Leaderboard

Вот бы такие споры о радаре, спо, р27 были, а то лапмочка у них, не той системы

I for one am simply not interested in MP. Speaking PvE: I want to fly, when I have time, not when a server happens to be full. I want to fly what (plane and mission) I want, not what is on the menu for some virtual squadron. Speaking PvP: I am in no mood to spawn, do a time consuming cold start only to be blown to pieces on the taxiway, by friend or foe. And yes, my aged brain is simply too slow to compete with teens who spend all their time in front of screen. In short, I simply don't miss anything in my SP world.

I spent significant time researching and comparing what we know about SPO-15 variants with actual video of SPO-15LM. Much to my surprise I only confirmed the limitations in azimuth resolution. The SPO-15 in it's original form fitted on more expensive aircraft had ability to collect illumination signal from 16 azimuth sectors, each 20 degree wide. This was done with 4 Luneberg lens antennas, each having 4 feeds. In addition there were 2 more antennas for UP/DOWN detection. Each of these antennas was connected to local RF converter/amplifiers. There were 2 variants 4 channel #204 and 2 channel #202 devices. These were placed in close proximity of antennas, and their role was to receive the RF illumination and amplify the signal so it can be transferred to the the central processing unit. In full system there were 4 #204 and 1 #202. 16 + 2 channels were lead to the SPO-15 central processing unit. Here there were 4 cassettes 31 each containing 4 amplifiers to accept 16 channels from #204 amplifiers, and a 32 cassette to accept remaining 2 channels for vertical detection. Amplifiers in 31 and 32 appear to be identical based on the components I could see in both of them. Luneberg lenses #204 units #202 units Up/Down antennas SPO-15 display SPO-15 control panel (more options than on LM version) 4x power supplies Analysis and control circuits (the brain of this device) However our SPO-15LM was likely an attempt to cut the costs... it has 2x#204 units for front sectors, resulting in reception of 8 antenna feeds it has 2x#202 units used for: rear wide angle azimuth antennas 2 UP/down antennas Here you can see the actual configuration (the control panel was likely for Su-17/22). With this setup the designers faced interesting dilemma: They got 10 azimuth inputs from #204 and #202 amplifiers + 2 more for vertical. They opted to free 2 inputs on cassettes #31 in order to connect sectors #11 and #14 (rear antennas). However 2 pairs of front azimuth channels were spliced together. Coverage remained the same, but the resolution of directions was lowered. This is why the manuals for the 29s show 2 antenna lobs merged together. null Personal though on cost savings: one might argue that interceptor does not need full resolution of azimuth in the back plane. We can accept this reasoning => cost cut they had to produce slightly more narrow assembly base (there are 2 slots less for #31 cassettes). In terms of complexity of wiring slightly reduced and slightly less material used. => minor cost cut they used same number of cassettes in the "brain". => No cost saving here for 10 channels they used same number rf convertes/amplifiers under assumption made under #1 => no savings instead of adding addition #31 or #32, 2 pairs of channels got spliced together => they saved money on additional #32 or using #31 instead of #32 I can only conclude that whoever made decision on where to save money did prioritize the price over functionality. For slightly more money the SPO-15LM could have had better azimuth resolution on the sides. In other words: he was either dumb or did not care.

Каждый тянет одеяло на себя , )) в жизни все сложнее . Заводчане ( не все ) думают что их самолет прилетит в полк и будет штыком , полковые думают что завод испортил хороший самолет )). Конечно не те , не те не правы. Само собой, если завод освоил ремонт, то делает его по максимуму, но бывают ситуации, когда какой то косячок всплывает в последний момент или отказ плавающий , то он есть , то нет ,а времени на исправление нет , сроки, звонки , давление начальства с двух сторон. И заявки на перегонку уже поданы . К тому же не все все пункты вводятся в программу облета , прицел , к примеру проверяется только через ВСК , никто контрольные цели поднимать не будет ). И тогда либо договорняк через начальников заводских и полковых и тогда приказ летчику не еб-ть никому мозги а подписывать акт и перегонять самолет либо инженер берет литр массандры и договаривается на месте ))) . Возможны и другие варианты. Но как правило все проходит хорошо, в пределах руководящих документов . Но ВСЕГДА , когда самолет приходит с завода , начинают вылазить какие то косяки и инженеры с техниками еще долго с ним колупаются , что то крутят , настраивают СН, САУ и тд ( особенно это касалось прицелов ) , прежде чем самолет через несколько месяцев станет действительно штыком и начнет летать как надо . Бывают конечно исключения , но редко .

Да нет, юморист это вы... Со своим упорством про "ТАК В ДОКУМЕНТЕ НАПИСАНО!" А ещё по ГОСТам у нас в стране дороги должны быть идеально ровные(не считая маленьких неровностей). Но чет-не работает закон. Видимо до дороги не довели что она без ям должна быть. Может вы ситуацию исправите?) Конечно сказки, мне ж делать нефиг сочинять сказки, тем более доказывая что-то такому бронебойному персонажу. У которого во всём мире зелёная индикация)

So, what, western RWRs are just magical with perfect bearing accuracy, range etc. Despite many accounts to the contrary? Meanwhile we have evidence that the 29's RWR is blanked, cuz its not really that hard to do. We have pilots and techs saying it worked, and some that said it was broken. I mean its not hard to believe both are true. Parts ran out after the collapse of the SU, even likely in russia. And the few parts that existed likely were held back for actual wartime use. Moreover the SPO-15 worked on plenty of other aircraft with radars, and you want us to believe that for some reason the Soviets "forgot" to make it work with the mig-29.... Sure thing...

Hi everyone, I appreciate this is minor (though on the flip-side, fixing it is trivial), but what we have in DCS is not a MiG-29A. IRL the actual MiG-29A (product 9-11A) was a speculative concept from the 1970s that was never built beyond small, scale models. Here's what it may have looked like if it was ever actually built (note 29A written on the nose): This was essentially a stop-gap aircraft, using avionics (including the radar) of late MiG-23ML aircraft (and you can see an R-23R missile depicted under each wing). This model can also be seen in the documentary Wings of the Red Star - the Last Generation about the MiG-29 and Su-27. Here's another image showing prospective loadouts (including the K-25 - more-or-less a copy of the AIM-7 Sparrow), here depicted with semi-recessed stations on the corners of the engine nacelles - much like the Hornet (though you can find numerous other MiG-29A designs - such as this one and even this SAAB 35 Draken-looking one Note how "радиолоцанная станция" (radar station) is listed as "САПФИР-23М" i.e SAPFIR-23M. SAPFIR-23 being the radar fitted to the MiG-23. What we have in DCS is actually just "MiG-29". I'd propose renaming it to "MiG-29 (9-12A)" or "MiG-29 (9-12A) Fulcrum-A", as that's where the As actually belong and this is what the aircraft actually is. Including Fulcrum-A is out of convention for DCS (though DCS' naming convention is inconsistent to begin with), though were it to be done, I'd include NATO reporting names for all Soviet/Russian/Chinese aircraft, as has been done with some ground units. The Ural-375s got corrected to what they actually are (Ural-4320s), let's hope this can get corrected too. I've attached a modified MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua (ironically, the name of the .lua file gets it right), changing line 410 to have a more accurate display name that fixes the issue - this resides inside CoreMods\aircraft\MiG-29-Fulcrum (ironically the name of the .lua file and the name of the folder gets it right). This will break the Integrity Checker so ensure to retain a back-up of the original. MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua

у нас миг явно не с начала эксплуатации и как там на него было положено в процессе эксплуатации неизвестно, почему вы считаете что такого быть не может? есть факт, что многие борта летают с желтыми? есть. так почему наш миг не один из них? абсолютно бесмысленный спор. да и абсолютная мелочь, не стоящая нескольких страниц. по моему есть куда более значительные проблемы

Yes, all of the above. We all know that in a workplace, or in any social club, there are going to be people who grate on you. That's just life. Generally its the founders of the Cult Squad will set the tone for the experience that follows. I've been a member a few squads over the years and it was always a mixed bag. I'm not currently in any squad or doing any MP. Inevitably, the time comes when I'm no longer willing to tolerate certain nonsense: For example, there will always be the guy who interjects religion into every conversation; Or Politics. It's inevitable that I'll come to resent the "CO" who reminds me of Colonel Lard, or his XO, Barney Fife. I'm no longer willing to tolerate a RIO that giggles like Rosco P. Coltrane or have Frank Burns as my wingman; There will inevitably be the conspiracy theorist (such as Flouride, Elvis, Pandemic, etc), or the ideological nutcase. I kid you not, in one group I had to sit through a "moment of silence" for Manfred Von Richtofen, only to realize that I hadn't muted my microphone and they all heard me laughing my butt off at such ridiculous BS. This is a game, and I couldn't believe they were serious. I've encountered every type of meme warrior, troll, simpleton, knuckdragging, mouth-breathing fool that never matured past the 7th grade. I've sat through 2 hour long "Milsim" briefings that by the time it came around to actually flying I was already on my 6th beer, and to my amusement performed quite well. Oh, and I should add that racism was and is an immediate deal-breaker for me, but I've unfortunately seen far too many willing to go down that path. I've been told that I'm "too sensitive", but I don't think so. I don't miss any of this. So that's the downside. On the positive side, I have learned so much from others and become such a better virtual pilot than I could have managed all by myself. My very best times in flight sims and other games were in Multiplayer. I would join a squad in a heartbeat if I could find the right group of people. I doubt that's likely at this point, but I keep my eyes open for opportunities and an open mind. If someone is new to DCS, or any other complicated simulation, I would highly reccomend joining a squad. They show you the ropes. There is nothing quite as rewarding as flying with and against real people. If you are with the right group (or even a bunch of jerks who know what they're doing) you might be surprised at how skilled you can actually become. It's worth experiencing and if you reach the point where you don't like it any more, you can always tell them to FO and just quit.

Making fun of other people is more cringeworthy imo.

You don't have to like Apple to use an iPhone. You don't have to like ED to enjoy DCS the way you want to, be it as a digital museum or something else.

When ED decides to make a full-fidelity Su-27, let's hope they actually call it "Su-27" and not T-10-1"

What puts me off MP? schedule and time dedication reliance on 3rd party apps like Discord or SRS poor or no briefing/mission plan (public servers) unrealistic mission settings and randomness of powers on both sides (public servers) DCS MP performance and visual weirdness (jumping/warping aircraft) no RL friends playing risk of meeting griefers, trolls and cheaters (public servers) What I miss in SP? unpredictability and skills of human opponents much better interaction with wingman and other friendly flights more realistic comms between flights and services (ATC or JTAC)

According to our team, there was a fix applied to the real jet to allow the gun with a centerline tank. This is what we have modelled in this case. Thanks.

Passengers skinpack 2 for A330 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3347122/ Former B757 skinpack's current condor scheme are in Red / Blue / Orange. Today's A330 are in Yellow / Green and only tailfin Blue.

Если нечего сказать то отвечать не надо. Раз непонятно, объясняю. ЕД и многие люди считают что СПО глушится собственной РЛС. Это противоречит книге по СУО, инструкции по обслуживанию СПО, схемам самой РЛС итд. В случае если исправная\правильно используемая совокупность систем борта работает нормально мы сможем доказать что СПО может работать с включенной РЛС. Мы знаем что СПО получает сигнал на запирание, никогда не получает сигнал на открытие, то есть запираться она должна только пока идет запирающий сигнал, плюс возможно своя какая-то внутренняя латентность. Сигнал используемый в ТЭЧ для проверки цепи бланкирования имеет частоту 500 килогерц. Частота повторения импульсов Н019 в ВЧП, предположительно, 160 килогерц то есть СПО должна с ним справиться если её проверяют на 500. На схеме РЛС линия бланкирования идет как "разовая команда", но аналоговая. Внимание вопрос. От того как выглядит сигнал бланкирования у исправной системы в реале, зависит что будет с СПО-15 при включении собственной РЛС. Будет показывать собственную РЛС всегда\иногда, будет заглушена все время, будет работать как в ГС3 иногда пропуская глюки - куча вариантов. По блок схемам мы знаем что РЛС подает на СПО сигнал. Надо выяснить как он выглядит. Это "1" пока включена РЛС, или сигнал на каждый импульс работы РЛС, или сигнал зависящий от импульса РЛС но проходящий цепь логики которая может сбиться с синхрона в определенных условиях?

What would help get me into MP? Two things: 1 - A video tutorial series, explaining in language a small dog could understand, exactly what is required to join MP and not look like a complete tool. 2 - The ability to instantly ban from all servers on Earth anyone who ever uses the phrase "split the community". #2 is a deal breaker. Thank you.

Include a page on the kneeboard that lists airfield radio channels/frequencies (inc. ADF channels from mission editor)

Sorry guys, I see this is gonna start drifting off. I dont want to see 1.15s and 1.2s, so just gonna clip this one here.

I always took MiG-29A as a colloquial form of NATO lingo Fulcrum-A following how NATO pilots talk about it and would have absolutely no sleepless nights if it stayed that way, but that is just me.

Yep, seconded - this was allegedly a priority item in the newsletter immediately following the release of DCS 2.7 - that was over 4 years ago.

Yes, it's been discussed before - and a pet peeve as well that I see people keep using wrong classifications. Including ED, who are quick to say "we are simulating an F-16CM from circa 2005 as been used by the USAF" but keep calling an actual in-service aircraft by the name of a concept that never materialised. It's the equivalent of calling our F/A-18C lot 20 a YF-17. Also, the naming conventions used inside DCS are not consistent. In the ME it's called "MiG-29A-Fulcrum" while in the Special Options it's - correctly - called "MiG-29 (model 9.12A)".

Hi, wing flex will be added after the damage model is completed. thank you

Pretty sure we'll get both FF Su-25 and FF Su-27 if the MiG-29 sells well. So, do your part everyone! I truly wish we could get more Cold War aircraft. Oh, ok and BTW. You can add the F-8 to your list I suppose. Even if it hasn't been officially announced yet. Cheers! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Dear Eagle Dynamics Team, While exploring the Afghanistan map, I noticed that Zahedan Airport (OIZH) is already partially represented with a functioning TACAN beacon. What immediately stood out is that this beacon perfectly aligns with the Persian Gulf map, meaning Zahedan sits in a unique geographic position that could serve as a bridge between the two maps. Currently, players who own both maps face a limitation: each map is vast, but they exist in isolation. Adding Zahedan as a fully modeled airfield would allow us to land and take off from the same location when transitioning between maps — a feature that would dramatically enhance immersion and realism. We already have precedent for this kind of implementation. For example, when the Syria map was released, H3 Air Base was later recreated for the Iraq map after players requests. This demonstrated how shared airfields can increase value across multiple maps, especially when they touch or overlap geographically. Right now, older maps such as NTTR and Persian Gulf are often described by the community as “complete,” which sometimes translates into “no longer updated.” This has created a perception that ED isn’t investing in improving legacy maps, despite continued demand from players. Addressing requests like this one would be an excellent way to show that older maps can still evolve in ways that benefit both new and existing products. Why Zahedan Matters: Strategic Location: Connects Persian Gulf and Afghanistan maps. Immersion & Continuity: Enables realistic long-haul flights and operations spanning both maps. Precedent: H3 AB demonstrates feasibility and value of shared airfields. Community Benefit: Owners of both maps gain an additional layer of realism and utility. Soviet Tech Relevance: The region is historically tied to Soviet-built aircraft. Many of the flyable Soviet airframes in DCS (Su-25, Su-27, MiG-29A, etc.) lack aerial refueling capability, making local forward bases like Zahedan critical for realistic missions. Module Synergy: With the released the MiG-29A Fulcrum as a full-fidelity module — a platform strongly associated with this region. Zahedan would give it a natural and historically plausible operating hub, tying new content directly into the map ecosystem. Visuals & References Coordinates (Google Earth): Zahedan International Airport (OIZH): 29°28′00″N 60°54′00″E Runway: 13/31 (4260m x 45m, concrete) Map Overlap: 1: Location of Zahedan on the Afghanistan map with TACAN visible. 2: Same TACAN on the Persian Gulf map, confirming geographic overlap. 3: Google Earth overlay showing Zahedan’s position between Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf theater. Immersion Example: Image: Route example from Al Dhafra AB (PG) to Kandahar AB (Afghanistan) with Zahedan as a midpoint. This demonstrates how it could serve as a natural operational hub for aircraft with limited range e.g., MiG-29A, Su-25 or F-16C even the possibility for deploying helicopters exploiting FARPs positions. In short, implementing Zahedan Airport would not only increase the longevity and value of the Persian Gulf map but also strengthen the Afghanistan map by giving it a natural gateway to the west. This single addition would create a much more seamless and immersive experience for the community, while also directly supporting the use of newly released modules like the MiG-29A. Thank you for considering this request, and I hope you’ll take this opportunity to show the longevity of your existing maps.

Its the reason I dont fly Iraq, even with the latest update the textures are messy and blurry when down low, Urgia Medi proved with CW Germany that really they should be the only ones allowed to do maps for DCS as it was was released in a much nicer state than both ED latest maps, also the update for Normandy 2 is looking fantastic, if only ED used the same techniques for their maps. I will say that Afghan looks great now after the last update.

https://www.dualshockers.com/tokyo-game-show-flight-simulator-razbam-eagle-dynamics-dcs/ Bye Phant

Likely the first two would be closest… however, the reality is i have a life and a family, even though I’m retired and I play most days, turning up at a regular time just doesn’t work for me… which it does for most other people… I have little or no interest in PvP in any computer game. I’m introverted by nature and whilst I have friends and enjoy their company, but, I grew up gaming solo, and honestly have very little interest in gaming with others.

Доброе утро. Провёл вчера ещё один эфир по МиГ-29, уже создав миссию без модификаций, которая предполагает работу по воздуху и земле. (Кавказ) Ещё пара багов и вопросов: 1. После "холодного старта", при страгивании самолёта с стоянки происходит жёсткий лаг. Иногда на 2 секунды. И при этом часть АЗСов на панели навигации перемещаются сами по себе в "стандартное положение", а именно - я выставил АЗС КУР 180-360, а он в процессе лага ушёл обратно на 0-180. Или же АЗС выбора аэродрома/ППМ у меня выставлен на ППМ в процессе запуска, а после лага этот же АЗС обратно уходит в режим АЭР. На всех трёх вылетах это было замечено. Тайм-коды прилагаю. 29:03 - первый. 1:40:11 - второй. 2:30:16 - третий. 2. При использовании NS430 (который по-прежнему забирает много FPS) есть баги при отображении карты в режиме NAV при определённом масштабе. Т.е. вместо участка карты - просто чёрный прямоугольник. Тайминг 23:18. Так же 23:44 - видно, что всегда подгружается корректно карта высот(?). При определённом масштабе она и вовсе исчезает и просто остаются ЛЗП да ППМы, без "жёлтых и красных областей". 3. Баг при рулении ботов после посадки на аэродроме Бамбора (Гудаута). После посадки часть ботов заезжает на пятачок с КДП, сносит его и взрывает статичную технику. Этой проблеме уже много лет точно... Тайминг - 3:07:36. 4. Бот на МиГ-29 использует тормозной щиток даже при наличии ПТБ. Тайминг - 2:46:00 5. Лазерный дальномер включается сам даже без достижения тангажа в 10 градусов. Это нормально? И отключается ли он сам во избежание перегрева? Тайминг - 2:47:21. 6. Вроде как правили с крайним патчем удержание цели при захвате РЛС, но на деле - срывы происходят постоянно. Не важно стоит ППС или ЗПС, не важно какая частота импульсов. Тайминги - 55:59 и 1:52:13. Пробовал захват в режиме АП, чтобы зацепиться за помеху - захват есть, пуск километров с 25 а то и ближе...и потом опять срыв захвата. По наблюдениям - будто РЛС очень сильно, если не безумно, зависит от включённого РЭБа противника. (в условиях миссии у Миража 2000 и Торнадо с контейнером - РЭБ молотит постоянно). Любой РЭБ давит РЛС МиГа настолько сильно, что применять 27Р/ЭР результативно - почти нереально. Ну и непонятно есть ли смысл от АЗСа, который отвечает за "прожиг" (как я понял) помех. Может есть советы какие-то? Или это ещё всё настраиваться будет? У ботов, кстати, тоже много промахов этим ракетами... 7. Есть какие-то советы по стрельбе 27Р/ЭР в ДВБ и ББ(РЛС) по вертолётам? В рамках миссии заходил на звено "Газелей" - РЛС не видит их не при каких условиях. Вертолёты двигается со скоростью 200-220 на малой высоте, 50-100 метров. Заходим сбоку чуть выше их или на той же высоте, спереди, сзади - не важно. Ставим разную частоту импульсов, меняем ППС и ЗПС - не помогает. Пробовал захват в режиме ББ при помощи РЛС - тоже не видит цель, бесполезно. Понятное дело, система старая и специального режима под винтов нет...но вопрос в том, что вертолёты для РЛС и Р-27 на 9-12 вообще неуязвимы получается? Только через КОЛС работать? ТП видит их нормально, хотя и дальность замеряет порой долго. 8. Визуальных Баг с выпуском тормозного парашюта после одного вылета. Первая посадка - всё штатно, анимации корректные. Вторая, третья и вероятно последующие посадки (только с перезарядкой и дозаправкой, борт тот же) - при выпуске парашют волочится по земле, будто сброшен, хотя самолёт оттормаживается. Тайминг - 2:12:18.

Can we get an update on one of the biggest issues with the current weather system, please? AI can still see through clouds, IR missiles can still track through clouds. None of the visually interesting cloud presets really work for singleplayer and cooperative play. WWII and modern ground attack are notoriously frustrating without clouds blocking AI's vision and weapons/sensors. Heatseekers (especially IR SAM) have an unfair advantage that flat out prevents certain scenarios to be playable in certain weather conditions. I would appreciate an update on the matter. I think it's one of the bigger long-standing issues DCS is plagued by.

After Enigma's (insightful at times) "leaked" video last week: I'd just like to say, DCS still has no rival. It will NEVER be bug free (it is WAY too complex and comprehensive), never. Most of the negative comments about DCS underneath his video are absurd to me. The constant comparison to BMS is mind-boggling. If DCS was an F-22, BMS is a Cessna 152 by comparison. The Dynamic Campaign is really very cool, but you're talking about a platform that had one archaic map and one aircraft. Try pulling that off with 50+ high fidelity aircraft, dozens of different maps, with exceptionally high graphic standards, controllable ground vehicles, and wildly compl....oh, wait. ED is ACTUALLY trying to do just that! My only real criticism has been that they've spread themselves WAY TOO THIN! But I do not fault them for being ambitious. Have they blundered some 3rd party business? Yes, it is impossible to be a business for decades and not burn a bridge now and again. Can they reconcile those differences? Of course. At the end of the day, DCS is the only air combat simulator right now that is cutting/bleeding edge in my book. Period. Dot. Keep up the good work, team.

Would not give me any feeling of accomplishment. To an organized group those random human opponents are less challenging and less realistic than the otherwise very challenged DCS AI.

Thank you for the reply. My questions would be: It was said the Caucasus/Jets only initial pass was a starting place to dial in the "basics". Where are we on that progress many years later? Is ED still in the basics? What percentage of the way to launch are we? Will the dynamic campaign launch with support for all maps, modules, eras? Will SP + MP Support? Will there be robust support for logistics based operations? Is a significant overhaul of AI systems coming now that multicore has been implemented, where AI can dogfight intelligently and be bound by the actual full fidelity flight physical flight models of each aircraft? Enigma made statements, accurate or not, that Nick stated ED is "****" at the game aspect, and ED accepts that, and focuses on engineering full fidelity modules - that DCS exists to preserve high accuracy airframes, and gameplay is second. Does ED dispute this comment? If it was accurate years ago, how has this changed? In as little ambiguity as possible and with as much detail as possible, what tangible investments has/is ED making to prioritize game-centric aspects of DCS world equally as high as full fidelity module/terrain development? What percentage of the ED team is strictly dedicated to gameplay only developments, to create a core environment where DCS is not just the best at modeling accurately, but giving players a top tier game environment for putting them to use? Is this a strong focus at ED, to not just be best in class at full fidelity modelling, but best in class in gameplay? What is the roadmap to get there? I understand you personally will likely not have this information, and I also want to point out that I am not trying to be difficult or antagonize. As a customer who was spent more on DCS than any other piece of software in my life - and that is before counting hardware investment specifically for DCS - I would be grateful if ED would be willing to make very clear, detailed statements on their goals and trajectory as a company. My hope for DCS is that it would be a platform that does not dumb down its high fidelity realism, but rather harnesses it with top-tier game design. There is a huge empty niche to fill here, as other platforms often emphasize game over fidelity. DCS emphasizes, currently, fidelity over game. There are many people hungry for a non compromise platform that merges the best of both worlds. Frankly, the game aspect is easier than what DCS has already achieved. But easier does not mean easy, of course. I am hoping that ED will take seriously what many customers want (and already expect) to see: serious investment into not just the core engine (performance, AI, bugs, etc.) but the core gameplay experience. Can we have confidence that ED is investing seriously internally in a full time, dedicated team whose sole purpose is to develop the DCS "game" aspect? That would be my hope for a future development report. I do believe this is a fair ask, and if Nick's alleged statements truly do represent the position of ED, I think it's also fair to ask that ED just explicitly restates its mission statement in 2025 regarding both fidelity and gameplay in no uncertain terms. While I would be disappointed if ED was not very serious about developing the gameside of the platform to its full potential, ultimately, informed understanding of what DCS' intentions are and are not - from the horses mouth and not hearsay - is honorable. I'll look forward to the next development report, and remain hopeful and optimistic. I hope this post is received in the spirit it is intended - a passionate supporter who has spent a wee bit too much on a product that has always done what it sets out to do quite well... and who is merely looking for clarification on precisely what DCS/ED is setting out to do in 2026 & Beyond. Cheers.

Мда бронебойность зашкаливает... КТО и ГДЕ писал что это эталон?!Фантазировать не надоело? Вам пишут как есть на самом деле. А вы со своими документами... Вы такими очевидными вещами оперируете... что даже лень опровергать. Ну вы ещё расскажите что проезжую часть нельзя вне "Зебры" переходить, а то мы же не в курсе... Но всё равно многие так делают.

А то что небо голубое и трава зелёная вам не надо доказывать? Вам не надоело в адвоката играть который только на документы ссылается, игнорируя очевидные факты? Бессмысленный диалог. Ему картинки из реальной жизни показывают (И он сам же скидывает картинки с желтой индикацией) а он "Надписями с забора" тычит...

I think all major points have already been made, but there is another slightly more subtle argument, that i call the penny pusher problem: Public PvP in supposedly deep tactical games can feel like coin pushers: You can approach the game with skill and planning, but the tactical outcome is determined less by your individual input and more by the unpredictable cascade of random strangers piling in. Each round looks the same on the surface, yet wildly different results occur depending on who happens to show up and how they collide. Without roleplay, or at least shared intent, the illusion of a tactical layer collapses into arbitrary social randomness. Players might believe their actions are decisive, while in reality their agency is constantly undercut by uncontrollable and completely opaque variables. That kind of randomness can work in Quake, where chaos is the point and individual skill shines through nevertheless, but in a game that sells itself on tactical depth and interconnected systems it creates frustration imho, because what should feel like a battle of strategy ends up feeling like a chance based arcade machine. This randomness is arbitrary and opaque: It creates noise rather than depth. Therefore it should not be mistaken for the kind of randomness that fuels replayability in well designed dynamic scenarios (dynamic campaign?!) where variation emerges from clear rules and systemic design. In those scenarios, even losing can be satisfying, because players can see how their choices interacted with the rules. PS: I think the penny pusher problem captures the dilemma where public PvP inevitably drifts toward airquake, despite mechanics that on the surface aim to promote coordination and tactical play.

And yet you have stronger technical document stating that blanking is there and radar itself has diagram with output signal for SPO-15 blanking? This can not be denied by pilot's manual, yet it can be explained with deterioration of electronics. Either in radar or in SPO-15. It should be distinguished from the time when aircraft was new and operational from the time several years later where these mechanisms did not work anymore. Hence, we need to be able to trigger those failures, but otherwise the radar and spo should behave according to their designs.

Yep and DCS' naming scheme is all over the place, not just with aircraft either. I'd more than happily go and sort it all out and make it more consistent, but with the 2.7 lua lock, a lot of it is impossible. Yes, I imagine its a case of As getting lost and I did describe it as a minor issue - because that's exactly what it is. But to me, when something as basic and trivial as merely calling something what it actually is isn't achieved, my confidence kinda drops - short of licensing issues, it really isn't hard to call a spade a spade. And if something so utterly trivial to get right and fix (and I've even provided said fix) is going to be wrong, what else, maybe not so trivial, is going to be wrong? It's not the only example either.

Я уже писал об этом на английском. Поскольку я не говорю по-русски, предлагаю вам воспользоваться переводом Google-Tarzan на русский. У югославских ВВС, эксплуатировавших 9.12b, были серьёзные проблемы с надёжностью электроники МиГ-29. Наиболее распространёнными неисправностями систем были: 1. Радар 2. СПО-15 3. "навигационная система" До войны летать могли только 2-3 самолёта, и предпринимались отчаянные усилия по восстановлению их работоспособности. В результате большая часть самолётного парка в 1999 году продолжала летать, но с разным уровнем фактической работоспособности. В реальных условиях системы выходили из строя при запуске или во время полёта. В некоторых случаях индикация выдавала предупреждения об ошибках, но в некоторых оборудование просто выходило из строя. Что касается СПО-15, есть как минимум один случай, когда пилот включил радар, и на СПО-15 загорелась лампочка-«ёлочка»/послышался звуковой сигнал. Более того, пилот Мирчета Йоканович, входивший в первую группу, прошедшую обучение в Советском Союзе, прямо заявил в интервью, что электроника выходит из строя и требует обслуживания/замены. В качестве основной причины отказов он назвал выход из строя электролитических конденсаторов, что приводило к каскадным отказам. Он упоминает, что в 1998 году российская сторона предлагала им обслуживание этих бортов по цене 200 тысяч долларов за самолёт, но политическое руководство отклонило запросы генералов Перишича (начальника штаба) и Величковича (командующего РВ и ПВО). Оба этих генерала были сняты с должностей в конце 1998 года, поскольку считались не слишком лояльными Милошевичу. И наконец, существует только одно руководство на русском языке, в котором говорится, что СПО-15 и радар несовместимы (см. выше). Для меня это звучит как крайне нетехническое описание проблемы и, вероятно, было реакцией на проблемы, с которыми столкнулась модель 9.12 в ходе ее более позднего использования в боевых действиях ВВС Советского Союза и России.

Falls ihr noch Windows 10 nutzt und schon ein mulmiges Gefühl habt, weil es ab Oktober keine Updates mehr geben soll - in der EU hat MS jetzt eingelenkt und sich bereiterklärt, noch ein Jahr lang Updates kostenlos zur Verfügung zu stellen (es gibt einige Anforderungen, unter anderem muss man mit einem MS-Konto in Windows angemeldet sein). Vielleicht hilft es ja einigen von euch, für die ein Update auf Windows 11 nicht in Betracht kommt. https://www.heise.de/news/Windows-10-weist-auf-Verlaengerung-fuer-Sicherheitsupdates-hin-10673747.html

Can not say, ED would know this better. But, its nice to see you ex-Soviets being more involved into the 29 topics.

I support the rename. I wish ED was a bit more careful with internal naming scheme. For some aircrafts they use official designation but for some inofficial. And in some cases they actually duplicate designation for 2 variants (example Ka-50). BTW it is interesting to note that X-25, X-29 was envisioned in this version already. I wonder why they dropped that. Off course X-29 came to 29 later, but it is worth noting that it was part of upgrade options for 9.12 operators.

I also avoid public servers for a variety of reasons - one of which being certain behaviours I have observed there (and have been subjected to) that I don't care to repeat. AirQuake simply doesn't interest me, and loading entire SAM sites on a Huey to drop them off using scripts is a bit... err immersion breaking I have joined a few squadrons back in the day, and I have had a few of my own as well, but these days I fly SP with the occasional hop on a privately hosted mission with a friend of mine. That works just fine for me.

It does not matter. If I place radar to dummy, and in IRST scan mode lock someone, I will get radar range in 3 seconds. If with radar in Illum and IRST scan mode lock someone outside laser range, then place radar into dummy, I will then get radar range within 3 seconds. You just can’t use radar in coop mode while it is in dummy, so you need to move it back to Illum while keeping coop switch forward for that. Eventually coop switch forward will force radar to MPRF and 25 km scale

I want to play at my convenience, not when others have the time. MP is always a commitment (unless you play with total randoms, which I don't care for), with SP I can play or not, and nobody else will care. My at times unreliable internet connection (I'm on a radio link) also doesn't bother me, nor am I affected if someone else doesn't make it, or has connection problems. Playing with others just adds a whole other level of fuss that I'm unwilling to deal with. Plus, as a VR player, I don't have performance to spare, and MP is poorly optimized in DCS.

It's funny how some people fall obsessively in love with DCS, and then something that was there all along becomes too much for them to bear and causes them to cast it aside - and they become like those people who've divorced their partner, but the anger still dominates their consciousness. They can't let go, and instead their energy goes into persuading everyone they can that their one-time love is the cause of all the ills in the world.

This plane just can't climb, can't turn, can't do anything. Its engine is so weak so it can't even dogfight a tiny plane. It's just opposite to the one in the real world. I stopped flying this thing until something changes.

Hey guys! I've been working on a set of Russian Cold War assets that will be added to the Russian pack. I hope you'll like them! They will all have LODs, different liveries and will fit perfectly with the Germany map and Cold War missions/scenarios. And since I have your attention, all donations no matter how small are welcome, all donations goes into getting better and better models for my assets. This is the preliminary list of assets: 2S1 SPG 2S3 SPG 9K35 Strela-10 SAM ASU-85 SPG BMD-2 IFV BMP-1 IFV BMP-1P IFV BTR-50PK APC MT-LB APC PT-76B LT T-72A MBT T-72B MBT ZSU-23-4 SPAAG