Leaderboard

There will be a stream with the developers soon, and we will show the progress of development. Stay tuned for the announcement.

Here is a Very Nice Deltic Model i am converting for DCS it will be included in my DCS British Train Pack. Makes a Refreshing change to see british trains around London on the Normandy Map ! The Deltic Model was Created by OUTPISTON on sketchfab https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/british-rail-class-55-547e3edeafe44136b6317b3125bbba3c https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Now don't panic! Everything will be okay!!

Hey there. We have just completed Combat-Tree, it will be available with the next build of the Phantom. Cheers https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/systems/identification_systems.html#interrogator-systems

null

null

11 July 2025 Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, The clock is ticking on our 2025 Summer Sale, which ends on the 13th of July at 15:00 GMT. Fill your hangars with new aircraft, terrains, campaigns, and important add ons at great savings! For the upcoming launch of the MiG-29A, we are finalising the completely re-engineered SPO-15LM Radar-Warning Receiver (RWR) that is built on a new physics-based approach resulting in true blind-zones, side-lobe interference, power-based detection range, and all the quirky threat-sorting that Soviet pilots had to master. With altitude-dependent priority, separate elevation channels, and mode-aware warnings, the SPO-15LM will demand the same mastery its real-world crews required. Please note that time is running out to get a 30% discount during pre-order on the DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum! We are pleased to inform you that the Early Access launch is planned for September, 2025! The upcoming update will contain vast improvements to the Germany Cold War terrain. We are delighted to share a preview of these improvements that give you a clear sense of where the terrain stands and where it’s heading. Thank you for your passion and support, Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics Summer Sale Last chance to save Now is the time to secure hallmark modules like the F-16C Viper, F/A-18C, A-10C II Tank Killer, AH-64D, F-14 Tomcat, and the Supercarrier at up to 50% off. Please enjoy these amazing savings whilst you still can. The DCS Summer Sale 2025 ends on the 13th of July, 2025 at 15:00 GMT. Shop now! SPO-15 Beryoza For the MiG-29A Fulcrum The SPO-15LM for the DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum module is built using a new physics-based approach. The system simulates a more realistic signal environment in order to ensure the most realistic behavior, algorithms, and limitations of the modelled SPO-15LM RWR system. The new system comes with a radar database containing signatures and behaviors for each radar system in the game, including details like carrier frequency, waveform type and (if applicable) pulse train pattern for different operational modes, antenna and transmitter properties, search strategy depending on range and altitude of the target, signal variability, and CCM used etc. All of this information is used in two ways: to calculate accurate power density at the receiving antenna at each time step, taking into account the physical properties of the signal and the directivity pattern of the transmitter antenna, and to permit realistic modelling of the RWR system itself. On the receiving end, the antenna and receiver properties are similarly taken into account in order to obtain a physically accurate estimate of received power. Each antenna and receiver channel is processed independently. This is critical for accurate modelling of the Soviet systems as they do not use amplitude comparison to estimate emitter azimuth; instead, each of the azimuth channels on the display corresponds to its own set of an antenna, a receiver, and initial processing hardware. As a result the coverage isn’t always 360 degrees. The antenna beamwidth varies with frequency and the antenna gain varies with azimuth and elevation, which causes the detection range and signal power for each emitter to vary not just with radar type and work mode (with the radar transmitter power and antenna gain being the deciding factor rather than its target detection performance) but also with orientation of the aircraft. The emitting antenna directivity pattern is also simulated, which means that, at low distance and high transmitting power, side lobes will be picked up and head-on emissions will bleed into receiving antenna side and back lobes blinding the device. Conversely at low signal power, the system develops blind zones all around the aircraft, and the RWR might fail to pick up the main lobe unless it passes directly over it. The unusual antenna coverage of SPO-15LM in particular requires the pilot to be aware of these blind zones during combat. The improved simulation of signal propagation, together with attached signal signature (PRF, pulse width etc.) allow for accurate modelling of the signal processing algorithms used by the system. The SPO-15LM, while being an analog system, performs many tasks that are normally relegated to digital systems, and some of these analog systems use vastly different approaches compared even to early western systems, which leads to numerous quirks and limitations that are now accurately replicated. The most obvious, as already described, is how the threat azimuth is determined: The airspace around the aircraft is divided into eight azimuth channels covered by 10 azimuth antennas (with, notably, the two forward-facing antennas furthest off-nose on each side merged into a single processing channel), and two elevation channels covered by two elevation antennas. Each of these channels is processed separately with a fixed signal power threshold to activate each channel. The only time the signals are combined is to measure the signal power for the power level display (which now shows the actual signal power in 2 dB increments from threshold, rather than a simple function of range) and for the target priority algorithm. Lack of combined processing also means that coverage of each channel will vary with emitter power and frequency. The system features compensation systems, but they are crude and their effectiveness varies with signal power. The identification and target priority circuits also process each channel separately, meaning that in rare cases the same threat might even be interpreted differently in two neighboring channels, and two threats on opposite azimuths might both be interpreted as a single, main threat if the signals sync up. The identification process involves measuring the repetition time and pulse width of the signal and sorting it into very broad PRF/PW bins. The measurement of PRT can fail if it’s not stable (e.g. due to jitter) making some radars impossible to identify. The presence of multiple emitters in the same sector will also interfere with this process. Even if this part succeeds, the low number of signal parameter bins means that the system might still assign the wrong type to the threat if the signal parameters are close enough. The system is also able to separate Continuous Wave (CW) signals from pulsed signals, and to interpret colocated CW and pulsed emitters as a single emitter in Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) guidance mode; it cannot however distinguish between different CW radar types, meaning this feature is susceptible to false alarm. Pilots thus need to be weary of the fact that the system will not always be able to accurately identify the threat type. To improve usability of the system, the threat program is generated automatically based on known threats present in the mission and is provided in the kneeboard for every flight - in reality, the threat program cartridge was issued to units based on the threats present in the combat theatre, and was not designed to be field reprogrammable. The friendly emitters are not included in the program, but they might still be falsely identified as hostile for reasons described above. The system also has an ability to sort the signals into 2 bins by carrier frequency, however in the MiG-29 this feature is permanently disabled, as it requires each sub-band to be scanned separately, reducing probability of detection against radars in search mode (the MiG-29 lacks the full control panel which would allow this function to be switched on and off). The target priority circuit is similarly modelled with its limitations. For instance, the system takes flight altitude into account for the priority algorithm, but it has to be entered manually. In the MiG-29 in particular it is forced to a high setting (8-16 km) without any way to adjust it, meaning, Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) systems are always treated as low priority. The system will also prioritize radars in track mode over search mode. But again, track mode is recognized entirely by the length of the illumination event being above a certain threshold, so at high signal power emitter side lobes might falsely trigger the track warning. For the priority threat, the system displays the signal power (as well as the highest estimate of weapon range for the given type in terms of equivalent signal power) and the elevation - the latter only being available at high signal power due to much lower sensitivity of the elevation channels. Pre-order today! Don’t miss the exclusive 30% discount. Hurry! This offer only lasts until launch. Once launched into early access, the discount will be reduced to 20% off. Cold War Germany Updates coming soon Ugra-Media’s upcoming update will focus on polish and immersion. Several navigation aids will have corrected identifiers like the Frankfurt VORTAC and Northeim and Walldorf airfields broadcasting their proper callsigns. City names for Weißenfels and Gießen have been corrected, and the F10 map sports resized/repositioned prepared SAM sites, radar, and hospital map icons for faster mission creation and planning. You will notice more realistic destruction effects for industrial plants and power stations, a new damage model for stadiums, and improved fields with hay bales and tractors. Typical village churches will have more accurate heights to improve visual low-level navigation. These refinements move the terrain one step closer to Phase 2 in which it will be expanded further. Please stay tuned for the next update to enjoy these updates. Thank you again for your passion and support, Yours sincerely,

I will allow this to stay, but the discussion of the above video like certain sus subreddits are purely opinion pieces fueled by bias for one side or the other with a heavy mix of speculation. If I were to give my opinion like these sources as you could imagine it would be seen as heavily biased no matter what facts I personally know. So I don't want to see people crapping on Spuds as I am sure that is coming, rather take it for what it is and realize the original post in this thread is all that's really known for sure and we all just want to see this resolved for the best of our customers.

Version 4 is now available: Download

Hey there. We have just completed Combat-Tree, it will be available with the next build of the Phantom. Cheers https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/systems/identification_systems.html#interrogator-systems

@Harry.R Thx alot for the info, appreciate it alot... Texturing done so far.. more news in a minute

Been working on my first skin for the Corsair! This is Ira C. Kepford's Corsair from his first combat tour with VF-17, beginning of 1944. This is the first No. 29 he flew, this one could be seen in some photographs after he crash landed it on Bougainville after sustaining heavy damage in an encounter with a Ki-61 Tony. Kepford would later become the squadron's highest-scoring ace pilot with 16 confirmed aerial victories. It's debated whether or not this livery had the original red roundels or the ones overpainted with blue, I might therefore make a second version of this skin with the overpainted US roundels. It's WIP but nearing completion, so enjoy the screenshots!

The examples provided prove physics is not observed 100% of the time. Only that. Nothing else. You can state any physics observation you like, but it doesnt serve as evidence to a question of software. What makes you so certain that the software is being used properly and consistently when you never wrote it and don't have access to it? A model can be correct, physics, can be proved. I'm happy that a model is safely beyond reproach. What I'm not convinced of is that its applied correctly or consistently. You cannot read the software, its going on beyond your eyesight. Software does not observe laws therefore you cannot use physics to prove that software conforms. Now, you marked yourself as the solution in this thread. I don't care about the arrogance of that, but it's a sign that you don't consider any previous or future argument to be of value. SO, since you are th esolution to your own thread, I think you can dispense with everyone else in the world and go back to single player. It's where you shine.

Yep, that's always a risk of this happening when making very new and modern assets. I think the models I'm using for these new Chinese assets are very well made, and I know they are based on as recent reference materials that is available at that point, as I know the guy who takes a lot of the photos and provides reference material for the modeler. The plan is to add a lot of new Chinese assets, including aircraft. Stay tuned.

I'd stop right there. Speculating on a speculation does not make it better. It's fun, sure, and we can't manufacture facts from speculation. Uh. Methinks you should put an "I think" somewhere in your assertions to make clear that you, too, are not talking about facts. So you believe that at that crucial point, the video is misleading or (one of the many other possibilities) you do not follow the reasoning. For someone who claims knowledge of the industry this is a jaw-droppingly silly assertion and documents that you seem to have no understanding of the industry at all. Neither consoles and their industry, nor console titles and entertainment titles or how they are developed. If you develop a module or other DLC for a title, you do not suddenly gain the ability (nor have the code) to replicate the environs that your artifact (mod/dlc) runs in. Just because you can create a plug-in for, say, Photoshop you do not suddenly have the ability to create your own image manipulation suite. What you allege may have been a case here is not feasible. We don't know the details, but I think it exceedingly unlikely that RAZ was alleged to have written their own sim engine, much less that they have done so based on knowledge gleaned from the SDK. Agreed. And I do not think that anyone has claimed that. I think this may be based on a spectacularly wrong interpretation of yours. Allegedly, the discussion is about creating a plug-in based on tech for one of ED's products (DCS) and then selling that plug-in to a customer as a plug-in for another ED product which they were not licensed to do. I'm sure that there is more to this, and outside the legal proceedings surrounding this, nobody knowns. I'm quite sure that nobody accused RAZ of 'white-rooming' ore reverse-engineering the sim engine itself. I fail to see how you may have arrived at that conclusion. Agreed. And I do not think that this particular brouhaha is about that, that anyone alleges RAZ of trying to build their own sim. I believe (not having access to any facts about this) that the spat is about RAZ applying knowledge gained while producing for one of ED licensed products (DCS), they used that knowledge to create a plug-in for another ED product that they are not licensed for. If that can be proven, I agree that RAZ could be in breach of contract (depending entirely on the contract that they did sign). Even if they are not in breach of contract, it's rarely a good idea to try and sell an accessory to a product where the manufacturer of that product is hostile to your business. The entire business plan can collapse with a simple unfriendly patch or modification. Let us hope that there will be some kind of resolution that is helpful for us customers. At this point, the entire proceedings -- and the fact that we know about an internal spat -- is incredibly unprofessional and childish, and IMHO wreaks havoc on both companies' reputation. Which is why I think we should not talk about this - while ignoring my own advice.

Lately it definitely seems that ED modules need at least 2-3 years AFTER early access release to get to a stage that a lot of people consider to be ready for any serious use (more than the odd free flight). And that really is a shame…

@Ghostrida9 when 1 AAC was there in 2008 it was home to RAF SES and REME aviation workshop , before that in 1996 it was QMs/FAACO. Not sure what it was when 18 Sqn were across the road in the big hangar. null

Не-не, всё правильно - нам же чем аутентичней, тем лучше. Просто вроде и здорово это всё, но Миг оказывается прям в убытке - и версия экспортная, и на фоне упрощёнок (вероятно) страдать будет... а потом скажут - красные плохо продаются. Упрощённый Миг - красивая внешка - есть, PFM модель полёта - есть, "удобство" упрощённых систем - есть. Ракеты модные (если я ничего не путаю) есть. Зачем покупать full fidelity? Хотя если все красные эту "Берёзу в итоге получат - ещё один шаг к реализму. З.Ы Если что - купил и жду с нетерпением. Объяснить зачем - не могу, это что-то экзистенциальное.

Cheers Scoobs, just reposting that to save you having to chop it out to add more

Yeah, I feel like I couldve made the conclusion earlier, but there is this morbid bit of curiosity xD

And yet it’s been going on for 3 pages Don’t mind me by the way, I’m only here for the entertainment

Yeah, before I uninstalled everything, I ran a full repair thinking that would work, as it usually does. When that did not work, that's when I went full ham on it and basically started over. I saved some things before deleting everything. I do have all my mods on one of my other SSD's as backups in case something like this happened. It's been months since I actually played DCS so I'm just glad to be back in it. Now, to design a random mission in WW2 Marianas with a modern carrier strike group and some F-18's...Why? Cause why not...LOL

I called it first! [emoji1] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk None of that matters when the AI doesn't behave like that. You failed to answer my QUESTION though. How long have you actually been playing DCS? Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Yeah no question, this entire thread is some weird attempt to troll.

Self-explanatory. However, this reference appears to be new.

“Zoom Normal” returns you to the value you set with RAlt+Num0. Snap View Saving needs to be enabled for this to work.

There is a big difference between making a full simulator and making a module for an existing simulator, and it is not a good sign that you conflate the two. The allegedly leaked information suggests that the latter is the case and that RAZBAM signed an agreement not to develop such modules without a contract with ED. So then it is not so much an IP case, but rather a contract case, which can be very complicated, since all kinds of factors can play a role, like whether contract clauses are legal in the first place, whether the clause is actually violated, whether there was an attempt to obey the letter of the contract while violating the spirit, whether the courts would allow that, etc, etc. Note that according to the allegedly leaked document, the actual company who was to create the simulator setup was a third party, neither ED nor RAZBAM, so that makes it even more complicated, given that this third party would presumably not be bound by the same contracts as RAZBAM. From what I can tell, the attempt to paint this as a mere IP violation appear to be deceptive PR by one side of the conflict, probably because they don't want to divulge the contents of the contracts, and Spud's video rather one-sidedly presents the claims of that side. If they provide the 'context' you want them to give, they would probably be lying, given your misconceptions about the situation. Furthermore, you are assuming that they are even at liberty to disclose certain information. Your entire post strongly suggests that you don't understand IP law. You don't even seem to understand that there are different forms of IP, with different rules. For example, copyright is strongly protected and doesn't require any work to establish that right, but is only about the exact expression. It doesn't protect solution mechanisms, for which there are patents, which are far more restricted in a variety of ways (requiring registration, them being novel solutions and having a relatively short time limit). Also, the courts have established that APIs are not subject to copyright protection in the context of their use, so making software that calls an API doesn't violate copyright, even if the API calls use the same expressions as the API (which of course is needed for the calls to work). If you want to seriously talk about IP violations, you need to establish what kind of IP violation you are talking about, because they are very different; and how the IP was violated exactly. In general, it's absolutely not the case that once you have worked with a specific product, you cannot make a competing product. You talk about the question whether a third party module maker can make their own simulator, but this statement again seems to confuse things and is very vague about what you mean. Are you talking about the alleged module for a military that RAZBAM would make, because this is not a full simulator in itself, and would need to be bundled with DCS (or its military version). So that is not at all the same as developing a full simulator. That distinction matters a lot, but you completely ignore this due to how sloppy you are with your words. Your assertion that any company that makes either competing simulator (again, it is unclear whether you actually mean a module for DCS or completely separate software) would need to obey some vague cooldown period, suggests that you are projecting your experiences as an employee on this situation (and even then without understanding employee law). Cooldown periods can be part of employee contracts, but Ron Zambrano is and was not a DCS employee. With copyright and patents, there are defined expiry dates, which have nothing to do with how recently one worked with, or on a product. And if the actual issue is a violation of a contract, not a violation of IP law, then what matters is what is in that contract, so then all your talk about how IP laws works is not relevant to that. PS. Not sure why you made most of your comment bold.

It prevents the enemy radars from locking on you until the burn through range. Then you want to turn it off, because some missiles can home onto your ECM signal.

Hey guys I’m just raising a question, and I got plenty of good answers that I accept, no need to be mean and sarcastic. I don’t pretend to be a zero expert either, and would be very happy to have a flyable one. Chill down

Any news on this topic? Please ED this would be much needed!!

I know that you are asking for royalty free music, and although my advice does not cover that, please hear me out. I'm using licensed music and audio for my missions - there is a lot of great aural artwork available, and I support artists by licensing their work, provided that I can use it in my works without further cost. So, for a couple of bucks I can add great audio to my missions, and the artist can get something. I currently own multiple audio libraries (i.e. GB of audio) that I own licenses to include in my missions, and I think it was well worth the cost (big libraries are around USD 20 with unlimited uses). Hailing from the game dev side of the universe, I usually look at the artwork stores in Unity and Unreal first, plus (occasionally) commission work from friends (Torsten's Axe in my "A-10 joyride" mission for example). So, please don't only look at royalty free stuff, also look if acquiring a license for audio may be inside your abilities. It's often worth the shot if you have the means, and the licensing terms are agreeable.

Few things to consider: Hurricane is nice and all, but against a D9 or K4, probably as usefull as the I-16 as of now. And if a Hurricane would come, it would take another dozen years or so before we see an appropriate enemy aircraft for it to battle, even if it's just AI. ED still has to deliver some additional aircraft, including some bomber types, for the current Assets Pack. Their WWII team is extremely small, so small that in fact development is incredibly, painfully slow and they often have a habit to jump to the next thing before fully fleshing out/completing the previous one.

Well, you have 3 options: a) don't get shot down b) get shot down but survive because you're immortal c) get shot down and try again This also coincides with my order of preference

Почему страдать? Хорошо проработанная "историческая цель", так же как и 27-й с хорошо проработанной ДМ для крыльев. Проблемы индейцев и далее по тексту, просто нужно играть за правильную сторону Вот бы такое внимание к другим деталям, а то есть перекос в блестящие (кроме шуток) модули ЛА в сферическом вакууме (в плане взаимодействия с окружением).

From a technical point of view (and I suppose this applies to all TGPs, not just Sniper), how does the draw distance graphic setting effect the TGP image at longer ranges? i.e. is it possible to see beyond your normal render limit with the TGP? Will the ATPs better optics be negated by my constrained graphics settings?

The liveries looks great. I have a suggestion for the bright red, white and blue colors. Look at the livery in ModelViewer, and push the F8 key. If those colors are pink or orange, they are to bright Something like this.....

If the aircraft below is it, then it would have a horizontal stripe. CV-18 USS Wasp. The dates are close, but the photo is dated February 27, 1945. Of course, that could be the date the film was developed. https://www.ww2online.org/image/eight-us-navy-vought-corsairs-being-spotted-and-serviced-flight-deck-their-new-home-february A gentleman in this forum has some tidbits... https://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/5761-captured-f4u-question/

By human, looks like it.... Error? Don't know... Hope so...

Just a power

The lack, and by now- likely never gonna have- of the AGM-130 hurts me the most... GBU-28, AGM-130.. two weapons I would've loved to use properly in the 15E

They do not, because those "lights" are textures and not actual lights.

But there's enough clear data for the F-35? Surely this decision can be revisited in light of evident recent philosophy changes as far as fidelity of systems and components. There is still a LOT missing from the hornet that may not have perfectly "clear data", but can be reasonably approximated (as many other systems in DCS currently are) and for which certainly more information exists than the JSF...

Thanks to everybody... I'm back at it.. yea i first thought it was a storage shelter but figured it was/is an QRA Shelter... @Manschy Started working on this area.. guess its a repair workhshop or some.. i don't know.. other important building which is of course not modeled....

Well, it's the default map, and anyone will use it, (maybe except for the two Marianas now), so it is basically their showcase map, and should be as good as possible to show off the tech. Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

The tag "later in early acces" has been removed...so heres the update on it; we wont get this either so they can call it complete faster