Leaderboard

In the next DCS update, George AI Copilot/Gunner (CPG) will be receiving a significant upgrade, along with some improvements to his existing logic and behavior, in an effort to make him more realistic, interactive, and capable. It is important to note that no changes have been made to any existing AI Interface commands or control functions. Rather, additional commands have been added to the AI Helper Controls (Left/Right/Up/Down) when the AI Interface is displayed and set to NO WPN, and the Consent To Fire command has been modified as a contextual, multi-purpose button. In the graphic below, the new AI Interface is shown, with the new commands identified. New search tasks (explained below the AI Interface graphic) may be configured using the Left-Long and Right-Long commands while the AI Interface is set to NO WPN. The function of the Consent To Fire command under the current conditions is displayed in the center of the AI Interface, with the short press (<0.5 seconds) function displayed above the long press (>0.5 seconds) function below it. It is worth noting that the Consent To Fire commands may still be used without displaying the AI Interface. For example, if the player wishes for George AI CPG to begin performing an Area search, a long press of the Consent To Fire button may be used without the AI Interface displayed. However, to select a different Area search, the AI Interface will need to be displayed and set to NO WPN. New Search Tasks Up until now, George AI CPG could only be commanded to perform a direct, momentary search for targets along the line-of-sight of the Pilot’s helmet or the TADS sensor turret, and would rank those targets based on threat priority (i.e., air defense units would be at the top of the list). The player may now choose from 7 additional methods for George to search for targets, facilitated by the new changes in the AI Interface. Direct Searches. These are two searches that George was already capable of performing up to this point. PHS SEARCH - George slaves the TADS to the line-of-sight of the Pilot Helmet Sight (PHS) and performs a momentary search for targets. Targets are ranked by threat priority. TADS LOS SEARCH - George performs a momentary search for targets along the current TADS line-of-sight. Targets are ranked by threat priority. Area Searches. These searches allow George to proactively search for targets in a designated area or based on FCR target locations, visually identify FCR targets prior to an engagement, or perform battle damage assessment of engaged FCR targets after an engagement. FWD AREA - George slews the TADS in a 90-degree search pattern directly in front of the helicopter and continuously searches for targets. George will verbally announce when targets are detected but will not generate a Target List unless the AI Interface is displayed. Targets are ranked by threat priority. PHS AREA - George slaves the TADS to the line-of-sight of the Pilot Helmet Sight (PHS) and then slews the TADS in a 45-degree search pattern centered on the PHS-directed azimuth in relation to the helicopter nose and continuously searches for targets. George will verbally announce when targets are detected but will not generate a Target List unless the AI Interface is displayed. Targets are ranked by threat priority. FCR TGTS - George generates a Target List based on FCR target data obtained by the onboard FCR scans performed by the player or received across the datalink via FCR TGT Report or RFHO. George will enable C-Scope and attempt to identify the FCR targets highlighted in the Target List. If the target cannot be seen due to visual obstructions, George will verbally announce it. If the target is destroyed, George will verbally announce it and remove the target from the Target List. OWN PFZ - George slaves the TADS to the PFZ assigned to the ownship and continuously searches for targets within the geographical boundaries of the zone. George will verbally announce when targets are detected but will not generate a Target List unless the AI Interface is displayed. Targets are ranked by threat priority. ACTV PFZ - George slaves the TADS to the activated PFZ and generates a Target List based on FCR target data obtained by the onboard FCR scans performed by the player or received across the datalink via FCR TGT Report or RFHO. George will enable C-Scope and attempt to identify the FCR targets within the geographical boundaries of the zone and highlighted in the Target List. If the target cannot be seen due to visual obstructions, George will verbally announce it. If the target is destroyed, George will verbally announce it and remove the target from the Target List. Point Searches. These searches allow George to search for targets in the vicinity of a TSD point or the FCR Next-To-Shoot (NTS) target after the Player has Linked the TADS to the FCR in the Pilot seat. POINT - George slaves the TADS to the selected TSD point to perform an indirect rocket attack from behind cover; or may be commanded to adjust the TADS field-of-view setting, toggle the selected sensor (FLIR or DTV), or fire the laser, to assist with performing reconnaissance. If subsequently commanded to search for targets, George performs a momentary search for targets. Targets are ranked by geographic proximity to the TSD point, regardless of unit type. LINKED - George may be commanded to adjust the TADS field-of-view setting or toggle the selected sensor (FLIR or DTV), to assist with performing visual identification or battle damage assessment of the FCR NTS target. If subsequently commanded to search for targets, George performs a momentary search for targets. The closest target that matches the classification of the FCR NTS target is ranked as the first target in the Target List, and all remaining targets are ranked by geographic proximity to the NTS target symbol, regardless of unit type. New capabilities and procedures George must be commanded to perform start-up procedures if spawning into a cold start AH-64D. However, George will assist with more of the start-up checklist items such as powering on the FCR and RLWR, and will verbally announce to the player as he completes major items such as boresighting his helmet or when the FCR has finished its power-on sequence. George may also be commanded to perform the relevant shutdown procedures. George is now capable of engaging multiple targets in sequence. When presented with a Target List, the player can select multiple targets from the list, as shown below. In this image, the player has selected 4 targets from the list by pressing the Consent To Fire button as each target is highlighted in the list. If the player presses Right-Short to command George to begin tracking a target that has been added to George's "shoot list", George will slew to the first target in the list (tagged as 1). If the player presses Right-Short to command George to begin tracking a target that is not added to the shoot list, the shoot list is canceled and George will only track/engage that single target. As before, George will still wait for a Consent To Fire command before engaging the target if set to HOLD FIRE. However, once his current target is destroyed, he will automatically slew the TADS to the next target on the shoot list and wait for another Consent To Fire command before engaging the next target. If set to FREE FIRE, George will begin engaging if engagement parameters are met, and then automatically slew to the next target once the first target is destroyed, and immediately engage the next target (again, assuming engagement parameters are met). When tracking a target and GUN or MSL is selected, a short press (<0.5 seconds) of the Consent To Fire command will direct George to fire his assigned weapon as before. If the Consent To Fire command is pressed and held (as signified by the ADJ+ label in the center of the interface), George will adjust the crosshairs onto the center of the target to prevent laser overspill beyond the target itself, and then re-establish an auto-track on the target when Consent To Fire is released. However, the player should fly in a stable manner while George is commanded to refine his aim using this function, which is why the player has been given a command to coordinate the timing of such actions. Improvements to existing logic and more verbal communication The existing logic of George AI CPG has been improved, with more realistic behavior and procedures. For example, if the player has set the RF MSL PWR to OFF, and the player subsequently commands George to use RF missiles, George will set the MSL PWR back to AUTO. George will also verbally communicate to the player what is required for him to perform a command or provide verbal feedback if he is unable to perform a command. For example, if George needs the player to maneuver the helicopter into launch constraints before he can fire a missile, George will verbally request the pilot do so: "Get me in constraints". Previously, George would not fire an AGM-114 missile if any Performance Inhibits or Safety Inhibits were displayed, even if the Player pressed the Consent To Fire button. This would lead to confusion as to why George was announcing "Engaging" but did not actually fire a missile. Safety Inhibits cannot be overridden, but a Performance Inhibit may be overridden if George pulls the weapons trigger to the 2nd detent, which he will now do if ordered to do so. If any inhibit, Performance or Safety, is displayed when George is ready to fire a missile on his current target, George will announce "Constraints" to request that the pilot maneuver the helicopter into appropriate launch constraints. When and if this occurs, the player may now order George to override a Performance Inhibit by pressing the Consent To Fire button (except BAL LIMIT if the target is out of range). However, it is important to note that the presence of a Performance Inhibit increases the possibility the missile may not hit the target, either due to failure to acquire a laser or not being able to maneuver to the target. Therefore, the player (as the "pilot-in-command" of the helicopter) must be judicious with this command when a Performance Inhibit is displayed. This gives the player the freedom to make tactical decisions regarding when it is appropriate to override an inhibit, at the risk of expending a missile without striking the intended target. An updated DCS AH-64D Early Access Guide will be included in the next DCS update to fully describe these new functions and features in detail. We hope that these new features to George AI CPG will provide a much more engaging gameplay experience in the DCS: AH-64D.

Не считаю себя аркадником, меня никогда в аркаду не тянуло. Для вас граница между совершенной/не совершенной СПО = симулятор/аркада? Зачем так мерить? Я о общих болезнях говорил, типа, зачем еще больше в валенок модуль превращать против синяков. Но это только мои субъективные мысли, я даже не знаю, как оно работать будет, никто не знает. Просто высказал мысль на "порассуждать", без желания эту мысль обсуждать. Для меня это что-то на высоком, для реальных пилотов. Я готов больше принять, что такая глубокая работа делается не для нас игроков, а для кого-то посерьезнее. Училища, например, с тренажерами. Там это, наверное, действительно пригодится. И как уже писали ранее, могли бы на синий модуль свои продвинутые радиоволны ставить. Дайте уже полетать на свежем, самом красном, как спелый арбуз, модуле. Других что ли идей нет, куда в нём детализацию вставить? Повторяю, кто там поймёт, как на самом деле эта СПО работать будет, вы это пощупать не сможете. Систему управления вооружением, например можно пощупать, ты нажал тумблер, что-то выбрал. Физика движущихся частей у самолета, ты всё это видишь. В СПО с видом от первого лица, ты даже не следишь за ракетой, которая в тебя летит, которая тоже имеет свою детализированную физику и физику взрыва, что тоже пощупать нельзя, абстрактные вещи. Только программисты самого ЕД будут понимать, а может и не факт, как это устроено и какими костылями добивается работа всего этого :D. А может там кода на 5 строк на эту СПО, а мы уши развесили, детализация... Прост опаздывают, надо про что-то написать... давайте про берёзу). Давайте напишем про то, что летатели проверить никогда не смогут. Где база, от которой мы будем отталкиваться, правильно оно работает или нет)) Тут чисто, как с ракетами, она если захочет, то на 180 развернется а ты не понял, как это, ты же ушёл от неё. Были же случаи. Здесь то же самое. Не хотел я писать последние абзацы, чисто на поржать. Пишите ваши опровержения) ЕД не баньте пожалуйста, вы хорошие. Кстати, бомбы еще с ноября прошлого года до сих пор детонируют друг о друга в воздухе не нанося урона целям при залповых сбросах. СПО важнее.

Hi, I have been working to finish this bad boy here. It's working, basic systems, cockpit, most instruments, and basic weaponary It does an EFM and curves adjusted to be close to the Vampire, work in progress Download link soon

Для меня упрощение и враньё ради баланса - это примитив, да. Я хочу, чтобы в модуле были воплощены самые передовые идеи математического моделирования. Я за это деньги плачу. Для баланса есть War Thunder.

This does not at all address my point that this very same logic would then apply to Razbam, if one is judging with a level of inconsistency. If it is not manipulative for ED to leave it out, then why is it deceptive for Razbam to leave it out? In fact, if we follow your logic, then we should conclude that there is nothing deceptive about Razbam's statement, because if the two products are truly entirely separate, then there would be no legitimate reason for ED to withhold payment for DCS sales, over a conflict over TBS. After all, they have nothing to do with each other, according to you. So then ED should have simply paid out the required funds for the DCS module sales, and then should have handled their grievances over the alleged TBS issue separately. And Razbam would then be completely legitimized in complaining about not getting paid for the DCS module sales, without having to reference the alleged TBS issue, because the products are completely separate (at least, according to you). So your argument falls apart with the barest of scrutiny and you are actually legitimizing the statement by Razbam, ironically enough. It's pretty funny that you just now actually swayed me to consider Razbam's statement to less obviously deceptive than I thought previously, since you have convinced me that Ron could have acted based on your logic. I like how you are trying to frame it as something nefarious, when I merely point out all the bias and absurd logic being used. Note that I'm not the one who is attributing sole blame on one side based on speculation and bias (which regularly is even admitted to, at least in part).

Hey there, I´ve stumbled over a small building which was accidentally placed on a road. I think it was ment to be some sort of railway building but got moved on the nearby road instead. The screenshots below indicate where exactly to find that place. Not a big deal, but I thought I´d share it anyways.

COMING SOON In this short DCS: F/A-18C video, we’ll discuss the Terrain Avoidance, or TA, radar mode. This is the last primary radar mode of our F/A-18C. In the August DCS update, we plan to add Multi-Sensor Integration, or MSI, AWACS surveillance track files that can be set as an L&S or DT2 without the radar transmitting. This will allow stealthy target engagements with AIM-9 and AIM-120. This will be the subject of a later video. Terrain Avoidance, not to be confused with more modern automatic ground avoidance systems, displays two altitude clearance planes on the AG radar format page. The format displays three colors based on the terrain elevation ahead and is restricted by radar shadows. It’s enabled from the air-to-ground radar mode options, TA. When the aircraft is in level flight or climbing, the radar will scan the terrain ahead to determine which terrain is near or above the aircraft’s current altitude. Terrain ahead that is above the aircraft’s current altitude is displayed in bright green. Terrain that is within 500 feet below the aircraft’s current altitude is displayed at a lower-intensity green, and elevation ahead that greater than 500 feet below the aircraft is black. Note that terrain ahead in a radar shadow will also display as black. If the aircraft is in a descending flight path, however; the radar antenna will depress along with the Velocity Vector in the HUD. The radar color scheme remains the same, but this will ensure the pilot can see which terrain will obstruct the flight path when descending toward the surface. The display has a fixed azimuth of 70-degrees and range selections of only 5 and 10 nm. The minimum range displayed is 1.6 nm. To the left and right of the terrain returns are static wedges that allow you to adjust brightness and contrast. While certainly not as useful as other radar modes, this can be a useful feature when flying low at night or in bad weather to avoid a controlled flight into terrain. NOTE 1: The Iraq map was used for this video. NOTE 2: Please keep on topic to the subject of this video. I cannot comment on 3rd party products. NOTE 3: The F-16 in real-life and DCS has no such mode. But a similar mode is also coming to the AH-64D.

Working on the big one: HANGAR 1 – by far the most dominant and massive building at Gütersloh Airbase. It still puzzles me why UGRA Media released a map without modeling such a central structure. This one really defines the airbase.

@Lidozin I'm not picking on you, i'm defintiely picking on your argument, its got more reversals than an IL2 Sopwith Camel dogfight. Here's your 3 page argument condensed down and fall apart, summarized, with quotes since you like empirical data. Step 1. Claim the FM is fine. Step 2. Be told its not applied consistently and thus it is in doubt. Step 3. Argue that you were only talking about Combat routines and not non combat routines like land/takeoff, follow/escort Step 4. Show that by verifying non combat routines like climb performance, it proves the AI is following physical models and limits all the time in combat! Am I the only one here noticing this? You can say the FM observes the rules sometimes: Accepted. You cannot say that because it uses physics soemtimes that it always does. You know, and everyone knows here that the software chooses when to use flight models, but the key to knowing that its using a flight model is to wether the moment to moment decisions are natural, or its a repeat of a sequenced set of events sewn together to look like its real. And that is what you miss. WHich is why I say you dont play the game enough to notice. Those loops. I see the WW2 planes also using them. Its just canned sequential responses, not a real FM and its not staying within physics between these sequences. They can do it forever. You can be 100% correct, 1% of the time. But you can't use the example of being right once as evidence that you are always right! The point is that AI strings together canned tracks and puts them together. You need to look at the enitre picture holistically. Its software, its simplified, its designed to work well enough for casual scrutiny, but when you put the whole picture together, it collapses, along with your argument that the AI observes physics. Where is ED's GFM they talked about? The one that should react properly to physics, they said. By your reckoning, we dont even need it! I can get you your empirical data that AI doesnt observe physics, but its more fun listening to the various ways you avoid finding that important.

This entire post, as well as your previous ones, tells me that this is almost certainly not the case, since at every turn you give one side the maximum benefit of the doubt and the other side the minimum. No amount of evidence is going to convince a person that will look for any reason to distrust evidence that points one way, and every reason to trust evidence that points the other way. Anyway, obviously I'm not going to post evidence here, since it is offtopic to the Razbam situation and would likely result in moderator intervention. But it's not that hard to find, and someone might even message you the evidence. So let me get this straight. You believe that Razbam agreed to make a plane for a third party in breach of contract, and that they are deceptive for leaving that out of their statement. But when ED left that same information out of their statement, you don't believe that it was deceptive. It's only deceptive when Razbam does it...why? And is it really 'naive bothsideism' when I recognize that Razbam tries to frame the issue in their favor by telling a half-truth, but ED is doing the exact same by leaving out their non-payment, which is not a framing that is to their benefit, even though it pretty clearly seems to be true and a highly relevant part of the conflict? And you believe that Razbam is using paying customers as hostages for refusing to yield to ED's demands, which to be clear, are secret, so we have no way to judge how reasonable those are, but when ED refuses to yield to Razbam's demands, which are also secret, they are not using customers as hostages. To me, this is all obvious tunnel vision and bias, where your bias just reinforces itself. You only consider the statements by Razbam to be 'obviously manipulative,' but not the statements by ED, because of this bias, but instead of treating it as results of your bias, you let the bias deceive you into thinking that your biased conclusions are objective, and a good basis for your bias. So you may think that your bias is based on evidence, but I see bias based on bias.

WIP HUD with imperial or metric units Underlying view for dropping Adding a droppable ammunition (mortar shells)

Hey folks, I've been really enjoying the Corsair and can’t recommend Hawkeye’s WWII Pacific Allied Assets and Japanese Pacific Theater Naval mods enough—they’ve become essential to my setup. Using these outstanding mods, I’m running a server with a highly realistic Pacific scenario, and you’re all invited to check it out. The server features two controllable aircraft carriers, allowing for dynamic naval operations and carrier-based strikes. There’s also a robust F10 radio menu with features like bullseye tracking, cargo plane locations for escort missions, allied client tracking, and real-time carrier status—all designed to make coordination straightforward and intuitive. For advanced radar situational awareness, I’ve added a custom radar script by GTFreeflyer. The current server name is: IFC PRESENTS: OPERATION STEEL CURTAIN (MODDED VERSION-SEE BRIEFING) | FEATURING THE F4U-1D CORSAIR | ALL SKILL LEVELS WELCOME | P-51s, and P-47s ALSO AVAILABLE VIA DYNAMIC SPAWN Whether you want to test your skills in the F4U-1D Corsair, fly P-51s and P-47s, or take on carrier ops and logistics roles, or just work on your carrier landings, there’s something for every play style. Join us and chat on Discord: https://discord.gg/rW63ScUk7j Looking forward to your feedback, and a big thank you to Hawkeye60 for the incredible mods and to GTFreeflyer for the radar addition that elevates our mission experience. Here's some additional info: FRAG ORDER VF-84 "Wolfgang" USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) Date: 11 July 1944 Time: 0900L 1. SITUATION Enemy Forces: - Japanese forces occupy Rota Island, with established anti-aircraft gun positions, aircraft on the ground at the Rota airstrip, and 155mm naval shore batteries actively harassing Allied shipping. - Japanese warships are operating in the area; their positions are variable and require active search. - Japanese convoys are operating around Rota Island; these convoys are to be located and targeted. Friendly Forces: - VF-84 "Wolfgang," F4U Corsair squadron, embarked aboard USS Bunker Hill (CV-17). - 318th Fighter Group ("Guam Avengers"), operating P-47 Thunderbolts out of Guam. - 21st Fighter Group ("Island Knights"), operating P-51 Mustangs out of Guam. - Allied cargo aircraft conducting regular supply runs between Guam and Saipan. 2. MISSION VF-84 "Wolfgang" will execute the following tasks commencing 0900 hours and extending for five hours: Attack Rota: - Strike enemy anti-aircraft gun positions. - Destroy enemy aircraft on the ground at the Rota airstrip. - Neutralize 155mm naval shore batteries. Surface Search and Strike: - Locate and engage Japanese warships and convoys in the operational area. - Utilize USS Bunker Hill’s SG surface search radar for target acquisition; information is available via F10 Radio menu. Escort Duty: - Escort Allied cargo planes transiting between Guam and Saipan. - Ensure safe passage and protection from enemy air or surface threats. 3. EXECUTION Commander's Intent: - Achieve air superiority over Rota, suppress enemy defenses, disrupt enemy naval and convoy activity, and ensure the security of Allied logistics. Tasks: - Attack Section: Launch at 0900L. Ordnance load per standard strike configuration. - Surface Search Section: Maintain CAP and respond to radar vectors for surface contacts and convoys. - Escort Section: Rendezvous with cargo flights at assigned waypoints and provide continuous cover until mission completion. - 318th FG & 21st FG: Coordinate with VF-84 for mutual support in air superiority and ground attack roles as required. Duration: - Operations will extend for five hours from commencement. Additional Instructions: - All pilots must remain vigilant for enemy bandits in the area. Be on the lookout for hostile aircraft at all times. - Pilots should access The Bunker Hill's radar to keep track of bandits, enemy ships, and Japanese convoys. Radar contact information is available via the F10 Radio menu. 4. SERVICE SUPPORT Ordnance: Full combat load as briefed. Fuel: Top off prior to launch; refueling as required upon recovery. 5. COMMAND AND SIGNAL Command: VF-84 "Wolfgang" CO retains tactical control. Comms: - Main radio frequency for USS Bunker Hill: 124.0 MHz AM - Standard squadron frequencies for intra-flight communications. - Surface radar contact info available via F10 Radio menu. - Coordination with 318th FG and 21st FG via established air-to-air channels. END OF FRAG ORDER

That option is already available, just set them to off. There's a reason none of the larger MP servers force it to off, mind. Customers don't want to fly it that way in MP for the most part, and those that do can already launch 0 spotting servers. All that aside, it would be nice to see a fix arrive for the spotting dot cap bug/issue eventually. As my 'fix' is far from ideal.

Thanks everyone for the kind words. Cheers Jafa.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/280176-dcs-ah-64d-mini-updates/page/3/#comment-5670295 @VampireNZ - not exactly what you originally asked for but some slick improvements are on the way. George's new ability to engage multiple objects from a single target list gets pretty close to your original request.

Because I haven't seen a single shred of this alleged evidence? Ron's previous antics are out there for all to see. Is it prejudice? You could argue that. There's, however, also a saying: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Past behavior is an absolutely valid argument with regards to present behavior. If someone has a habit of not keeping their word, are you just going to blindly say "I'm sure they kept their word this time, and the other guy may be wrong"? Well, if you do, I have a bridge to sell you. And if he really is innocent... tough luck, should've stuck to his word the first N times he didn't. It's going to take really good evidence to convince me otherwise. FYI, courts and judges look at one's past behavior all the time, and it's not considered prejudice. Yeah, it sucks for the occasional convicted thief falsely accused of stealing something, but this situation is rather less common than a thief stealing again, and usually actual evidence saves the day in the end. Give me evidence of ED's shady behavior and my calculation will change. In my experience, past behavior is a pretty good indicator for future behavior, unless someone suffered a drastic consequence for their shortcomings, or less often a general life-altering event. There's nothing weird about the language. It basically means "they screwed around and found out, but we'd rather settle out of court and have them go back to business rather than sue them". A lawsuit is a last resort, and tends to be hugely expensive for everyone involved. There's a reason the vast majority of them are settled out of court. In fact, it's very likely a full blown lawsuit would drive a small company like RAZBAM into the ground regardless of the outcome. What he's saying here is that ED is not interested in driving RAZBAM out of business, but would rather have them continue to develop their modules. Which is a sensible business strategy. Only one of the parties is posting obviously manipulative statements that appear to be designed to inflict pressure on the other party. Only one of them is using paying customers as hostages. Meanwhile, you appear to be engaging in naive bothsideism. ED might have their problems, but again, vague hearsay about them breaking contract doesn't quite equate to Ron's well documented history of hotheaded decisions and blaming everyone but himself.

We found the culprit, the engines_nozzles table was empty. We copied the A-1 Skyraider engines_nozzles table and now no more crashes when flying by with an F-14 Tomcat. If you want the update before we push Vietnam War Vessels 2.0.0 out: https://tetet.de/dcs/mods/o1.lua or if you prefer the complete O-1 pack: https://tetet.de/dcs/mods/[VWV] O-1-2025-07-14.zip

Su-22M4 got Intake Covers and Ladders, for added imersion during cold start. Of course they are detachable. Also, big thanks to Robsonek - he made over 50 Polish AF Liveries as well as dozen of other - Now we have almost 90 liveries from Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, East Germany, Hungary, Iran, Libya, Germany, Peru, Russian Air Force, Russian Navy, Slovakia, Syria, Ukraine and Vietnam.

MiG-29 SMT - first CLICKABLE MiG-29 Mod

This module has a lot of potential. One of its best (in my opinion) features is being a commander of the ground forces, infantry, aircraft and even some battleships! It is all already there, the problem is that is sucks. Its feels like an early concept of an ArmA 3 mod. From time to time I try to give it a try but Im most of time fighting with the controls than fighting the enemy units. It would be so awesome to properly command your units in this game. If i have to make a list i would say: - Fix the problem of some units just ignoring your order - Make it easier to see your units and what they are doing. It could be a new UI that doesnt depends on the game map and were you can see your units with just a click - Make easier "orders": "Move here", "watch that zone", "attack this target", etc. Everytime I try to move my tanks i create like 6 waypoints and some times they even ignore them. - Easy way to select units. Your units are under attack and you need to move them. Currently you need to swap to the map, move to unit and, some times, zoom until you can select it. - Make the units give some feedback, with some audio clues like the AI pilots could be enough And thats is. I really like to fly my viper, but after teasing what its already on this module i would really like it to be able to use it better. Commanding tanks, sending artillery strikes on these giant maps, it is just awesome.

Here is a tip for the "lessons.lua" file used for the training missions: you only need to specify the filename of each mission, in the order you want them to appear on the DCS list. The mission name and description are taken automatically by ED from within the MIZ file, like this: On the pic you can see that the standard missions (I show only the first mission, for clarity) specify all three fields, while the ones I added for Nevada and Kola (also show only the first mission of each set) make use of this tip. Eduardo

Black Shark 3 is almost just as recent as the Apache and the devs should of had updated the logic on par with other modules. I get the point of the original module age, but I don't think it is a valid argument as they released paid upgrades and the Shkval is a major core component.

Thx GT! Has been great flying over the last couple of days. Hi Plott - You can find them here: WWII Japanese Pacific Theater Naval Order of Battle https://forum.dcs.world/topic/285745-wwii-japanese-pacific-theater-naval-order-of-battle/ WWII Pacific Allied Assets The WWII Japanese Pacific Theater Naval Order of Battle has two links - both are dropbox direct downloads and are the 3rd and 4th links from the top of the first page. Hope to see you there.

Great idea! What hawkeye mods are required for this server?

So that's what the song's about...

Good catch! To help you save some time, an easy way to communicate the exact position to the devs is to use the keybind(s): Unload camera position to clipboard: RCTL + RALT + , Load camera position from clipboard: RCTL + RALT + . So, in the free LCTL + F11 camera, using the "Unload camera position to clipboard" keybind would give us: -camera -70.313031 0.046942 -692.562200 -cameradir 0.404438 -0.224523 -0.886577 Which you can just paste into a forum post. And the other way around, when you copy this to the clipboard, jump into the free camera and hit the "Load camera position from clipboard" keybind, it should immediately place the camera on the object in question.

Monitor has refresh rate 144 Hz. I set DCS to 145 FPS, the Nvidia Control Panel to 144 and adjusted Pimax between 72,90 and finally 120 and starting with a frame rate of 11 ms then 10ms and finally 120FPS gave approximately 8ms, which is the best I have ever achieved with my 9800X3D. I can only conclude that uncapping/not throttling has merit with this CPU. Generally I can get 120 FPS on any map. The toughest test being low level over Berlin when the FPS is reduced to 70-90 with Pimax set to 120.

The IJNAF is a Naval Asset, so: I've been working with Mav on Hawkeye's discord with fixing the flight modeling for Dol's Zero so it actually behaves like a piston-engine fighter, not a thrust-vectoring rocket ship for which the laws of physics don't apply. We've just about got it dialed in, (getting some bizarre behavior when the AI taxis, though, still working on that) and Mav is getting the damage model working properly.

Yes, it is. But to paraphrase ED, "we will continue to have to be patient"

Thats interesting, so the SFM values arent actually very accurate? Implies OPs basic calculations are wrong, not just his assumptions about the application of those numbers. Do you know if theres similar AI mods for planes like the Mig-21? Thats another classic offender.

That’s curious. I’ve only had a blowout once that I can remember and that was the result of a truly horrible landing. Perhaps I’ve just been lucky. In what circumstances does this most frequently occur?

I would say it was increased since the guidance could not be made more accurate, which also appears not to be the case with IRL. For the kill radius please listen and read to the actual interviews of pilots. I made some available in 29 FF section, and one of them even contains damage report. Focus was not really on amraam but you can see hopefully it will help you understand why the current modeling in this respect has nothing to do with the reality.

Afaik there only ever existed some (two?) prototypes of the Comanche. I doubt there is much information out there apart from published specs.

....dude, believe what you wish. ED isnt required to discuss legal matters with us, nor should they. Its public knowledge Razbam was making the Tucano for the Equadorian AF, and its public knowledge that any entity that represents a government interested in training their pilots should look towards TBS and not DCS. Because its TBS, ED wants to keep this topic to DCS for everyone to not even reference this because its OT. Its kind of obvious at this point you dont care about the truth, so I will just remind everyone that there is - in fact - a such thing as a dumb question. Let it go, please?

Any order. More ammo types- there should be options for smoke, guided shells, VT shells and regular HE shells. Fire missions and Forward observers- instead of making "fire at point" the only option, when an artillery piece has ammo but no assigned target it should fire at targets within visual range of air and ground-based FOs. Also the presence of a forward observer should improve the accuracy of pre-planned barages. So when there is a "fire at point" waypoint and FO the FO will call fire on targets in the zone. I guess he would be a place to roll out some of the dynamic campaign AI. I'd also give JTACs the same treatment. more artillery types - static SP guns name it, these bad boys for example, would be period for the German map they were retired in 1994 edited to add the fire at point bit @Silver_Dragon please add your ideas

So cool Tanuki

Just to be clear, I have made no statements, and anything I share is from ED management. I am sure you are aware, but for lurkers and such.

There's actually a fuel pump under the left foot rail. It's used to drain the fuel out of the system, but it's strictly for ground crew use. A door covers the exit hole.

"I know many of you are wondering whether I'm actually working on this project, and how it's progressing. All I can say for now is — yes, I am! It's moving slowly, but my life isn't just about DCS, and I'm no longer twenty years old. Still, for those of you who can't wait, I do have something to share. Work on the flight model has advanced, and the core systems are already in development!" Here one chart for you:

@Scoobyon Scoobs, any time frame or rough estimate on the old girl? You guys are going to turn heads. Your work is nothing short of phenomenal and already greatly appreciated. Look forward to another progress video.

null

null

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?

For everyone who wants to use the throttle axis and idle stop. This was the closest I could get it to work as intended. 1. Check the Y-Axis is not invertes in the VPC Config it shouid match the rotation direction in DCS without having to invert the axis in DCS. If you need to invert it in DCS to match, you need to adjust this n the VPC Configuration, not DCS ! To get to that setting DOUBLE CLICK the axis (See second picture where to adjust). 2. Define 2 different "Axis to button setups to create 2 additional "Buttons". (Ignore the 3rd I created, this is not necessary for this setup) 1st for Axis 2 from 91% to 99% and a free physical button number (depends on your twist grip). This will create a button press when the throttle is just moved a little bit counter-clockwise and will be our "Decrease Throttle" button later in DCS. 2nd for Axis 2 from 60% to 62% and the next free physical button number. This will create a button press just before the physical idle stop and will be our "Increase Throttle" in DCS to push the throttle from shut-off into idle position, when e twist the twist grip through the idle stop detent. You may need to adjust these values to your physical axis, in general they should be close enough. 3. Next we need to assign the "new physical buttons" to a logical button press! To do so open the buttons menu. Ensure the buttons show as axis to button in the black field below the button list. Select 2 free Logical Button and assign the new buttons to them as a "Normal" button press. Also make sure you have the IDLE STOP button assigned. By default it should be button 1, unless you configured it different. The logical button number does not really matter, but you need a logical button assigned. That' the setup in the VPC Configurator. AND DON't FORGET TO SAVE THE SETTINGS TO THE DEVICE. MAKE SURE YOU CONFIGURE THE ROTOR TCS PLUS ! You may check the buttons in the VPC Joy Tester, now. Do NOT check with the overview of the physical setup on button page. Always check with the VPC Joy Tester to see the Logical button output. If everything is working as expected (Buttons from the twist grip axis turn ON and OFF when twisting through the axis positions, switch to DCS. 4. Setup the throttle axis in DCS. Open the Axis Controls in the DCS Control Setup Menu, select Throttle (in the Pic it's "Schubhebel" as its in german), go to the "VPC Rotor TCS Plus column and assign the JOY_Y axis (Grip-Axis). Now right click the JOY_Y field and select the axis tuning menu. Make sure to check the "Slider" option and do NOT check the "Invert" option. If the twist grip axis in DCS does turn in the wrong direction, go back to the VPC Config and adjust it there. Tune the "Saturation X" to 58/59 so that the flat part on the top ends where the red DOT is, if the twist grip is in the idle position. That is when you twist beyond the idle stop, to full and back against the idle stop. This enables us to use the full throttle axis in DCS with just the part of the physical axis that goes from idle stop to full open ! 5. Set the key bindings for the Increase and decrease throttle buttons. We need to assign the "IDLE STOP" to the idle stop on the collective (default JOY_1) and now the button at the nearly full clockwise (closed) position to "DECREASE Throttle" and the button from the close to idle stop position to "INCREASE throttle". Save the setup with "OK" In DCS you should now be able to twist the throttle through idle stop and the throttle should snap to idle, due to the short "INCREASE" button press. When you twist back and press IDLE STOP the idle stop in game should be depressed and you can twist to the shutoff position until the "DECREASE" button is "pressed" and shuts down the engine. The only drawback I could find is, that during startup you will need to have the throttle in idle and not "just below the idle stop", but that works without problems, it seems.