Leaderboard

Hi all, Completed my 3000 mile move and got my sim rig back in business. Time for some updates! 7/1/2025 - Updated to version 17 -NEW: Modded cirrus shader to use a texture array. This increased the number of unique cirrus cloud types from 4 to 16. You will notice many new variations of cirrus while flying your missions now. All cirrus textures were created by me from hi resolution photos of real cirrus clouds. -Tweaked several cloud presets, improving the look of Low level stratus, Altostratus and Altocumulus cloud presets - Included 4 new presets for heavy broken cumulus clouds. These are the Scattered Showers presets with no rain.

TBH, the fact that I purchased a number of modules (Harrier, Mirage, Mudhen, South America Map) from ED (yes, I purchased from ED - I know that because that's what the bill tells me who collected my payment) seem to have fallen out of service (some even before fulfilling their "Early Access" promise) has left a very bitter taste in my mouth. It's not as if this is the first time; ED has left me holding the bag before when I purchased the Hawk from them. I don't give a rat's behind for lame excuses or sob stories about some contractor acting up. If a company can't keep their suppliers in line, maybe they should take a good, hard look at their processes and they way they conduct business . Please, ED, get your house in order and provide relief for your customers.

probably isn’t just one, the DCS world seems full of them: I know because I have a 15-page long list of ignored people

To be honest, recently I've started to envy those people. What would I give so that the biggest issue in my life is a moved date for a video game product release...

Hi, This patch was a smaller one with a fix focus and campaigns. We were able to squeeze in the terrain update also. But the main content patch for July will come later in the month, that is when lots of stuff is planned for the public build, as long as testing goes to plan.

Gulf Guardian Part I Download: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3345527/ Hello! I've finally released Gulf Guardian Part I into the User Files. Experience the full spectrum F-4E operations, from high-altitude Combat Air Patrols (CAP) to daring low-level bomb runs. You'll face intense challenges, including defending civilian tanker traffic whilst under restrictive rules of engagement to executing precise low-level navigation to hit your time over target. Do you have what it takes to master the mighty Phantom? Prepare for unparalleled immersion with hundreds of custom voice-overs, dozens of unique voice actors, and meticulously crafted scripts and scenarios that bring each of the 5 missions to life. ************** There is extensive documentation included in the .zip file, so make sure you read it carefully. Most frequently asked questions can be answered in the README pdf. Having said that, please feel free to "@" me here with any questions or comments, I'll be happy to answer them.

All, I have removed all the mod links from Page 1 of this Forum until i can come up with a better solution to release the mods I create. Thanks for your patience!

You're making a mistake and try to simulate history instead of the aircraft. If the aircraft is capable of it but never used the sim should allow it.

Please give the team time to look at all of the feedback and make the tweaks they need to, the module has just been released. This patch will have been to soon to add stuff to, it takes weeks to test updates, and the whole of DCS and that happens well in advance. So please be patient updates will come when the dev team are ready. thank you

No burnouts for me mate, just very limited time to deal with the daily life chores and even more limited for DCS modding, RL keeps getting in the way, meanwhile i have @Petr005 working on the long awaited changes for the 3D model, extensive cockpit object modeling, to bring the details to a higher level.

folks until you get official news be very careful of the sources you listen to on the internet. thank you

Just relax and don't use them. Multiplayer-Servers, that feel dedicated to realism can choose to restrict the use.... I don't see exactly where the problem is, unless feeling miserable and making everybody else suffer along is the intend. Just cheer up!

This tells us exactly nothing.

Me sitting here when I initially heard Q2 being planned release "I'll believe it when I see it." Can't get disappointed if you already have the bar so low that you don't believe a single thing that's ever said from any representative of ED about a release date. It does feel like a bit of a slap in the face though when another plane (yes, I get it, it's not an ED product) gets released before this one, without a pre-order, and here we get to see all those people play with their new toy and we're stuck here just watching or flying it just to have something new while we wait. Of course I don't want a botched, bug filled near or completely unplayable aircraft, but I also don't think ED should be getting people's hopes up by putting out a release time-frame if they're not going to hold themselves to it. Just release it when it's ready and stop giving people false hopes on a projected time-frame, and then we reach that time-frame and nothing and then get told some time later, then later later, then later later later, then later later later later.

I was beta testing these missions. In fact bought Afghanistan only for that purpose. I lack SSD space, so I only have maps I use atm, installed. This campaign will make me reinstall the map again. I just got to let another map go. I spent some time on them. Because I learned a lot about this chopper, I did believe I had all the knowledge about before starting. Many thx. Excellent campaign

Been installing them all weekend! Check this out and the link below. HIGHLY recommend going to the discord in Hawkeye60's forum below. TONS of Pacific stuff in there. All the mods in the video below were downloaded from the links in his thread. However, I started finding updated ones on his discord after I shot the video. More videos to come. Even saw WW2 deck crew in there.

Good Morning, everyone, I'm sorry I've been away for so long. I've been working in the background on random mods, but nothing really serious. I'm healing well, but i haven't gotten my mind back into full-time modeling. Just taking it slow and easy. Life has taken over with family, so if you have kids, then you know what I mean. Thanks for all your concerns. Sierra99, it's funny you ask about the AN/SPS-52 Radar. I was just working on that radar for the Adams-class destroyer. ---Yes, it is possible. I say that because vehicle and ship scripting are interchangeable. Looks like they used vehicle code for the static object. Just looking at it. The radar code can probably be swapped out with the radar code from the Tarawa or any other ship's radar. --Sorry for the late response. The latest mod I was working on was the USNS John Lewis Class Support ship. She's almost done. Once finished i will release her but now sure how at the moment. Please read below!!! ***** One thing I wanted to bring to your attention is that I have taken down my Admiral189 DCS World Mods website because the mods are being downloaded, ripped, and sold online. I honestly don't think there's a way around this as long as EDs .edm mod file is not secure. I will keep you all posted. Thanks for your patience. **************

I was quite excited by the new F4U but have heard some criticism of the flight model and engine power. So, I wanted to take a closer look to see how it compares to both the quantitative and qualitative metrics published in the wonderful article entitled “Ending the Argument” by John M. Ellis III and Christopher A. Wheal, published in EAA Sport Aviation, June 1990. Now, for the caveats… The article was a pseudo-controlled experimental flight-test designed to evaluate performance differences between the FG-1D Corsair, P-47D Thunderbolt, F6F-5 Hellcat, and P-51D Mustang. I know we do not have a true representation of the FG-1D, however the engine (R-2800-8) and airframes are close enough for my lackluster piloting skills. Interestingly, it also had two stores pylon installed for the flight tests. Airframe and engine stresses were limited owing to the age of the airframes and using 100LL fuel. This effectively limited the Corsair to Maximum Except for Takeoff (METO). I used 55” of manifold pressure, which is likely too high, but at least my assumptions have been documented. The engine was officially rated for 2000 BHP as in the DCS model. Superchargers were limited to low-blower, and altitudes to 10,000 ft. This makes a difference as I will demonstrate. CG was located at ¾ aft, and there was no mention of fuel load. I selected ½ tanks but will likely revisit my data with another series of tests at full fuel. I removed all ammunition weight as the test aircraft had dummy 50 cals, but no ballast ammo (near as I can tell). My controls setup uses a curve of 25 on all axes, and a 70% saturation on the rudder deflection. I performed some tests multiple times when I suspected higher variance due to my shoddy pilot skills. That being said, I did not perform detailed error analysis on the data presented herein. I welcome others to try the tests and post your results. On to the data… Test 1: Takeoff distance: As per the manual, takeoff distance for the aircraft at 11,000 lbs is approximately 900 ft at sea level, and 1,300 ft over a 50 ft obstacle in no-wind conditions. I won’t say much here other than my takeoffs were all around 1,200-1,300 ft, which I am certain is dominated by inferior pilot skill on my part. The test pilots note a takeoff roll of 1,200 ft at METO power, which is more or less in line with my tests. Test 2: Climb Performance: I will not reprint the graphs from the article as I want to ensure full credit to the original authors and not run afoul of copyright concerns. However, I have used plot digitizer to extract relevant FG-1D data for comparison to our DCS model. The first test is a time-to-climb test, started from the runway up to 10,000 ft. The flight was conducted at full METO power with a climb speed of 135 kts, takeoff weight of 11,055 lbs, and surface temperature of 77 F (as per Table 1 in the article). The figure below shows the time history of MSL altitude for the FG-1D, DCS F4U, and two data points from the F4U-1D manual corresponding to full Mil-Power climbs to 5,000 and 10,000 ft. How I did it: I started on the runway with 50% fuel and executed a standard takeoff. I reduced power to full METO power which was giving ~55 in of manifold pressure @ 2700 RPM. I trimmed the aircraft for 135 kts which required substantial trimming on all axes. The remainder of the flight was relatively hands off, only requiring small corrections to attitude to maintain airspeed. I put the mixture into auto-lean as per the flight manual, and did not engage the blower. Discussion: First off, the flight data presented in the report starts at ~1,000 ft MSL with no discussion of initial conditions. I time aligned my data to overlap the altitude at ~2,000 ft MSL to discount the takeoff and trim transients. After this point, there is a slight climb-gradient difference between the DCS and FG-1D aircraft, however it may be within the test margin of error with time-to-climb difference of 15 seconds. In the article, the Corsair, Thunderbolt, and Mustang were all tightly grouped, with the Hellcat outperforming all by nearly 30 seconds. So, in this case our data would group more closely with the F4U/P47/P51 as it should. The flight test and DCS data align well with the manual to 5,000 ft, however the 10,000 ft mark is quite offset, requiring another 50 seconds of climb. I suspect this is related to the weight of the aircraft and will repeat the tests with full fuel when able. Test 3: Level Accelerations: This is one of my favorite flight test maneuvers as it requires some pilot skill (yikes) and tells you quite a bit about the power and drag characteristics of the aircraft. In brief, the test starts at 10,000 ft and pattern speed, which is ~100 kts in the Corsair in the clean configuration. Full METO power is smoothly applied, and every attempt is made to maintain a constant altitude. The time history of airspeed is logged and is an indicator of excess power from the engine. Flying this test in the Corsair is a real challenge owing to the massive change in trim and quick dance on the rudder pedals necessary to maintain straight, coordinated flight during the maneuver. How I did it: I matched the flight test OAT at 50 F, and started straight and level at 10,000 ft. (I actually began the flight at closer to 150 kts and decelerated to 100 kts without retrimming, which makes the initial acceleration easier to deal with as you only need relieve pressure on the controls to maintain straight and level flight.) I repeated the test three times, once with the blower in neutral, another with the blower in low, and the final test with the manifold pressure limited to 40 in. Discussion: The plot below shows the time history of indicated airspeed for the FG-1D, and three tests corresponding to METO neutral, METO low blower, and 40 in. of manifold pressure settings. The low blower allowed for close to 60 in. of manifold pressure at 10,000 ft, whereas the neutral blower case was closer to ~45 in. Clearly none of the test cases capture the flight test data of the FG-1D, indicating a mismatch in the excess power (Thrust*V_inf-Drag*V_inf). I cannot comment on the sea-level max airspeed debate, but as far as this test confirms, the engine thrust (I said thrust, not power) seems to overpredict the measured performance data of the FG-1D. I.E. the velocity scaling seems to be off, allowing for higher accelerations that would otherwise be possible while still achieving roughly the same top-end speed. I suspect this is due to incorrectly predicting the slope of the C_T vs advance ratio curve at low – medium advance ratios or perhaps a lower induced drag from the airframe. Test 4: Stalls Power on and off stall characteristics were evaluated at 10,000 ft in the clean and dirty configurations (gear, 40 deg flaps). Slow deceleration rates on the order of 3 kts/s were used, though the flight tests were conducted with an even lower gradient of 1 kt/s. Test data in the table below indicates reasonable agreement except for the power-off, clean configuration. In this case, repeated tests were conducted to verify that the aircraft does stall repeatably at a much lower airspeed than the flight test aircraft. This could be due to a mismatch in vehicle weights, but similar tests conducted with full fuel will need to be performed to comment further. Stall performance FG-1D DCS F4U Power off (clean) 85 kts 74 kts Power on (clean) 76 kts 74 kts Power off (dirty) 69 kts 75 kts Power on (dirty) 55 kts 55 kts Qualitatively, the test pilots noted that the FG-1D had no propensity to drop a wing in either direction, favoring instead any turn towards the uncoordinated slip direction (slow wing). In my testing, I attempted to initiate stalls to either side and was unsuccessful in getting the right wing to drop. Asymmetric stall is a complicated aerodynamic phenomenon, but it appears the propeller torque dominates for the DCS module. Test pilots noted that there was little stall warning, perhaps only a few knots with light buffet. In a simulator this can be the best indication of impending stall, even if it’s slightly overdone (Tomcat anyone?). They did note a peculiarity with the Corsair in that the stick force gradient gets very light approaching stall, which would/will be fun when we all get force feedback joysticks! Test 5: Static Lateral-Directional Stability This test sheds light on the rudder authority in a steady, wings-level sideslip. The test pilots noted that the Corsair’s rudder control was extremely heavy compared to the other aircraft tested. Between 180-190 kts, the aircraft required ~50-60% aileron deflection to maintain level flight. In the landing configuration with full flaps and gear, ~20-50%. This wide margin corresponds to the increased influence of the engine torque and spiraling slipstream from the propeller at lower airspeeds. The test pilots noted a peculiarity with the Corsair in that, “The Corsair's only response to left rudder in either configuration as to drop its nose, suggesting weak or non-existent dihedral effect with right sideslip.” How I did it: This one is pretty straight forward. Trim for 180-190 kts at 10,000 ft, then smoothly apply full rudder control. Estimate aileron deflection necessary to maintain zero turn rate as measured by the slip/skid indicator. I repeated this several times in both the left/right directions and at lower airspeeds ~100 kts with full flaps and landing gear extended. Again, all flights were at 50% fuel and no ordinance. Discussion: At airspeeds between 180-190 kts, the aileron deflection is on par with the 50-60% noted by the test pilots, indicating that the rudder authority at higher airspeed is about correct with the 70% saturation limit (first figure below). At lower airspeeds, the aircraft requires almost the same level of aileron control (second figure below), indicating that the rudder control derivatives do not have the correct velocity scaling or the influence of the prop slipstream is not correctly captured. This is certainly an area where the flight model could be improved. Additionally, I think there’s an opportunity to add in the Corsair quirk of little roll with left rudder and nose drop as the current model is quite symmetric (albeit maybe somewhat visible in the bottom left plot). Figure: Full left rudder (left) and right rudder (right) with ~50-60% aileron deflection. High-speed condition, 190 kts, 10,000 ft, 50% fuel. Figure: Full left rudder (left) and right rudder (right) with ~50-60% aileron deflection. Landing configuration (gear + flaps 40), 110 kts, 10,000 ft, 50% fuel. Test 6: Roll Performance Full left/right aileron deflections were used to assess roll rates for a 1-G, full 360 deg roll. As with most other tests, this one was flown at 10,000 ft, and ~200-220 kts indicated. This test was also repeated in the landing configuration at ~100 kts with full flaps and landing gear deployed. Obviously, a full 360 deg roll would be inappropriate with full flaps and gear, so the test was terminated at 90 deg of bank. At high speed, the aircraft needed full continuous power, and only ~28” manifold pressure in the landing configuration. A follow-on test of “rolling under G” was performed by executing the same high-speed maneuver with a steady 3-G load on the airframe (sort of a barrel roll I guess). The pilot reports indicate a significant reduction in roll performance under load with the Corsair giving up ~26-38% of its 1-G roll rate. Of note, these tests involved a 180 deg roll, not the full 360 used for 1-G testing. Data for all tests used the time to perform the complete roll in lieu of instantaneous roll rate data which is often much higher. Discussion: The table below highlights the difference in roll rates at high and low speed for the FG-1D and DCS F4U. Measured roll rates for the DCS F4U align reasonably well at high speed for the left-hand rolls. However, as is obvious from the data, the right-hand turning capability is off the mark. Low speed performance is symmetric, but slow. This again is a straightforward fix in the flight model, and I hope it makes its way into the next update. The accelerated data should be taken with a massive grain of salt as it is quite pilot dependent and holding a 3G turn without using your bottom as a G-indicator is difficult to say the least. I would appreciate community feedback on your numbers for this maneuver. Roll Performance FG-1D DCS F4U Right (high speed) 4.5 s (81 deg/s) 5.4 s (66 deg/s) Left (high speed) 4.9 s (73 deg/s) 5.1 s (70 deg/s) Right (low speed) 2.3-4 s (38 deg/s) 2.9 s (31 deg/s) Left (low speed) 2.3-4 s (38 deg/s) 2.8 s (32 deg/s) Right 180 deg (3G high speed) 3.1 s (58 deg/s) 6.1s (30 deg/s) Left 180 deg (3G high speed) 3.7 s (49 deg/s) 5.4s (33 deg/s) Test 7: Dynamic Stability I’ve seen quite a bit of chatter about the rudder authority and “wagging” (aka Dutch roll) of the F4U online, so I was particularly interested in assessing the directional dynamic response. Pilot reports indicate that all aircraft were deadbeat (aka, no overshoot) in the roll and pitch axes, and that the Corsair was notable for its pronounced Dutch roll. How I did it: Dynamic stability tests should be made with relatively small control inputs so as not to significantly alter the aircraft’s speed or altitude. I used either singlets (rapid fore/aft or side) motions to induce oscillations and noted any overshoot in the short-period, or oscillation in the long-period modes. Discussion: The pitch and roll axes were well behaved with little overshoot and no noticeable oscillation. The pitch axis is quite sensitive, but pilot reports indicate that it had the lightest control force gradient (stick force per G) of all aircraft tested. I cannot really say for sure, but it’s plausible that we need to fly it more like an Extra 300 and less like a P-47, so go light on the controls. Perhaps. The rudder control, on the other hand, does show substantially lower damping than indicated by the test pilots. They noted the worst case was three overshoots before the oscillation was damped. In my tests, I was routinely experiencing 6-8 (see plot below) with corresponding lower amplitude, but higher damping oscillations in roll. Again, from a flight model perspective this is a relatively easy fix (C_N_β anyone?), so I hope it too is incorporated in future updates. Test 8: Dive Test This test can also give some indication of the excess power/drag behavior of the aircraft, and how much trim control is necessary to compensate for speed buildup. This test is initiated at 10,000 ft MSL and ~100 kts, followed by a -1G pushover to a 30 deg dive and applying full METO power. Recovery is initiated at 5,000 ft noting the max speed at pullout. The pilot reports indicate that the Corsair had high rudder forces requiring retrimming during the dive. Discussion: From the table below, the DCS F4U is not far off the mark in the dive test. Starting at 100 kts, it matched the test aircraft to within 7 kts passing through 5,000 ft. Of note, my dive angle was slightly higher with an average of ~34 deg. I used the gunsight to estimate the angle, but precise control is tricky without some sort of digital readout. Of note, the aircraft does require increased rudder deflection as the speed builds and is relatively easy to trim as indicated by the pilot reports. This indicates again that the excess power and drag characteristics of the airframe are mismatched as the dive time is significantly faster than the measured data. As with the level acceleration, this seems to point to a mischaracterization of the thrust and/or drag at low to medium speeds. That being said, the required rudder trim at different airspeeds is probably correctly modeled. Dive Test FG-1D DCS F4U Start Speed 100 kts 100 kts Max Speed 348 kts 341 kts Time 32 sec 23 sec Conclusion: In summary, I think we have a wonderful start at one of my favorite aircraft. I hope Magnitude 3 will continue to develop the module and address some of the flight model issues that make the Corsair unique and a challenge to extract maximum performance. Specifically, I see the following issues that could use a bit of tweaking: Takeoff: Find a better pilot . Climbs: Reasonable agreement, engine power may be slightly overpredicted Level Accelerations: Tune the low-medium speed thrust and drag model to better approximate measured accelerations. Stalls: Uncoordinated stalls seem to always break left; this should not happen. Clean, power-off stall is too slow. Static Directional Stability: Low-speed rudder sensitivity too high, high-speed just about right with 70% saturation. Incorporate Corsair pitch quirk with left rudder and tune roll coupling. Roll: Resolve the left/right disparity in roll performance. Dynamic Stability: Directional damping needs to be increased to match the three-overshoot oscillation noted in flight test. Dive Test: As noted with the level accelerations, tuning of the thrust and drag models are needed to better match available data. I would like to repeat many of these tests with full fuel to further explore the flight model and ascertain if any of the noted discrepancies persist in a heavier configuration. I am also exploring sustained and instantaneous turn data, but it is somewhat complicated by scatter and self-imposed structural limits in the flight test data. I would greatly appreciate any constructive feedback and additional references that may have been used in developing the flight model to augment this analysis.

Hey all Sorry for the lack of updates, it’s been a crazy summer so far and I haven’t been able to work on the Cub as much as I wanted to. I’m currently working on an intro/tutorial video that I will release soon so you all can see it in action. The FM refactor is coming along nicely and should be done soon. After that I just need to fix a few minor bugs and wrap up some textures and she’ll be ready to go! Damage model is simple but it’s there. I made it pretty fragile so if you take a hit from any of the AA in the game you are likely cooked. Pilot model might be an EA item because I haven’t started it yet and I don’t really want to delay the release while I work on it.

How are those systems even in the same league? R-27R is the equivalent of AIM-7E/F IMO, and -ER is the equivalent of AIM-7M/P.

"Prevailing opinion" is not the same as having the manual pages, including exact software update that brought ER/ET to 9.12. Off course you do not need to be worried in MP, pretty sure that server maintainers will give ER/ET to 29 only if the other side gets AIM-120B or better.

That's actually a brilliant take. Simulating History is up to the mission/server-creator.

Please use the search function and look around the forum a bit for posts from the other 65336645790831 users who asked this exact same question. The answers haven’t changed.

Bisher bin ich wirklich begeistert von der Kampagne. Sie ist abwechslungsreich und auf einem hohen Level erstellt

Something new to shoot.

Assets I create in collaboration with ED will have more advanced weapons, as they are made in collaboration with ED. This means ED can create new weapon schemes and configuration that fits the specific weapons, like the ATACMS. Besides these, I will still maintain the current mod packs, and create new assets for them, like the J-35 in the picture above. Since these assets are created by me outside of the ED collaboration, they won't have the same kind of advanced or new weapon configurations.

yes. got called a**hole for this one time too often. EDs Exporter is coming... Some have had good experiences with it and recommend it.

DCS Core SA-11 Buk does not trigger RWR warning for launch or tracking - fixed Weapons. AGM-45 all seeker models able to track 052B/054A and HQ7 radar - fixed AI aircraft. AI cannot taxi properly at Rovaniemi (Kola map) if AI group has human taxi with them at the same time - fixed QAG. Units are placed outside Marianas WWII map bounds - fixed QAG. Anti-Ship mission is generated incorrectly on Afghanistan map - fixed AI aircraft. AI F4U will not engage shipping with BAT bomb - fixed Flaming Cliffs by Eagle Dynamics MiG-29. Exported displays not respecting brightness DCS: F-16C Viper by Eaglе Dynamics Fixed: HOTAS commands missing for the HARM WPN page. Fixed: Crash to Desktop when switching to A-A after shooting HARM POS. Fixed: AGM-88 is not able to be fired in POS modes. AGM-88 is not able to be fired in POS modes: fixed wrong 1st threat selection when enter POS mode. fixed threat not deselect using second OSB press. DCS: Data Transfer Cartridge (DTC) by Eagle Dynamics Fixed: Opening DTCs created in versions prior to 2.9.17 causes issues with auto program tables - Added compatibility of DTC auto programs on F18 with older missions. Fixed: Add currenthill radars to CMDS tables - fixed error when after adding new string to the middle of the list, an existing cartridge may be filled incorrectly. DCS: CH-47F by Eaglе Dynamics Fixed. Overlapping text on the Model aircraft CDU page Added. Option to use lower resolution textures for cockpit and cargo hold (via Special options menu) DCS: Yak-52 by Eaglе Dynamics Fixed. Engine parameters for AI bots Fixed. Duplicated commands in the Controls menu DCS: Mosquito FB VI by Eaglе Dynamics Fixed. Undercarriage warning horn sound in improper conditions DCS: Sinai Map by OnReTech Added medium detail zones: Northern Israel, Lebanon, part of Syria. Added terrain textures - color, normal map at new medium detail zones. Added airfields: Ramat David, Damascus Intl, Mezzeh Air Base, Rafic Hariri Intl, Tabuk. Added unique scenes, including on new airfields, 2 unique hangars at Ramat David airfield. Improved Saudi Arabia region. Color correction of terrain textures (entire territory). New normal map (entire territory). Added military bases throughout the terrain, added icons to them in ME. Various bug fixes. Campaigns DCS: AH-64D The Four Horsemen Campaign by Fight's On Simulations M10. Fixed CH-47 not landing issue. Fixed Ground troop now continuing route post contact. All missions resaved in latest release build 2.9.16.10973 DCS: UH-1H Peacekeeper Lebanon Campaign by Flying Cyking Mission 01 "The Ferry Flight". Fixed parking position of AI Mi8 overlapping with player aircraft. DCS: F/A-18C Operation Cerberus North Campaign by Ground Pounder Sims Mission 5 - Fixed trigger that incorrectly detects a hit on the mosque. DCS: A-10C Operation Operation Persian Freedom Campaign by Ground Pounder Sims All missions updated with temporary fix to bypass issues with radio triggers. DCS: F-4E Northern Defenders 'Phantoms Rising' by Flying Cyking Mission 02 "First Sortie". Corrected naming of departure map kneeboard. Mission 04 "Fleet Defender". Temporary fix for Crash to Desktop while engaging the bombers, still under investigation what has caused this. DCS: F-16C Arctic Thunder Campaign by Reflected Simulations Parking spots revised DCS: F/A-18C Rise of the Persian Lion 2 by Badger633 Mission 3: Combat help from your Wing adjusted. F/A-18C Serpent’s Head 2 by Badger633 Mission 10 all variants: Mig attack adjusted.

It truly is a work of art (science, mathematics and organisation) Easy to forget & focus on the gripes, but it's come so far since the LOMAC days in all regards

Version 20250705 - added some audio Download here (ED User Files) Do you know that feeling? When you can't be bothered, and you just want to FLY! This mission scratches that itch. Any plane, anywhere, hot or cold, any livery. Just jump into that cockpit and take off into the wild blue yonder. Fly that aircraft from one location to another and have a blast. Switch to any other plane that you own at a moment's notice. Enjoy yourself! And if you *can* be bothered, this mission can suggest some location to fly to, and maybe even navigate to a beacon on the way. Of course it allows you to choose any airfield on the map as destination. And yeah, the mission will look up frequencies and other stuff for you. Because it knows that you can't be bothered otherwise, and you simply want to have fun. This mission is so simple and so much fun, I'm surprised that I had to create it. So here it is - slightly embellished with some bells and whistles like civil air traffic, fog, etc. to keep you interested. For example, it can keep a log of your achievements, per type and a total: And since you guys asked for it: Ferry can and does keep a record of your flight time, distance etc. per airframe, and even shares it with the other "Ferry" missions (Caucasus, Germany, ...) IMPORTANT NOTE Due to the way that DCS works, this mission can only grant access to all your aircraft if it is run as "multiplayer" even if you are flying all alone. That "Freebie Plane"? It's only there to mock you in single player. So, press "LAUNCH MULTIPLAYER SERVER" to start this mission for real, join BLUE, and then click on DYNAMIC SLOTS to gain access to ALL airfields, stocked with ALL aircraft that you own. And yeah, the mission does support multiplayer. I never tested it with more than 40 concurrent players, but it should support even more if your server can take the load. NOTE In order to persist your achievements (and to share them with other Ferry missions) you must de-sanitize DCS

I saw only these:

The multiplayer gear issue is not an easy fix. We absolutely had no issues in MP before testing began. When testing started, there were still no issues, even right up to the final build at release. Not every bug will be seen and/or created until mass (mass as in 100-1000 users) tests occur sometimes.

It's always amusing to see what people here can find annoying...and how they have to argue and discuss it for pages.

Hello DCS pilots! I'm excited to share my latest project with the community - FIPUnlocked, a software solution that brings Saitek/Logitech FIP (Flight Instrument Panel) support to games that don't natively support these devices, including DCS World. What is FIPUnlocked? FIPUnlocked is an open-source application that allows you to use your Saitek/Logitech FIP device with any game by cloning selected parts of your monitor onto the FIP's 320x240 display. It also provides keyboard emulation for the FIP's S1-S6 buttons and rotary encoders. Key Features Screen Cloning: Capture any region of your monitor and display it on FIP pages 1-6 Button Mapping: Configure S1-S6 buttons to send keyboard combinations (e.g., LShift+A, RCtrl+LAlt+E) Rotary Encoder Support: Map left/right rotary encoders to keyboard inputs Multiple Pages: Support for up to 6 different display configurations Real-time Preview: Built-in preview window to see what's being captured Performance Optimized: Minimal CPU/RAM usage Configurable in config.json Demo Video Installation & Usage 1. Download latest release from Github 2. Follow installation instructions in This ReadMe Known Limitations Cloning onto FIP maxes out at ~24 FPS Currently in alpha stage - feedback and bug reports welcome Future Plans - DCS-BIOS integration for direct input - Custom gauge/panel editor + DCS-BIOS integration for direct aircraft data - Profile system for different aircraft - Config editor within the application Download & Support GitHub Repository: https://github.com/SmokeyDev/FIPUnlocked Latest Release: https://github.com/SmokeyDev/FIPUnlocked/releases/latest Feedback & Contributions This is an open-source project, and I welcome: Bug reports and feature requests Code contributions Configuration examples and setups Performance optimization suggestions

I wish the actual downloads were easier to find than scrolling through the chat.

Yes, be very careful about sources you listen to on the internet, on all sides

Yeah?........like some guy pointlessly commenting on a new guy mistakenly replying a 20 year old thread. Them guys?

it grinds my gears, that contributors like you are met with so much opposition (to put it in mildly). sucks. I hope the appreciation outweighs it tenfold!

Dear ED developers, I’ve been your fan since Lock On days and have enjoyed DCS for at least 8 years now. In the past year I’ve detected some strange behaviour on fox1 servers regarding Aim-7 performance. I’ve been more active in recent weeks and the issue seems too severe to be ignored. Being a professional analyst (and ex low-temperature physicist), I know that opinions and feelings count for nothing in these cases. After dedicating 30+ hours to solving this issue, I believe I’ve successfully identified the problem and see an immediate solution to mitigate it. Let us dive right into it using numbers and physical quantities from TacView, as well as known missile parameters thanks to dcs-lua-datamine github by Quaggles. The key date is 11.7.2024 - on this day, everything changed with the whole Aim-7 family. Despite my best efforts, I haven’t been able to collect Tacview files closer to this event, but I can demonstrate the change using one from 03/2023 in the “before” period and a more recent one from 2025 in the “after” period. When we compare Aim-7M performance before and after the change, it is both qualitatively and quantitatively different. I am using Tacview Advanced graphs and the metric of choice is total mechanical energy. Not only is the maximum energy vastly different, but also its time evolution (character). We know that Aim-7F and above are dual-stage. First, the booster lights up, delivering the strongest impulse. After that, the sustainer rocket motor kicks in, delivering the final bit of extra energy. In the before period (scenario A), the Aim-7M missile gets to its maximum energy only after the sustainer phase. However, since the change (scenario B), the missile reaches its maximum energy state already after the initial booster phase. Sustainer then merely preserves this energy for the duration of its burn. This is the qualitative change. There is also a quantitative change. New maximum energy is more than before. So not only does the missile reach higher energy faster, it can also preserve it in a superior way (see attachments). The following thing shouldn’t be considered a “proof” of any kind, merely a supportive argument. I formulated a question for ChatGPT and got an answer, that scenario A is much more realistic for the Aim-7 missile (see attachments). Now, for the actual proof. I was wondering for some time, what could possibly be responsible for such a dramatic change in missile energy management. With the background in physics, a few things immediately crossed my mind. Either the magnitude of the impulse of at least one of the rocket motors changed, or the delivery character of that impulse (its time evolution) or the missile’s mass (weight) itself. I went through the whole changelog since 03/2023 and curiously enough, found that on 11.7.2024 that’s precisely what changed - but for the E and E2 variants. See: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.6.57650/ Look for: “Weapons. AIM-7E/E2 mass decreased.” From that point on, it all started making sense. I discovered this brilliant guy’s Quaggles github, pulled the commit from 11.7.2024 and the earliest one before this date. Started comparing all Aim-7 variants before and after. Soon enough, I stumbled upon the culprit. Link for the latest commit before the change: https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/e57755713d8ae6b59ccf1831b089e3b33aee7633/_G/rockets/AIM-7MH.lua Link for the commit right at the change (11.7.2024): https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/da69a9f560550da346501f4056261e491ac4079a/_G/rockets/AIM-7MH.lua Let’s have a look at some of those missile parameters. Of course, I am not an ED developer and cannot possibly know what these parameters mean, right? There is no official documentation, so it could be air temperature. Well, yes and no. Thanks to your changelog, we do know that the mass of the E and E2 variants did change on 11.7.2024. When we compare the changes specifically in the E2 missile files, we find only 3 changes in all the parameter values. We know that the mass is supposed to change and we can see 3 updated parameters. Can we safely assume that these 3 parameters define the missile’s mass? For the sake of this report, let’s call them “index M”, “fm mass1” and “fm mass2” (see attachments). For your convenience, I have provided a table with all existing Aim-7 variants, changes of these 3 parameters in the aforementioned commits and verified that the parameter values have stayed the same right up to now. We can immediately see the problem: missile param 23.3.2024 11.7.2024 30.6.2025 Aim-7E2 index M 230 194 194 Aim-7E2 fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7E2 fm mass2 230 194 194 Aim-7E index M 230 206.4 206.4 Aim-7E fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7E fm mass2 230 206.4 206.4 Aim-7F index M 231 231 231 Aim-7F fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7F fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7MH index M 231 231 231 Aim-7MH fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7MH fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7P index M 231 231 231 Aim-7P fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7P fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7(M?) index M 231.1 231.1 231.1 Aim-7(M?) fm mass1 231.1 194 194 Aim-7(M?) fm mass2 231.1 231.1 231.1 First of all, before the change, for every missile, all 3 of these parameters were kept the same (only difference = 1 with E2 variant). After the change, only the E2 missile has equal values of the 3 params, all of the other missiles have 1 parameter different from the remaining two. The most dramatic difference is 37kg. Not only is the parameter different, but it is exactly the value present in the E2 variant (194). Is it possible that somehow, at some point, the E2 "fm mass1" value overspilled to the other variants? Commiting different versions of the code, copying the value of the params, etc.? I am 99% confident that this is not the change you'd intended to do. Because you did change the values for E2, but kept all 3 params the same. That appears to be the correct approach. It is my suspicion and hypothesis, that this one single parameter is directly responsible for the new buffed-up missile performance of the variants that shouldn't have been changed at all. There is one more supporting evidence for this. E and E2 variants should have different mass according to literature and also according to your changes. The difference should be about 6% (194 vs 206.4). There are more differences in missile params for these 2 missiles in the "seeker" and "autopilot" part and it was my hypothesis that these could be ignored when firing blind without a target lock. We tested it and arrived at an estimated difference in gained energy of 0.6% - this is nowhere near the perceived mass difference. In the "boost" and "march" parameters, they have the same impulse value. So the motors are the same, the impulse is the same, the resulting extra speed should be different by about 6% (p = m.v), but it's barely detectable (0.6% diff in energy) EDIT: I may be wrong at this point. After comparing missile speeds, the E vs E2 may actually have about 5% difference in speed, but it's hard to judge. The aircraft shot one missile at slightly higher initial speed. Combined with drag being dependent of speed etc. this creates a difference. And also the other extra missile parameters, in which these missiles differ, could play a role. Attached, you'll find what I believe to be proof that these missiles actually have the same mass for the purposes of energy after launch. Despite not having same mass in real life and also in the other 2 mass parameters. EDIT: hard to say. They appear too similar. This is all I can provide at this moment, I'm happy to talk more about this. I only have few key questions for you and would be delighted if you managed to answer them: 1. Can you please confirm, that you indeed observe the provided values of the parameters and that 1 ("fm mass1") is different from the other two in all but the E2 variant? 2. Can you please confirm if this was unintended and the idea indeed was, to keep all 3 parameters at same (updated) values? 3. If yes, am I right in assuming this could be fixed as easily as rewriting one parameter value for 5 missiles to match the remaining two parameter values? 4. And finally, if yes, could you please prioritize this in your future updates? If you've survived to the merge (the end of my post), thank you and congratulations. I wish you the very best of luck in improving and maintaining the game that we all love and enjoy so much. Best regards, Merrek

Sharing my work on a Google Earth overlay for Iranian Military Sites. I was unhappy with what was publicly available so I decided to make my own based on open source research and some serious map searching. The KMZ contains almost all Air Defence and IRIAF locations and many more locations for IRIA, IRIN, IRGC, storage, production and underground facilities in Iran. I have been building this overlay for some time, I guess many sites have been destroyed by now but it is useful for creating realistic missions and placing units in their correct locations in the southern region that lines up with the Persian Gulf Map. I'm still slowly working on this overlay as my research continues so If you add the link as a network link in Google Earth you will get the updates as they occur. I will eventually hyperlink references to the more prominent sites once the overall collection is completed. https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1Ps4ir_uKS4T_PRvlwBl-bnhvDJLWt_mY

Wow, flight dynamics has much improved when it comes to aerial refueling in this release. No more oscillation behind the tanker. It feels very realistic. Connecting was not an issue and remained stable throughout. This was my main gripe in the previous release and now it has been addressed. Many thanks. Love this plane

I have it in a manual that a 1988 update BZPP-44 it seems added compatibility. But yes, of course no operators used it during the Cold War

Which begs the question why we have a K-4 at all when it barely participated in the war. We should have a Gustav, but that's an entirely separate discussion.

In general, I also have the impression that the terrain mesh has improved, especially visible in the mountains, something like newer maps for DCS - like Iraq or Afghanistan. Nice update, and much more terrain east of Israel, thanks a lot!

@GUCCI The lack of an official response from ED means we continue a practice. The practice is being patient. RB made some wonderful and extremely popular full-fidelty modules. Yet for reasons we still do not fully understand, we see the disagreement proceed at the pace of a standstill. RB's radio silence for public commentary, besides saying they have not been paid, causes us to wonder what some people were thinking.

It is a factor now, I just tested it by not knowing you need to open an oxygen valve manually. Kicked in around 20k ft.