Leaderboard

08 August 2025 Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, It is with great pleasure that we share a more complete list of the modules coming to the Pacific Theatre of Operations (PTO) Assets Pack. In parallel with other modules like the DCS: F4U-1D Corsair, the free DCS: Marianas WWII Map, and the upcoming DCS: F6F-3 Hellcat, the PTO Assets Pack is designed to provide a rich and detailed array of United States and Imperial Japanese air, ground, and naval units in the summer of 1944 PTO. Many of these units are finished, and others are still in progress; we look forward to your feedback. We are steadily progressing on our earlier released Mission Save State function. Please read the report below to learn about how we are improving this very useful feature. Additionally, we have added several fantastic modules to our Free Trial Program. You can try these aircraft and maps at no cost or obligation. Take them for a spin today! Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics Pacific Theatre of Operations 1944 Assets Pack Update Since the release of the free DCS: Marianas WWII map and the Magnitude 3 DCS: F4U-1D Corsair, we want to provide an update on the extensive effort being devoted to bringing this scenario to life with the PTO Assets Pack. Learning from some of the European Theatre of War scenarios, the PTO scenario is focused on providing an extensive order of battle for both US and Imperial Japanese forces in the summer of 1944 and to offer an accurate representation of the battle for the Mariana Islands and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. New player aircraft coming for this scenario will include both the F6F-3 Hellcat and the A6M5 Zero. Since our last update on this project, we can now share with you the specific air, land, and sea units being developed for the PTO Assets Pack, which owners of the existing World War II Assets Pack will be able to purchase with a 30% discount: PTO AI Assets: United States Aircraft F6F “Hellcat” SB2C “Helldiver” TBF “Avenger” SBD-5 “Dauntless” PBY “Catalina” P-38L “Lightning” United States Ships Enterprise aircraft carrier Casablanca-class light aircraft carrier Independence-class light aircraft carrier New Orleans-class heavy cruiser Baltimore-class heavy cruiser Cleveland-class light cruiser Fletcher-class destroyer Liberty-class transport Cimmaron-class oiler United States Ground Forces M4A2 Sherman M3A1 “Stuart” light tank LVT-4 tracked landing vehicle LVT(A)-4 tracked landing vehicle DUKW-353 amphibious truck US Marine Corp infantryman US Navy Carrier personnel US Navy seaman Imperial Japanese Aircraft A6M5 “Zero” D4Y “Judy” D3A “Val” B6N “Jill” Imperial Japan Ships Shokaku aircraft carrier Chitose light aircraft carrier Kongo battleship Mogami heavy cruiser Agano-class light cruiser Yugumo-class destroyer Kagero-class destroyer Kashino-class transport Imperial Japanese Ground Forces Type 94 Tankette Type 95 Ha-Go tank Kurogane Type 95 car Type 97 Te-Ke tank Type 97 Chi-Ha tank Type 97 ShinHoTo tank Type 2 Ka-M amphibious tank Type 1 47mm anti-tank gun Type 98 20mm anti-aircraft gun Type 91 10cm towed artillery Type 92 70mm towed artillery Type 10 120mm anti-aircraft gun Imperial Japanese Army Infantryman Japan Navy seaman Mission State Save Development Progress Following the initial release of the Mission Save state feature, we have gathered your feedback for further improvements. Based on this, we delivered an API feature request to our talented scripting community which was well received. Moving forward, a common request has been saving destroyed unit states on the battlefield. We have now tackled this issue, and destroyed static objects will be created in place of each destroyed ground vehicle, aircraft, infantry unit, or static building (not terrain/map buildings) in the Mission Save state. In this sense, the battlefield wreckage remains where the destruction took place. With the Mission Editor, these objects will be automatically given a "hidden" parameter to not clutter the map view. However, if you want to remove them from the mission because of your plot choice, you can find them in the Mission Editor units list and delete them. We will be releasing this improvement in an upcoming update once testing is fully complete. Based on your feedback, our next task for Mission Save state improvements will be to save a group’s waypoint parameters. This work is ongoing and includes the ability to save specific ground vehicles parameters such as ROE and more. New Free Trial Modules Explore new aircraft and terrains for free To help you explore new content, we are expanding our Free Trials Program. You can now try the additional following modules free of charge for 14 days every six months. New modules on Trial: South Atlantic Map Kola Map Sinai Map CH‑47F F‑5E Remaster NS 430 F‑5E Flaming Cliffs MiG‑15bis Flaming Cliffs F‑86F Flaming Cliffs Flaming Cliffs 2024 Simply navigate to the Try ‘n’ Buy page in the Launcher and look out for a TRY button! You can also activate free 14 day licenses from the Free Trials on the DCS website. Once you've made your selection, proceed to install the chosen module through our module manager. For more details read the How to install Modules guide. We hope you enjoy this opportunity to explore new modules and terrains completely free. Thank you again for your passion and support, Yours sincerely,

Hi Confirmed, the Player FF Zero is planned for the future. thank you bignewy

Dear all, we have cleaned this thread. For now, this thread will remain locked as it has become more work than it needs to be. Currently, we have generally the same 10 or so people debating different things releated or unrelated to this topic. It ends up in angry people, warnings and misunderstandings. When there is something new, it will be added to the 1st post in this thread. If it's something that needs discussion, we will consider opening this thread. Any new threads opened on this topic will be removed. If you have questions about items in the 1st post here, you can send us a DM. Thanks. The ED Team.

I will quote Wags here from our discord to give some more insight https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/543014378643914752/1403419297602338876 Thank you

You can bind the 1 axis to all 4, split them across 2, or have 4 individual binds. The world is your oyster.

No, research alone for the Zero has been going on for an incredibly long time. It was more about making sure we could do it to the expected level that people expect from a DCS Warbird. We were happy to have M3 doing a module that will fit in nicely with the Hellcat and Zero, but they were not held for the release of any other module. Thanks!

And +1 for P-38L “Lightning” FF

Since the release of the free DCS: Marianas WWII map and the Magnitude 3 DCS: F4U-1D Corsair, we want to provide an update on the extensive effort being devoted to bringing this scenario to life with the PTO Assets Pack. Learning from some of the European Theatre of War scenarios, the PTO scenario is focused on providing an extensive order of battle for both US and Imperial Japanese forces in the summer of 1944 and to offer an accurate representation of the battle for the Mariana Islands and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. New player aircraft coming for this scenario will include both the F6F-3 Hellcat and the A6M5 Zero. Since our last update on this project, we can now share with you the specific air, land, and sea units being developed for the PTO Assets Pack, which owners of the existing World War II Assets Pack will be able to purchase with a 30% discount: As always, subject to change. United States Aircraft F6F “Hellcat” SB2C “Helldiver” TBF “Avenger” SBD-5 “Dauntless” PBY “Catalina” P-38L “Lightning” United States Ships Enterprise aircraft carrier Casablanca-class light aircraft carrier Independence-class light aircraft carrier New Orleans-class heavy cruiser Baltimore-class heavy cruiser Cleveland-class light cruiser Fletcher-class destroyer Liberty-class transport Cimmaron-class oiler United States Ground Forces M4A2 Sherman M3A1 “Stuart” light tank LVT-4 tracked landing vehicle LVT(A)-4 tracked landing vehicle DUKW-353 amphibious truck US Marine Corp infantryman US Navy Carrier personnel US Navy seaman Imperial Japanese Aircraft A6M5 “Zero” D4Y “Judy” D3A “Val” B6N “Jill” Imperial Japan Ships Shokaku aircraft carrier Chitose light aircraft carrier Kongo battleship Mogami heavy cruiser Agano-class light cruiser Yugumo-class destroyer Kagero-class destroyer Kashino-class transport Imperial Japanese Ground Forces Type 94 Tankette Type 95 Ha-Go tank Kurogane Type 95 car Type 97 Te-Ke tank Type 97 Chi-Ha tank Type 97 ShinHoTo tank Type 2 Ka-M amphibious tank Type 1 47mm anti-tank gun Type 98 20mm anti-aircraft gun Type 91 10cm towed artillery Type 92 70mm towed artillery Type 10 120mm anti-aircraft gun Imperial Japanese Army Infantryman Japan Navy seaman

Hi, as soon as we are closer to releases we will share more information. thank you

What is it? The Cold War Germany NATO Training Server follows the idea of merging the concept of virtual air traffic networks like VATSIM with the world of DCS. It intends to offer DCS milsim squadrons an environment in which real-world flight rules apply and must be adhered to, where human Air Traffic Controllers and Fighter Controllers / TAC/C2 can offer their services and get enough traffic to have a good time, where squadrons meet and train together, and where, hopefully, many like-minded squadrons and ATC/FC folks will find their virtual homebase. This is a peace-time training server. All combat action is simulated and happens in the constraints of a real-life exercise. All aircraft and many ground units on the NATO training server are therefore set to immortal, and no real combat will take place. When flying on the server, you must act as if this was a flight in real life. As a few examples, that means: no weapons employment of any kind outside of ED-Rs or ED-Ds; no jettisoning of ordnance or external tanks if not absolutely necessary, and especially not over populated terrain; no violation of airspaces and the ADIZ; no supersonic flight below FL360 (FL200 over sea); no violation of minimum altitudes (500ft over unpopulated terrain / 1000ft over populated terrain / 2000ft over large cities, low flying areas minimum 250ft will be added to the map in the future) outside of ED-Rs; adherence to control zones and traffic patterns; collision avoidance; The Cold War Germany NATO Training Server uses a collection of historic charts for the airbases available in West Germany on the Cold War Germany map by Ugra as basis for a mandatory procedure framework. Where no historic charts are available, we use the modern charts and adapt them accordingly. Due to the small community within a small community that we are and also due to the difficulties of finding authentic documentation from one timeframe, some simplifications had to be made to the ATC and tactical structure. In general, in our virtual world we have two big civil Radar sectors (BREMEN RADAR and FRANKFURT RADAR) controlling the north and the south of Germany respectively, plus two CRCs working similarily. Additionally, the aerodromes feature Tower, Radar (for APP/DEP) and PAR frequencies, and some also come with Ground. Just like at VATSIM, our ATC system is intended to work top-down, e.g. if only a BREMEN RADAR controller is online, he may provide full ATC services to the sector you are flying in if traffic permits. You will find more information on our ATC/CRC system in our documentation at our Discord. Who is the target group? The Cold War Germany NATO Training Server aims at “full-real“ milsim NATO squadrons (both jets and helicopters) and interested ATC and Fighter Controllers / TAC-C2 that are looking for a high level of realism. While it has “Cold War” in its name, it does not exclude squadrons flying post-Cold War aircraft variants, but due to the nature of the map and the scenario, we ask these squadrons to try to use Cold War procedures as much as possible and use the 1989 airspace structure that is provided. No PBN approaches, and East Germany is off-limits (sorry EUFI guys, no Laage ETNL for you). You come from an F-15 / F-16 / F/A-18 / AH-64 squadron and want to have the latest weaponry on your wings? Fine with us, just please don’t bring them when we practice DACT together, that’s all. In order not to destroy the immersion of NATO aviation in West Germany in the 1980s that we are trying to create on the server, we currently do not allow squadrons flying eastern hardware, sorry. Since 1./JG71, the squadron behind this project, is based in Germany and affiliated with other squadrons and ATC from Europe, this project mainly aims at (but is not limited to!) European-based squadrons, and we intend to populate the server during European evening times. However, if you Yanks, Aussies or Kiwis can gather enough people to fly at your times, you are more than welcome to join the community of CWGNTS. What can you do on the Cold War Germany NATO Training Server? You can fly realistic peace-time training missions with your squadron, in the best case under ATC supervision or with TAC/C2 support. The larger ED-R areas are air-to-ground ranges where you can drop ordnance on targets. As a game master, you can also activate various air defenses at a few ranges to train threat evasion and the employment of countermeasures. You can also fly into one of the TRAs and practice A2A engagments. Additionally, the idea is to have more like-minded traffic on one server to provide a living, realistic military aviation environment that enhances your immersion. If you are an ATC or TAC/C2 controller, the chance of having enough competent traffic to work with is another intention of this server. For your air-to ground training, the CWGNTS currently offers five restricted airspaces (ED-R) three around Fassberg (ED-R 26, ED-R 27 and ED-R 39) one nearby Guetersloh (ED-R 18) one nearby Ramstein (ED-R 1 Baumholder), including “Polygone” EW-Range with SAM threats For your air-to-air training, the CWG NTS offers four Temporarily Reserved Airspaces (TRA) and two Danger Areas (ED-D) ED-R 201 (TRA) over northern Germany and the North Sea ED-R 202 (TRA) over northern Germany ED-R 203 (TRA) over central Germany ED-R 205 (TRA) over southern Germany ED-D 44 over the North Sea for (but not limited to) A2A live-firing ED-D 48 over the North Sea for (but not limited to) A2A live-firing It also offers two tankers, one in the north in the JUDY Anchor, and one in the south in the VIRGIN Anchor to practice AAR. For rotorheads, a few auxiliary airfields linked to the "Heeresfliegerwaffenschule" in Bueckeburg have been recreated to offer sites for basic helicopter flight training. Additionally, a little helicopter firing range and a nearby FARP have been created in ED-R 27 to practice basic weapon employment. How to participate? The CWGNTS is not a public server, as it aims at virtual squadrons and ATC/FC folks who want to walk the extra mile when it comes to realistic military air traffic operations, which is why access is limited to like-minded people to protect everyone from destructive behaviour that can be seen on public servers from time to time. Send me a private message here in the forum and write a few words about your squadron and which airbase you would like to have as your homebase, or your experience as an ATC/FC, then you'll get the link to the CWGNTS Discord. There you can find the documentation on how to fly or control on the server in detail. We are looking forward to flying with you, seeing you in the pattern and hearing you on frequency!

Flight Simming angels just blessed us with a FF Zero. Just omg! The P-38 AI is also massive news. A plan to make a FF out of the P-38 would be huge. For now, I'm enjoying the Zero A6M5 news. So many other potentially great FF modules too out of that AI list too.

That's a very impressive list for PTO! The most comprehensive set of assets we've ever seen. Apart from the odd ship, we can make the majority of the various task group 58 formations with the all aircraft carriers, all aircraft, the dominant destroyer, light cruiser and heavy cruiser types. The main thing missing for the USN is the Atlanta CL which features in the screen of most task groups and for the IJN, perhaps more crucially - a 10-gunned IJN heavy cruiser like the Takao, Myōkō (or even the other Mogamis) as I fear the current Mogami is at somewhat of a disadvantage. The IJN though is more annoying to flesh out compared to the USN due to the increased number of classes. What's currently there is IMO workable*. The only thing I'm a little sorry to see the Iowa being dropped (though without the a suitable IJN battleship counterpart that's similarly armed, like a Nagato or even better the Yamato-class). The other things I'd like to ask: Will we see improvements to ship AI? Primarily when it comes to manoeuvring defensively (something pretty relevant in WWII naval battles) and opening up arcs of fire for defensive weapons. Will we see multiple ammunition types for dual-purpose guns? At the moment WWII-era naval guns only have a time-fused shell which is often ineffective against surface and land targets (and will especially be so against armoured ones like battleships and cruisers) - we ideally need a point-detonating shell and/or armour piercing shell and an AA shell with either a time fuse or (preferably) a proximity fuse (proximity fuses were introduced and in circulation among Allied warships by 1943 and proximity fuses are relevant to near enough every ship currently in-game with a naval gun with a calibre of 76 mm/3-inches and above). There's also bugs that currently absolutely cripple the ability of dual-purpose guns to effectively engage aircraft. Will we see improvements to ship damage modelling to at least account for armour? Though ideally we'd have internal components modelled and maybe some flooding and fire-propagation model.

It's hard to take a post seriously when the OP doesn't actually put in the effort to write it themselves.

Full Fidelity Zero confirmed. (In the future).

Just made my day (year?). Fantastic news!

Wow, I knew about the Hellcat coming, but is this the first announcement for the Zero?

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

I first read the newsletter, I couldn’t believe it. So grateful, thank you ED. Can’t wait to see how immersive this all will be. So glad for the full fidelity zero, and very pleasantly surprised by the AI P38. Maybe flyable one day ?

A very pleasant newsletter. Thank you ED for your hard work on so many projects, modules, and terrains. Reading about the PTO Assets Pack really got me excited, as did the new modules in our Free Trial Program. I've done a few parachute jumps from the CH-47C, so it will be interesting to fly F version of this helicopter in Free Trial. (It's a shame, though, because I was expecting the OH-58D to be included in the Free Trial list. Perhaps in the future)

I'm raising the topic back from it's slumber. I realise this is the Hornet's whislist, but the feature ought to work the same for all modules. I hope this get's a bit more attention. I'm not sure if people realise just how powerful having custom maps onboard the aircraft really is. The current situation is very limiting - so much so that I for one turn the map off completely (mostly due to it's brightness making the HSI near unreadable, but also because the map rarely serves the flight). Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yeah... ED Just keep up working hard and gives us the stuff for free... /sarcasms in case it flew over your heads...Pun definitely intended. Can't wait for the PTO , Hellcat and Zero... My wallet is READY

Youtube recommended this video to me; haven't watched it yet, but seems fitting.

People place high expectations on the dynamic campaign, but I'm sure many will be disappointed, and others will point out a ton of flaws. It's never going to be good. I bought the C-130, and just the fact that it simulates well and takes off and lands makes me happy. Load management is a separate aspect that I didn't even expect at first. I bought it and don't regret it. I hope other cargo aircraft come out in the future!

I noticed some really bad drag issues with the JF17 top end speed quite some time back and never really got around to testing it. Never really needed to test it, but I don't think this is as intended. I know that the RD-93 isn't the most powerful engine & these jets don't neccasirly need to be too far above mach anyway. Below are 4 screenshots showing the fuel, speed & loadout. My question is, Is this amount of drag intentional? If so, Why? It doesn't seem to make much sense that you lose 33% of your top end speed by adding the additional 2 missiles & their pylons. I've got some testing yet to do with other weapons and will post them as well when I get a little free time. In this screenshot, With 100% fuel, we are at 35k on Syria with the temp set to 20C, Max speed of Mach 1.55, Single rack SD10 and dual PL5s In this screenshot we are 51lbs of fuel, 35k feet on Syria with the temp set to 20C, Mach 1.57, Single rack SD10 and dual PL5 This difference is a little irrelevent to my concern, As we are approaching top end speed anyway, But just for testing I wanted to see. In this screenshot, FULL FUEL, 35k, Syria, 20C, Dual rack SD10, Dual PL5s, Speed of Mach 1.10 And the last screenshot, 51lbs of fuel, Syria, 35k, 20C, Dual Rack SD10s with dual PL5s and a speed of Mach 1.15

Here you see a couple images of an aircraft with its external lights on and a signal flare activated through triggered actions for comparison. In general, aircraft lights are only visible from a few hundred feet away. The signal flare on the other hand is visible from miles away. Everyone has seen aircraft with their running lights on at night, visibility in miles is accurate as that is the point of the lights. It would really help with night flying if aircraft lights in DCS had realistic draw distances. I feel like there must be a simple fix, just make them work like the signal flare!

Hello! I have a request considering the maps in the module's installation folder that are used on the HSI-page in the AMPCD that these could be exempted from IC. The reasoning is twofold: first off, all the maps can be customized in the actual aircraft by Mission Support, and so we should be able to do that too. I am not arguing for a tool to make the maps, just that we would be able to alter the files as we need to. Secondly: the current map with the current gain and the green symbology is really difficult to read at a glance. Even at lowest gain the symbols tend to not be bright enough and the map dark enough to read the display as easily as we should be able to. The benefit for adding an exception in the IC is that we could simply go throught the maps and adjust their brightness to a darker tone (I've tried this and it works really well), or the players could even modify the maps to the specific needs of a specific mission, drawing custom areas and borders etc in the maps, instead having to rely on a specific map that in many cases doesn't suit your needs. I do not see how having the maps under IC provides any protection against malicious player behaviour. IRL you can have what ever kind of map under your HSI that you need. This would greatly enhance the usability of the moving map in the F/A-18 Thank you for considering! Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yes please!!!!

You can pretty quickly ascertain the value of a presentation by asking yourself if it's meant to please shareholders or end-users. So far, it's always the former. If AI were so game changing, it wouldn't be getting integrated into software before asking an end-user base. Dotcom all over again.

Genuinely cannot tell you how happy I am to hear this, the zero is my absolute favorite warbird and it's so exciting to see such a fascinating and underappreciated piece of aviation history being represented at DCS's level of quality. Thank you!!

good to know, guess I will have to purchase it then I'm so glad to not be a fan of the MP scene, so I couldn't care less of this so-called "community splits", if they don't want to purchase it is their choice, just don't ask to use them even if they chose to not buy.

A 9800X3D is selling on Amazon for USD $449, i.e. $74 dollars more than a 7800X3D. At that price diff, why would you go for the last gen Zen 4 as opposed to Zen 5 stuff? For a €3128.20 machine... adding USD$74 shouldn't be a problem, right?

You expect all this stuff for free? I do however agree with @razo+r that it would be nice if only the mission creators need to purchase the asset packs for MP. As we've been told that SP dwarves MP in any case ED should really look into a way of not "splitting" the MP guys. I'm sure the reward will come later. As for those of you that wants the pack with a 30% discount, get the WWII asset pack for 20 bucks next sale. Cheers!

Can‘t wait! Please hurry with the Pacific asset pack!

Have another read of the list, old boy; apparently you missed a couple of points...

Did we just get an official Zero announcement slipped in there?? we know the Full Fidelity F6F is coming and the sentence makes it sound like we will be seeing the Zero as well. Would love clarification from ED! And to know, will it be Full Fidelity or Flaming Cliffs fidelity?

Hi, this is a known issue and reported. I have merged the threads fix should be in the next update. thank you

No one should ever be sharing their opinion on the FM without listing their full hardware setup. If someone is on a CM3 with 200mm extension and someone else is on an X56 joystick, then people are not talking about the same thing. And we will all go in circles. If Mag3 wants to make an accessible version of the FM - and by accessible I mean tuned to cheaper, accessible short throw hardware - there should just be an option in special. but the default model should be tuned towards accurately modeling the characteristics, with the assumption of a long throw stick. my rig is torn apart so I still can’t test this, but if people continue to discuss please share your physical hardware and keep in mind the drastically different experience you will have. i am concerned the FM has been made to feel more accurate for people on standard short throw hardware, at the expense of fidelity for those with long extensions.

Yep

Honestly? If the reason is being afraid that your RTX4090 goes kaput right after the warranty expires, then I'd keep the money. The only thing that I would strongly recommend is (if you haven't done it already) to undervolt your RTX4090, and A.S.A.P. Every single GPU, whatever segment and model, ALWAYS comes overvolted from factory. The silicon lotery, time constraints for QC, materials and customer assistance costs, these all play a role. And so the bean-counters at each manufacturer decided long time ago that GPUs better get some hefty extra (i.e, excessive) voltage in them, so that a LOT more of them work at the announced clocks once out of the production chain to testing, then onto the retailers/shops. They're enforcing GPUs stability with factory announced clocks that way, lifespan of the product be damned (society of consumerism, there you have it). By doing a balanced undervolting on your RTX4090 you'll get at very least a 20% reduction in power consumption, and only a ~2% reduction in performance (great trade-off). This will put less stress on the whole circuit, make it run cooler, which also helps stability (less stuttering) and especially - which is what you're looking for - prolongue its lifespan. Most times tremendously improved, in such ways, over "stock". And there are no downsides to it. Everyone should undervolt their GPU, because that's how it should have been from the start, but alas. Various undervolt tutorials specific to the RTX4090 in youtube. Among plenty others, this one here is a very good example: Direct link to this video

Not just the sky, but city glow is also completely absent. There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to lighting at night.

I'm in the process of making comparison GIF for all aircraft. So far, I made 6 of them and I can tell you that: HUD boldness is not affected by resolution for the following aircraft: JF-17 (the result is very clean) A-10C Ka-50 (the result is poor because characters are much too bold, whatever the resolution) EDIT: AH-64 HUD boldness is indeed affected by resolution for the following aircraft: AV-8B F-16 F/A-18C EDIT: F-15E affected too, even though it's less striking I stand corrected about the AV-8B. This GIF method is the best I could find to demonstrate the issue (even to myself). Thanks for pushing me harder when it's needed, gents. Once I'm finished, I'll report all affected aircraft individually.

I got a message today informing me that its ready to ship. based on emails it took 3 days during the assembly period but 11 days to get through inspections. Not sure if it failed and they had to start all over or if inspections is a bottleneck. Asked if I wanted to keep the 50ppd unit and if my address was the same. It appears to be moving along...

Amazing!!! This sim is a dream. Thank you to the all people involved in this. Looking forward to all of this

It was announced last year that polychop had signed a 4 campaign contract with Baltic, but then the team broke up. Is there any confirmation whether Baltic Dragon is still working on any campaigns for the Kiowa?

Wow. That looks like a fantastic list for PTO. And the subtle drop of full fidelity Zero was a nice surprise. It feel kinda greedy to ask. Vuti do hope you'll add infantry on both sides with machine guns. This is something i miss almost every time i made an ETO ground attack scenario. Forced to use the German halftracks or add a bunker to get machine guns. Isn't always a good thing to do. So i do hope since you've invented so much time into the PTO pack. That you can add two extra units. It would make it soo much easier to make realistic scenario. But credit to ED for adding stuff like P38s, stuart tanks and catelina.

Will it still be a requirement for everyone to must have the PTO Assets if one wants to join a multiplayer server that uses these assets in a mission, or have you found a way yet of not splitting the community behind these "paywalls"?

There are two people on this forum that will jump at the chance to shoot down wished. One, because he just doesn't like the idea, for whatever reason, no matter what it is. The other one: "ED has not talked about it. It's not in the roadmap". Go figure! (The thing about reading is spot on). What's actually funny is that more often than not get it wrong, and we suddenly have said feature! Apologies! This is my fault. I mentioned "FPS" for a lack off a better description because I was in a hurry and English is not my first language. What I meant to say, was that any feature that could resemble/compete with a Combined Arms feature would probably need to be approved by ED, which you obviously agree with. Thank you for your video, thoughts and what you bring to the community! Cheers! Have a great weekend everyone!

Flight model is more then stick to control surfaces modeling. I flew with a 20cm extended stick. Never needed curves. Changed to a 10cm extended force feedback stick, never needed curves, including on the Spitfire. The Corsair was more reactive than a Spitfire on the controls. Which doesn't seem very likely as its been described as a stable aircraft and I've never read any pilot use the same adjectives for a Corsair that they would use on a Spitfire (like the aircraft reacting to your thoughts) a common description of the controls of a Spitfire.

Yes, absolutely. Only(!) three years, which is actually quite fast, for such a complex DCS module. And considering they did basically dump all the existing code base AND the 3D model and started from scratch along the current development (see interview below), that's an incredible development pace.