Leaderboard

I'm considering that and that was a plan way back when I started this project. I think the release is too soon to release "half-mods". Speaking of AI, since the aircraft has increased weight so it behaves more realistically with Su-27 Flight Model - AI has some problems taking off, often crashing at the end of runway or just flying on AB non stop to stay airborne. I'm trying to fix it but there's a chance it'll stay like that untill we get CWS and with that a inside-modified FM.

Su-22M4 Mod Information and Progress - August 2025, Su-22M4 is an FC3 based, free mod of a legendary export variant of Su-17 attack aircraft, It is in FC3 fidelity with a lot of the cockpit being clickable as well as some basic system implementation. These include: - Cold Start Procedure - Generators, Pumps, APU, Gyro spool up, - In cockpit lighting - dimmable flood lights as well as warning lights with master caution reset, - RWR turn on/off with volume and brigtness controll, - Weapon control panel - ripple quantity, interval, master arm, - Basic SAU Channels (autopilot), - Wing Sweep Controll (only cosmetic for now, no effect on flight characterisitcs), CWS like in Su-30 is planned, this will allow for CRT display being usable for TV munition seeker view (Su-22 didnt have TGP). No estimates on that, first version will be released with Su-25A avionics. I choose them because it uses identical targeting system and gunsight as Su-22. It will use modified Su-27 Flight Model. Su-22M4 will require Su-25A and Su-27 modules Mod progress (august 2025) What is done: - External 3d model with animations, minor details might be changed, - Remove Before Flight Covers, - Liveries (almost 90 from a lot of Su-22 users, around 50 Polish AF), - Pylons with assigned weapons that can be carried on them, - Cockpit 3d model with basic gauges animated, - In cockpit clickables: Engine Control, System Power, Main Power Panel, Weapon Control Panel,Avionics Power, NWS, Taxi/Takeoff lights, - Wing Sweep Control - 3 Positions: 30, 45 and 63 Degrees, - External Lighting and Cockpit warning lights., - In-cockpit sound system with custom sounds - battery, pumps, gyro, apu, launch tone, - Wallpapers, Icons and stuff - Simple damage model What needs to be done before release: - As much in cockpit clickability as possible with modelling systems even with fc3 limitations - Bounding keybind presses to in-cockpit switches and buttons (so they animate properly) - KKR-1 recon pod (cosmetic only) - Wyuga ELINT pod, and maybe a way to correclty target ARM with Su-25A avionics, or at least making it look legit. - Loadouts - Multiplayer Synchronisation Estimated Release Date: Fourth Quarter of 2025

Hi, yes its default profiles for the total control keyboard unit. I have the unit myself and used it to test the profiles.

UPDATE v1.0(?) Hello everyone, today it's not going to be a regular update but a fresh start with the addition of MiG-31K version to the mod. The old User Files link is going to stop getting updates with v2.72 being the last available version to download. From now on the mod will include both MiG-31BM and MiG-31K versions developed simultaneously. First off - changes to the BM version compared to the latest version: - Fixed HUD glass texture on the exterior model, - Added variable air intakes animation, - Added altimeter pressure setting knob, - Two new liveries by Brzoza - @StalkerXDPL - Changed afterburner nozzle texture, - Adjusted Kh-31P flight parameters, - Made cockpit afterburner sound quieter, - Changed the texture of metal hydraulic parts (refueling probe, gears), Now the MiG-31K version - it uses Su-25T avionics, so it's free, you don't even need FC3/2024 pack for it to work. The Kinzhal missile works with ELINT Fantasmagoria pod, however the pod itself is not visible, but you still need to equip it in ME. As you could probably figure out, due to DCS FC3 limitations, Kinzhal works as an antiradiation missile. The maximum range I could get it to hit the radar was 500km, it was also the maximum range enemy radar could see me above the sea while flying at 15000m. Due to DCS missile coding limitations (I might be wrong and it might be further researched) the missile doesn't actually perform like Kinzhal would (allegedly), and any changes in the direction of more "realistic" behavior make missile miss and stop working properly. It still flies a high arch trajectory at very high speeds but it's not really ballistic. Hit probability is dependent on launch parameters and from countless launches I've made, I recommend not to launch it closer than 150 or even 200km from target while also being at at least 15000m altitude and above 1,4M. Right now I couldn't make AI launch Kinzhals (at least from further distances), will work on it in coming updates. Enjoy! New User Files Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3346479/

I appreciate this. But just food for thought - the rendering distance of objects is just a simple variable, like a lot of other things in the GFX engine. Just give us users the option to set it ourselves according to our machines and mission. Currently it is unnecessarily frustrating for helicopters. It's simply a different gameplay. I couldn't care less about drawing of far away objects, but having fences, bushes and other LoDs just pop in as a wavefront right in the center of your POV is.... not nice. I don't want to beat a dead horse (at least no more), but if you could ask your team for an (optional) setting that would satisfy helicopter needs, that would be awesome.

Internal and External Lighting almost done

The posted video from ralfidude was awesome already. Please keep them coming, so we have something to dream about while waiting...

Rule of thumb: When it says things like "disappointed", "does not meet expectations", "needs attention", it's a complaint. When it says "This exact thing happened to me in this exact spot under these circumstances, here's a track file. Happy to provide more information if needed", it's a bug report. ----- It's just so much easier for the devs when players provide all the pertinent information. Where did it happen? Did you try just once or can you reproduce that thing every time? Did you try to fix the issue? If so, what did you try already? Did you try in 2D and does it happen in 2D as well? What are your PC's specs? A short track showcasing the issue is always a big help. Confirm right away you're not running mods, or deactivated all of them prior to reporting. Confirm you've already repaired DCS. You know, that kind of stuff.

Hello, here is my video in everything you need to know about the Hover and Route Autopilot modes!!!!! They use the Doppler so they are finicky, but with the information here you should be able to make the Mi-24 do some of the flying for you!!! &nbsp Appreciate any feedback!!

Hi TOViper! After pressing the park brakes, I always try to release both pedals simultaneously, and the park brake is still disengaged. (I have also tested releasing them one by one, and of course, this results in the park brake being disengaged.) ------ However, I have discovered the reason and it is not an issue with the ajs37 module: I tried to bind a keyboard key to brake and keep the brake axis binding. By pressing the keyboard key to finish the action of applying the left and right brakes, if I then pull up the park brake lever and release the keyboard key, the park brake will still be disengaged. Remove the brake axis binding when I use the keyboard key to brake. Now, it works. Based on the above results, I went to check my pedal device. I did find a problem: when releasing status, the raw output signal of the pedal device will jump rapidly within a very narrow range, which means even if I don't step on the brake pedals, it will produce very small output. This led to a positive result when AJS37's park brake detected whether the brake pedal had been stepped on, resulting in the disconnection of the park brake. After knowing the reason, I began to try to solve this problem by calibrating the trim, setting dead zones, and adjusting the output curve. Thank you to everyone who has helped me with this thread reply. Good luck!

Hi, it's actually being based on a German F-104 G Consortium.

That would be one large thread! I think I'll need to give it a go when I find the time

In this mission.... During take-off the master switch is off. Even though you're at full throttle and above 54-in/Hg.....this is good. At 1890 you turn n the master switch, but WEP did not enable because your MAP has not reached 54-in/Hg yet.....this is good At 2030~, you go full throttle, but WEP did not immediately turn on, because MAP didn't hit 54-in/Hg yet, once it did, WEP enabled. ...this is good So now you're hovering around 55-in/Hg..... At 2147~, you drop throttle for a bit causing MAP to dip below 52-in/Hg momentarily, causing WEP to disable And turn back on, when you went full throttle causing the MAP to increase above 54-in/Hg Everything is working as intended for this update, however the programmers are still working on the switch logic for a future update.

What was that quote again? Something like “I wasted half my money, the rest I spent on booze and hookers!“

First of all I want to thank everyone who responded to my query. It's really nice to know that there is such a supportive and knowledgeable community to help newbies like me. And YES, there was a simple solution. I inadvertently had the right ENG OPER switch in the depressed (motor) position. I understand from reading the responses that Yurgon came up with the solution, so kudos to you. This simulation is incredibly realistic and detailed. iT Seems to operate like the real thing. And it's even more amazing that there are users that understand it so thoroughly that they can diagnosis something like this just from my simple question. THANKS AGAIN YURGON!

Interesting why the ALR-56C on the Eagle works completely different than the ALR-56M in the Viper. We will see how the C-130 ALR-56M works when it gets pushed out. The amount of logic that is not used with the creation of the ALR-56M in the Viper is fascinating. I am sure both sides is getting tired of this issue being brought up but it is hard to not continue to talk about it when it is a legitimate issue that many people have brought up time and time again.

I had a thought, by the way, that ASC deserves a lot of praise anyway. After all, the model is close to release and will appear this year. And looking at some other studios that also started work in 2021/2022, you could say that ASC is Formula 1, while others haven't even given a single screenshot or video, let alone released. They certainly deserve applause for that, even though you're still in the pre-order period.

(Ignore the rear main wheel that all of the sudden started rotating weirdly lol, already fixed that) front land gear 22.mp4

Just a quick addendum to note that if one saves targets via a mix of methods (both keypad entry and via shkval), any targets saved using the shkval and laser rangefinder will have their altitudes shifted as well, so if you go to engage those targets, be sure that your altitude is set to the same value when you stored the targets before caging the sensor to engage.

LOL!! Here is an enhanced transparent version, if anyone wanted to use it someday :

Hi reflected! Given your incredible knowledge in the source data, could we pretty please have a sticky post with your suggested readings? Something like your suggestions at the end of a campaign file but unified under a single post. can’t wait to see your PTO work and hopefully one day Vietnam!

I hope not, DCS is meant to be high fidelity, not a gamey sim to please War Thunder mentality.

Must be something like that, since there is no such big lake in the region at all.

It's been fixed in the last update (even if the change log didn't say anything).

please include a track replay and your dcs log so the team can take a look. This could just be a RAM / pagefile issues and the terrain has not loaded. thanks

I can confirm that the implementation of the AIM-9 is still in development. We have experienced some delays due to personal reasons (unrelated to IndiaFoxtEcho) on the part of our coders. We apologise for the delay

I think Saxman's post is extremely germane and should be seriously considered in relaxing the very strict limits, while still requiring the engine management procedures. When the recent changes were made, I made sure all temps were in the blue but found that I kept cooking the engine within a very short time. In fact, during my first three CV launches I heard the knocking and airframe shuddering before my wheels left the deck, shortly after passing the island! I'm sure I was at max throttle (not knowing any better), but even so, I can't imagine any engine being accepted into full production that would be that fragile, not being able to handle a less than 10 seconds of overheating. Also, since the gauges aren't digital and tend to vibrate a lot, it's hard to tell if you are at 54" MP or jumping to 55" and potentially damaging the engine. Need a little slack here IMO. Also, IOT avoid stressing the engine and it suddenly quitting in a climb, I had to limit the climb rate to 500-1000 ft/min. The climb rate for the F4U was a key factor in the intended design IOT out-pace the Zeke. It should be able to do a sustained climb rate in excess of 3000 ft/min. If I tried to push it to 2000, the shuddering began, and I had to back off. maybe M3 can take a look at these things and balance the book (recommended figures) with pilot reports. I'm in no way suggesting PIREPs be taken as gospel, since they are not the same from pilot to pilot, but it's just my uninformed belief that this plane would have been too hard to just safely fly, let alone take into combat with a near-peer foe. v/r Stel

I wasn’t going to buy it. But my character is like a rotten Swiss cheese

Seriously, this is a prime example of how it's easier to close an uncomfortable topic and ignore users who paid for the product. Instead of acting like responsible adults and publishing a fully-fledged manual.

ED let us set the render distance from bushes an grass again so it can be stopped completely if wished, no matter what performance cost! This is so f.....ing annoying with an RTX 5090 which has enough headroom to do this but there is no way to change it anymore. This absolutely unnatural comic-style bushes-popping is really destroying everything of this nice flightsim in lowlevel flight! It can´t be that hard to change...

My suspicion simply is that the chinook did not sell es expected and now they are kind of abandoned it. When the real bad EA of the Viper happend, they said they learned from it and would never again launch a module in this early state they did with the Viper. But for me, the Chinook launch was even worse! And now almost no updates in a year, but Afghanistan, Iraq, Mig 29, F 15C, F 35... Clearly the focus has drifted to quantity instead of quality, which is a shame... I bought a lot modules over the years and I always wanted to support ED, but recently I just don't think that's a good idea since I don't see that they are really taking care of their stuff. Maybe we are lucky now that the Viper came out of EA, but I hardly think so. So the Chinook together with Afghanistan were my last EA purchase from ED as long as I don't see any notable progress on the chinook.

I know there's a lot of talk out there about the British MoD being most difficult to get information on regarding their military assets from 50+ years ago, however, with the F-35A coming online, I hardly think the latest AESA radars and stealth technology could be modelled more accurately than such an aircraft as the Sea Harrier. As to the difficulty sourcing reliable data to create the Sea Harrier in DCS due to the British MoD's policy on military information, let's not forget that the Indian Defence Force operated the Sea Harrier Mk51, which is almost identical to its British counterpart in many respects. I believe a Sea Harrier FRS.1 would fit right into DCS World for the following reasons: Currently, we have the DCS: South Atlantic Map, with multiple Falklands war assets, HMS Invincible, the A-4E-C community mod, the SA-342, and more recently, the excellent Currenthill scorpion and scimitar additions. However, we have completely missed the star of the show: THE SEA HARRIER FRS.1. Without the sea harrier, this theatre of war naturally falls short of its true potential. Furthermore, DCS is currently lacking of a single British aircraft post 1944. Arguably one of the most famous and loved fighters Britain ever produced, the Sea Harrier FRS.1 would fill this gap and open up huge possibilities in the realms of cold war scenarios. With the apprehended discontinuation of support and development for the RAZBAM AV-8B night attack, we have no asset in DCS which can fulfil the awesome (and lets be honest, immensely fun) short take off capabilities of the harrier II. And if the Sea Harrier really is that difficult to find reliable data on to create a realistic full fidelity module, why not the Harrier GR1A/AV-8A? Again, this would fulfil the void in the British aircraft department in DCS, and add huge capability for Forward Operations for Cold War Scenarios. Even with my limited access to useable sources, by doing a quick google search on the subject (which I am by no means claiming to be the unprecedented guide of how to create a module), there is a multitude of NASA studies on the AV-8A's performance. I found the following within the first 5 sources: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19780011151/downloads/19780011151.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19880003981/downloads/19880003981.pdf With regards to the GR.1A, this was an aircraft which not only saw service in Britain, but also as the AV-8A in USMC service, and the AV-8S in both spanish and thai navies. I am aware that when Eagle Dynamics creates a module, they will naturally be wanting to know that people will actually buy the module. By developing the Harrier GR1/AV-8A/S, I suspect strongly that there would be great interest from customers in the US, which from the multitude of American aircraft developed for DCS, I suspect to be quite a large portion of DCS customers. I am sure that much of the DCS community would love to see this iconic British legend as a full fidelity module. For the reasons above, I would ask Eagle Dynamics, and any third party developers to strongly consider the Harrier as a reasonable prospect for a full fidelity module in DCS. Now I must continue studying physics

Помимо любителей воевать, присутствуют ещё и любители просто летать и общаться с техникой. И ни один другой симулятор не сравнится в этих аспектах с DCS. Я вот обожаю процедуры, рутинные операции, выдерживание точных параметров полета, посадки в СМУ, отклик техники на мои действия и т.д. Боевая составляющая почти совсем неинтересна (хотя иногда и неплохо, что она есть). Для таких, как я, C-130 очень интересен. Особенно с учётом функции лоад-мастера. И мне бы хотелось, чтобы в DCS и дальше появлялись транспортные и другие небоевые аппараты. Спасательные или поисковые, например. Даже некоторые гражданские не помешали бы. Наоборот, даже украсили симулятор. И привлекли бы новых пользователей. Некоторые любители вертолетов пришли из гражданских симуляторов в DCS только из-за самой реалистичной физики, в не из-за возможности пострелять. Так что мнения о целесообразности модуля C-130 очень разнообразны и субъективны. Не надо категоричности.

Further adjustment of wheel heights and compression: Also, added the missing part and positioned it in proper place: @YoYo I know its probably still not 100% correct, but is this good enough?

15 August 2025 Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, We are pleased to bring you our latest update that includes a wide range of improvements and fixes across the DCS Core, aircraft and map modules. From refined AI behavior and weapon adjustments, to very substantial improvements to the Afghanistan map, this update represents another step toward delivering the most authentic and immersive combat flight simulation possible. You can find the full changelog information here. Enjoy! We are also thrilled to deliver the free Currenthill Assets pack. Each unit features high-resolution textures, Levels of Detail (LOD), animations, FLIR textures, seasonal liveries and encyclopedia entries. Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics DCS Update Development Progress DCS Core Updates Core AI logic has been improved for both air and ground units. Fixed aircraft AI issues include the F4U-1D’s zero fuel behavior, improved group rocket attacks, tuned heavy aircraft landing angle of attack errors, and aerial refueling improvements. AI fighters using semi-active homing missiles will now respect radar gimbal limits, and helicopter traffic jams when landing at Jalalabad AB have been resolved. Ground AI targeting algorithms for SA-11, SA-2, and SA-3 launchers have also been refined, SAM sites now rearm correctly, and collisions between ground units and parked aircraft have been addressed. Tunguska missile accuracy has also been improved. The Mission Editor (ME) gained a search bar for unit lists to assist when creating missions, and range rings for ground units now respect the ‘Hide Units’ setting. Weapon updates include speed limitations, aerodynamic tuning for AGM-84 variants, seeker logic improvements for AGM-88C, and corrected mass and drag parameters for various ordnance. Additional bomb skins expand visual variety, and proximity fuze logic based on battery power has been corrected, and SNEB rocket effectiveness has been increased. Module-Specific Improvements F-16C Viper Numerous AN/AAQ-33 Advanced Targeting Pod improvements and weapon integration fixes ensure more reliable AGM-65, GBU-24, and LGB employment. F/A-18C Multi-Sensor Integration (MSI) enhancements bring additional datalink and AWACS track functionality. AH-64D Stability improvements for George AI, enhanced target reporting, and new Total Controls keyboard profiles. JF-17 Thunder Radar and HUD refinements and an updated RWR database. OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Cockpit and menu fixes and crash prevention in multiplayer slot switching. MiG-21bis Improved kneeboard data organization for Cold War operations. F4U-1D Corsair Multiple art corrections, sound adjustments, and the addition of a WEP Master On/Off switch. Flaming Cliffs 2024 Su-33 gains new Iraq instant action missions and HS campaign refinements. Afghanistan Development progress The Afghanistan map received extensive terrain mesh, normal maps, vegetation, ground texture, and other terrain improvements. In addition to Points of Interest (POI) areas around airfields and urban areas, the entire map has received a significant improvement in accuracy and realism, including from lower altitudes. An important addition has been the inclusion of Forward Operating Bases Clark, Gardez, Thunder, Tellier, Camp Dubs, and Camp Julien. Additionally, the Patrol bases of Khost and Deysie combat outposts have also been added. These are now highlighted on the Mission Editor and F10 Map View with green triangles. Other notable additions include the Mausoleum of Ahmad Shah Durrani, Kabul’s National Assembly, the Babur Garden, and the Kabul National Stadium. Many of the airbases also saw substantial improvement with more small and large object details, improved texture and lighting, and corrections to ramp and taxiway positions and AI logic. For a more detailed video report, please watch Matt “Wags” Wagner’s August 2025 Update video that discusses the update to the Afghanistan map and a dynamic campaign status report. Currenthill Assets Pack The free Currenthill assets bring a rich lineup of modern and Cold War ground units and aircraft including: The first iteration of the Currenthill Assets Pack will contain: FV101 Scorpion Light Tank FV107 Scimitar CRV T-90A Main Battle Tank (MBT) T-90M MBT T-84 Oplot-M MBT T-64 Bv 2017 MBT M1130 Stryker Infantry Combat Vehicle M-ATV MRAP BMPT Terminator MBT support vehicle 9K720 Iskander SRBM (with 9M723K1) M142 GMLRS MRL (with M30A1/M31 GMLRS) M142 ATACMS MRL (with M39A1 ATACMS) Pantsir S1 SPAAGM (with 57E6) Tor M2 SHORAD (with 9M338) TOS-1A MRL (with MO.1.01.04M) M1083 MTV Truck IRIS-T SLM LN SAM (with IRIS-T SLM) IRIS-T SLM STR SAM IRIS-T SLM CP SAM Tu-95MS Bomber (with Kh-101 and Kh-555) Mi-28N Attack Helicopter (with Ataka and Igla) Project 22160 Patrol Ship with SA-15 (Tor-M2) Project 22160 Patrol Ship Each Asset comes with: High resolution textures LODs for both model and destroyed model Custom sounds Animations Summer, desert and winter liveries FLIR textures Encyclopedia entries Combined Arms support except Tor M2 and Pantsir sensor and weapon control These new units are part of our ongoing mission to improve the DCS battlefield to facilitate the creation of engaging and realistic missions and campaigns. As always, your feedback plays a critical role in guiding our work. Thank you again for your passion and support, Yours sincerely,

The free Currenthill assets:

...by pulling in crowds from MSFS and Truck Simulator....

Working a bit on the Main gate..

If you are capable of remembering what each SAM radar is on the RWR, you can definitely put some time in to be able to recall what tone you are listening to. I would say, it's probably more important to just focus on the A2A radars first since they are only sorted as broad groups on the RWR. Ground radars are better sorted out and it's probably sufficient to just recognize which ones will tone change as it goes through its modes. You can also just have it open as you fly, and quiz yourself in the jet if you are comfortable doing so. Match the tones.

In other words, it's pretty important stuff to work out and get right in a world of Jills, Avengers, and Catalinas.

Ships and other unit damage model improvements are planned for the future, it wont happen soon as we already have a lot of work to do. We have adjusted some warheads recently and that will help, and we are also working on better fragmentation that will also enhance the current implementation. thank you

While a repeat is not ideal, I still enjoyed the heck out of the Viper at launch.

It's 2025, it's high time for ED to focus on damage models!

It's written incorrectly here That's right

The important thing to emphasize in regards to the AN/ALR-56M in DCS is that it is not really an issue of evidence or documentation, but of interpretation. As I mentioned, the DCS F-16C manual was correct in the way it described the functionality of the AN/ALR-56M, but the way it was implemented in-game was based on an incorrect interpretation of that information. I'll look into writing a bug report on it when time allows.