Leaderboard

Hi folks sorry for long delay ... "broken pc is my excuse" its out now , follow this link https://soloist.ai/jafaproductions . BE WARNED - The initial version is NOT compatable with any other sound mods at all and will be a manual install only. Cheers Jafa.

Basic life cycle of a bug Bug is presented, We try to reproduce in public builds, If we reproduce we then check internal builds, Create an internal report with all data and tracks and which builds are affected, Dev will be assigned the task by a project manager, Fix is made, We test internally and merge if fixed or send back to dev, If fixed its merged, we test again once in closed testing, Closed testers will check also, then if fixed it will be in the patch notes for public patch day. Project managers decide the priority of bug reports, they have the full picture of what is involved and if the bug or report is tied to other issues or new features. Some issues can take much longer than others, it wont always be obvious to the end user why, but all the fixes we make will be in the change log. thanks

@AirSenpai The radio features you are referencing are not planned nor have they ever been on the roadmap. They are not featured on any other ED modules either so there should not be expectation for such. SRS is an external mod so we have no control over what is implemented within it. As already stated in the corresponding wishlist thread, other missile variants such as the -114M and -114N are not planned either. Further, from a player perspective, they would be indistinguishable from the AGM-114K. The weapon effects would not appear any different and they would indistinguishable from -114K missiles on the WPN page in the cockpit. The only difference that would be seen in DCS by the players is a different letter painted on the nose of the missile, and this is not worthy of a dedicated feature to develop. Finally, there is no "beep" that accompanies the gun. This is a myth refuted by an actual AH-64D pilot here: thank you The flight model is a "good" one but requires some tweaking, all planned for early access. You will need to be patient. thank you To get an idea of what we are working on during the early access please see this thread. Once we have completed the tasks we will leave early access, but I do not have a date for this currently

I think FIRST we need a good flight model! Not more models and there bugs

Here's an idea, one that's been brought up loads of times before: Instead of trying to make unfeasible REDFOR aircraft, make BLUFOR aircraft that are peer contemporaries of REDFOR aircraft that can actually be made. 80s F-16A Block 10/15 or F-15A for instance - both would fit very well on the Germany map.

Wags is working on a video for the release of the AN/AAQ-33 Advanced Targeting Pod, as soon as we are ready we will share more.

The blades you are looking at are fixed (IRL and ingame) The actual compressor blades that move are further down behind the blades you see. See here: https://youtu.be/Or6mIaSWZ8g?si=9bSqzVlPkqCTmqhG&t=33

Not really. Before and at the beginning of the War, they were formatted as Squadron - Mission - Plane Number. IE, Plane #2 of VF-3 would be marked 3-F-2. A plane of Scouting 6 would be marked 6-S-#, etc. By mid-1942 the squadron number was occasionally omitted. So you'd see F-2, S-6, T-15, or B-4, etc. Marine squadrons used the same system, just adding an M in front of the mission. So, 212-MF-5 for aircraft #5 of Marine Fighting 212 (Marine Air Groups were nominally designated as the first two digits being the Air Group number, the third digit being the squadron number. So VMF-212 was squadron #2 of MAG-21. In practice this wasn't adhered to due to the necessity of squadrons being moved where they were needed, not necessarily to keep their air groups together). The squadron number sometimes got omitted from the Marines' machines as well. IE Bob Galer's Wildcat on Guadalcanal was marked MF1. By the time of Guadalcanal this was starting to get phased out, and the squadron and mission were being omitted, leaving only the plane number. The squadron and mission would no longer be indicated in the MoDex number. I believe this was at least partially to help with operational security (the same reason the Navy stopped matching squadron numbers to the carriers' hull numbers: It made it harder for Japanese intelligence to determine what carriers were where based on what squadrons were operating). The full number carried on a little into 1943 (VF-17's Corsairs were clearly marked 17-F-# during their carrier trials in April). However by mid-1943 the system was gone entirely. At this point you only had the plane number. For Marines, this was usually derived from the last 3 digits of the serial number, as in #883 and #740 of VMF-214 (17883 and 17740, respectively). The Navy simply assigned a number to the air frame. The only time you started to see carrier-specific markings come into play again was late in the War when you had large-scale operations involving multiple carriers and flight controllers needed to organize the chaos (IE Bunker Hill's white arrow).

null

Enjoy my friends @IronMike @Grinnelli @GrinnelliDesigns

As long as it's properly controlled, the braking distance is very short — it's even easy to take off again from the spot where you stopped. In fact, I performed three takeoffs and landings in this video.

It's possible the original mod was created before the I-16 was added.

Alrighty. I've researched some more in the manuals and characteristcs and found another former F-104 Pilot. The stability-augmentation-system Was purely to counter unwanted rapid changes in roll (for roll-stability) due to flight-maneuvers. The Pilot I contacted said, the 104 was almost not controllable with the dampening System turned of. And it did not keep the aircraft in it's orientation, but that the Pilot had the job to keep the plane as it should fly in all it's orientations. Since real-life does not always translate very good into the virtual-skies of DCS, the next Update will feature a "dead-zone" of 15° right and left of wings level, where there will be no induced roll. Exceeding 15° will lead to increasing roll until 90° (one wing straight down) is reached. I hope that that will feel better for normal PC-Controller Setups ;-)

Bearing in mind how well the Zero could turn, basing on a P51 seems a bit of an odd choice. An i16 is probably closer

Hello, I know that Azerbaijan is not (yet) shown on the Caucasus Map, but I wish that at least it appeared on the Countries list, as I'd love to be able to operate a JF-17 from Azerbaijan: ... and thanks a lot for adding New Zealand on last November, it is appreciated Eduardo

Keep your LOD slider at 1.0 or above, setting it below 1.0 will result in disappearing ground and air assets. Also follow the steps to reduce global object draw distance here: Doing that will keep spotting dots appearing properly for the most part.

There are now many really good maps that are used far too rarely. It would be far too boring to be on the same 2 or 3 maps over and over again. Kola is great and fits the scenario perfectly.

No, we don't get 9.13. Wrong game, pal? I'm sure you'll find mods for R-77 days after release.

Hi, currently we have no plans for any more Flaming Cliffs aircraft additions. thank you

90% work for 20% price is not very smart. They still need public docs, licenses and government cooperation. Yes, they added some birds with FC2024 but they already had most of the work done as FF modules.

That ED have not overhauled their deck system is understandable but for the mission creator to not fix his mission is just lazy. Solution in first reply.

I would really love if ED would would make proper former Yugoslav camo and markings, not just ability to add it under Yugoslavia as a country in mission coalitions, (for example the MiG-21Bis has it but it lacks numbering, it has roundels and tail flag only but no numbering). Right now you can chose Yugoslavia as a country but skin and markings are of USSR/Russia, not former Yugoslavia.

The tail letters are the carrier codes. This is what I managed to find out for WW2 era. Some of them changed post war and beyond though.

Mi-28N/E for DCS World! Codename : Night Hunter Mod development thread Hello folks, earlier version of Mi-28N/E Mod for DCS: Requirement : DCS Ka-50 3 Module Work in Progress Full inside 3D cockpit EFM and ASM INSTALLATION: Unzip in to into "...\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\aircraft". “Saved Games” folder is usually found inside “C:\Users\[[USERNAME]]\”. If "mods" & "aircraft" folders are missing, make them. NB: For now the MOD use Ka-50 Cockpit and EFM. Any Contributions is welcome. Release : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dYk6yVulthlYc9vntPohFE746r1XkJyc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/19VgRDe42Au8ZdoFjP4nho94r6yLK-hFQ/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N2BDIedBURAPG16IDFxEic4HTWCL4ICQ/view?usp=sharing Screenshots : null

If your native language isn’t English, I recommend visiting my website: DCSmiz.cn. It can compile English DCS campaigns into your native language—currently supporting Chinese, Russian, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, and Portuguese—and it’s really useful. You can also join my Reddit community, r/DCSmiz, to share your feedback with me.

Hi there. Great that you like it :-) Regarding the small engine-gauge I have tried to look it up in the manual, but did not find anything whether it shows 1/10 or 1/1 %. Just looking at the moving speed of it and comparing it e.g. to the Mirage F-1 I would rather think 0.1 is right so 1/10 to 10/10 of 1% (one complete 360° turn meaning 1%), but I can't say it has to ber one or the other. Regarding spool-speeds: We have been conducting spol tests with a wider audiance, one of them being a former CF-104 Pilot. The Spool-Speeds that were final were the ones the majority said to represent an early J79 engine best. I will, however, ping our CF-104 Pilot again to recheck it and if I "detuned" it further by accident or wrong info will get it to more consistent spool-times for the next update. Yep, you are right. It should achieve 720°/s but should be limited in that speed to two full roles due to inertial-coupling. The other F-104 Pilot I pinged said, that the "out of plane" rolling was not pleasent in the second roll and got a lot worse if you tried a third. Of course, roll-rate worsened by the nose going "out of plane". I found that the manual said to keep it to one full quick aileron roll, pause, and do it again to prevent the nose going out of the plane. I will test and get it to that rolling-speeds and will check the "special roll ability" as well for the next update. A shaker sound is alread implemented, but will set in earlier in the next version. Stick-Kicker is not really doable. Of course I could make the plane give a big "nose-down-punch" when getting to close to the AoA-Limit, but that will feel quite weird, since the stick will be held back, while the plane pitches forward. Sadly I have no better idea to implement it a.t.m....may be I will have an idea and can make it "feel" right...but I think that would need force-feedback-sticks, which are not that common nowadays. Ah, and I forgot: Yes, lift is to high and drag is to low right now. Have been tweaking and tuning it a lot lately and getting better results. Everything in the next Version ;-) Yep. It had a lot too much lift in the slow-speed-regime. Will be corrected in the next version. That will lead to a more natural AoA on approach...it will be a bit more challenging to fly a good overhead-break as well, though ;-) Ah, and you'll need to use "PTT Radio 1" to talk to anything in the air ;-)

I'm working with Hawkeye on his Discord to find the model that he did where the green UFO light was removed. Ive checked two his offered now but no joy. If you join on his DIscord there's a bit of a mod renaissance going on. https://discord.gg/Uxypkx2j and there's a few mods Ive never seen that look fantastic that are worth the journey.

People always complain about .50cal lethality, when it's really about not knowing how wing-mounted .50cal work. Most important of all: Make sure you're shooting in convergence range. This is actually easy to do with the Corsair: The Mark 8 sight reticle is calibrated so you can use the middle and outer rings to range a target if you know its wingspan. For a 30-foot wingspan (approximately the size of a single-engine fighter) the target will be at 400 yards when his wingtips are touching opposite sides of the 50mil (middle) ring. At 200 yards his wingtips will be touching the 100mil (outer) ring. Obviously if you're not dead six you're going to need to give it a bit of windage, but once you get used to it it's not too difficult. I THINK during the Gunnery Training the Corsair's guns are centered at 300m (330+ yards).* The 190's wingspan is 34ft. So you'll be at convergence range when his wingtips reach half way between the middle and outer rings. To simplify things, shooting him anywhere between 200-400 yards is close enough for hand grenades. The A6M5 wingspan is about 36ft, so you can comfortably use the same estimate (any single-engine WW2 fighter will be "close enough" to 30ft span you can use the same range estimation). CONVERGENCE MATTERS. The Browning.50cal is basically just throwing lumps of metal at the target. That's it. It's reliant almost entirely on kinetic impact to cause damage.** If you're firing outside your convergence range all you're going to do is scatter your fire across the target. Unless you have a golden BB that hits something important just right, you're just poking holes. To cause REAL damage you need to concentrate a whole bunch of BBs into a small point to amplify the energy of the impact. IE a single .50cal round won't break a wing spar. But putting a couple dozen into the same spot on it all at once is another matter. This applies both if you're too far away and too close. So if your sight picture looks like this: You're TOO DAMN CLOSE, and none of your bullets are going to be hitting in the same spot (they're going to miss center of pass entirely and go up the wings. You can best see how it works here: As you can see, there's a range at which you have your tightest concentration of fire. That's where the damage is done. You can change your convergence range when setting your loadout.* The second, is to be aware of your combat mix. The Corsair has two different mixes of ammunition for air-to-air: Combat Mix and Combat Mix Late. These mixes are grouped in five round patterns. I believe Combat Mix consists of 2 ball rounds, an armor-piercing round, an incendiary round, and a tracer. Each of these types of munitions have different properties. Late Mix is four Armor Piercing Incendiaries, followed by a tracer. Late Mix is going to cause considerably more damage. Finally, remember that the Fw-190A is a considerably more ruggedly-built fighter than the Zero. It has good armor for the pilot and other critical systems, as well as self-sealing fuel tanks. This is, naturally, going to be much more resilient than the Zero which has none of this. However, a good one-second burst in convergence range, especially with the Late Mix, will really mess him up. * - Currently you can set convergence at ranges between 300 - 500 meters. THIS IS INCORRECT, and I've already started a thread on the wishlist to get it changed. It is on average at considerably longer distances than the US centered their guns, which tended to be between 200-400 yards (yards, not meters!). However, we also have accounts of some Marine squadrons setting their guns as close as 100 yards! PLEASE, M3, can we get these ranges adjusted? ** It's a bit more complicated than that. You have ball, which is just an inert lump of metal. Armor-piercing are hardened inert lumps of metal designed to punch through armor. Tracers are nominally inert lumps of metal trailing an incendiary component that makes them visible and can, under the right circumstances, start a fire. Incendiaries have a small charge designed to light things on fire, though their explosive power isn't remotely comparable to a cannon shell. Finally, you have API, or armor-piercing incendiaries, which combine the properties of AP and Incendiary into one package. By the end of the War, the US was almost entirely using API for air-to-air combat loads.

No need, both modules share many parts, Shkval included. When common parts are fixed, the fix works for both modules.

The AV8B module is reinstalled. The Darkened Cockpit v2 mod is installed. The new VMA-513 Day and Night skins are also installed. Now I need this awesome sound mod. Then I'm seriously considering picking up the Kerman campaign from GroundPounder while it's on sale.

I think we've made a breakthrough: The Zero copied aerodynamic data from the P-51 for the SFM, but the original mod-makers did NOT change the engine MAP. Which means at full power it was pulling more than 50% MAP over what it should (the Sakae 21 engine should max out at about 42in MAP. It was pulling 67!)

The mission is fixed internally, however there has been a significant rewrite and we are waiting for some translations to be finished. I have bumped the report internally thanks

Yes, in general all the effects of smoking could be improved.

Hi, I have no news to share sorry. The thread is in the right place. @IvanK if you have made a report please DM me with the details and any evidence you have. thank you

If you truly think Jester performed bad in one of your sorties - while a human WSO would have done better, it would be great to get hands on working (short, singleplayer) track files. So we can best figure out what to change and tweak

Yes please... Maybe ED to give the Spit a visual overhaul, give us 1944 levels of boost, add the hook as an option and charge us a smallish amount for the update.

I'm trying to help end your frustration, for free, and you're welcome. It's not a game's fault that some mission creator puts USN aircraft vs USAF.

Only for you

I think it will be... assuming you mean before GTA 6 hits PC. j/k

There's also a loud clunk when they lock into place.

Got the address-confirmation email last night.

I brought up this exact point about 2 years ago, sad to see that such a trivial problem that is so core to the game experience is still being ignored. "The cursor is a critical part of the DCS UI and could be improved. Whenever I want to press something in the cockpit in VR, I first have to wave my mouse around to find the cursor. In stressful situations I sometimes can't find it quickly enough, assume it's hidden and hide it while trying to show it. Then I wave my mouse around some more, press "hide/show cursor" again and keep waving. Just being able to look at what I want to interact with and press "hide/show cursor" once or twice to place the cursor right over it would be very convenient."

Thank you for the kind words!

Yes, same request for ground missile launches.

Over the English Channel south of I.O.W.

Grinnelli Design and his F-100D Super Sabre: Gun cam only:

It would be nice if they could copy and paste George from the Apache or Petrovitch from the Hind. If you call "Chief" you get the "george" style menu pop up and a small Line Of Sight circle in the middle of your view, align the circle on the place of interest and hit "This point" and then the next menu allows you to choose: pinnacle landing, landing or suspended cargo drop. Cargo pick up is already in place and works well with voice comands. The first tier could have: this point, take off, ROE or something like that etc... It would be nice to have the door gunners/crew verbally clearing you for take offs or landings.

https://flyandwire.com/2024/09/21/jf-17-full-manual-machine-translation/