Leaderboard

Night ops cockpit, model vs real one.

Welcome to Corsair School, a full training course designed to get you mission-ready in the F4U-1D Corsair. Corsair School is a full training campaign for the DCS F4U-1D Corsair, set in the WWII Pacific theater. Across 20 missions, you'll progress from cold starts and takeoffs to advanced gunnery, bombing, carrier ops, and division leadership. Learn to fly and fight using historically grounded procedures adapted for DCS—covering rockets, dive and level bombing, navigation, and dogfighting. Master formation tactics, wingman commands, and carrier qualification aboard USS Intrepid. By the end, you won’t just fly the Corsair—you’ll fly it like a fleet pilot. Training syllabus: Cold Start Taxi, take off, landing Short field operations Radios Carrier landing Navigation Formation flying YE-ZB (Hayrake) navigation* Carrier qualification Air to ground gunnery Rockets Dive bombing Low level bombing Tiny Tim Bat bomb Aerial gunnery Dogfight Section leader Exam 1 (2nd section lead in a division) Final exam (division leader)* *) the sectors of the YE-ZB navigation will change in an upcoming Corsair update. I have everything prepared for the campaign, so please subscribe to be notified about any updates. Key features: Based on real operating manual Around 400 voice overs Custom lua scripts Custom kneeboards PDF manual Requires WW2 assets pack. (Once the PTO assets pack is out, the campaign will be adapted accordingly) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3346001/ Enjoy! +++ changelog +++ 14.08.2025 deconflicted triggers in M01 "cold start" that could cause the mission to stall under certain circumstances. Added note that player does not need to wait for temperatures to be reached. exchanged YE-ZB sector charts (kneeboard and overlay pictures) in M08, M19 and M20 adapted M08 texts and Hayrake LUA script according to new shifted sectors. 18.08.2025 M08, M10 and M11 had wrong mission success parameters - fixed

Hi, An unusual request, but generally most third-party devs here have a community manager. Questions are piling up in the Herc forum thread, and they remain unanswered. Personally, I think it's quite important to keep in touch with users and answer questions during pre-orders. This is a stage of reflection and decision-making (as we see). This will only help. Perhaps it would be worth dedicating someone associated with ASC as CM here to be more in touch with users. The DCS forum is a basic source of knowledge and contact with users, so I think it's worth it.

This is what was shown in the trailer, two types of cargo on pallets and the Mother of all bombs: I am also personally waiting for this (this is a very old screenshot, from 2016, and it is not a preview, mod perhaps.):

Like IRL, a unit that when placed somewhere on the map will form a temporary landing strip (including night landing lights). The C130 may find itself landing somewhere in the middle of nowhere to support special operations.

I've been an avid supporter of the module. I bought it on Day 1 and flew it on every map I own, including multiplayer missions, obviously with all the plane's limitations. I forgave the months of waiting for everything to work properly, but honestly, four years after the module's release, more than a year was wasted with the plane exploding while taxiing and no one understood why, rendering it unusable. Even today, calibrating the depressurizer on the collimator to use weapons is a lottery. I'm sorry to say it, but they really disappointed me. I know IFE is a capable software house, I can see it from the success of their modules on Flight Simulator, but evidently their interest in DCS is very low, so I don't think I'll buy any more of their modules. Sorry for the outburst, but anyway, I believed, I invested money in a product that then sadly ended up abandoned.

You can actually bind it immediately after purchase- so it activates the license on your ED account. The discord FAQ has instructions, i already bound mine to my account of course it can't be accessed until release, but the wording there is a little confusing since it gives the impression that you have to wait until release to redeem the code, which is not the case..

New screenshot (of BD), not high res:

Hi @currenthill I was wondering if someday you'll take into consideration some Cold War Era ground assets as well

Of course, but I'm sure checking the forum twice a week and responding isn't too much work (not like you ). Personally, I also think the ED forum should be prioritized for information, not chats like Discord, which, let's face it, are a dump when it comes to information.

Potentially GOAT mod!!

Edit :

Ruheposition ist auch ganz leicht schräg bei mir. Ansonsten ist der collective etwas tiefer als der Sitz positioniert. Ist so angenehm zu greifen. Sind man leider nicht so gut auf den Fotos, aber vielleicht hilft es dir doch.

So, I spent about an hour flying the 3 official COIN/Trainer aircraft in a simple mission. I was using WWII Marianas, flying out of Agana, and 5 Urals as targets. I like this map for this purpose due to the nature of its runways: Short. I decided to rate them based on aspects I deem important to COIN ops in DCS. Those aspects are take off distance, speed, weapon options, and payload size. All 3 enjoy adequate to superb handling characteristics. The MB-339A, in my opinion, is the best in class barring one limitation I'll get to in the conclusion. On take off, it uses up plenty of the runway, but it takes off within Agana's distance pretty comfortable at full fuel and loaded for combat. Lift the nose at 110KIAS and it'll lift soon after depending on payload. It's pretty quick to accelerate and I can yank pretty hard on the stick while it stays stable. The pair of DEFAs will make very short work of most anything an insurgency would be able to field. It also has the option to take machine guns to keep your load light and I really love that option for when I'm taking up Mk.82s. It also has cluster bombs like the Belouga and the BL-755. Ontop of that, it has denial weapons in the form of concrete penetrating bombs and Durandals. It does have its quirks, most notable its performance in the rain. It does not like taxing and taking off in the rain, so you need to keep the engine relight button depressed until rotation is achieved. The silver medal goes to the L-39ZA. On take off, it's the strongest performer. Even at full fuel and combat load, take off is a non-concern. Lift the nose off the ground at 90kts, then the good stuff happens at 110-120kts depending on weight. The real weakness is its limited payload aloft. It doesn't have that much variety and only two hardpoints on each wing, four total. That said, the PK-3 feels near bottomless with the ammo, so it's a stand out tool in your set. Its integrated Gsh-23L is really nice for dealing with even light armor. In addition to weapons like rockets and bombs, it can carry flares for lighting areas at night as well as the defensive punch of the R-3S and R-60. Handling wise, it does tend like to drop a wing outside of uncoordinated turns, but it's pretty tame. It's not as stable as the 339, but it's forgiving and quick to correct. It does feel underpowered aloft, especially with a combat load. Be sure to watch those EGTs, the Ivchenko does have limits. You can't just leave it on max thrust. Max continuous is 103%. Bronze goes to the C-101CC. If the L-39 felt underpowered, then the C-101CC must feel like it's pedal powered. Taking off out of Agana with the C-101CC loaded up just isn't possible. You're looking at a take off roll of nearly 3,000 feet/900+ meters. You're going to have to play with fuel and payload to have any hope. 85% of MTOW will get you shaving the tree tops, but you'll be off. That's 2 pairs of LAU-68s and a centerline gunpod @ 60% total fuel. Anymore? Well, I managed to rip a flap off on the treetops. So, the C-101 will operate more comfortably from a longer strip. Once you get the C-101CC up to altitude, it retains speed pretty well and its handling is solid. The real thing the C-101 has going for it is its selection of arms. Two centerline gunpods with your choice of cannon or machinegun, cluster munitions, nape, rockets, and the added bonuses of the Magic II and AIM-9. It even has the Sea Eagle, that's insane. If you can work around the take off performance, the C-101 could be a great ride. Now, even though I think the MB-339A is the best performer, I have to admit it currently has a limitation. It has the best performance in the air and widest variety of arms, but it totally lacks any air to air missiles (FOR NOW, it'll be getting the AIM-9 in a future update.) Now, you're not looking to take these into the dogfight arena, but the fastest growing concern for militaries around the world are drones. What makes them such a concern is their disposability and their accessibility. This is a role that could easily fall into the wheelhouse of a light attack aircraft. Depending on how well funded or how badly an insurgency has a case of sticky fingers, you may see them using drones for various reasons. This is a task made more difficult for the MB-339A since it lacks any kind of missilery. It's going to hurt your options in the L-39ZA, but it'll barely be felt in the C-101CC. So, things to consider for those looking to buy one of these. Don't take this as some strict 'meta' since limitations make a scenario so much more compelling. The C-101CC may be limited to where it can operate from and be effective, but that's also a lot of fun. You now have to think about what you should do: A longer ingress with better weapons or a shorter ingress with a limited payload? As for the OV-10 and A-4E-C? They're free, try them. Addendum from @Daemoc: The C-101 can carry a ludicrous amount of fuel internally. One of it's major design considerations was range. I think this is the most overlooked aspect of this aircraft. For a quick strike mission, 50% fuel is still way too much. IIRC, one of the first missions I did in the C-101 was over two hours and was done on 50% fuel. This was all low level. This cannot be stressed enough. Fuel has to be a major consideration on that aircraft every mission. Don't look at the percentages, calculate the fuel weight. In this case, I'll then move the C-101 into second place behind the MB-339. Basically, when you hear people absolutely howl about how the Culopollo is under appreciated, they aren't lying at all. I'm going to be spending a lot more time with it. I think I still prefer the 339's handling, but there's no denying that endurance performance from the C-101. Actually, were I the decision maker for an actual air force and I had to choose between the 339 and the C-101 in this light attack role? I think the C-101 would win me over because loiter time is an important metric for a COIN aircraft.

In the ASC Discord, Someone_somewhere (Matt ASC- CEO) confirmed the MC-130J is based off the standard C-130J, Therefore as they build the model again for the MC130J, They will also build and include the slick 130J with that. If you check, I believe they pinned his message in either general or ask questions section of the discord. null

В видео оглашены проблемы связанные с Су-33 и моделью ТАКР Адмирал Кузнецов. Думается, некоторые важные вещи можно относительно легко поправить, например конечный угол трамплина в 14 градусов.

Jugoslávské války v letech 1991 až 2001

Sometimes I think that if the module makers left some of the "simpler" stuff to a few selected community members, these would be able to: fix missions for them (faster than the module maker would), add missing bindings options, or even add stuff to the manual. And everybody would be happy. Of course, everything would still need to be approved, which is SOME work, but it's often much easier to just approve "looks good to me" stuff than to do it - or even start doing it, especially when the core members are overloaded.

Awesome Aircraft!! Just while youre waiting, heres my desktop shot of a low flyby in the Mach Loop. Help yourselves! Your welcome

Looking forward to try it out, thanks for sharing!

Yes, I can understand it. In fact, none of the french pack or the Charles de Gaulle (CDG), have evolved since a while. So if Currenthill have the time to make a great french pack with vehicles, and why not some special forces (with animation) like the commandos de marine (navy seals) and the foreign legion, and why not the CDG and maybe the Clemenceau /Foch, that would be a great pack that I would download directly.

Reshade is actually a nice software, that quietly sits in the back if unused without eating performance. And with a single keystroke does its thing. You CAN however get lost in the rabbit hole of turning to many knobs and adding too many filters…. and eventually, depending on what you are doing, it CAN add up to eating a couple of fps. My conclusion for reshade is „less is more“.

You can see the throttles that control the engine propeller blades next to the thrust levers. So this is a modernized H version. The J version lacks these throttles, and the blade rotation is controlled by the FADEC.

Wow! There's a saying that goes, "Nobody thinks about you as much as you think about yourself". If you take the time to make mods for ANY game then people who use them mostly do it because they think it's a good mod/idea. If the maker expects gratitude and plaudits from every one of these people then I would (respectfully) suggest that the maker is probably in the wrong game. Personally I love making skins, especially for WW2 planes and there have been many downloads of them by people (like, in the hundreds). I actually do them for my own enjoyment and, like @Rudel_chw above, don't really care one way or the other if people use them or not. I merely post them just in case someone can find a use for them. I would just take it easy and maybe re-assess why you actually do these things... Peace Rap

Cos the devs don't fancy dev'ing them any more - pretty simple! Who knows what may happen in the future, but I do know that the questions don't change, or speed up, the answers sooo.... Enjoying and spreading the joy of the OH-6A might tho - love the videos @CommandT!

Interesting possibility for a future VR experience. YORO Increases VR Frame Rates By Rendering One Eye & Synthesizing The Other https://www.uploadvr.com/you-only-render-once-vr-frame-rate-improving-technique/

Hardly - they spoke very little of the ATC system itself - they only specifically mentioned "voice generation" and "interface" while omitting any details about what this new system is supposed to achieve and what capabilities and fidelity will it have - they've left an absolute tonne of potential questions unanswered. Questions like: Will it support multiple approach types? For example: Visual straight-in (the only type it supports now). Overhead Instrument (and there are various types here, it should support at least one kind of instrument approach though I'd also at least include PAR given how many of our aerodromes are depicted with PAR equipment). Unrestricted (i.e. only report on final). Will it provide taxi instructions? Both to the active runway and to the designated parking spot upon landing? And will the ATC tell us to hold short, line up and wait/position and hold and takeoff? Will it attempt to manage traffic around the aerodrome? Currently aircraft are all put into the same orbit, which they fly at the same altitude but at different speeds, leading to the kind of chaos one might expect. Will AI aircraft interact with it and obey its instructions? And will the AI be smart enough to not talk over each other? Will it support parallel runways? Will it provide vectors where applicable? Preferably following real-world approach plates if available. Even if it only vectored you to an initial approach fix, getting you there heading the right direction, at the right speed and altitude? Currently ATC will only provide bearing and range to a point along the extended runway centreline leaving no consideration for your heading, speed and altitude. Will we be able to declare an emergency and have the ATC prioritise that aircraft to land? Will it support touch and goes? Will the ground controller follow a schedule? For instance to try and get aircraft to takeoff at designated times (important not only for spacing, but to aid in getting aircraft to reach their time-on-target at the right time). Will we have ATIS where applicable? Will we be able to request QFE and QNH? Will we be able to say "say again" if we miss a transmission? Will the different agencies be separated where applicable, as per IRL? (ground, tower, approach/departure). Will there be any departure instructions? Perhaps following a real-life departure procedure (or a made up one) or at minimum “depart heading [bearing to first waypoint], resume own navigation”. Right now all it does is clear you up to FL 300 for seemingly no reason. Will we have multiple pilot voices and will there be multiple voices for each agency? currently there’s only a single voice handling all ATC and one pilot voice (though that voice sometimes changes depending on who you’re talking to). Will it be intelligent enough to not direct aircraft to taxi, takeoff and land onto runways, runway access points and taxiways that are unserviceable (for instance from debris from aircraft crashes or from damage). Will it support heliports and rotary-wing operations in general? Will we be able to override what runway is active? Will we be able to designate aerodromes as closed? Meaning that ATC isn't present, lighting doesn't come on, associated NAVAIDS become inoperative etc. Will we be able to override what NAVAIDS are operational or not and whether the lighting is on or not? The last one we can do with aircraft carriers. Will it have realistic detection and identification capability? For example not being able to vector aircraft it cannot detect or identify (when multiple aircraft are present in the vicinity)? I'm sure there are others as well (like I could've thrown in will we get NAVAIDS as units (we’ve got TACAN, but not RSBN, PRMG or ICLS. There's already an RSP-7 (PAR) in the files but it’s non-functional eye-candy on the Caucasus map) and will we get aerodrome beacons and identification beacons for aerodromes that should have them? Even better if we could get these as a placeable ground unit. But these are the kind of questions that remain unanswered as far as a new ATC system go and IMO most of these are essential and some are downright basic - apart from #8 and the 2nd part of #14, 1-15 (at least) is what the ATC system in the other F-16-orientated sim already does and does pretty damn well in my experience - I would hope a new ATC system for DCS would at least try and match its functionality. 1-7 are what I'd describe as bare minimum for what an ATC system needs to be able to do. And they spoke about the interface - well the other sim also recently added a new interface, but some (me included) weren't really a fan of it, so the previous interface was also kept as an option - can we expect something similar? Giving us the option keeps both sides happy. Even the supercarrier ATC (which you technically have to pay for) has plenty of shortcomings (and this also isn't exhaustive): It only supports carrier qualifications (CQ) operations and not ziplip, but does not support touch and goes nor bolters (even generally). The AI doesn't interact with it at all, meaning it's not only far less immersive and doesn't feel as alive as it could be, but you also don't have the same situational awareness you should have. There's communications missing (particular related to departure and CASE III waveoff/bolter procedures). It doesn't have the agencies frequency separated (making switch approach/switch tower callouts meaningless). It doesn't support callsigns for the Forrestal. LSO speed callouts only reference the Hornet's AoA range and not the state of the AoA indexer repeater lights (so you get incorrect speed awareness and spoeed gradings for anything that's not a Hornet). There's only a single pilot voice (which sounds drastically different when talking to everybody else) and there's only 1 tower, marshal and LSO voice. It doesn't have realistic detection and identification capability.

In my opinion there is one thing, that would really enhance the whole DCS experience by far. An AI ATC that replaces the Voices of ATC Controllers like AWACS, Tanker, Tower etc with AI generated random human like voices. This combined with a responsive system that captures the players voice and interpretes his calls in commands like "request bogey dope", "request landing" or "ready precontact" would just change the immersion dramaticly. Imagine you could actually speak to the ATC controllers and get a seemingly human reaction. There are programms like voice attack or even things like beyond ATC which show, that it is possible. I would be willing to buy it as a module or even consider paying for some kind of season pass to get this feature if neccesary. So ED, are you planning to do something like this or have even discussed it? Is there anybody else who would love such an ATC improvement?

Probably a C-130J, but I might be wrong. Edit: I just saw some photos of a C-130H with a cockpit a lot like in those videos, so might have been a later or upgraded C-130H as well. /Edit Great videos! I guess that means the race is on for epic landing spots on the South Atlantic map as soon as the module gets released. Well, and all other maps as well obviously.

Ground handling, sharp turns with tailwheel unlocked are not possible without excessive power. Like if the tailwheel would never unclutch even with differential braking. The plane also tends to drift in a very unatural way. Is this something being tweaked ? Thanks Love the Corsair, guys !

F-16C Fictional Ala 12 Spanish Air Force Livery This is a fictional livery for Ala 12 (Torrejón Air Base), designed with colors and markings inspired by aircraft currently—or historically—used by the Spanish Air and Space Force. While Spain has never operated the F-16, this skin imagines what it might look like if it had—drawing influence from real-world schemes seen on the F/A-18, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-4 Phantom, and liveries from other F-16 operators. I hope you enjoy it! https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3346007/

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. From the ASC website: "Upon purchase, you'll receive your license code via email within minutes. You'll use this code to instantly activate your C-130J when it's released."

This is the information available in the FAQ on ASC Discord

It was said that it will be added to the standard C-130J module but later (fuel prob):

This map really could do with a periods selector to choose between those two conflicts (just the builds for the bases need to change, not the whole map. At the moment we have all the equipment in the SIM for the Soviet war, but every military feature modelled on the map is designed to fit in with the US War. I understand why you want these details sorted out, but really the more precisely it models these bases exactly as they were when the US was there, the less credible it becomes for those of us wanting to model the Soviet war. I love this map, but I'm quite disappointed at how explicitly it models the period of the US war.

Cheers, brother.

Every post you made with your trains received positive feedback/reactions. How you take that as "negative zero interest" is unbelievable. Do you just ignore every bit of positive reactions and focus on the negative only or what? But hey, your choice. If you perceive all that bit of positive reaction as non-existent interest, so be it. There is certainly interest in what you are doing, even if you don't get hundreds of messages about it. There will and always be the dozen bunch of people happy for every bit of asset provided by people to improve the game, even if they don't directly express themself.

He has! Here you can see the MAX REV on the throttle.

Ooo fiesty. Some people don't like buying products that haven't been reviewed. Did you know that?

Pure and simple. The real Yak-52 is capable of being flown at night. Can our one have cockpit lighting and external lights please.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3345896/ Try this fantastic mod....but single player only. It breaks integrity check. In all honesty a vast improvement to the in-game ones. Makes night flying much more enjoyable. Hopefully ED add a version of this to the sim in the future.

If the above option does not solve it then you have some other problem - probably a mod.

Hi @MAESTR0, Thanks for the creation of the CWG map. Even in phase 1, it's awesome. I know that there are so many landmarks and monuments and you can't re-create every single one. Could you tell us something about the decision making process in what it's worth to create and what to leave aside? Having been in the area lately on vacation, monuments in Kassel and around are looking awesome. Kaiser-Wilhelm-Denkmal near Porta Westfalica is missing so: 52°14'44.7"N 8°54'23.6"E What I'm missing a bit are the details for the reservoirs and dams in the central part of Germany. The shape of the lakes / reservoirs is nice when flying up high, but going down low through the valleys by plane of even more helicopter, the water elevation changes drastically within the lake having no dam construction. This looks extremely strange at Edersee. Would be awesome if this could be created in later phases of the map. UGRA did a great job recreating the dams in Syria map, e.g. near Adana. Also the historical relevance of the Talsperren needs to be taken into account, as mentioned here in this post: Some locations of the dams: Edertalsperre / Edersee: N 51°10'56.23" E 9°03'39.43" Aabachtalsperre: N 51°29'47.77" E 8°43'11.38" Möhnesee: N 51°29'23.09" E 8°03'34.37" Sorpetalsperre: N 51°21'03.1" E 7°58'05.4" Biggetalsperre: N 51°06'39.17" E 7°53'16.44" Wiehltalseperre: N 50°56'11.14" E 7°40'03.12" Hennesee Staudamm: N 51°20'06.24" E 8°16'25.45" Diemeltalsperre: N 51°22'39.88" E 8°43'39.62" Rappbodetalsperre: N 51°44'23.45" E 10°53'34.19" Okertalsperre: N 51°51'01.59" E 10°27'34.14" Sösetalsperre: N 51°44'19.42" E 10°18'40.99" Odertalsperre: N 51°38'45.60" E 10°30'23.08" Granestausee: N 51°54'41.3" E 10°22'41.9" Innerstestausee: N 51°54'51.68" E 10°17'48.80" Eckertalsperre: N 51°50'28.50" E 10°34'47.34" Talsperre Pöhl N 50°32'57.11" E 12°10'48.38" (not in current detail area) Thanks again for the great work and listening to the community. I really enjoy using the CWG map. Jens

My experience after testing the new Pimax Play 1.41.1 QuadViews is now integrated, including settings options as in Companion. To avoid conflicts, I first uninstalled mbucchia QuadViews. Result: terrible ground stutter, which I didn't have before. I looked for a solution and made a few more attempts, but nothing worked. So I turned off QuadViews in Pimax Play and reinstalled mbucchia QV. Result: crashes. Like Calvin said, the new Pimax OpenXR is not compatible with mbucchia's QV. So rollback. Not so easy, since Pimax doesn't have a repository with old versions, not even decent patch notes. With luck, you can get a link from a Pimax employee. But what's the point of having a trash can? The last version was still in there. Then I put mbucchia QV back on and it ran like butter again. Conclusion: Half a day wasted. Stay away from the update for now.

If you consider unnecessary non constrictive criticism and false accusations "a freedom of speech" then good luck to you too

No, thanks. Two years ago I'd have probably bought it just to support the developers, but now after Razbam debacle I'm much less enthusiastic about spending money on DCS.

Another aircraft I'd love to have in DCS is the P-3 Orion. It would be very welcome!

I wonder if there is any chance of an AC-130 variant in the future?

Apology accepted, hopefully v1.2 will be released soon and the training missions will be an integral part of the Mod download, currently I’m finishing the last two missions: the Rockets and Bombing ones. I modified them to not need the Target Range objects Mod, in order to simplify the installation of the T-45 Mod. Best regards, Eduardo