Leaderboard

terrain teams do not work on the core, they work on terrains. Same for aircraft teams, they work on aircraft modules. We have more than 50% of our team members working on the core of DCS, you can see the work being done on each change log we publish. We also have to sell products, it enables us to keep development going, if we took your advice we would go out of business eventually.

Hello, this video details every single spec about the radar and IRST air to air modes. You’ll learn all there is to know, scan times lock times, which mode is better at what, which vertical scan covers more space, notch speeds getting rid of notch speeds and other filters, coverage of each mode, many tips and other little related things. What isn’t implemented but will be. Everything! I apologize for all the numbers, I just hope it helps some people out there! Next is COOP mode once it is more complete!

As told, just let them work on the future F1M model, as there are a lot of new systems to be created.I prefer to have this silence, than incredible announcements with disappointments compared to expectations. I can understand that some of you are eargerly await news, but IMHO, EARGES will release some news when the F1M will be next to release instead of announciating freaking news and releasing an "early acces" module. I think they deserve more encouragement than questions about the time of release of the F1M. Personnel message to the EARGES dev team: Just keep your time to work on the F1M development and bring us an alsmost perfect module as you have done it yet. As an amateur creator in question of development, I'm on your side as it could be hard an difficult to create systems almost from zero. And to make them work fine in DCS. All my thoughts and encouragements to you! And in advance, thanks for all the work done and the future work of this great module.

Fulcrum and Flanker really shows how scared NATO was. Something that allows you to move a heavy object with less force and something that attacks your weak sides? Oh yeah I would love it too

And have it auto-fill the correct ATC frequencies. This is for the Mig-19 but you get the idea. Hopefully the kneeboard will eventually display radio channel, airfield name & frequency.

The New George can be instructed to select multiple targets and engage them sequentially. Also George can be instructed to Search TADS LoS, which saves time when you want to engage further targets in the same area. It would be great if we could equip our beloved Petrovich with the same abilities. Throw a bone to us Mi24 drivers already, ED.

The FC3 MiG-29 is also given the incorrect MiG-29A designation (which again, is for a different aircraft - it's like calling the Su-27S the T-10 or the F/A-18C the YF-17, though at least both of those actually flew). They could use MiG-29 (9-12A) FF, similar to how the FC4 versions of the F86F, F-5E etc have FC appended on the end. As for NATO names, whether it's included or not doesn't really bother me but its presence would make the names more consistent with most Soviet/Russian missiles and ground-based air defences. Really, this is about: A naming system that calls things what they actually are and doesn't call things something they're not - like MiG-29A for an aircraft that isn't a MiG-29A, Su-25A for something not called Su-25A (though DCS gets this correct in the mission editor and in-game, everywhere else though...), the U-boat U-flak for a U-boat that obviously isn't a U-flak, the Chieftain Mk.3 that isn't a Mk.3 and Silkworm/SS-N-2 Styx for a missile that's neither. Again, short of licensing issues, it is not hard to call a spade a spade - the level of research effort required should be bare minimum - wikipedia usually suffices (and in the case of the MiG-29, both Russian and English versions get this correct in the variants section, the Russian one more so) and apart from the one exception I can name, this an issue DCS almost uniquely suffers from. A naming system that's consistent.

Yes it annoyed me quite a bit that the training missions explain the procedures referencing knots and feet. We finally got a decently modern RedFor aircraft and it seems everyone and their granny (ED included) wants to turn it into a BluFor one straight away…

+1 the same in training missions, why we have feet and kts in russian plane in trainings missions I havent any idea … It's the same as having instructions for an F-16 in meters and km/h, that's how convenient it is for me. No point...

Could bee. Maybee. Might bee on user files soon. Anyway here is a Thursday teaser.

Modelling suppression fire mechanics against AI. Would be very cool in helo ops but useful for any type of vehicle or aircraft your playing as, would be especially cool when flying the CH-47 or Mi-8 into simulated hot LZs or passing near enemy infantry in wooded areas. Lay down a little cover fire in the general vicinity, to cause the AI to pause for a few seconds and rethink their virtual life.

Love the aircraft, big fan, buying it the moment it's on Steam. But those hands... If there's ever an update with a pair of gloves in it. Thank you in advance.

The FAA Helicopter flying handbook is worth checking out. Not all of it is that relevant for sim flight, but there's a lot of good info there. And it's free! https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook

Yes, I just released a video on all the sensor mode specs if you are interested. Zone select switch on top left panel, but for IRST it already slews the entire azimuth in center, so left/right only makes it scan that half of the original scan zone. I can get F-14/15 from 15-30 km, F-18 less, F-16 no more then 18 km or so. In Mil power atleast.

Great video, glad someone put Gvad’s claims to the test!

"At last the Mouse, who seemed to be a person of authority among them, called out, “Sit down, all of you, and listen to me! I’ll soon make you dry enough!” They all sat down at once, in a large ring, with the Mouse in the middle. Alice kept her eyes anxiously fixed on it, for she felt sure she would catch a bad cold if she did not get dry very soon. “Ahem!” said the Mouse with an important air, “are you all ready? This is the driest thing I know. Silence all round, if you please!" Now I can rest easy and carry on exploring the new module, pausing from time to time to see whether its flight model is really quite as ‘monstrously far from the original’ as some would have it.

Even as a static - has this been released somewhere?

I don't know if this is typical, but I prefer to learn enough Russian and Cyrillic to be able to orient myself in the cockpit while keeping the original unit system and labels. After all, this is a soviet plane, and as an aviation geek part of my joy is learning that CAY refers to autopilot in Russian . To help your non-Russian speaking customers planning to enjoy the airplane in its original unit system and language, could you include all the reference speeds, altitude and such in metric unit in the DCS manual ? (keeping their imperial unit equivalent for those preferring to keep their habit or who just wish to compare). Thank you.

Su-35S/E ASM Development (WIP)

The tracer is optional and enables visual tracking of R-27 and R-60 which is indicated by the fire of red or orange color. for R-27 tracer is placed in the wing. For R-60 in tail section. Can this be added to the weapon load dialog when re-arming? 01.VTUP.001 01.0.319

This is still being tuned by the team; we should have some news soon on this. Thanks.

sliders are set to 0. The final position of the stick is correct, there's just that annoying pull at button release.

Hi I tested it on Kola map on sunrise and din't have this issue with Cirrocumulus 3. Here is a wonderfull screen with this preset with a great rainbow effect.

Hi, Thanks to everyone who took the time to read my post. I have fixed the problem, after changing the order the export.lua file runs scripts. You learn something every day! Thanks again, Gareth

Hi, First of all, I want to thank ED team for this clean and well appreciated release. The Fulcrum is awesome. Now concerning this topic. I also noticed some inconsistency during radar usage but : at this moment we don't really know how ED team plans to design this radar model. So it is hard to say if something is a bug or not. In the first release of the manual there is no sufficient informations to juge wether or not everything is correct or bugged. Based on what I read in DCS forums or heard from well documented DCS members I made with hexcalidraw a "fulcrum radar workflow". It would be appreciated to have a feedback from ED team and from you guys to have a clear view on : - What we should expect from the radar (in terms of performance etc) - What is implemented or not at this moment - What will be implemented or not in the future - How to correctly operate this radar (it might change depending on DCS tactics or historical doctrines) - Correct this diagram and maybe give an accurate one for the future manual versions if it helps community With that, I think we could have more tools to understand what we are doing, what might be a bug or not and save a lot of time for everyone I guess. PS : I won't debate on open source data or anything else external from DCS forums since I had problems with moderation in the past, so I will rely only on your advice and hopefully on ED team' feedback. Have a good day !

I guess this is a different thread than the one I was looking at last night, and the issue came up. I didn't realize before that the comm transceiver and vor/loc capabillities are actually built into the 430. I thought that they had to talk to the onboard radios of the aircraft, but now I know better after looking it up. For me, it's not that big of a deal, but why doesn't ED just correct the product description? If people are not buying something, or feel like they aren't getting what they paid for, then how hard can it be to change a sentence on a web page?

Yes, MiG-29's radar was pecifically developed for WVR with a max detection range of around few kilometers. The 27Rs were designed to be initially guided using M-link, and then they would home in using pilot's eyballs.

Well, you're the manual, so it was time you made an "audio"/video book. [emoji6] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

The same as other mods and modules do it, like A4 or L39. Basically when you apply brake with a rudder input together, rudder input is not interpreted as a rudder input but as differential braking. How much rudder is applied translates on how much difference of a braking is between axes. For example full brakes applied with full rudder the the left translates to left brake axis 100% while right brake axis 0%. With full brakes and 50% left rudder applied it translates to left brake axis 100% and right brake axis 50%, and so on.

Ganz klar AMD x3d CPUs

Correct. Like before 2020 it was definitely a recommended practice for those reasons if you dig a little around here in the forum.

Not sure what those sources are, may be from years ago, but definitely do not run as admin. It can cause issues reading/writing files, and is frequently the cause of mass stuttering and pauses when used with Winwing MFDs. Yeah I think years ago it was spread that this was the way to run DCS as it gave higher priority / power management to the game thread and helped with performance. Don’t know if that was just bs but it isn’t needed and shouldn’t be done now.

Zugegebenermaßen habe ich die letzten Monate den Markt nicht so sehr verfolgt, da ich Ende letztes Jahr gekauft habe. Aber mein letzter Stand war, das man mit "traditionellen" Klischees zu AMD und Intel nicht mehr weit kommt und das aktuelle Bild eigentlich so aussieht, dass man in nahezu jeder Hinsicht, und ganz besonders in Richtung Gaming schon ein eingefleischter Intel Fan sein muss, um überhaupt darüber nachzudenken keinen AMD zu nehmen.

Yes, DCS skid physics are weird: push 1 side of the pedals to full deflection and the helicopter will easily do a 360 on the ground, without needing to be light-on-skids even (collective fully lowered). It’s one of the things I had wished to see fixed when ED announced their “year of the helicopter” a good while ago…

Yo @Tasky welcome to the club! I was in a similar position...worse even, as (whisper it) the Gazelle is my only paid module, and I was using T16000. Remember you can invert the collective axis if your natural instinct is to pull for power Three things not mentioned so far which I found super helpful: Hover trim - learn where the stick needs to be for a hover, roughly, and trim to that position before takeoff. Makes life a lot easier! Check the user files for Gaz campaigns - this one for training, and this brilliant one for putting it into action If you want to practice in another heli, get the OH-6A community module! Not only is it excellent, with a best-in-class FM, but it's light and responsive and so a great way to learn - as per the title - how to actually fly a helicopter! The main thing though is practice and to enjoy it. Frustrating as hell, but sooo satisfying when it starts to come together

You're never going to even get rough estimate until it's basically ready to go. The reason is, if today they said "we're aiming for June 2026" and then in Feb 2026 came back and said "nope, gonna be July 2026" the uproar on the forums would be epic (and sadly this isn't an exaggeration) with all kinds of accusations of "you promised June 2026". It's not worth the grief it causes to try and estimate considering how difficult it is to estimate anyway.

They will be forced down when you blow them up!

Oh, that must be what's going on with the YAK-52 then

Well, three out of four ain't bad these days for them young developer folk. Seriously, is there really a "situation"? Seems a little hyperbolic right now. There certainly is no reason to think that yet. Well, at least we hope not

They did is because westerns would get confused by 9.12A

I would love it. When I was in a squadron we did non-firing dogfights as well and just called out “guns guns guns”. With a feature like this we can do that in SP as well, practicing without the frustrations of getting shot down

Initial version, is available for download: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3347157/ I'll update the mod every Sunday, until I'm done revising. Enjoy.

I'm much more impressed by properly modeled systems, realistic operations and a good flight model. The trinkets and physics on the aux cord are neat and sweet to see, but def shouldn't be priority. it is good to set some realistic expectations with modules, cause some things like a pilot model shaking around or bouncing around has 0 effect on delivering a high quality simulation. Maybe some shakiness on the sun-shades at most would be neat (if it isn't there already).

See screenshot showing location of these terrain "bumps" on the taxiway By the way, I love the winter season on this map best for flying up high over the mountain ranges

Yes that's fine for Flaming Cliffs, but many people expect more from a full-fidelity module. If Heatblur can call their modules "F-14A-135-GR" and "F-4E-45-MC", then ED can call it "MiG-29 9.12A". It will also make the distinction between FC3 and FF easier for the more casual people

I love Ugras work (Thanks for great maps!), but I fail to understand how he/they can add dozens upon dozens of landmarks and features and just ignore endless comments about trees and bushes growing in the middle of airfields, wrong period hangars (If you can model a dozen European cathedrals, you'd think they could model a British WW2 hangar) etc. Awesome that we are finally getting winter though- thanks for that!

Can we have the combine harvests back, my crops are going to be ruined soon ??