Leaderboard

Or appreciate the options to make it easier for all to access at a level that is comfortable to them.

Hi ED, There is an issue with one of your 3rd party. As you may know, Polychop's Dev team have all quit the company leaving only the CEO. For some time now the CEO is not even answering on his discord and there is more and more unresolved bugs on the SA342 Gazelle and some on the OH58D Kiowa. The bugs vary from missing textures (on dipole antenna), wrong axis, keybindings issues, multicrew desynch and bugs, kneebord mixed up and more. Those bugs were reported from month or years, but nothing is done... For example here is some non revolved bugs : Reported on July 2 2023 : --https://forum.dcs.world/topic/329727-tm-warthog-throttle-mouse-axis-problem-on-tv/ Reported on June 8, 2023 : --https://forum.dcs.world/topic/327589-pedal-trim-not-working-propertly/ Reported on July 20, 2024 : --https://forum.dcs.world/topic/354334-multicrew-issue-pilot-and-copilot-affects-night-vision-google-employment/#comment-5672503 Reported on July 20, 2024 :--https://forum.dcs.world/topic/354333-multicrew-issue-with-nadir-even-when-copilot-leaving-the-gazelle-and-rejoin-entering-and-editing-waypoints-not-working/ Reported on september 14, 2024 : --https://forum.dcs.world/topic/357716-the-windscreen-wipers-do-not-wipe-when-you-press-the-pilot-wiper-button-on-the-stick/ Reported on september 14, 2024 : --https://forum.dcs.world/topic/357715-floating-metal-clip/ Reported on april 2, 2025 : --https://forum.dcs.world/topic/371479-i-love-the-gazelle-but-continuing-to-be-patient-for-a-joystick-slew-fix-for-the-minigun-variant-unable-to-point-minigun-to-the-front-of-aircraft-also-unable-to-point-fully-up-and-down/#comment-5654828Reported on June 27, 2025 : --https://forum.dcs.world/topic/375569-pilot-position-windshield-wiper-clickable-cockpit-switch-issue-as-of-291711733/ Reported on August 5, 2025 : --https://forum.dcs.world/topic/377214-multi-player-seat-switch-issue/ Of course there is more bugs than those mentionned here, it's just to show that some bugs are here since years ago. Now, what can ED do ? Well 3rd party have to maintain their products (which is not the case for Polychop Simulation). I expect mesures to be taken by ED toward Polychop to remedy this bad situation If this is not enough, maybe the Gazelle IP could end up in someone else hands, someone who will actually take care about this module, either ED or an other 3rd party. Thank you, Peet

Реалистичности в симуляторе добиться в принципе не возможно , но подобия- вполне. Все эти нравится, не нравится - исключительно субъективны. Я провел много времени и в кабинах и в симуляторах и тренажерах и какое то понимание за эти годы как оно должно быть все таки сложилось , но опять же субъективное , я не претендую на исключительность последней инстанции в вопросах восприятия . Но точно могу сказать , что некоторые элементы и этапы можно воссоздать максимально приближенными к реальности , а некоторые не возможно вообще. В частности я стараюсь избегать или пропускать миссии где есть ближние маневренные воздушные бои , потому что с реальным боем и с боем в симуляторе тут нет ничего общего от слова СОВСЕМ .

I have this stupid association : (btw. this is a set of fire extinguishing cartridges/containers for the fire protection system)

Нормальные текстуры, вполне себе кабина, мне очень даже понравилась . И не нужно ее стареть , в новых на много приятнее летать чем в обшарпанных )

Update Vietnam War Vessels 2.0.3 is live now at https://github.com/tspindler-cms/tetet-vwv/releases and https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GdxkovvZjwYgr0AEmq2yxquaOAdzUkYd?usp=sharing on Google Drive. This is an update for CVA-31 Bon Homme Richard and the generic Essex class carriers with SCB125 upgrade. Testing discovered that the Bon Homme Richard does no longer work when used without other Vietnam War Vessels mods. A definition in a table was missing, and the new config rectifies this. For installation, you need Vietnam War Vessels 2.0.0, update to 2.0.1, update to 2.0.2 and then apply this update.

Be careful what you wish for. If they were to update the model and the textures, they would almost certainly encrypt them both. Which would make the Viper essentially inaccessible for community textures and liveries for the most part. Let's hope they never update it.

I'll fix this in the next update. There was another preset that had the same issue.

Hello, In spite that many systems are not fully modeled, I found that it was possible to edit a fairly complete Cold Start training mission, like this: If you want to try the mission yourself (requires the Modern Marianas Map), here is a download link: F-104C - Training - M01 Cold Start (by Rudel_chw).miz I will next edit a Taxi & Take-Off follow up mission, and then a VFR landing one, to get a proper training set. If you find a bug with the mission, please let me know here and I will do my best to fix it.

Hello everyone, The 2.0 update for the UH-60L Black Hawk mod is now available on Patreon to all: https://www.patreon.com/posts/uh60l-mod-2-0-138859868 Please read the instructions in the post carefully! I will be updating the Discord server to include a bug tracking section for any issues encountered. Please note the ED forums are not a helpful place to report issues regarding the mod; issues tend to get lost in the noise. I hope you all enjoy the update.

I dont think that the walking pilot animation would have been good enough. Also, the pilot feature here involves other actions, like opening doors, jumping/crouching, or shooting an M4. You will notice that, in multiplayer, you cannot see the "walking ejected pilot" of other players. That is purely a client side thing. Re VR/missing pilot body being noticeable: that's because your legs are straight out in front of you, directly in the field of view. The same isnt true when walking around with your arms at your side. In any event: I'd like to implement a better walking animation and drive it through this feature, and I might even do it. But I want to be fully transparent about what the feature does today, and what you should expect on release.

Didn't go last year, managed this year. Some 20 000 in attendance. Sadly my camera phone and the sun made it very hard to get good video. But some stuff is ok. You got Havard, Spitfire, sterman, Super Hercules doing short runway stop. Various acrobatics. Danish F16 in its last outing before retirement. 2 F35s.

Neuer Block „MUSTANG“. Drei Mechaniken mit Hebeln, berührungslose Sensoren MagRez. Drei Trimmer, Mechanik mit zwei vollen Umdrehungen, magnetische berührungslose Sensoren. Zwei Achsen auf Potentiometern. Kippschalter und ein Taster.

They originally used a synthesized voice I believe, before some squadron got a radio personality to re record the lines Points are just like a pre set. Once you make a point, you can use it for aerodrome, waypoint, or beacon. It’s just a convenience thing so you have a pool of points to assign to whatever without needing to make new ones for each tab.

I think it's safe to say we wish for ED to deliver on their promises, and what's listed on the store page: The most realistic model of the F-16C imaginable, down to each bolt and flake of paint, animated controls surfaces, lights, damage model, and landing gear.

I have made an internal report for the team. thank you

Hi. It doesn't matter if it's a paid add-on or a mod. If you want to maintain realism and move forward, use the metric system. Of course, that's your decision, which makes no sense to me for the simple reasons already described. Btw. Of course, there are exceptions, such Polaris Ghost Squadron as a used plane, but this is a completely different version and, of course, purchased for private (in this case) or training needs. After all, the F-14 is an American aircraft (descriptions is another matter); it can't use the metric system. Iran used its own systems, depending on the manufacturer, and as you can see, the guys managed. I can't imagine flying an F-16 with the metric system because it's "so convenient" for me; switching isn't that difficult. Even though it's your decision (what I don't interfere with) trust me and be more ambitious . I know there were occasions when the Russians were able to produce cockpit descriptions in English for foreign customers like Malaysia or India, but these were very rare. The entire Eastern Bloc (Warsaw Pact) used Cyrillic for their aircraft. Btw. as for China, some types were developed in cooperation (like the J-17) and for export. These planes also have English explanations in the cockpit in real life, which is perfectly fine, so I don't know what example this is. However, you probably know that when you hover your mouse over a button, a "bubble" with English text will appear, even if the textures in the cockpit are Cyrillic.

I also think the AI "bingo" response is broken, and has been for a long time. Bingo is the state at which you RTB, not ten seconds from flameout. It'd be far better if we could set bingo level for the AI. Once it hits that level, it should ignore everything (disengaging from the fight if it has to), restrict afterburner, go to max range flight parameters, and head to the nearest compatible friendly airfield, or to the nearest tanker. Yes, that'd get it killed in a fight, but so would running out of gas (a real pilot could probably keep fighting and then just try to punch out over friendly territory, but AI needs a simple procedure).

Working on it... I need some time to get an update for Armed Blackhawk out following the v2 release to ensure I don't conflict with Kinkkujuustovoileipä's work. Update: Armed Blackhawk v7.0, compatible with version 2 of the UH-60L, is now available. A small/conservative update for compatibility while the future of Armed Blackhawk is determined, includes the ability to change laser codes on Hellfires. Armed Blackhawk v7.0 Download Link

"на вкус и цвет все фламастеры разные" По моему мнению кабина МиГ-29А самая красивая из всех что есть. Как можно вообще через краску понять, металл это или пластмасса?)

Hi all, I hope you're doing well! As development on the 2.0 build of the UH-60L mod is wrapping up I'd like to give an overview of the changes coming to the mod and some thoughts on the future. I was planning to do this in video form (and may still do so later) but I'm recovering from a nasty cold and currently can't stop coughing long enough to talk sensibly. Hence this post will have to do in the meantime One question I know will be on people's minds is "what about the submods?". The answer is simple - it's entirely up to the respective developers. I will be cleaning up the Discord server and rearranging the channels a little, but development and maintenance of the submods remains, as ever, the domain of the respective owners. The first area I want to discuss is art. I'm well aware the artwork of the UH-60L mod has it's limitations and issues. However there are no major art changes in this update. I'd love to do a complete overhaul of the model from scratch but I lack the capacity and capability to do it myself and I'm yet to find someone both talented and dedicated enough to commit to that endeavour. It would require a significant amount of work and time and I see this as being almost the entirety of a possible v3.0 update in the future, if possible. The positive side of this is that liveries _should be_ largely unaffected by this update. With that out of the way let's get into what is coming. The first big change is the flight model. While the engine and transmission simulation remains relatively basic (and will continue to do so) the flight modelling and physics have been completely rewritten. It's difficult to convey a change that is largely a subjective experience but I believe the result is far more accurate and dynamic than the previous version. From a technical point of view the new simulation is now mostly physics based instead of using tabulated data. The stability systems have also been updated and while the Flight Path Stabilization will remain a work in progress for now, I'm happy with the SAS and trim implementations. Speaking of trim, Force Feedback is now supported! You will need to enable this in the mod's Special Options menu. One art change that did come in is the use of the rotor blur system. Aside from a great visual update this also allows for flapping and coning animations which really improves the rotor disc effect. A new feature that many have asked for is the door gunner AI. The UH-60L now comes with the possibility of adding M60 and M3M door guns that are controlled by AI gunners. These gunners can be controlled with an ROE toggle key and a simple UI is also available to show their status. The M3M is a little fictional liability I included but I think it fits nicely. Another big change coming in 2.0 is the new 'DAP' variant. This is loosely based on the MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator. Since many of the capabilities that make up the MH-60L are not possible to implement in a mod (e.g. FLIR, laser designation, terrain radar...) I've compromised by taking the UH-60L and giving a ridiculous (but realistic) amount of dakka. The door gunners are replaced by M134 miniguns that can also be toggle to fix forward for pilot fire control, and the ESSS pylons can take the following weapon options: * 2x M230 30mm chain guns * 2x GAU-19 .50 rotary machine guns * 2x M134 miniguns * 4x FN HMP-500 .50 machine guns * 4x M260 7-shot rocket launchers * 4x LWL-12 12-shot rocket launchers * 4x M261 19-shot rocket launchers * 16x AGM-114K Hellfire laser guided missiles * 8x Air To Air Stinger missiles Custom cockpit panels have been added to the DAP variant for both the pylon weapons and door gunners. The DAP variant also has the fuel probe enabled by default for air to air refueling. Both aircraft now also have more options for fuel bags. The older 230 and 450 gallon tanks are now in stock. For the cargo haulers I'm pleased to announce that this version supports the new cargo system for loading and unloading crates and troops onto your aircraft. It's also now possible to release your slingloaded cargo, although it continues to have no effect on the flight model at this time. A number of other quality of life and bug fix changes have been added, and so I'll wrap up by listing some of them below: * Various DGNS bug fixes * Added FLY TO course support for DGNS * Various CIS, HSI and VSD fixes * Added sunglass/visor * AVS-7 now only visible when NVGs are on * Moveable crosshairs on the DAP variant * Overhauled damage model with new collision geometry and damage values * Doors can be removed or added from the Ground Crew menu * Added crew models (visibility can be toggle from interior as usual) * Interior geometry updated for proper enclosure and better lighting effects * Added working windscreen wipers * Various fixes to radios and ground crew calling * Fixed RWR displaying symbology outside of RWR * Fixes for fuel tank mass calculations and AFMS display * New documentation * New installer I'm sure I've missed some things but I'll leave them for you to find them out! --Kinkku

Hi, fighters! We have been steadily developing the Normandy 2 map for two years, and now it is time to announce a new major update - with a lot of new additions and improvements! We are proud to present a major update for DCS: Normandy 2, which will immerse you not only in the epicentre of great battles, but also in the rich historical heritage of Europe. Get ready for new tactical possibilities and incredible depth of visual embodiment! NEW SEASON: WINTER For the first time for the Normandy map! War knows no breaks, and now you will have to fight in harsh winter conditions. Snow-covered fields and airfields will create a completely new experience of piloting and navigation. Now you will be in conditions where you need to watch out for the enemy and for icing. Greenery is now hidden under a blanket of snow. A new atmosphere, new conditions for missions, it will be available soon. The Big Smoke and the "City of Light" under the snow Winter France Winter England

Please check out this DCS SPO-15 Manual as well: spo15manual.pdf We had some customer-submitted questions that we thought were important to answer; check them out below: Q - SPO-15 "A question popped into my comments: why does the SPO-15 auto-adapt to the mission, rather than leaving the choice to the mission designers? For instance, if you want to replicate something like Kosovo, the SPO-15 may not be able to react to the 120B. According to the books I read, the first MiG-29s were shot down without even realising they had incoming missiles. However, if you force it, this cannot be replicated. Couldn't a simple checkbox be set in the ME prior to the functions that recreate the threat list? (book example: ""Laslie, Brian D.. Operation Allied Force 1999: NATO's airpower victory in Kosovo."")" (K / YT) A - The SPO-15 will come with 2 options, selectable in special options tab for each aircraft in Mission Editor: stock and automatic. The stock setting is intended for former Warsaw Pact aircraft and includes a fixed program that matches the period when the MiG-29s were first delivered - this DB does not include most threats present in DCS, however that does NOT mean these threats will not be detected - the SPO-15 will detect any radar within its operational band and will always report a detection even if it doesn't recognize it. In other aircraft these unknown sources can be filtered out, but in the MiG-29 this option is not available. The automatic theat program is built on top of the stock program (overwriting PW/PRF bins of the stock program as needed) to match enemy threats within the mission. This however does NOT include missiles, for a simple reason: the SPO-15 doesn't have the resolving capability to distinguish ARH missiles from aircraft that carry them - therefore as long as the carrier aircraft is listed in the threat program (and it typically will be, as the entire HPRF range is filled in as type F by default as are some MPRF slots), the incoming ARH will be mis-identified as the carrier aircraft. As for the case described in the book: this will always be the case, because the transmitters in older ARH missiles are typically quite weak (as the seeker is used for terminal guidance), and the SPO-15 is not sensitive enough to give advanced warning - typically the missile will only be detected 2-4s before impact depending on angle of arrival. And even then, it will not trigger a launch warning (in fact there's no possible scenario in DCS that would trigger the launch warning in the MiG-29 currently), which means that in many scenarios it will be completely unnoticed, particularly if the aircraft is already locked on to by a higher priority threat than type F. As for manual database, it is something that we have considered and that might be considered later in EA if there's a demand for it - currently it doesn't fit any other workflow, as the threat programs are something that would be consistent per country, per theatre, and would not be customized on per-aircraft basis nor by the pilots, as they weren't possible to update in field - the theat program cartridge (which contained a hardware implementation of both the database and the threat recognition algorithm) had to be sent back to manufacturer to update. For that reason it does not fit into the new DTC functionality. Q - SPO-15 They mention side-lobe bleed causing threats to register in the wrong bearing sector (flank/sides/rear). are there cues that help pilots tell these apart from real emissions, like flickering, strength fluctuation, sector drift, etc? (Brody) A - Generally no. The indicator in the SPO-15 does not show raw signals, it shows fully processed (including recognition and priority check) detection events. It also does this separately for each sector, going through them in clockwise fashion one at a time and repeating the whole process for every sector separately. One cue that the pilot might get is if the threat is selected as priority - in that case the weaker signals from other sectors might be considered lower priority by the system due to their lower signal power, and thus they will not be marked as priority despite arriving at the same time from the same threat type. But even in that case there isn't really any way to discern that from an actual detection of another threat of the same type, but further away. As for signal strength indicator - it can provide clues as to whether the pilot is the intended target of the hostile system or not - if the strength is lower than expected, or if it goes up rapidly followed by a priority threat being dumped and returning with a lower signal power: all of that might indicate the hostile radar is actually locked onto another aircraft. Q - SPO-15 With their implementation, is it common for threats to briefly vanish or hop between bearing sectors? how should pilots interpret that behavior if so? (Brody) A - A few technical details need to be explained to address this question: First of all, each detection event is remembered for only 0.125-0.25s - that's how long the green light will flash for. The priority threat, as well as any detected type (type memory is separate from sector detection events memory with no association between a threat and the sector it was detected in) is remembered for 2-12s after that depending on emitter mode, scan rate, and which point in memory dump cycle it was picked up at. This threat memory is per sector, with again each sector treated as a separate "sub-RWR", even for the priority threat: the way a priority threat is tracked between sectors is by overwriting the priority threat memory if an equal or higher priority threat is detected and then extinguishing priority azimuth lights in sectors that do not have an ongoing detection event. Secondly, the azimuthal resolution of the SPO-15 is really poor - in best case scenario it's 10 degrees, but this is only within the +/-50 degree range, for higher AOA it will grow way above that. Thirdly, as this is likely the intent behind this question: no, the physical mechanisms behind fluctuation in measured AoA of western RWRs (a hot topic within the community) is not presently modelled for the SPO-15, as it is not a factor due to how poor the resolution is to begin with - such fluctuations are much lower in magnitude than the angular resolution of this device. The SPO-15 does not measure the AoA of the signal continuously like modern RWRs do, each sector is handled separately and will either detect the threat or not - with the result presented on the corresponding section of the indicator for that sector only. To answer the question: in the case of one receiver and one emitter with the receiving aircraft flying in a straight line, jumping between sectors will not be very common. Vanishing and reapperance will also not be common for incoming threats, but it might occur every scan cycle for outgoing threats (because their priority is decreasing) or for emitters that are powerful enough/have low enough scan rate to falsely trigger a lock on warning. For multiple threats, the primary threat might sometimes rapidly jump between sectors - in those cases, the pilot should assume they are dealing with mutliple threats of the same type, especially if they're separated in azimuth by more than 20 degrees. Q - SPO-15 They describe the SPO‑15 displays signal strength in 2 dB steps, but is this based on absolute ERP received at the antenna, or is it normalized relative to the strongest signal present at the time? can the same emitter show different power levels depending on what else is emitting nearby (Brody) A - It is based on absolute ERP, however the measurement range differs between CW and pulse signals by a factor of 18dB (the circuits for signal power measurement are separate for CW and pulse signals). The dynamic range of the device is only 30dB and the indicator spans that range. The indicated power will typically be consistent with range if the receiving aircraft stays close to boresight, otherwise it might vary considerably, as the radiation pattern of the emitter is taken into account. Q - SPO-15 Will the 90 light not only light up only with 50 light, but 90 light only light up at close range? Long range only 50 light turns on if radar is at 90 degrees. This is because the 90 light needs the less sensitive rear antenna to work Aerea Gloria A - Yes, the 90 degree "sector" is much weaker, not just because of lower sensitivity of rear hemisphere (AND sector 1 and 8 - in fact amplifier gain is adjusted so that these sectors are triggered at the same power density as rear sectors, about 3dB above the forward hemisphere threshold) but also because of how far off-boresight for both antennas the signal needs to be in order to be detected by both simultanously. In fact the 90 degree sector being triggered at all is going to be fairly uncommon. Q - SPO-15 Are PD fighters in Hawk category until around 15-20 km where they are then put in F category? (Aerea Gloria) A - Yes, however the range is much wider than 15-20km and will vary depending on emitter power, anywhere from merge range (F-16 at HPRF) to ~50km out (e.g F-14). A video version of these can be found here:

I proudly present - my new Apache mission "Operation Firestorm". https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3346851/ Storyline: Syrian HTS rebels obtained TOS-1A thermobaric launchers from abandoned Russian depots at Tartus and are now moving north from Aleppo towards the Turkish (-backed) controlled northern area around Azaz. You are CHAOS1-1, a Turkish Army Apache and your task is to seek & destroy the TOS. Sounds easy? The enemy has a say in this as well and there might be some surprises Key features: 1 to 4 players for single player, multicrew or coop lead Apache with FCR, wingman without for optional coop hunter/killer ops. adaptable difficulty via F10 options dawn and night versions of the mission F-16 CAP and SEAD flights standing by to support you, depending on your actions 110+ quality voice overs custom ATC custom kneeboard PDF manual Enjoy! P.S.: I'd be happy to hear if you liked the mission, but equally happy to hear why you maybe didn't like it. Only such feedback can help me make better missions.

This is a Garmin GNS-530 radio/gps @Hayds_93 and I have been working on for literally no reason other than I like it and I make him work on it. Right now we have it in a stupid little general aviation sfm mod that will never see the light of day. We share these pics around the mod developers discord server, but thought it would be fun to show it off a little here. I know theres a few mods out there (probably not on this forum yet) that could definitely use a GNS-530. The eventual goal is to get this as a modular as possible so all the mod maker need is to drop the files in do a little linkage and add the 3d model. Yes i know ED's 430 exist, and I was surprised to hear they are still supporting it for the Mig29 it some capacity, but I plan for this to be a little more accurate than it. We also have AIRAC waypoints from Navigraph, unfortunately the database they provide for development isn't in any DCS map, but all the fixes youd expect to find in Central America/carribean are here there.

you use the same login on both dcs, it is not version dependant, just you cant run both dcs versions at the same time.

I would think that a partnership with beyond atc or SayIntentionsAi is probably the optimum ED could do. Implement an API that opens this aspect up to third party devs. Their solutions are 90% there already with absolutely stunning results! In 2026 this really is a must have or this whole project feels like Windows NT in 2020.

IRL? That makes no sense. Metric is SI and used by 96% of the world population, and even the US is (very slowly) converting to metric - finally.

Thank you, I will make a improvement request to the team. I am not sure what can be done yet, so can not make any promises. But I think we should consider reducing speed for external loads, I will ask the team if this is possible.

MiG-29A (9.12A) was produced during '80s exclusively and only for Warsaw pact east European nations (not Russia, btw). It came only in metric and Russian. I also don't see your point. You will still get English and Imperial units in this module for gaming purposes.

@BIGNEWY attached is the sample mission, with just one piece of cargo and one ai helicopter. I wrote everything into the mission description. You will see, the helo picks up the cargo, flies straight to the drop off at 107 knots (yesterday on CWG up to 114 knots with 5 knots wind) and immediately after drop off, it will reduce to the assigned 60 knots. It would be great to have it work like the troop transport - so we can assign a route and drop off the cargo at any given waypoint via advanced waypoint actions. Especially in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, that would be highly beneficial, imho. Thanks for looking into it. CG_AI_Sling_Load.miz

Daaa, comrade

I've checked with the team and I am wrong, the speed for the waypoint is not a factor, the AI doing the sling load will pick its speed for reaching the drop off during the task. It maybe something we can tweak, I will wait for the example. thank you

I will prepare and upload a sample after work. Thanks for looking into it.

Кабина у нового Мига - просто офигенная! И она лучше, чем кабина у Ми-24! На Ми-24 я очень много часов налетал. ИМХО

Yep, and not that long ago they said the works had even already started, though only minor stuff since they were bogged down with the Corsair. Now it's released, and even though it's WIP and they'll keep polishing it for quite a while, let's hope the MiG-21 v2.0 comes sooner than later

через 5 лет: Что за ужасные текстуры , когда обновят? когда то кабина L-39 была эталоном , в миг- 21 - фотография ) ИМХО лучше больше уделить внимание эффектам. Текстуры все быстро забудут, эффекты - нет. Те же капли дождя..., и/или запотевания, замораживания. Различные блики.., дребезг элементов кабины, грязь. Что, для меня лично, всегда отличало ЛОКОН (и в последствии DCS) от других проектов ? - Эффект марева двигателя. Эффект царапин на стекле. Кроме шуток, я даже заходил полетать в тот еще рельсовый ЛОКОН чисто чтоб полюбоваться царапинками (чего не было нигде) В MSFS мне нравились капли дождя. А текстуры... они и так уже на достаточно высоком уровне. Лучше- только ресурсы жрать. Скажите, а нет ли возможности, как то воспроизвести реальный бой ( как то имитировать) что бы просто глянуть в треке на внешних видах, как это происходит. Было бы очень интересно

I thought they were already Vodka bottles. I think I need help.

C-130P "Super Penetrator"

I just re-downloaded the Cold War Germany map and everything is back to normal. This was normal before the Cold War Germany map update, so I suspect it happened during the large map file update.

I'll talk mostly within the scope of the F-4E. But, usually the primary reason is money. To be clear. The APQ-120 was actually upgraded, up to a v9, I believe. But, given a certain budget, you can spend that money upgrading old airframes to fit the new radars (It's not just a matter of swapping dishes, often the radar is designed to fit the airframe not only in terms of size but things like power draw, and the weapons control systems) or you can just shove the new tech into a new airframe. Of course, you have to realize that these are old airframes that might be reaching retirement anyway, with increasing maintenance costs. The ones who continued to update the old airframes are usually the ones that can't really confidently meet the upfront cost of new ones. So, you're only left with the option of upgrade.

DCS now has native support for setting the preset. You can also look in your DCS log file as it will output the preset being used.

Its 2 seperate things. See the video of the real life corsair few pages back that makes a 180 deg turn. Idle engine, and then turns on the spot. In the DCS Corsair you can do a 180 turn, but you need excessive power to do so, compared to the RL example, that does it with a cut engine, having enough momentum. You can do it in any other warbird aswell. But not in the DCS Corsair. The wheels are sort of "skiddy" for lack of better words. The wind is another factor, that one it goes above 10 m/s its impossible to steer her past 90 deg of wind direction. Which also, the other warbirds have no issue with. It is two seperate things, but it renders in impossible ground handling. With zero wind its possible, but not correct. With stronger winds, its impossible.

..пару лет назад сказали твердо, весной ждите.. Правда я уже в ДКС давно не заходил, снес его, ничего не жду уже.

Maybe it's better to create a separate thread related to the submod "Armed Blackhawk", so that it concerns only the "official work" of @Kinkkujuustovoileipä as in the title? Better not to mix these two mods in one topic for greater clarity I think. Thx!

Restarting this thread after some changes were made to the magic 1 functionality. Sadly nothing was changed about the missile after launch, just some changes to what happens before firing as I suspect is in line with the fact stated by @fausete that Aerges has no control on what happens to the missile after it leaves the aircraft. As it stands the missile is useless, being only capable of a hit on a non maneuvering target from dead 6 despite numerous evidence of its real life performance being very good for the time. This really hurts the module as a whole, as the magic 1 is an essential part the the planes weapons set on era constrained missions and servers. While I understand that it isn't a Aerges issue and that ED has shown evident disregard for this issue, having gone as far as removing the thread from the official DCS weapons bug forum, I am still hopeful that the developer Aerges can put some internal pressure on ED to address this, as some internal team members have the data and surely the interest to see this missile perform somewhat like it did in real life instead of being a useless paperweight, simply because ED can't be bothered to listen or care at all to change a single value in a LUA. Disgraceful. This is such a simple issue that the lack of attention ED shows towards it is quite infuriating and saddening about a product otherwise very enjoyable. Hopefully someone ends up giving a <profanity> somewhere and people end up doing their job...

Wait!? ALREADY? How is that possible? Not even TWO WEEKS? Congratulation! I'll test it Today.

That's fair enough. Thank you for the explanation and, of course, it's already a new great feature

found a way to get rid of the default sound all together. should be fixed now