Leaderboard

Some screenshots by Whiplash for celebrating the Vietnam War Vessels 2.0.0 release:

They are quite easy to understand and you have described it fully. …which is still more than it should be and which creates insecurities that didn't exist and shouldn't exist. It's that simple. This is a bad solution, implemented hastily with no warning and seemingly no testing of value. The number of things it breaks for no gain is ridiculous. The workarounds create bigger problems than what initially existed and does the exact opposite of what was intended with this whole idea. Hell, even the OP gives a big red warning sign. The reason I say that you didn't do any testing is because you've managed to break SLmod for a number of people — probably other common and crucial mods that are used all over the place. This should have been an immediate discovery and show-stopper. I would suggest a two-step process: Hotfix-patch rollback. Do any of the things cfrag has suggested. Or see two posts above. This may seem drastic and contrary to how ED does anything, but trust me, the alterative is much much worse. That alternative would require them to, first thing tomorrow morning… At the top of the forums, the DCS website, the launcher, in the game main menu, and on every reddit, discord, and My Little Pony Online chatroom where they have any kind of social media presence, put out a warning sign in huge blinking letters that they have changed the security model in such a way that users may now be tricked into allowing remote code execution. In a very public post — not hidden away in this obscure “mission editor” corner of a forum that not many visit to begin with — document, in full, what the function does, how the different scopes work and what they affect, and under what circumstances each scope might allow for ACE. List and publicly endorse the minimalist exception rules for the 12 most common scenarios where you might want to allow dostring_in to work, from an end user perspective (eg if you want to use some of the products ED sells, or use userfiles of some kind), from a server perspective (how do you still allow common server mods to function, what are the caveats, how does it minimalisticly mesh with eg. shared moderation roles), from a coder perspective (what are the most common uses, what do these require in terms of exceptions, what are other more secure ways of doing the same thing). 36 cases in total, full documentation, full transparency of where, when, and how code (and in particular remote code) can be executed. Determine and clearly communicate which scopes and combinations should pretty much never be used because of what they open up. And in doing so, maybe just not allow that to begin with. Again, anything that creeps towards “remote…” should probably be stomped hard. Implement some kind of code signing so the end user can differentiate between trusted developers and random junk they find on the intenet. Congratulations, you are now Microsoft. Oh, it's just text files and there is no way to sign those…? You don't say… It's almost as if it has caused new problems. Implement a security tab in the game settings where this and related settings are made. Too many things are affected by this to just leave it as an obscure text file code injection — that just leaves option the ability to trick people into putting harmful code in there. If kept, the model need to be extended to not just be “these scopes are allowed use; these scopes are allowed access” but rather make it a proper model where you can decide, scope by scope, what is allowed. A full set of access control lists — congratulations, you're Microsoft again. This, once more, requires something a lot more complex than can be safely relegated to code in a cfg file. Rather, in the Security tab, these options can be explained to the user and particularly bad combinations can trigger warnings our outright blocks (here, at this level, is where it might be appropriate to allow overrides via cfg file edits). All that to make sure we don't get a slew of malicious code out there, combined with malicious suggestions for “solutions” that leave the client wide open. Again, the problem here, as others have mentioned, is that users will just be faced with an error box and go search for the first available solution. This will not be your clean three-line autoexec addition, but rather something far more malicious. ED's official answer and suggestion needs to be the first hit on every search engine, and anything that deviates from that should come with a huge warning that the player will notice. The information campaign needed to combat malicious use of this new security hole is immense. Let's just be kind and say that huge information campaigns are… not ED's forte.

OK, I found a script that was still there, but it was a hit detection script which is weird because the same works in MiG Killers jsut fine. I adapted it a little bit to be more bulletproof, I'll submit for the next update.

We have fixed this issue as described below. Take into account that this will only be available in a forthcoming DCS update: Cockpit livery selection was added to the module options. It returns the ability to use custom cockpit liveries. In particular the "Mirage F1 English Cockpit CE and EE version" user mod. Note that the mod contents should be modified by renaming 'default' folders to 'english'.

Anti Detonation Injection - Its main purpose is to prevent engine knocking ( detonation combustion ) and premature ignition. At low altitudes it has secondary effect of increasing manifold pressure ( cool air = more dense ) Principle is: Water has the highest specific heat capacity of all common substances 4180 J/(kg·K). But that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is that in order for water to turn into steam, it needs an additional 2257 kJ/kg of heat. This allows it to cool the engine much more efficiently than a rich fuel mixture, because aviation fuel has almost half the specific heat capacity of water. In my opinion it is not simulated yet. Because I think there should be "jump" in power at low altitudes, just like in P-47.

As others have said, the lack of respect for the community is what's most disappointing. A timely warning would have been a great solution. We create missions, others offer their expertise to create scripts so our missions can improve, others offer their computers or servers to host the missions, mostly for free. I've been doing this since 2013 with FC2. I offer my servers, and with every release, we've always had to work on the server to ensure there are no errors and then patch things up so everything can work properly. We put our energy and time into the community, and no one pays us. I imagine you know this, or not? My servers are closed now because my missions aren't working! You sell the product, we create the quests, thanks also to the help of people like Grimes, Speed, Ciribob Cfrag, etc... who create and have created scripts to help quest administrators improve their servers and mission. Slmod doesn't work either.

Fixed. It will be available in a forthcoming update.

Use a chart like this to help mission planning. Either have a landmark or a unit with smoke to mark your pitch up point.

You don't. You practice at a target range, and then memorise the firing parameters.

With Great Contribution of @flanker78. good advance on W IP ASM, big work Comrade ...

Vietnam War Vessels 2.0.0 This release is a major update of the Vietnam War Vessels mod. With VWV 2.0.0 comes a new directory structure, where all assets have a [VWV] prefix in the folder name. This makes it necessary that you first uninstall the old Vietnam War Vessels 1.x.y completely. We welcome the USS Enterprise, CVAN-65, in its 1966 configuration, to the fleet. The first nuclear driven carrier has been derived from the modern USS Enterprise, and takes a place of its own now. The complete launch and parking system has been overhauled, leading to a hopefully more immersive experience. The second new addition to the mod is the A-37 Dragonfly. This iconic aircraft of the Vietnam War is now available for AI use within the virtual DCS sky. Please take a look at the Known Limitations below! Updates, Ships Knox class - FF icons are used instead of DD BB-62 New Jersey - CC map icon in use, better helicopter landing on the deck, new custom shell for main armament CVA Essex and Bon Homme Richard - model improvements, nick name as short display name for Bonnie Dick Many ships - sound updates to gun fire Updates, Planes A-1 Skyraider - split into A-1H (with bridle cat support) and AD-4 (without), add Napalm bombs from A-4E-C mod, add toilet bombs to all pylons, rework flight model to take off from Essex ‘44 with 70% loadout H-2 Seasprite - use of a new model, split into SH-2F, UH-2A, UH-2B, UH-2C classes MiG-21MF overhauled nose gear, support for RATO take-offs O-1 Bird Dog, add engine nozzle definition, Flight Model change for more realistic take-off RA-5C Vigilante - Flight Mode change, more lift at low speed Known Limitations CVA-31 Bon Homme Richard - Player controlled helicopters slightly move forward on the flight deck F-8 Crusader - Aircraft is intended as static and for limited AI operations - Player control is experimental at best, but largely untested and unsupported - Carrier launch and landing operations are not supported for player aircraft, only AI - Unknown how to drop bombs as player aircraft - Variable incidence wing is not enabled - Collision shell not reliable under player control - Nose wheel rotation disabled MiG-17F "Fresco-C" - Player control is almost untested and unsupported - Collision shell not reliable under player control - Damage susceptible when placed as static H-2 Seasprite - Wheels don't touch the ship deck - Landing gear is deployed multiple kilometers away from landing spot Fletcher Class Destroyers with FRAM II upgrade - Bridge and mast are WWII style RA-5C Vigilante - The plane is too large for regular parking spots, best to use as single plane on the runway MiG-21MF "Fishbed-C" - Textures are work in progress - Gear up location is pretty bad A-1 Skyraider - The new bridle disappears during launch - The precision of dropping Napalm is abysmal - Takes off like a spaceship from land - Tiny Tim rockets seem never to be launched A-37 Dragonfly - Flight model is raw and has not been tested much - Only one pilot ejects, ejection somewhat broken O-1 Bird Dog - The propeller blur is static CVAN-65 Enterprise - Catapult hookup spotty, sometimes planes start to drift - Parking spotty, some planes start to drift - Probable inability to sync INS when taking off cold - RA-5C and F-14 Tomcat slightly too large for safe aircraft operations when taxiing - The shoot power of the catapults seems insufficient at times - No support for night operations, e.g. no lights Download (Github): https://github.com/tspindler-cms/tetet-vwv/releases Alternative download (Google Drive): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16pUuupD08L36KnD6vDel5VRlmwwftX5o?usp=drive_link Enjoy, The Vietnam War Vessels team

Them having "cojones" or not is not the topic here. Reality is that there is no balance in real world. So F-35 or EF2000 or any modern jet can fit in any scenario.

hi guys , With the precious help of HAGEN and holydays starting , the pit is on good tracks ! here are some pics !

Some war happened very recently which involved F-35, among other modern fighters, vs very old US and Russian fighters that were operated by another country. So the idea of matching aircraft era to recreate real world conflict can go down the drain

You mean pay twice? Did customers cause all those troubles?

Nope, it is still incorrectly implemented, yet bug reports about it are marked "correct-as-is" in the DCS F-16C bug section. I've been thinking about writing a full length bug report regarding the AN/ALR-56M, but I honestly don't know what difference it'd make. Feels like kicking water uphill at this point. I actually gave praise to the DCS F-16C manual in an old post I made (linked below) for correctly describing the AN/ALR-56M's functionality, even though it had been incorrectly implemented in-game. However, ED has since rewritten and removed certain sections, words and illustrations from the DCS F-16C manual regarding the AN/ALR-56M, so that the manual better describes the current incorrect implementation, rather than fixing the AN/ALR-56M's in-game implementation so that it matched both the DCS and real world manuals. I think it's quite clear at this point, based on ED's actions, that their intention is to leave the AN/ALR-56M as-is.

I don't know if Calvin kicked somebody's ass but I've had an email (not from support) saying a different courier (Black Cat/Yamato, top tier in Japan) will be delivering the unit on Tuesday (29th July). Way better than Amazon's "8th August". Memory kick...it's Yamato that DHL hand off to here. Fedex use a slower one.

I found next, nice video of ATP with examples quality of the image:

Fair enough, maybe it was December that last was last update. I was more thinking they've had at least a couple of updates since Razbam have announced they weren't doing any more. Maps typically don't get the frequency of update that other modules do. They have stated before it's not an issue and the fact that they have updated it long after Razbam stopped doing any updates is a pretty good indicator.

Based on there current rate of updates 10 to 15 years

The section in the manual covering George the CP/G has been completely overhauled and is really well-done. Reading this section is worth the effort while waiting for a video. I've found George's new features and capabilities pretty cool so far and not terribly difficult to understand. Just treat him like another sensor/weapon that has some semi-autonomy and he works like a champ.

next time tell us that 1 second before patch, thanks.

Dear all, my inclination to contribute to DCS has reached an inflection point, and I have decided to withdraw from public contribution for the time being. I thank you all for your kind encouragement and friendship in the past decade, and wish you only the best for the future. -ch

Very, very, rough idea...

Whoever is doing the EA guide for the Apache deserves a raise and some recognition. The manual has been by far the best one of all the ED manuals I've read and the new updates covering George and helicopter flight dynamics are awesome. Hopefully this sets a new standard for ED manuals going forward and that the guides for existing modules get updated to match the level of quality the Apache guide brings.

I have benefited greatly from your training missions on various aircraft, so it makes me VERY happy to have been able to give back to you!!

The A-10A did not have any autopilot at all. Pilots crossing the Atlantic en route to the middle East in 1990 for Operation Desert Shield had to hand-fly many hours in lose formation with tankers. What fun that must have been! The Low Altitude Autopilot with its fairly basic modes is thus a big step forward and allows pilots to spend more time heads down and focus on the mission. While I'm not sure if it actually played a role, USAF leadership was never a fan of the A-10 and has tried many times to get rid of it. The request for additional funds might not have gone down well with them. Plus there are probably technical reasons. None that I know of. Just to clarify, are you mad at Fairchild Republic or at DCS? Because DCS is a simulation, and adding an autopilot that doesn't exist on the real aircraft would put it in fairy tale land. And criticism towards the aircraft's manufacturer is a bit ill-placed in a forum about its simulation.

For me this is one of the biggest points here, even more than the modules themselves. Post Hawk ED was supposed to have taken steps to prevent the situation from repeating, but obviously this didn't happen with RAZBAM. Why not? And does this problem extend to other modules?

Just did a short flight in the terrain, I wish they'd get some of the cities fleshed out. Anyway was going to bring up Iran as it needs some love too, given the closeness and the like. But I'm sure they're maybe working on it though, given the historical significance of the map. But yeah +1 for more Iranian airbases.

I mean pay fairly for work done. Some unrelated party making new modules would have nothing to do with the previous modules. It would only make sense to pay for work done. No one buying the modules caused the problems, that's true. That doesn't mean we're entitled to free things.

@CF104 I'm quite sure OP's comment is not about engine reaction time to lever being pulled to cutoff, but more about how fast the prop comes to a stop. There's some inertia in this big prop and, looking at vids of restored 3-blade Corsairs, it takes between 8-9 seconds for the prop to stop. In module right now, the complete animation finishes in half of that time. Not a deal breaker issue, but something worth tweaking a bit in my opinion.

I can confirm that landing on the Tarawa causes a crash, even when calling inbound.

^ That's how the system is supposed to work indeed. But if it's true that some guys get a couple of extra knots by pressing that nonexisting button anyway, then we've got another FM simplification/bug to report.

I have found the reason, why turbo mode drops my FPS. I did fps limit to 75 in DCS settings. After I set it back to 300, turbo started to work well. Thanks to @Dangerzone post

Diverting time and ressources from other projects just to replace these aircraft doesn't seem right. ED seems to be overburdened already with their stuff. It would be much easier, if RB just continued the support.

There is an known issue with most/(all?) aircraft landing on ships and crashing DCS.

not yet, neither no time of those qualified people nor translators have no knowledge of avionics terms .... sad

The Bat Bomb is fun.

After some research, here is why I can not connect ground power: " Neutral and non coalition airports will not provide aircrew support"

Oops, my bad. I've been testing Voice Attack on the menus and forgot teh RAlt key while hitting the "\" key. Thanks!

Updated to reflect the changes. Bullet points not crossed out are problems remaining.

It isn't your file that is unsafe, mate. It is the fact that your solution is to just include a modified file with your mission, which most users will neither want to nor be able to question. Your autoexec file might be good, but will one I include be?

One way is uninstalling the unused modules prior to performing the update

Hello @uboats .. I see that on the last DCS update there is still no sight of an English Flight Manual. While the translation that @CreepyLP did is a great help when studying this aircraft details, I still would prefer a proper human-translated manual, can you please update us on the current situation? did you find a translator? I love this aircraft and was hoping to re-make my old JF-17 training missions, and having proper documentation is a big incentive for me. Best regards, Eduardo

It did not bounce. Your stick is too short, with short lenght or with short throw. Check this video explaining your issue. I used 0 curves with previous FM and my opinion is the previous FM was better. Now it flies like vanilla Cessna from Flight Simulator X. https://youtu.be/Gs2m-xlyK7o

The out-of-early-access early access "Winter textures" With so much copy/paste, Orbx sure aren't in it this out of enthusiasm.

Check six Fiends! Shout out to @Mach3DS