Leaderboard

We did have an option in the past, but people were doing silly things like installing stuff in OS drives and screwing up the OS. We are considering a new system to allow different drives to be used for terrains, but I have no news to share currently.

This is half way between a bug report and a feature request: DCS's built in support for hand tracking is highly immersive, but not practical, because of how control interactions are triggered by a moment of 'touch'. For example: due to the switch positions and limitations of tracking, pushing the throttle fully forward will often... incorrectly turn off fuel pumps or engines in the A-10C eject stores in the F-16 activate the fire suppression in the F-18 due to tracking limitations and just closeness/stability, interacting with the UFC in the A-10C can incorrectly trigger a fire supression handle in many aircraft, interacting with the lower front and side panels can lead to accidentally ejecting HTCC still exists for DCS entirely because of this issue. Suggested fix Add option to require a button to be held for an interaction to happen Add option for a pointing gesture triggering a 'laser', like a controller, which *also* requires a button to be held if the above option is also on "A button can be held" should support: mouse buttons (e.g. PointCTRL with stock firmware, generic 'ring mice' from amazon/ali express) - this would need to ignore the mouse cursor position and just use the hand tracking position directinput game devices (e.g. pointctrl with HTCC firmware, slugmouse) nice to have: optionally some kind of gesture, e.g. pinching thumb and index fingers XR_FB_hand_tracking_aim makes this easy, but is not universally supported. It is currently supported on Quest Link in dev mode only, Quest-series headsets via Virtual Desktop, and Ultraleap-based devices (including the hand tracking module on the original Pimax Crystal) it can be implemented more generally by comparing joint positions this should be optional because like hand tracking overall, it is not perfect; people who have buttons bound are likely to want to disable this to further reduce the chances of incorrect interactions

Научите, пожалуйста юнитов, чтобы они отходили при приближении ЛА. Совсем недавно выполнял миссию по транспортировке десанта с высокогорной маленькой площадки и случайно вертолётом приземлился на голову одному из пехотинцев (сыграл свою роль пёстрый ландшафт и защитная расцветка одежды пехотинца). При установке колодок на вертолёт Ми8, они, почему-то не отображаются на внешних видах. Ну и для оживления аэродромов хорошо бы чтобы по требованию заправиться/подключить аэродромное питание рядом с ЛА появлялась, хотябы из "ниоткуда", соответствующее оборудование/техника с кабелями шлангами до ЛА. В МСФС2020, например, такое смотрелось очень даже к месту.

The difficulty of handling the Corsair has been GROSSLY exaggerated by popular culture. In reality, it was found to be not much more difficult to fly than any other high-powered fighter under most conditions. Flown in a clean configuration (no or combat flaps, landing gear up) it was stable and relatively benign, and gave ample warning of a developing stall. It was also not unique when it came to spins: The P-51 had wicked spin behavior, and was notoriously unstable if maneuvering while the fuselage fuel tank was full. Its low-speed "dirty" stall (full flaps and gear out) was a unique situation.

Could you elaborate on your statement? I'm curious what you're writing about.

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

Hello Folks, there we go to the beloved Su-35S Flanker-E/M. Still WIP for current time, no release date planned yet, we keep working and upgrading models, External and Internal 3D, EFM and ASM. Internal with full clickable cockpit. keep tuned ...

as title says. I find the George menus latched to my HMD LOS to be awkward, it would be really nice to have them appear on the fixed cockpit GUI plane. If we could move it around the same way we can the VOIP menu, that would be perfect.

It's written incorrectly here That's right

Short of making a different set of buildings for every 5 degree change in slope, I don't know what you expect them to do though. If you look at this image of actual houses, if you reduced the actual terrain to a mesh with even 2m resolution on contours, the buildings on the actual site would have terrain clipping windows and doors in midair... I agree about the cars though - either don't put them on terrain with enough slope to make terrain clipping an issue, or have all scenery cars sit perpendicular to the local terrain, not to the horizon (& I may be showing my ignorance her, but it seems to me there are way too many cars parked in backyards for rural Afghanistan anyway - ? There's only 1 motor vehicle (of any sort) for every 18 people in Afghanistan [one for every 1.07 people here in NZ], and surely they're going to disproportionately in the cities & more affluent / industrialised parts of the country, not parked in the back yard of remote houses with no connection to paved roads?) As someone who lives amongst houses built on hills, apart from some issues with shadows, the buildings in the attached snip look pretty convincing in their perches. Another storey added to the foundations wouldn't hurt though...

Apologies for the repeated delays and the lack of updates from the logistics team, despite the assurance that the shipment would be dispatched within 3–5 days of Customs clearance. I fully understand the frustration this has caused, and it is clear that proactive communication must be improved—particularly as we had informed the user they could expect to receive the headset within the specified timeframe. In addition, I have filed an internal complaint, and action has been taken.

DCS warbirds are great IMHO, it has been the only sim that has given me some feel or realism, FFB with extension also helped, but one problem with DCS is that we always fly in calm air, there is no bumpy air or turbulence, low alt wind you can feel it but its like laminar wind, not bumpy at all. When I fly my warbird IRL and I have calm winds, it reminds me of how warbirds feel in DCS.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.18.12899/ DCS Core Fixed: CTD when landing on a carrier with no radio communication. Scripting API. dostring_in default behaviour has been returned to the state before last patch, after initial feedback and issues with single player campaigns. We are evaluating feedback for future change. DCS: F-16C Viper by Eaglе Dynamics Fixed: F16C Crash F16C.dll. DCS: AH-64D by Eagle Dynamics Fixed: Crash when using George CPG.

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

Wenn ich nichts übersehe, haben wir hier im deutschen Teil des Forums noch keinen Thread für allgemein wissenswerte Schnipsel, die nicht direkt mit DCS oder Luftfahrt zu tun haben, dabei zu interessant sind, um gänzlich unerwähnt zu bleiben, aber nicht interessant genug für einen eigenen Thread. Zum Auftakt gibt es die Empfehlung, die Nvidia-Treiber zu aktualisieren. https://www.heise.de/news/Sicherheitsupdates-Schadcode-Luecken-in-GPU-Treibern-von-Nvidia-geschlossen-10501190.html Nvidia hat in den neuesten Treibern teils kritische Sicherheitslücken geschlossen. Falls ihr eure Treiber von Hand aktualisiert, wäre jetzt ein guter Zeitpunkt für ein Update.

With the recent 2.9.18.12722 patch, the Iron Flag Campaign received a bit of an overhaul. It wasn't mentioned in the patch notes, so let me give you an overview. Subtitles Last year I tested some Iron Flag missions and noticed a few discrepancies between what the voice actors said and what was shown in the subtitles. With Baltic Dragon's permission, I thought "Let's quickly correct that". Well. Iron Flag has a lot of voice-overs. I mean a lot. Clicking through the Mission Editor turned out to be unfeasible, so I extracted the dictionary file from each mission archive. But that has everything in seemingly random order, so for every voice-over sound file I listened to, I then had to find the correct line in a file of 2000+ lines, which made the process unnecessarily slow. With a bit of bodging a couple of scripts together, I got all the lines ordered by their index so from DCS's point of view, everything was correctly identified, while for me it was in the proper order, making the process a lot smoother. Along the way, some common typos showed up, and for the most part it turns out that the voice actors just loved to go off script and change a little "We'll go ahead and" into "We're gonna", and a lot of stuff like that. Same meaning, different words. The campaign's instructors, BIFF and LOTUS, have particularly long lines of dialog, reaching from a simple "Two" or "Gotcha" up to around 40 seconds of dialog in a single transmission. For improved readability, these were split into paragraphs where applicable. In a lot of cases, these long lines of dialog were then repeated in the so called "action text" that prompts players to take a certain action. These are now split into much shorter chunks, omitting a lot of the free text around the actionable items, and were formatted as lists that, I hope, will be easier for players to follow than those super long lines. At this stage, if you find any typos, spelling or grammar mistakes in the subtitles, they're 100% mine (if I didn't introduce them myself, then I missed them. Well, except for some freestyle English that the voice actors spoke - the subtitles only reflect what they say ). BIFF's datalink For a long while, the instructor's aircraft (BIFF in most missions, and LOTUS in mission 9) have been AWOL from the datalink. Somewhere along changes to the whole datalink system and the introduction of new Advanced Waypoint Actions, it just stopped working. Adding new AI controlled aircraft worked fine, but with dozens or hundreds of triggers bound to the existing jets, replacing them with fresh ones just wasn't an option. The issue had been reported to ED, but with a fix still not in sight, I decided to dig into it, trying every Advanced Waypoint Action I could think of, but it just wouldn't work - BIFF and LOTUS just never showed up on TAD and HMCS. Well, if new aircraft do and some old aircraft don't, there's got to be some difference, right? And if the Mission Editor doesn't allow to edit the difference out, then maybe looking at the raw mission file might? So, long story short, I just copied the entire Advanced (Waypoint Actions) block from a fresh A-10C aircraft over to BIFF's and LOTUS' jets respectively in each of the 12 missions (10 regular ones, plus two shortened versions of the otherwise very long Mission 06), and voila: they're back! Additional fixes In some missions, the position of radio transmitters was changed to improve the quality of radio transmissions. There may still be a few cases where the radio quality of other transmitters degrades a lot and makes them much harder to understand. If you come across any of those, please let us know! In a few cases, changes and upgrades to the A-10C II module invalidated some voice-overs for what was a completed and finished A-10C campaign before the A-10C II was released. Where this makes an actual difference, NOTEs were added to subtitles and/or action texts. Small QoL improvements A bunch of smaller Quality of Life improvements were snuck in as well. The briefing images showing the flight plan have been slightly changed to make the waypoint numbers a bit easier to read in all missions. The datalink, now that it's working again, was updated and both player and instructor aircraft should have the correct GRP ID and OWN ID data from the briefing already set, as well as a sensible CALL sign, which is now the first and last letter of the flight call sign plus number in flight, so Tusk 1-1 would have TK11 preset for instance. A dialog about radio presets that appeared twice (once in M01, once in M06) was removed from the second occurrence. The weather in one of the missions was changed and should now be within legal limits for the assigned approach while still offering a challenging flight through thick clouds, with Nellis Runway 21L only becoming visible roughly 300 feet above minimums. The short versions of Mission 06 were updated to have plausible fuel values (these airstart missions used to begin with 100% fuel). There used to be kneeboard images showing the entire HOTAS tables for throttle and stick. These are now part of the module's default kneeboard, so they were removed from the missions. Credit where credit is due I want to thank Baltic Dragon for trusting me not to break these missions. Of course a huge shout-out goes out to Doughboy - I learned so much from this campaign! New members in the tester team who ran many of the missions countless times are Jakes, MadDog and Nexonix01, thanks for all the help! tl;dr Datalink is working again for the Instructor Pilot jet; a few kinks were ironed out; most subtitles were updated. Thanks for reading.

Over 2 years old bug, already reported. Workaround posted in the last post of this topic:

Because that's not remotely true. It's a myth that keeps getting propagated and quite frankly needs to die already. They sent them to the Marines because the carrier forces were rebuilding most of the first half of 1943. Enterprise and Saratoga needed repair and refit after the battles of 1942, and their air groups were depleted. The first Essexes didn't arrive in the theater until the end of the spring/beginning of summer, with major carrier operations not resuming until August. The Marines, however, were in combat NOW and desperately needed new fighters. Every airframe available, with the exception of VF-12, VF-17, and VOC-1, was being rushed to the Pacific as fast as Vought could get them off the assembly lines to rearm the Marines. Corsairs were chosen because they were what was available in sufficient numbers, first. Those three excepted squadrons all completed their carrier trials by the end of April. VF-12 ultimately relinquished their Corsairs, but VF-17 continued operating from Bunker Hill throughout the spring and summer, including a stint helping train the first FAA pilots (so no, the British did not "figure out" how to land the Corsair on a carrier, they were taught it by Tommy Blackburn and his boys!). No further Navy squadrons were outfit because every airframe was earmarked for the Marines, and Vought couldn't produce them fast enough (which was a problem throughout the War, leading to Brewster and Goodyear production under license with the Brewster Corsairs being deemed unsuitable for combat). When Bunker Hill was ordered to the Pacific in September, VF-17 was embarked, fully expecting to go to war from the carrier. It wasn't until they arrived at Pearl Harbor in October they were ordered ashore, not because of carrier suitability, but because of logistics. The Navy was concerned about resupplying more than one fighter type at sea, and didn't have the supply lines in place to support the Corsairs. Because the Marines already had the logistics established, VF-17 was redirected to Espirtu Santo to take advantage of the Marines' established supply lines. The Corsair was never sent to land-based squadrons because of their difficulty or not of landing on a carrier. It had everything to do with timing, availability, and logistics.

Well for starters there's BuAer's own report. The flight manual itself describes the stall behavior as "not abnormal." The problem with the stall in the landing configuration wasn't the stall behavior itself. It was the pilot RESPONSE to it, and how applying too much power too quickly could induce a fatal torque roll. The landing gear bounce issues are another matter entirely and not aerodynamic. The F4U's wing loading was LOWER than the P-51 at about 28lbs/sqft. The P-51 wing loading was about 40lbs/sqft (the F4U-1A even had better power loading, at .19hp/lb to .15). The Spitfire's wing loading varied heavily on the version, but typically around 24lbs/sqft.

so much this, the manual has been in translation for like 18 months now, how many words per day is being produced I wonder It is good apache one is getting updated

That's a very broad group of assumptions you've made. In my 43 years of aircraft maintenance, I've worked on many WWII and post war era aircraft and the lack of quality you speak of is very incorrect. Some of the best engineering and workmanship came out of the war effort and that's a fact. Instruments, in particular, are very precision. My Father-in-law is a watch maker and has repaired dozens of warbird instruments over the years and I can tell you from first hand experience that the quality is way better than you surmise. The way the F4U RPM and MP gauges are operating now is not right. The constant vibrating needle is incorrect and setting a manifold pressure of 44.5" is impossible when the needle is bouncing between 41 and 48 like an oscillating saw. IRL these 2 instruments are critical for proper power management and engine life and operate rather smoothly as posted in the videos here. Magnitude 3 LLC needs to correct this behavior in a future update to bring it closer to the expected realism. Maybe it's the same programmer who decided to make the folded wings shake while parked on the carrier and the antenna post to whip around like a sword in flight. Both equally unrealistic and immersion breaking. Cheers, John

Mi-24 owners leave the room...

see 2nd post. There might also be a left to right difference which you can update from the Windows Application.

The sale is over for now. It was insane sale (for like almost a whole month)....I suggest wait for the next sale.

Yes

Hello! I made a new smoke mod because the “Better smoke mod” from Tazz isn’t working anymore. It’s far more simpler then Tazz’s mod, no textures, wakes, craters and so on. Smoke reaches now higher in the air and is wider. I also couldn’t find a way to make the smoke stay longer than 7 minutes, think ED has hardcoded this. In summary this mod makes the smoke: - reach higher in the air - bigger Install: - Place content of "SmokeMod_2_1" folder inside "DCS World" main Folder and override, please backup bevor overriding! - Or use the Folder with OvGME. (recommend) Changelog: V2.0 - increased particles size. - decreased fire size to compensate for particle size. - set smoke plumes to a realistic size. V2.1 - increased Density of particles - adjusted fire size - increased Trail length PS: If you want to get a longer smoke duration and additional effects try stevey666's splash-damage script in conjunction! Thread for this excellent script Version from stevey666: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/370261-splash-damage-3x-script-now-with-more-explosions-version-32/ Have fun Thanks Tazz for leading the way. Thanks to Stevey666 for his work on the splashdamage script. Without him, this wouldn’t be possible! Download: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3344722/ Original smoke: Smoke mod V2.1

I'd like both. They might be too different for a multi-pack but I'd buy both

This is SNR-125 (SA-3 target tracking and fire control radar). It does have TV channel IRL, as well as thermovision on later upgrades. The TV channel can be used for silent tracking, but the SAM itself requires the radar to lock and track target afterwards. The SAM itself transmits the commands to the seeker, which arms ~450m before the impact the fuze gets activated and will trigger explosion within the 45m of the target. Only small number of batteries had thermovision in 1999 (possibly only 1), since the already purchased upgrade kits were resolved before the war to Egypt. I am curious to find out who was the person who pushed and authorized this. However in DCS this SAM has no TV sensor implemented (checked in LUA). Also missing is the control cabine as well as power supply which are deployed in close proximity of the SNR-125. Other SAMs which should, but do not have have this DCS: - SA-6 (e.g. capable of passive LOAL launches IRL!) - SA-8

Folks this thread is starting to go off topic now. But as a reminder DCS will always try to be as real as possible, but we can only use public, unrestricted and unclassified data. DCS is for entertainment purposes. thank you

We've just reproduced this

I thought it will be perfectly clear, anyway, red curve is case if second impulse would be started immediately after first one is finished. Green curve is case if second impulse would be started in 25th second and of course blue curve is with started second impulse in 45th second. One more realistic situation, levelled flight at 10km and starting velocity 500m/s First and second impulses one after another, something like dual thrust motor...and case if second impulse would be started when velocity drop to approximately 1M Combined cases -> Obviously dual impulse is with intention to make rocket with more potential in time when it counts the most, in time when target suppose to be hunted. Fact is that such concept, I think in most cases, gives shorter range and rocket is less agile considering total flight time, but when it matters then such rocket is with potential

I believe you can find pieces of these maps at the Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library here https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p4013coll8/search/searchterm/World War%2C 1939-1945 -- Campaigns -- Northern Mariana Islands -- Saipan./field/subjec/mode/exact/conn/and They are in pieces, but you can do a search on their digital library for "special air and gunnery target map" for all of them.

I think his complaint is accurate though The buildings "dug into hills" in the map aren't what you showed, they are much more an obvious terrain clipping issue with the terrain covering say half a door or the doors on the low side being 20 feet or more above the ground etc. There are also things like cars clipped into the ground because scenery cant be rotated to be normal to the terrain

Hi, the "SAM Sites Asset Pack" mod is an add on to any ground to air mods like HDS or CurrentHill's Russian/USA/China... pack. It adds 4 functioning early warnings radars and some objects to add to your SAM Sites (bunkers, protections...) to enhance the simulation...like this:null

Twitchy, responsive, difficult to handle ≠ good or correct FM. This would be like comparing the Spitfire's FM to the Mustang's and claiming the Mustang's FM isn't good enough.

It's improved. Before the Corsair was especially suffering from excessive yaw instability. And I'm not talking about the rudder inputs, it's like the tail was just sliding out from under it in any sort of maneuver, which the historical aircraft didn't experience and was actually noted to be very stable.

I would love to try your Apache and Hind campaigns someday. I’m currently enjoying Mig Killers. Thanks!

How’s that Su-24 mod coming along, o wise one who truly understands the community?

The virtual 1./JG71 "Richthofen" in action again:

Download link: <https://github.com/OpenKneeboard/Fresh-Start/releases/latest> For most people, uninstalling OpenKneeboard from add/remove programs is sufficient; there's a few cases where it isn't: the uninstaller intentionally does not delete your settings; if you want to start with fresh settings, this tool can help you (or you can just delete the settings files yourself) Microsoft limitations prevent OpenKneeboard installers/uninstallers from banning or repairing some edge cases, such as installing certain older versions after newer versions without uninstalling newer versions first If multiple versions were installed simultaneously (e.g. via the above edge case), Microsoft limitations sometimes prevented installs/upgrades from cleanly removing all previous versions instead of just one previous version This tool cleans them all up. In short, use this if: you tried or used to use OpenKneeboard and want to kill it with fire you want a complete fresh start of OpenKneeboard, deleting your previous settings you're having problems, and have been using OpenKneeboard for a long time; e.g. some of the issues it can repair only occur if you've had a 2021 version of OpenKneeboard installed, then installed a 2025 version, then installed a 2021 or 2022 version again

Yeah, it would be good to change the publisher name. In any case, it's a great map. If you want wide open spaces and big mountains, it's fantastic.

Yes, either the map team should come up with their own company name and be a single entity with both SA and Kola map under it, or the SA map should be transferred to ORBX to avoid confusion for the users. Maybe one of the issues is the assets that came with the SA map. Who knows if their part of the map, or Razbam. We see now that other Razmab assets might also be removed from DCS like the Tarawa and the KC-130. Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

At first, thank you @Dangerzone for this thread! Many good points one can start with to discuss. To cut a long story short, there are seven points that have personally helped me reduce stuttering: 1. Enable hardware acceleration in W11 and in the BIOS REBAR. 2. Disable all unnecessary programs running in the background. 3. Have at least 64 GB of system RAM installed. 4. Install DCS and the disk cache on the fastest SSD drive. 5. Set the latency to Ultra and vertical synchronization to off in nVidia CPL. 6. Use a CPU with the lowest possible latency (definitely not INTEL). 7. The most important point is to adjust DCS to the minimum FPS the graphics card can deliver so it always achieved and ensures smooth gameplay. Regarding the RAM optimization shown in the video presented in the thread: I believe that it may be helpful for people who have less than 64 GB of RAM and only slow hard drives. What you see in the video is not a bug in DCS World or Win11, it's the opposite. You can see how Win11 makes optimal use of RAM, because RAM is always faster than a hard drive. Why wouldn't you want to use your RAM as much and high as you can? My own tests show that Win11 does everything right, and when files are no longer needed and others need to move up, the area that is no longer needed is immediately cleared. As I write this, I am on the Germany map. I pushed up to 55 GB RAM (the highest reading I could get) by pressing F11 and after that I stayed at one place. And now only 32 GB are occupied. This is how it should be. You don't have to use any extra tools, if your settings are optimized for your Hardware ( VR differs here a bit ;))! Many “problems” are simply based on believing what is specified as the minimum requirements for DCS World is enough to play the game with all the great graphics. This makes DCS World playable, but far from optimal. For me, the biggest FPS hogs are, in order of importance, the following, if FPS fluctuates: 1. Terrain shadows = Flat (biggest impact) 2. Clutter = 0 (big impact) 2. Trees = 0.5 (big impact) 3. Water = Low (medium impact) This is what I was able to test for myself. First optimize the hardware, then optimize DCS World for the hardware! There are no magic settings that can turn poor/unoptimized hardware and software into a miracle cure!

We have published it in our latest changelog: Known issue: Jettisoning panel guards in F1BE are not working (clickability and input). It will be fixed in a forthcoming update. Meanwhile, the corresponding correct lua files will be provided in a DCS forum post. Extract into your DCS directory, replacing the original files: F1BE_jettisoning_panel_guards_patch.rar

Yep fan boys gonna fanboy, but they don't change anyone's opinion. If we had at least an airport or 3 added to the southern part of the map at some point within the last 8 months one could say there was at least some progress. 3rd party map developers make ED look quite poor in comparison.

I think this is not modeled for neither BUK nor KUB. Btw KUB is capable of LOAL launch IRL as well as fake launches (SA-3 can do this as well). As for visual/ir things are still half baked there with corner cases, but ED makes incremental improvements.