Leaderboard

Thanks! For the moment nothing has changed, they’ll just be making guest appearances in screenshots and videos. Think of it as free helicopter wallpapers Oh and regarding your comment on YT about the pilots, no work has been done it's just that the previous video was using old footage. I'm wrapping up the CopterLife assets pack, though. It's not going to be as polished as I'd like but it's been sitting on my HDD for too long. It contains ground vehicles, ships, driveable ships, sinking ships and static objects. More pics in the imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/hrjpEid

It helps to understand some of the science here. Here’s what I can offer to help appreciate the bird a little more. If you already know this stuff, then please ignore me, but I’ll post it for those in the community who may not know it: Max power does not equal max speed. Max power refers to engine power, not the power that is converted and comes out of the prop to propel you forward. Max engine power just eat up more fuel. If you’re running at 2700 and expecting high speed, try running a car or bicycle in 1st gear. It’s similar. The propellers need to take more bite out of the air when flying quickly. So why then would the engine be putting out so much power, without a lot of speed? Well, look up propeller advance ratios. It’s analogous to the angle of attack of a wing’s airfoil. When a propeller is running flat with high airspeed, you are way off the maximum efficiency point for the propeller’s airfoil. The propeller would be doing a terrible job at converting mechanical power (equal to torque times RPM) into propulsive power (which is equal to thrust times velocity). This is the sole purpose of a propeller: Convert the power. If your propeller is only 20% efficient here (a reasonable number for low advance ratios caused by high RPM and not a lot of forward movement), then for every 100 HP the propeller can put out, the engine must supply 500 HP. For max speed, you want to find the point where the propeller airfoils are operating at their most efficient local angle of attack. With variable pitch props, prop efficiency can be brought up in the neighborhood of around 80% to 85%. You’ll never get 100% because the blade will always slip a little in the air when chopping at it. So for that same 500 HP from the engine, you now have so much more speed from the power conversion because the propeller is only wasting 20% the supplied power now, simply by changing the blade pitch, even when at a LOWER RPM, just like your car or bicycle. How do we find this optimum point where we can maximize our prop efficiency? As pilots, we use the charts the engineers put together for us since we don’t have direct control over blade pitch, or what would be even better, the advance ratio. As an aerospace engineer myself, I’ve spent lots of time in wind tunnels over my career with propellers collecting this data, and publishing performance charts. I love this stuff and can talk about it all day. It’s tough to grasp at first, but if you ever want to know more, just shoot me a message. You mentioned above that you could barely get above 200 knots. I just did a flight earlier today at 5,000 feet, cruising conservatively at 2200 RPM and around 33 MP and was moving around 210-220 kts indicated, which is around 235 knots true. Try it out. I could have pushed it even faster if I played around with the MP and RPM, but I was just cruising to save fuel when flying back to the boat. Propeller efficiency is a huge deal, and you’re not going to get good efficiency at 2700 RPM unless you are very slow, because the blades are flattened out. Jets move faster or slower based on your throttle position. Warbirds are completely different. Just remember that RPM control has nothing to do with setting the RPM on your engine. The RPM lever controls a governor that is linked to blade pitch. So, when you pull the RPM lever back, you may actually be INCREASING thrust because now your blades will start biting into the air. Yeah, I’ll agree that some things with this module need tweaking near the edge of the envelopes of altitudes, temperatures, ground handling etc, but for the most part, this plane feels pretty good, and operates very closely to the charts when flown correctly. Not too bad for its early access, incompleted, state. I uploaded a quick test mission with a script that shows you engine diagnostics. Spend 5 minutes with it. It’s an air start, so you can quickly start playing with different throttle and RPM settings and see their effect in real time. It’s a great learning tool. Hope you found this helpful, -GT-

Hope you enjoy another Su-22 mod showcase, despite replay for external views being buggy and me missing some missile shots. This time, most of the cockpit is clickable, it has proper cold start, custom sounds for engine or launch authorised and more! Everything is still work in progress, estimated release Q4 2025.

Repaint of the F-86 Cockpit This model, which was very well made in its time, is already quite old, and I believe it deserves a modernization. I have carried out the repaint based on the black cockpit scheme, as I had complete photographic references of this version and, in this way, it also allows the option of flying both variants. All labels and legends have been recreated according to the available real-world information, while keeping in mind the limitations of integrating them into an already existing model. Repaint of the F-86 Sabre Jet Cockpit What has been achieved: -Application of a black base coat on the cockpit model. -Addition of metal wear effects, scratches, and layers of dust and dirt to enhance realism. -Implementation of roughmet layers, allowing for highlights and reflections that vary depending on the material of each surface. Limitations encountered: -The original model does not include bump maps in its files, which makes it impossible to simulate surface roughness and fine reliefs through the shader. Despite this, every effort has been made to achieve a convincing result. -The instrument lights could not be altered, as they are not texture-dependent but rather determined by the way the models were originally exported. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/es/files/3346544/

Just a quickie... Would it be feasible to quickly add the option to specify the runway in use at a particular airport? It's been one of my quality of life update -wishes that would significantly help in the creation of a mission and predict what the AI aircraft are going to behave like around airports? Thanks

You have the answer: "Maybe. Not soon". In this case, ED cannot be ignored, because despite the sincere intentions of many developers, everything depends on implementing this in the DCS engine, which requires involvement on the ED side. This especially applies to weapons but let us be optimistic about the future. Personally, it's a cool idea, but its not a priority for me. I'd prefer to have paratroopers and vehicle transport capabilities first, with the Rapid Dragon System somewhere at the end of development if there will be the time and desire.

Spectacular Cirrus formations at dawn in Afghanistan.

Hi all, we identified a small issue in the startup logic and are addressing it internally.

Guys, don't waste your time submitting tracks. As you can see this thread has been marked "GFM in progress" two years ago. GFM is still in progress. Hope it won't be "in progress" two years from now in the future, but one never knows with ED. Until it's released, I wouldn't expect improvements to DCS FM.

This looks incredible - from the inside as well as in the cockpit. Can't wait to take it for a ride!

Странный народ эти вирпилы. В реале лётчики требуют, что бы за кабиной следили, подкрашивали, протирали пыль, полировали стёкла. А вирпилам наоборот угвазданный хлам нравится. Попахивает аудифилией с ламповым звуком и теплотой дерева подставок под кабель.

Short version of the Mover and Gonky Show with Wags where he reveals what is in the works:

Just to make sure, while this might be your personal estimation, such a statement has not been made by any official sources. There is no correlation betwen the two modules in any way. I cant speak for ED and their F-35, but the EF releases when its done as simple as that

I only just discovered this yesterday while watching a large tank battle I'd set up. A tank gets destroyed and the rest in the column just drive right through it. Two opposing enemy columns pass each other on a bridge going opposite directions while fighting ... and pass right through each other. I realize this is a flight sim, but seriously. WTAF. I don't wanna hear "it's too hard" because simulations -- including flight sims -- have been able to deal with this fine for decades. This behavior destroys legit common tactics. Something I learned from Jane's AH-64D Longbow was to first take out the lead and rear vehicles in an advancing column. This traps the rest of the vehicles between them and they become easy to pick off. Not with THIS vehicle behavior. Taking out vehicles on a bridge or intersection to clog it up. Not with this behavior. The deeper I learn about some things in DCS the more disappointed and frustrated I get. Over a decade in development and THIS is still the vehicle behavior? How many more years will it take to correct this? This seriously destroys tactically using weapons in many circumstances. I can't believe it's like this, I was stunned to a gaping mouth when I saw it happening. Very disappointed.

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet, but I actually visited EAA this year. Easy enough for me to do, since I'm a 15 minute drive away. Some of what I've recorded... One thing I can say, is that the F-35 is extremely LOUD. I never heard anything like it before, and I've seen plenty. 20250725_145316.mp4

I posted the following as a new post, without realising this post already existed so reposting my own doubts and query here. On paper, the Super with its panels, lenses, eye tracking and audio seems like the ideal headset for Sim VR. I would probably have ordered one were it not for Pimax's poor historical QC record, and the ridiculous order wait time. My other concern is performance. Many YT videos are out stating that the CS can run very well at 72 fps if tweaked e.g. I am currently running my QP, with QV DFR, and am happy that I can finally hold 72 fps at what I consider to be high graphical settings in quite intensive situations (flying low over cities). Forgive me for being sceptical, but I don't believe that setting a 5% peripheral resolution (as stated @ 10:28 in the video) can possibly provide an acceptable visual experience. If my numbers are correct, at the Pimax quality setting (5100 x 4312 per eye), this results in a resolution per eye of 255 x 216 (equiv to running 5% over the entire panel). I am running my Quest Pro at 2704 x 2752 per eye and if I use less that 40% (equivalent 1082 x 1100), the shimmering in the peripheral area becomes too distracting. Even at the said 40% the shimmering from the F-18's engine gauge in the PA, which seems impossible to remove, irks me. I am also very happy with not having to use a face gasket with the QP, and am quite reluctant to go back to the discomfort of using one. So, has anyone out there gone from Quest Pro -> Crystal Super? What's been your experience? Can you run most scenerios at the Pimax quality setting without having to drop to reprojection? No regrets?

Testing thermals and system stability should be the first thing you do after installing OS + drivers. If you failed to do that, you are still a novice. And you've been a novice for 10 years sadly. Your ignorant conclusion (thread title) is misinforming other community members: x3D CPUs have been known to punch way above their weights in simulation games. Do you really think the CPU with the highest L3 cache is somehow worse than a known to be defective/unstable CPU? Please stop taking this personally, use this opportunity to up your PC building skill. I'm not saying this is all your fault, it could still be a defective component. But you need to do your due diligence first. Once you have a stable system, you can use Curve Optimizer to undervolt the CPU for even better thermals and idle draw. FYI, my thermals I posted above are on a dual tower air cooler, with no contact frame, and 3 year old thermal paste.

I recommend that you, and anyone else who is annoyed by this, bump the hell out of the following (and similar posts) as often as possible.

Contact frames exist for AMD too but for different reasons compared to those for Intel: while on Intel they are needed to ensure proper contact between IHS and cooler/pump, for AMD they are mainly used to prevent thermal paste making too much of a mess, as the IHS on AM5 doesn’t cover the entire die. I have one from Thermal Grizzly for that very reason; it keeps things a lot more clean.

If that is the case, I would strongly suspect bios shannanigans (or windows chipset driver issues to a lesser extend). Even if the thermal connection would be sub par, it would still boost temporarily. I f it really doesn't boost at all, don't bother opening the case and examine the bios. Nowadays (imho) BIOSs got pretty convoluted and it is pretty easy to mess up. And on top MoBo companies screw up themselves to often.

Regardless of recommendations for other modules, I have to agree to the above statement. The harrier is pretty unique in mission and capabilities, but also in look and feel and sound design. I hope it will somehow survive this mess.

не! царапины это фича. Сделаны они как раз классно. Проявляются при приломлениях света. Но вот грязь в определенный момент зачистили в ноль в т.ч и на ГС 3 самолетах.

This mod adds a basic MIM-14 Nike Hercules system with multiple accompanying structures. The missile currently uses a conventional warhead due to limitations in remotely accurately modeling high yield warheads in DCS. The mod contains custom 3d models and some basic livery variations for the MIM-14B/C, a static launcher (I may make and animated launcher, but for now the missiles are always in the raised position), accompanying radars, control trailers, and ancillary structures. The missile's flight model has been built on top of the vanilla DCS SA-5 system, adjusted to follow the unique flight profile and tuned to approximate available documentation. Much more information and additional images of the components of this mod can be found on the GitHub repository. DCSNikeSAMs - GitHub How to Install Download the latest release from GitHub https://github.com/SirPueo/DCSNikeSAMs Extract the Nike_Hercules file into C:\Username\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech NOTE: I'd worked on this mod earlier this year and didn't intend on releasing it, but I've had some time to finish up to a point that I feel is usable. I've seen there have been some other working on similar mods, but seeing as how discussion on their threads has died down, I figured I'd release my attempt at such a mod. I'm not sure how often I will upkeep this mod, but hope that its similarity to the vanilla SA-5 system's files will allow it to work in future versions of DCS.

Ми-8 не имею, что там было? Вот на ГС-3 самолетах просто бред, как по мне: просто насрано царапинами, которые на солнце превращают стекло в мельтешащее нечто.

Jeesh. The devs request that you post a TRK file, when you come here and cite a bug. Doing so shows them exactly what the poster is referring to and provides them with all the accompanying parameters. If you care enough to come and post about a bug, just honor their request.

Not a bug, but rather incomplete unit. Even among ED SAMs there are many examples of missing sensors. Examples include KUB, Neva, OSA, Tor, Hawk... Along sensors goes often wrong behavior. And if we are talking human controled units you quickly arrive at conclusion that further extensions of human machine interface is needed. I hope that wit CH inclusion Combined Arms will get more love from ED in future.

Great! Now I want a transport tank with a shark-skin

Thanks for the tip. I'm using Open Mods Manager so I copied CoreMods/aircraft/FA-18C/DTC/ALR67/CMDS_defs.lua to my mods library (using the same relative path) and edited the file there to my liking and enabled that mod. Now after a cold start, if I go to MUMI and load the ALR67 I get that modified default configuration. No need to load a custom DTC for DCS UI after slotting in. Works just fine for me even if it's not entirely satisfying. I noticed that in CoreMods/aircraft/FA-18C/DTC/defaults there are multiple test.json files which might also be relevant but I have no idea how to use/tune them and anyway they're still in the main install path and not in Saved Games so it's not really more useful than tuning CMDS_defs.lua. It'd definitely be nice to be able to have a default configuration in saved games for users to tune.

Your "F-16C real" photo is from a much earlier version of the F16C and most likely a much earlier version of the radar as well. And who knows if what we are looking at has moving targets on it. I think the squares a bit too big personally, but not too far off.

С которым, зачастую моделисты очень часто перебарщивают....

Unfortunately this is my biggest gripe about the apache. I have yet to see any failure other than Single Engine or the complete loss of the tail boom to simple .50 cal rounds. No systems failures, no fires, I have yet to even see a dual engine failure, which statistically is probably accurate. however I find it crazy that the tail will get completely ripped off before you ever see a hydraulic failure, flight control failure or electronics failure. let alone a fire. I love the apache, but the damage model leaves a LOT to be desired. My biggest killers while flying so far are: pilot/cpg both dying (pretty consistently both, never just one), and tail boom falling off. rarely do i have any other damage that forces me to head home/emergency land. (sorry for necroing a 2 year old post, but after losing the tail boom to 4 shots of .50 cal 2 times in a row i went searching and found naught but despair)

В смысле? Это 3rd party.

"Cвежо предание, да вериться с трудом..." Про улучшенный АИ тоже хвалились, но боты по-прежнему не перестают "удивлять".

Воу воу полегче https://youtu.be/sTRHZbYalPs?si=kkEvtTbwGMA79k5O

Based on posts here previously, yes. Orbx devs in production as well can be the case especially how they specialize in meshes, but the core team is from the South Atlantic map. Same "characteristics" are found in both products. If Orbx themselves have absorbed the team into their inhouse production, it has not been made public. I won't believe the store pages because publishers usually, 99% of the time, writes marketing and information as if they did the product themselves. Same happened with Razbam's South Atlantic. (which were not RB's work) I can be wrong, and if I am, I want to know the truth about this. I want to be corrected, which at least is something. It just seem wrong letting people pre judge the map based on Orbx work in MSFS as it doesn't look like Orbx's trademark work. I dislike the publishing marketing methods. Merit should go to the hands at work on these things, even if goes in the title "Orbx presents Kola map, by ______".

It IS possible. There are some excellent MP(1+ player) campaigns out there in files area that rival any paid content available. These aren't "dumbed down" at all. I'm aware of content for Hornet, Apache and Kiowa. My group of friends has enjoyed this content immensely. As far as someone releasing payware campaigns geared for multiple players, I don't see it happening. There are many triggers that either won't work in a MP environment or must be changed to accommodate the possibility of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th player. Multicrew adds another wrinkle.... As someone who's written more than one MP campaign, I can attest it isn't easy. I just don't see any mainstream payware campaign creators signing up for the exponential level of effort without exploring a significant increase in campaign price.

Hi, I like the Kola map a lot, but noticed that villages and small towns are mainly concentrated around airports. We can see the names of all towns/villages throughout the map in the mission editor, but most of them are not (yet) represented on the map. I understand that it's a big ask to have all of them represented, but will there be some more added in the near future? It would certainly fill the large voids we sometimes come across when flying on the map (where there should be some villages IRL), which I personally find its biggest shortcoming. Thanks!

Strangest decision was to leave out the Iraq and Iran liveries, while selling the Persian Gulf and Iraq map. Nothing against North Korean or Kazakhstan liveries, but it does not make much sense.

From DCS Captures.

Are waves coming? Ships moving on them, pitching decks depending on the severity of the weather. Deck crew for non ED ships? Buyers of the SC should get crews on everything, including the Forrestal.

It is not trim for level flying. It is trim for AoA (angle of attack). You can descend or ascend in landing trim all day long. What will bring you into the glideslope and keep you in it for landing is power setting or throttle. Welcome to the forum nicesub!

Sounds like you need some instruction on aircraft dynamics during approach. When you are trimmed On-Speed (correct AOA) for approach in level flight, the following governs your success. 1. power controls rate of climb and descent 2. Pitch controls speed. 3. Use DLC (Direct Lift Control) to fine tune your touchdown point in-close. When properly flown, an approach uses power to control the rate of climb/descent. The aircraft will maintain the On-Speed AOA throughout as long as the power applications are smooth and you're NOT applying pitch inputs on the stick. Don't touch the trim at this point. If you are high, reduce power. If you are low, increase power. Also remember that if you need to increase or reduce power, do it in small amounts and be prepared to reverse the power inputs to prevent overshooting the desired result. The use of DLC will help in making pinpoint landings. It doesn't take long to get used to it and allows you to change your rate of climb/descent momentarily without changing the power settings. Set up a flight and just do some slow flying to work through these techniques. Assign DLC to buttons on your control stick or throttle, or just use the keyboard (much harder). Start by trying to fly level, trimmed On-Speed (correct AOA) for approach(AOA indexer O lit up) and DLC on. Turning on DLC will give you a mild pitch down that will require nose up trim. Now that you're stable, start reducing power in small amounts to increase rate-of-descent. Now apply some power to reduce the rate-of-descent. Once mastered you can pinpoint the rate-of-descent you desire and keep it steady there. Use DLC in small amounts to fine-tune your approach in-close. DLC switch forward increases descent and DLC switch aft decreases descent. I highly recommend you start out by reading Chuck's Guide on the Tomcat as it provides a lot of insight into flying and operating the jet. https://chucksguides.com/aircraft/dcs/f-14b Regards, John

Figured it out, the problem was in the user folder name, it was in Cyrillic... Renamed it to Latin, everything worked!

The "Achille Lauro" mission is really interesting: I guess it is the prodrome of the so called "Crisis of Sigonella", where US Delta Force and Italian Air Force VAM (armed surveillance units), backed by some Carabinieri, almost shoot each other. Few knows about that after the plane with the terrorists commando on board took off again from Sigonella to get Yugoslavia safe air space, another F-14 from the 6th fleet attempted to intercept it again but was stopped by a formation of Italian F-104 which prevented him to get near the Boeing. Former President of the Italian Repubblic Francesco Cossiga (he was in charge at time) some years later said he listeded the radio coversations between the F-14 pilot and the leader of the italian F-104 formation and those exchanges weren't exactly "compliments & greetings"

That negativity wont get you the fix sooner either. The team and ED are working hard on it already. As explained in the other thread on the topic, something ED did in the last update broke it and it seems not so easy to get it back working. Some other aircraft and weapons are apparently affected as well.

Thanks!

Yeah... and while they are at it, how about also doing something about the visibility of the radio channel selections. Can you tell me what radio channel is selected here? I certainly can't. I think there must have been a competition in WW2 to design the ergonomically worst cockpit layout possible. The British obviously won with the Mosquito by placing the fuel tank selectors behind the pilot's seat, but I reckon the Corsair is a close second. (The Germans would have been dead last with the FW190-D9)

Additional/complimentary effects/view shaking. Worth it.