks), this feels like a critical oversight. Can we please get an update on whether this is being addressed in upcoming patches? How many years does it take?

release in a couple of hours if everything goes well But knowing ED, two weeks later.

Вроде как разрабы пообещали, что если продажи будут нормальные, будут думать над другими красными модулями! Я вот лично хочу СУ-27 и СУ-25 без всяких модификаций (уж потом пусть гору экранов и компьютеров прикручивают )

Eine neue Kampagne für die F4, sieht interessant aus

Я вообще ничего не понимаю! Сначала все умоляли разработчиков сделать красный модуль, они сделали тот, что, видимо, не под грифом. В итоге, начали кричать, 29-ый не имба, он никого не сделает... Ребят, радуйтесь тому, что есть и успевайте купить, пока как с красными вертушками не получилось (тьфу, тьфу, тьфу) P.S. Чиж не однократно говорил, кому не нравится, не покупайте! Вас никто не заставляет

You don't read with understanding, or maybe you don't know what F4U is and what this thread is mainly about? Kola came out over a year ago, everyone or most have it. Even logically, if you write about something in terms of "pre-order" - it means one thing, it has not been released into the world yet.

It did not change with any updates since years. I found this pic most helpful: As you can see it's easy. Ex. you want to put statics on Cat 1 and block it from being used. Just put static Hornets on spots 11, 5, 9, 14 thus no aircraft are designated for Cat 1. Spots 1-4 (Six Pack) are not active in MP and are used once at the start of the SP mission so +1 second to all spawned aircraft is needed. Also check this: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_editor_carrier_spawns

Да это не спор. Больше на монолог похоже, потребность пошатать форум на пустом месте.

I'm experience the same exact problem. I am using the S-TECS MODERN THROTTLE MAX STEM XT2 v2.196. I can provide my thottle .cfg file, hopefully it helps. This bug makes certain F-16 MFD pages very hard to use. Other aircraft MFDs work fine; no cursor jumping. S-TECS MODERN THROTTLE MAX STEM profile 1.cfg

Not too difficult as i'm basically taking what I have already. With my current knowledge of DCS this is the best I can manage and this only works because triggered explosions work differently below 1.6m vs above 1.6m. If its above 1.6m at ground level it is a puff, if its below 1.6 it interacts with the ground and has a rising cloud effect - you can tell the stalk of the mushroom like explosion differs in colour to the rest as that's the only one above 1.6m. Will be added to 3.4 as part of a long list of new features and options (over 10) - Tactical Explosion. It's defaulted to be much bigger than the vehicleied explosion. -- Mistermann's suggestion of a sequence of fire/smoke (Advanced sequences) is also pretty much completed. Need to test and record a video for that too. Eventually (and I'm not looking forward to this part) I'll need to document all the features before I can release 3.4. All the latest stuff is on github here if anyone wants to use it https://github.com/stephenpostlethwaite/DCSSplashDamageScript/blob/master/Splash_Damage_main.lua

I honestly don't understand this call for more free stuff. As mentioned numerous times above - ED have a 2 week trial on most maps, and most aircraft (which resets every 6 months). A person could go and 'taste' 12 different aircraft during that time and then rinse and repeat again until they find what they're looking for. That's extremely generous. If what ED has offered in the way of free options (combination of free maps, free aircraft and the trial period) isn't enough and it's still a hurdle for new players, then I would question how much those types of players would be willing to invest into DCS modules after all. I'm all for making DCS more beginner friendly, but I think ED have actually done a better job than most with the free/trial stuff. Maybe part of the issue is that DCS is designed for a niche market? I think you've hit something though with your mentioning of iRacing and the MP / match making though! A big difference I see between DCS and other flight sims is that DCS is reportedly mostly SP. The others that I know of seem to thrive in a MP community. On wondering if DCS has gotten most of the way it can in the SP community and the rest is diminishing returns? Could the answer to catching a larger number of fish be a larger and more diverse MP environment where the other game/sims seem to thrive? However the MP side of DCS is left to community members to create environments for, and provide peer support - and this is an area I see that DCS lacks in... official support for the MP environment. We have had excellent 3rd party support/contributions with MIST, MOOSE, SRS, OverlordBot, Special-K's Bot, etc... but this is more in spite of, not really due to the support ED has given to these communities. It seems each new change they make that could support the MP community falls 'just short' of what the MP community have asked for. Look at the dynamic spawning. It's absolutely fantastic to not have to put down individual aircraft anymore... but one of the calls was to have the ability to dynamically place FARPS on the map and spawn from them, so that the players themselves add to the dynamic nature. This was so close to being done (so close, it can be done with a hack with a .lua file) - but ignored by ED. There are countless examples of ED not engaging well with the MP content creators, and I suspect we've been bleeding talent that is getting tired and burned out of waiting for ED to actually connect and listen or be more supportive in this area and fixing bugs they introduce with a new update in a timely manner. (Instead of taking 2 or 3 years to look into them again). When I look at these other more popular flight games/sims... one thing they seem to have in common is a thriving MP community. This brings in more MP options with real ATC, more engagements, more diverse environments, more bringing friends onboard, etc. Something where DCS unfortunately doesn't raise to it's potential that it could thrive in too. But ED have never appeared to be that worried about this. Maybe they're not after a larger community. Maybe they're happy just being a niche game with a niche market and are happy to coast along with what they're doing with the current customer base. I mean - do we even have a single official/commercial MP campaign? The other area lacking in DCS is the dynamic gameplay. Thankfully this is something ED have known and have been working on for considerable time - however again it seems they are prioritizing only on the SP side of things. Hopefully the DCE will be a major leap forward in attracting much more attention to DCS. I would like to think too that this time will be different and they'll actually be considering the MP side of things more than usual, along with consideration for MP content creators / server hosters with their plans for the DCE, but I have my reservations that we'll see more of the same as we have in the past for the MP side of things, and it'll be the lesser consideration.

Good Day, I was curious if Q2 is still the planned release time frame?

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.

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

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.

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"

coming soon

Currently even if you have the date before JHMCS or HMD's were a thing ED modules still lets you equip them. Fix it. It's really awesome when you have a cold war or even a Pre JHMCS/HMD era that users can just say "LOL I don't care."

My point was if it is legal case we need to wait and during that time there's exactly the same chance for positive resolution.

OK that means that JTACS or AFACS need to adjust their devices for the CAS Aircrafts Laser code and not vice versa I understand. Thanks for all your hard work and passion to keep us up for speed with all these details.

It might get me to buy the Corsair if the implementation is cool enough. 'Cause I mean... it has to be cool.

Virpil grips are probably closest to Russian /Soviet aircraft, though they are meant to be a representation and not a 1-to-1 copy. The T-50CM2 and the new FLNKR grip are both nice products.

Cheers Cold war map TOM

Finished the campaign this morning. Great campaign in a great setting. Loved the crew of Finnish pilots! Of all the paid campaigns I've purchased and played so far, I think this one was the 'cleanest' in terms of the fewest hang-ups, misfires on triggers, and so on. With only a couple exceptions, the missions went off as scripted with no issues. Hopefully this lasts through future game updates which have an unfortunate way of breaking mission sets. I did not use easy (invulnerable) mode on any of the missions. 70% of the missions I had to play more than once in order to complete / win. M04 took me about a dozen tries; the damn Grison got me darn near every time. My only gripe is that a little more air-to-air action would have been nice. Still managed to bag five kills, though, so fair enough. All told, probably the best paid campaign I've played in DCS so far. Thanks to Baltic Dragon and his team for another great experience. Highly recommend. 9.5/10

I've just bumped the internal report.

I dont see the big fuss with this. You can follow a physic based approach with current simulation capabilities to make a RCS footprint of a plane and assign some estimation based on public information. So if a F16 frontal RCS is something 3.2m^2 an F35C will have in DCS something like 0.05 m^2, and you extend this to other angles and profiles. In practical terms you might see a F35 (in DCS) with no external loadout and close base door at something like 8 to 18ish nm depending on the radar (eg.APG70 will see it further out than a APG68v5 and so on). That is good enough for us simmers to have fun and try to shot down that sucker before it runs out of missile and go home to rearm and repeat [emoji846] I also expect planes with modern IRST (eg. Typhoon) to see the F35 on clear days further away than with the onboard radar (probably >30nm depending on factors like use of AB, speed, etc...). In the end, all AF in the world are field IRST tracker on 4th/4.5th gen fighters to reduce the gap with LO fighters, and there is a good reason for that.