Leaderboard

Many here, including myself, have the problem, they cannot catch a wire in self created missions, while they trap nicely in the default missions. I did many tests from excluding mods to trying different maps. What I found is: I copied the carrier from the "Rising Sun" mission into my training mission - I caught the wire on the first attempt. I tried with my carrier: no trap. The only difference, my carriers are steaming SSW, the Rising Sun carrier steams NNE. So I turned the Rising Sun carrier 180° and did not catch the wires anymore. I then turned my carrier 180° and I immediately caught the wire. Winds were adjusted each time, of course. The results are reproducible - heading NNE: trap, heading SSW: no trap. My guess it has something to do with the algebraic sign of the x,z coordinates of the cables' start- and end points. Edit: Marianas WW2 map I also reproduced it on the Channel map: carrier heading SW - no trap, carrier heading NE - trap.

Hey all, I'm doing a tutorial series about the F4U Corsair. I hope they will help you master this legendary beast:

Wait wait, I'm grabbing my popcorn

I've noticed the good pilots are enjoying the Corsair, flying with friends, making videos, completing the training and racking up mission hours shooting down other aircraft. Rookie pilots that enjoy auto start and use the throttle like an On/Off switch or push the flight stick around like they are in a dog fight for a simple takeoff/landing are the ones struggling... Post a track so we can see how you are treating her during a fight.

Hi team! I've followed for many years, and just want to commend you on a job well done. With all of the discussion, excitement, criticisms (aka "passion" ;)), etc. in the first few days, I feel it's important to say: THANK YOU. We see your hard work, and we know this module is a labor of love from a small and hard working team. And while we all have our points of constructive criticisms, the big picture is that this is overall off to such a great start! Very pleased to have this in game, and can't wait for the larger Pacific Theater to be built out more. Your Corsair has beautiful art and texture design, a nice set of included assets, and is a faithful reproduction of the F4U. It's been a blast to play with thus far. So, just a "thank you" and note of appreciation. We look forward to experiencing the module develop throughout EA and become refined to reach its full potential. Until then, just a shout out for all your hard work. Be encouraged - upwards and onwards! Cheers.

Folks if you can not be respectful and constructive please do not post here on the forum. Thread cleaned

Mini Update We know, we know. It's been quiet since we announced the C172M - too quiet. But not because we've been idle. Every bit of our development time is focused on bringing our Talon to life, and we're still optimistically aiming for a 2025 release. This is one of those cases where "no updates" really just means we're deep in the trenches, making steady progress where it counts. Truth is, preparing polished dev updates takes time. And right now, every minute counts. We'd rather put that time into the jet itself. In the meantime, here’s something tangible: a few shiny renders of your new helmet (WIP). More soon.

The attached article addresses some of questions being asked around here with respect to handling and feel of the F4U, F6F, P51 and P47. It’s from the June, 1990 issue of EAA’s Sport Aviation Magazine. For sim pilots arguing about roll rates and pitch sensitivities, notice the poor roll rates (by today’s standards) of WW2 fighters, and that the Corsair has the lightest stick force per G of the four fighters by far, described as almost “too light”, taking the CG location into account. The Corsair is described as having no buffet at high G, and little stall warning. The paragraph concerning dynamic stability is instructive as well. Read carefully about the test limitations before you begin howling about the absolute performance numbers- these were 50+ year old flying museum aircraft, operating on 100LL fuel, which limited them to MIL for takeoff and climb, but only Max Continuous Power and 6G’s for the rest of the flight test. However, relative performance comparisons should still be valid to a useful degree. There are plenty of charts from the operating handbook available for MRT and WEP power settings available with high octane fuel, some have already been posted. Anyone who has flown a single engine prop aircraft with significant horsepower understands that every power change and every airspeed change requires a corresponding control input and corresponding trim change. The F4U we have includes a handy balance ball on the gunsight to aid the pilot in nulling out sideslip. Whether or not the amplitude of those characteristics is correct for the MAG3 F4U debatable, but since none of us has flown the Corsair, declaring the FM hopelessly “broken” is a fool’s errand. I think you’ll find the article interesting, and I hope it sheds some light on WW2 era fighter handling and general performance. WWII Flight Test Comparison Sport Aviation June 1990.pdf

I get people are frustrated, but can we make sure issues posted in Bug Reports are more substantial than 'this sucks'? That is not helpful.

I trust the opinion of people with actual flight qualifications, more than those of random users:

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen! I'm rushing with hot news for fans of the OH-58D "Kiowa Warrior" and DCS. A substantial, fully professional single player campaign (quality of paid versions or even better) will soon be coming to the DCS simulator. The campaign is intended for the Polychop Simulations OH-58D module, but you also need to have a map of Afaghanistan (the south-western part or the entire map). It is also worth adding that the campaign was created in cooperation with Ryan Robicheaux, the pilot of the Kiowa Warrior and the author of the book "Scouts out!". The campaign period is 2010. The campaign has been ready for some time, and is currently being finalized. What's most important for you, despite the large amount of my work and investment, the campaign will be available for free for fans of DCS (similarly to my previous one for the Mi-24P). You will find a full description of the campaign's manual (it will be important). The campaign will be available for download via the DCS website in User files section soon. For now, this is just a preview. The most important features of the campaign: Over dozen single player missions (14, lasting from 40 minutes to 1,5 hours gameplay of each) taking place in Afghanistan (DCS: Southwest Afghanistan map or the whole DCS: Afghanistan map is needed) Realistic, detailed scenarios, based on real events of the Operation Moshtarak (2010) and its prelude (although of course the campaign was adapted to the DCS environment and its possibilities, thus achieving a compromise between history and playability) Story driven campaign with a detailed mission introduction, voice commands and plot twists during the mission Proceeding the campaigns as the pilot of OH-58D and co-pilot/gunner/AMC Full, advanced voice package in English, even your co-pilot received his role! Several thousand lines of subtitles in English (only English is supported language) Various types of missions (also artillery guidance), including night ones Dedicated skin for Kiowa Warrior from period of Afghan war As real as it gets - cold starts only, you also need to return to the airport/FOB/FARP after the mission and special mission completion mode Auto ATC (automatic communication during takeoff and landing is used after selecting the appropriate radio) Prepared briefings (description of the situation and tasks), full documentation, graphics and photos Important data in the pilot's kneeboard Summary (including tips and tricks) in the manual, check it before the flight ;)! FPS friendly (tested in VR too), only the most necessary units plus the surroundings Custom background’s music created for this campaign (after successful completion of the campaign online access to the soundtrack) I'm aiming to release it in June this year, so now you have a great time to refresh your memory of the OH-58D ! The topic related to the discussion of the campaign will be located at the OH-58D module, LINK HERE.

No, Casmo just verified it on his live stream. It works in quadrants 1,2 and 4. The problem only occurs in quadrant 3, 181 to 270 degrees

First off, here's an April, 1943 BuAer communique: This came from around the same time as VF-12 and VF-17 were undergoing carried qualifications (both squadrons completed them by the end of April). VF-17 spent the entirety of the spring and summer of 1943 after completing qualifications embarked aboard Bunker Hill, and were successfully operating from the carrier during that time. It was also VF-17 pilots that helped train the first group of Brits when they arrived in the US in June. When Bunker Hill was ordered to the Pacific, VF-17 was embarked aboard and fully expecting to go to war from the carrier. It wasn't until they arrived at Pearl Harbor in October that orders changed and they were redirected to Espirtu Santo. Tommy Blackburn was emphatic in his book that it was NOT because the Corsair's were unsuitable for carrier use, but was entirely a logistics decision: The Navy didn't have the supply chains in place to support the Corsairs aboard the carriers, so VF-17 was disembarked to take advantage of the existing Marine logistics. There's also the strategic situation to consider: The US carrier forces spent most of the first half of 1943 rebuilding. Enterprise and Saratoga were in need of refit and repair, and their air groups were depleted. The first Essexes didn't arrive in the theater until later in the spring, and major carrier operations didn't resume until the fall. The Marines, however, were still in combat and desperately in need of fighters NOW. The Corsair was available in numbers first, so every airframe available (minus VF-12 and 17, with VF-12 eventually relinquishing their Corsairs) was being sent to the Pacific as fast as they could get them off the assembly lines. This meant there were no Corsairs available for the carrier squadrons.

I guess you (and ChatGPT) missed this part: AN 01-45HA-1, for the F4U-1D, shows Auto Lean for all but take-off.

I stand corrected as well and owe Magnitude an apology for stating it was broken before I did a little more flying and testing. Reflected's video helped with the proper approach altitude and speed. I was landing it too close to the Hornets approach. I am uploading a video now to show it can be done with no issues and to prove the WW2 map works with it just fine. I will post it on here shortly. To avoid confusion, I have pulled my last video off the channel, so it does not mislead anyone. Thanks to all who posted comments and assisted with their advice as well. This community never ceases to amaze and impress me with the like minded love and appreciation for these aircraft and the attention to detail. I must say I am a little embarrassed the Sierra show I put on display for everyone to see was actually my terrible piloting skills. Improved landings to come! @Reflected Thanks for the great video brother! This one I think probably helped a lot of people who are trying to land the old girl right.

Abandonware, phase 3 and 4 over a year late. No communication. Good luck getting me to buy your "exciting new project".

Su-22M4 Clickable Cold Start - Not 100% what is IRL and Still Work In progress

It's in Meters. We'll add that unit of measurement in the description.

It pains me to see this thread. M3 had sent me messages a long time ago, years now, but unfortunately they went cold on us. Maybe we will get contacted again if enough "noise" is made, but not sure. Polychop saw the opportunity to work with us, and the community has loved our work and involvement on projects. So, why not... It's up to Magnitude 3 at this point if they choose to re-engage in conversations with us. I hope they do, but we'll see.

> Download <

Thank you for diving deeper, NineLine, just don't forget to pull up eventually I looked at Google Maps, there the images have a high enough quality to make out the old runway pattern. Together with some triangulation, you can reconstruct the original length. See original and overlays - it's indeed more than 2400 ft from turn circle center to center:

The text on the radome for all base game F-16 liveries is incorrect. The in-game image provided is from a custom livery, but uses a base game livery as the basis. It is also incorrectly mirrored on both sides on base-game liveries, whereas IRL, it should only be on the left hand side, as that is where the radome hinge is to open the nose. An image of the correct text of what should be displayed has been provided, and incorrect grammatical errors have been highlighted. Here is a transcript of what is currently displayed: "RADER ANTENA MUST BE IN STORED POSTION TO OPEN CLOSE RADER DOME POSTION UP LEFT" What should be written: "CAUTION RADAR ANTENNA MUST BE IN STOWED POSITION TO OPEN/CLOSE RADOME. POSITION UP & LEFT"

This was because before Vulkan, the only option for Xplane 11 was OpenGL. So obviously you'd see a major benefit in this case, because they moved to an API that isn't ancient. DCS will likely not see anything nearly that dramatic, however, due to the way VR is implemented in DX11, we'll possibly see a performance increase, possibly a major one, for VR users specifically.

It would probably help the team if you have the data for any claims being made, just like us at ED we can not just take peoples word for it, we have to see some data to compare and check. Please also include short track replays from your tests. thank you

All information I can find (second hand because the linked primary sources are dead) has the F4U-1 listed as having 70deg/s at 150mph and 84deg/s at 200mph. I've seen a lot of figures thrown around from 130deg/s to 150deg/s but 100% of them are from simulation or arcade game forums.

Man, good thing ED's making F-35 so we could stand a chance against MiG-29 btw: I like how the AMRAAM does 180 and still chases you.

352KTAS is 405mph.

I've given the team the feedback here and they are going to look into other possibilities to help prevent the false positives.

Good sense of humour. Anyway, I can beat the highest AI (and many human players as well) using just R variant against an AMRAAM. You see - about 90% of blue pilots are lazy, too much used to having superior airframes, avionics and missiles. They can only do a Split-S or an "out" maneuver and launch at max possible range, thereby wasting their missiles. You can evade an AMRAAM launched even at 12-15km head-on, if you know what to do. No mountains, no notching, no cheating (head-on high-G barrel roll bug, exploiting proximity fuze). Only using MiG's capabilities - speed, acceleration, thrust-to-weight ratio, turn rate. I have trained (for years) 1v1 FC3 MiG-29A (2x ER) against F-16C equipped with 6 AMRAAMs, flying over water, starting at same altitude and speed. Trust me, there is a winning strategy. Statistically, I should be dying 90% of the time, but it's the other way around. The winning strategy keeps changing because of updates in the flight model, missiles, AI, etc., but I'm yet to see a case, in which there is 0 chance to succeed. Lately, I've been trying with R variant. The odds are worse, but still doable. Don't even start with ET. You can creep upon an enemy using notching, mountains or flanking. They never expect it. They don't preflare, only top virtual pilots. T/ET is an excellent weapon, but using proper tactics, radar variants are more than enough. I'm not saying it works every time against everyone. Of course not. If the blue pilots were doing the same stuff I'm doing, I'd have zero chance. But they're not doing it. I haven't flown the F-16 in years now. Feels like cheating, once you get the hang of it and possess the same missile as the opposition. The only proper challenge (and satisfaction) is having much inferior missiles, slightly inferior aircraft, no GCI, no AWACS, no EWR and still winning/surviving. Cheers. P.S.: Why doesn't the AI fly faster or turn cold? Because he'd lose even quicker and he knows it. If he turns cold against my 29, he's dead. Faster closure against my ER is also to his detriment. He's doing what he can. BTW this gif is from 2 weeks ago, since then, they changed the AI and the missiles (again). Tactics have changed, the outcome is still the same.

^Guys, please. It does seem very twitchy at all speeds. Perhaps that's accurate, but I would like to 'feel' a little more inertia. The acceleration felt slow to me too at first, but I think that's a combination of constantly having to get it back in trim and forgetting the airspeed is in knots, whereas most of the warbirds are MPH or KPH. I can't speak on the other issues, as I don't have the numbers. This thing has major potential. I'm hopeful we'll be in a happier state once it gets a proper update or two. Edit: Your note about it bleeding energy quickly. Part of that may be the fact that something seems off about the way the elevator input transfers to the plane. You pull what you think is a little, only to look at the G-meter and see you're pulling 4.5 Gs!

The only thing about the flight model that seems suspect to me is the lack of roll inertia. The roll movement stops exactly when my stick movement stops. Everything else in the air seems fine. The larger prop and relative light weight of the airframe compared to the P-47 makes you really feel the torque as I would expect we should. Most of the FM complaints I've seen are from people hamfisting it into departures and 20G maneuvers that it shouldn't be able to get in in the first place, and if they aren't supposed to get that far past the envelope then why bother coding aerodynamics that literally wouldn't exist in real life?

SAM Sites of the GSSD (Soviet troops) in the GDR 157. FRB SAM Site FRA-541 Damgarten Airbase 54.258030, 12.436625 SA-3 GOA SAM Site-FRA-145 Saal 54.321034, 12.479123 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-187 Parchim 53.444178, 11.667284 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-??? Lärz 53.310816, 12.637298 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-207 Wittstock 53.235942, 12.416513 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-166 Templin 53.056122, 13.449182 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-206 Neuruppin 52.901105, 12.770482 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-265 Finow 52.862293, 13.657744 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-206 Oranienburg 52.710950, 13.124831 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-??? Stendal 52.643227, 11.737953 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-268 Werneuchen 52.640297, 13.681786 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-??? Mahlwinkel 52.389220, 11.712102 SA-3 GOA 163. FRB SAM Site FRA-293 Sperenberg 52.196295, 13.257121 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-207 Zerbst 52.001507, 12.052819 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-230 Jüterbog 52.009811, 12.883182 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-281 Brand 52.017781, 13.680987 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-227 Köthen 51.705871, 11.861132 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-264 Finsterwalde 51.618159, 13.601362 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-250 Falkenberg 51.526871, 13.109105 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-354 Allstedt 51.417623, 11.395991 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-245 Merseburg 51.381808, 11.833848 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-294 Brandis 51.337411, 12.574556 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-255 Großenhain 51.340790, 13.454030 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-254 Altenburg 50.947253, 12.447867 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-288 Möckern 52.170339, 11.961368 SA-3 GOA SAM Site FRA-??? Wendgräben 52.166886, 12.019354 SA-5 Gammon

I was able to get it to work, my technique was just terrible. Reflected's carrier landing video helped me a lot.

Here is the patch I was talking about: Extract it and copy the files and folders in the mod-root folder of the VSN_F104G. That should fix your problems with the "C". VSN_F104G_Patch_2.8.2.202_to_2.9.16.203.zip Hi there. Just saw it, when you click the AAA/DEF button on the AN/APR-25 console, the RWR-repeater will not show any AAA-Radars, since it is a "declutter" function. May-be that helps somebody Cheers, PeeJott

It does not work for dedicated servers as well. Please fix! waiting to add this on 5 missions that the public will use

Solved my issue. It was an eye tracking issue. Once I had rest QVFR and recalibrated etc all is ok now. There is a small performance hit compared to some other aircraft but the frame times are now more stable.

As I said in the FAQ. I will primarily make sure the mods are still working. And I will most likely remove redundant assets, as they get introduced as new and updated versions in core DCS. But since I really enjoy creating assets for DCS, I will probably add new stuff to the mods also.

This particular patch had no changes from HB. According to Cobra (see Discord), a larger July patch is being prepared instead.

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen. Finally we were able to release the VSN F-104C standalone in an early-access state (V0.99). You can get it here https://e.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZkMk6Z2ugmw0cKA0X0mMoNv8AboVB1hszV or, as an alternative, here: https://app.filen.io/#/f/e6c0639c-13c0-47e7-ba22-3a38964f4efc%23SyDSz5Wzl8lnQ4dTRXxd3DYOvHj4HPVf There is also a little "manual" that will help you find your ways around the cockpit as well as we've got one Test-Mission that tells you how to start the "Zipper". Cheers and enjoy the F-104C, VSN-Team.

Su-22m4 cockpit got proper normalmaps and roughmets now. Also, I announce that Su-22 will have some basic clickable functionality - simplified cold start, wing sweep controll, lights, gears, weapon panel etc Clickable cold start will fix problems with cold start that the mod currently have - Su-27 FM sees the plane as having 2 engines and nose wheel steering while Su25A avionics dont see it (and obvously we have one engine) It makes you unable to turn when started cold. Making a clickable action through lua should force comands like NWS on and "both" engines start into FM. We'll see how that works, stay tuned for more updates

What rules? The bottom line is this: based on our research into this aircraft, we have deemed it would not have taken much to allow the usage of these weapons. Because we added the ability to restrict and control loadouts in missions and multiplayer, we feel the additional missiles adds more to this aircraft without hurting the realism. It's very similar to the HARM thing, as someone pointed out. More Options, More Better as long as it's within the realm of possibility, which we have determined this is. Thanks!

You need to open the Snapviews.lua, and delete the entry for the corresponding module. There are no quickfixes or keybinds to do this. Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Not Planned

Okay, I have this working now. A big shout out to @Rudel_chw who helped me with this a few years ago. I saved the information and put it to good use here. The Mag3 developer can correct this in all of 30 seconds and have it in the next patch should he have time. You have to edit the BASE GAME default joystick lua file to patch this. Make a backup of the original if you make this small change. Steps 1) Open Notepad++ (or whatever text editor you use) 2) Open up ..\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\F4U-1D\Input\joystick\default.lua 3) Add the following line of code as shown in the image below {down = iCommandCockpitShowPilotOnOff, name = _('Show pilot body'), category = _('General')}, 4) Save the file Note, you have now added a show pilot body option to the general category of your joystick mapping. Any patch to the Corsair will overwrite this file so keep it around until Mag3 gets around to "fixing" this. I have tested this on my machine and it works great. For original thread where Rudel helped me, it's here - https://forum.dcs.world/topic/336367-29-object-camera-with-position-inheritance-rshftrctrlf2/

Sounds great. i'm really looking forward to it. thanks for all the work you've done. With “Proceeding the campaigns as the pilot of OH-58D and co-pilot/gunner/AMC” it sounds like the campaign is also fully multicrew capable, or will that not work?

So, habe mir den Track jetzt mal angeschaut und musste etwas lachen, denn tatsächlich liegt hier gar kein Problem vor. Du hast alles richtig gemacht und es hat auch alles funktioniert. Der "Puff" ist einfach der Explosionseffekt, bzw. ist es die Staubwolke kurz danach, denn die eigentliche Explosion ist in deinem Track bei dem gewählten Kamerawinkel nicht richtig zu sehen. Das Ziel was du angreifst ist allerdings ein gehärteter Bunker, der zwei Treffer mit GBU-31 benötigt um zerstört zu werden. Ein einzelner Treffer reicht da nicht aus.

I have FFB with extension as well. The only part that took me time to get used to is the monstrous torque. It's also very sensitive, so I can imagine a short stick or controller must make this thing feel very squirrelly without dialed in saturation and curves.

Agreed. We could also have more options like Axis for Cowl flaps, intercooler, oil cooler, gunsight light, etc. Ignition individual and both, etc. some toggle, like parking brake, arrest hook, etc. Some buttons are missing like gun heat I couldnt find. But I believe that over time they will add more to make it more complete like the other modules. Because now at launch the configuration standard was only on - off which is not enough to configure all the hardware we have.