Leaderboard

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.21.16552/ DCS Core Hotfix for several certain cases of crashes with modules like Mi-24P, F-14, induced by changes from last update. Password protected slots cannot be occupied by a player in the Multiplayer - Fixed. DCS: F-14 Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations Fixed issues with AN/ALQ-100/126 and ALR-45/50 after carrier spawn (sometimes leading to CTD) Campaigns DCS: F/A-18C & DCS: F-14 Iron Tide Campaign by Sandman Simulations All mission: CAP and escort flight behavior changed to prevent flights leaving the designated area of operations. Wind speed changes to make sure flights use Ramat David runway 33.

I'm gonna prepare instructions pdf as well as video tutorials before release

As I wrote previously, I have reached the limits of my abilities. So I am sharing my update with you, OvGME ready without unzipping. This is the complete mod, and all credit goes to Barthek, its creator. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p-4NdNlIBAnhWAl5X8Fz4LSnrCBYwm4v/view?usp=sharing

Release Version Current version number: DCS hotfix 2.9.21.16552 Next planned update: To be announced

We at Aerges were analyzing this bug last days, realized that it was an issue with OB version and committed a fix. Probably related to ED's SDK as we hadn't made any changes in the code, just compiling new binaries was enough to solve it. Unfortunatly it didn't get to today's hotfix.

@Muchocracker @BIGNEWY just wanted to remind many users are still waiting for technical explanation of blanking.

Can we expect a more in-depth development of the aircraft's systems regarding emergency procedures? This switch panel is currently non-functional. These systems are not mentioned in the development roadmap, at least not officially.

Not to detract from the very nice update, but there are a couple of issues with the SA-2 site that i want to highlight. Firstly, there doesn't seem to be any revetments for placing search radars and their associated electronics trailers, nor does there seem to be any ready areas for transloaders. If what's depicted in this image were to be recreated then that would be essentially perfect (though the central area is typically rectangular in Germany, If the above image were to be recreated (though typically the central revetments are comprised of numerous straight ones in Germany), that would be perfect. Secondly, the revetments themselves don't look that accurate - real sites have essentially simple earth berms and SA-2s typically have at least 3 openings (as depicted in the above image). The central area for the guidance radar and associated hardware is also typically rectangular constructed out of 2 sets of parallel berms. In the screenshot in the OP, the berms are the wrong way round. This is somewhat puzzling because the Syria map already has more accurate launch revetments (they could just do with a retexture to make them suitable for Germany and maybe include some very short grass). For example, here's an SA-2 site near the large Wittsock bombing range, you can clearly see that the central area is rectangular in shape, constructed from 2 sets of parallel berms. You can also see that the launcher revetments are more similar with the image above and that there are additional revetments for search radars etc. Secondly, the roads connecting the various elements, IRL these would've been more austere with much more mud/sand - the area between the fences in the screenshot captures this look very well - if it could be applied to the various roads around the site, that would be excellent and would make the site look more authentic.

@SharpeXB As always with your long standing "modus operandi", you keep derailing threads. To keep talking in circles, with back-and-forth arguments, just to guide the conversation off-topic, in whatever unrelated direction that entertains you, is not being part of a discussion. And that ruins meaningful debates. I've been guilty myself of taking your bait and fueling you - my bad - sorry to everybody else who was looking into this. You've dismissed the topic outright, without even having the most basic understanding of Linux, how it runs games. It's been made clear that this subject doesn't interest you, nor does it concern you. You're clearly antagonizing for whatever sadistical reason. In other words: it's "trolling". So there is no point for you in being here. Go away. Go derail some other thread, please.

Some screens from the dev build. @Devil 505 the development is still ongoing for Vietnam War Vessels 2.2.0. For example all of the static objects seem to face the wrong direction currently. The log above is from our github development repository: https://github.com/tspindler-cms/tetet-vwv I would not base a mission on the development repository, but for curiousity of what's next, feel free to peek. Cheers, TeTeT

Hallo, ihr Jagdflieger! We're returning to the DCS: Cold War Germany map. A small but action-packed update is in the works, adding new locations, important tactical objectives, and new services to the map: During the Cold War, Bonn became the temporary capital of West Germany. We've added the city, including the famous "Bonn Pentagon" —the complex of buildings housing the Federal Ministry of Defense, a key military objective in any conflict scenario. We've also added the 72-meter-tall Stadthaus (city administration) building and the Poppelsdorf Palace. The Federal Ministry of Defense ("Bonn Pentagon") Stadthaus Poppelsdorf Palace Valentin Submarine Facility We've recreated one of the most impressive and macabre sites of the Third Reich—a gigantic concrete bunker on the banks of the Weser. It was the largest fortified U-boat facility in Germany. Most of the roof is around 4.5 meters (15 ft) thick, but part of it is 7 meters (23 ft) thick. In the realities of the Cold War, this monumental complex could have served as a highly secure storage facility or a secret factory. A target of the highest priority. Rostock Port The largest port of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) on the Baltic Sea. During the Cold War, it was a key hub for Soviet and East German maritime transport, a logistics hub, and a potential base for Warsaw Pact warships and submarines. One of the key strategic targets in the update is the Ennepe Dam – a hydroelectric power station in North Rhine-Westphalia, built in the early 20th century. NATO and Warsaw Pact military doctrines considered hydraulic structures to be top-priority targets. Industrial area with waste heaps: we've added Terricones SA-2 Air Defense Zone: Consider deployment locations when planning missions. Cologne-Bonn Airport (Terminal): A major hub ready to receive your aircraft. Autobahn Runway: Using sections of highway as runways is a legendary practice. New opportunities for you. Flights to such runways require pilots with precision takeoff and landing skills. Stay tuned, we'll show you and tell you more about the upcoming update. Don't forget to get your new certification!

Yes. ED many times. They don't care about what we're doing in I2J. No response to inquiry IS a response. As for Currenthill, yes as well. He's quite busy with his modern ground assets. Tetet is the only asset developer to show interest in assisting with time period assets. We wrote I2J for our little group because there was nothing like what we wanted. We shared the mission with the community because I feel strongly that far too many mission makers refuse to share their creations with the community - especially MP missions. Last time I looked, this mission was downloaded less than 1500 times - that includes all different versions. I highly doubt 1500 potential customers drives ED to create any type of asset pack. Plus Tetet's comment above is also spot on.

Hi, we will be doing a more comprehensive roadmap later. Thanks.

You’re not alone

threads merged. DM sent thank you for the ping

Hotfix for today has already been released https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.21.16552/ So this will likely be in a future patch

I dont fully follow your example. The system saves the entire aircraft state, all its 3000+ properties. That doesnt just include wear/tear but also literal state. For example if you turned the laser on or the position of the lense inside the Pave Spike camera or whether a lamp is currently on or not etc. Wear/Tear never reaches a state where something doesnt work anymore. That would be failures and those are decoupled from wear/tear and automatically repaired across missions. Your aircraft with maximum wear/tear will still work, it just will be a rough experience and performance of all components will deviate a lot from what they are expected to be (in both directions, underperform but also overperform). Details to the wear/tear system in the manual.

Turns out WinBoat wasn't needed at all. I'm currently using Bazzite v42 and DCS World runs fine on Lutris and it recognises my WinWing HOTAS and Skywalker pedals without any issues. There is mention online that Linux is limited to 80 buttons however that limit only applies to older kernel versions ** apprently **. I'm still looking into this. If it helps anyone, Bazzite is a fork of Fedora, you can install the fedora joystick-support package using the rpm-ostree package system via command terminal: rpm-ostree install joystick-support Also I'm getting better FPS than I was on Win11

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.21.16552/ DCS Core Hotfix for several certain cases of crashes with modules like Mi-24P, F-14, induced by changes from last update. Password protected slots cannot be occupied by a player in the Multiplayer - Fixed. Campaigns DCS: F/A-18C & DCS: F-14 Iron Tide Campaign by Sandman Simulations All mission: CAP and escort flight behavior changed to prevent flights leaving the designated area of operations. Wind speed changes to make sure flights use Ramat David runway 33.

Agreed, and with the Lancaster project now in AI, and the full fidelity 7 crew one not far away...ED Must look at creating a path for these amazing moddelers to come inside the Core

The good news is that, yes, most of us do remember genuine joy. The bad news is that, sadly, one does get used to certain kind of disappointment, I guess. Still, don't mistake skepticism for negativity, please. The matter of fact is, that being somewhat realistic in what can be done helps curb that disappointment quite a lot. You know, people been here long enough to understand that things don't 'just happen' all that easily, so we got to pick our wishes carefully. Heck, I know that I often come off as really negative around here. The truth of the matter is that I try not to be, but sadly some glaring issues actually do get in the way of enjoying DCS as is, even more so of what it could be. Pointing it out, sometimes in stark terms, is what I hope brings about an improvement. Other people have other preferred ways, I reckon. But to get more on the topic at hand: There are quite a few on your list that I'd definitely agree with. I'd shorten it a lot, because, well, I won't live forever either. The upcoming C-130J is, I am quite certain, going to pave the way for a whole new kind of flying in DCS, and I believe the more regularly carrier-capable C-2 Greyhound would be a very interesting module for DCS. As far as the WW2 topic goes, I'm convinced that sooner or later it needs a proper bomber module to be viable. Some of the big birds would be interesting for sure, and a B-29 would also serve Korean-era scenarios well, but I'd also agree that starting out with something a little more, lets say, lightweight, would be the way to go, as it offers more flexibility. You got the B-25 on the list, and there is a whole trove of fun variants of that. I'll also admit I always liked it somehow. In a similar vein I could also see the somewhat rarer B-26 or the illustrious A-26 - both also wouldn't be strictly WW2 modules. Some of the more exotic wishes, I think, have a long ways to go. The possibility of doing them aside, anything that is focused on reconnaissance work or on anti-submarine duties pretty much would require DCS to implement these topics entirely first, and frankly, I doubt that ED would even consider that for a long time. Both of those could be very interesting, though.

Release Version Current version number: DCS 2.9.21.16362 Next planned update: Hot fix 28th October 2025

"Lutch" indicator for antiradiation missiles (replaces the TV when BA-58 "Wyuga" pod is mounted). With su-25a avionics those are still fired "maddog" but it allows to place the aircraft at a right angle so theres higher chance for signal interception by the seeker (yes, I have tested it).

Add me to that team!

Greatly appreciate all the feedback on what map to use. About to push out a test flight video over Guam in the Cayuse. I have moved the FOB's down to Guam. Tested the Phantom, 104, and F-5 as well. They work and look good. In short, we have a very long way to go bringing ITJ to the WW2 map, but had a good convo with Kandy today. Look forward to keeping everyone up to speed.

You'll have to take that up with the maker of the JHMCS II *MOD* . Since it is created by someone other than ED, ED will not specifically change anything to support it or figure out why it isn't working.

You might like it, but I'll guarantee that ED considers that proprietary business information that they're never going to share publicly.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine Please help this poor guy.

Well, thank you for your list. I'm sure they'll give your suggestions due consideration.

No it's not possible to intergrate in the mission. When you download a campaign, the updater downloads and installs the skins separately.

Imagine: Buy all the maps to be able to join a multiplayer server because that server has a lot of different units placed, or: ''*loading next mission*.......error: sorry you don't own West Cambodia to load the Type 63 the mission maker placed somewhere on a 150,000 sq mile map that somehow only comes with the West Cambodia region that's part of a larger product called Cambodia that you have zero interest in, but there are a number of groups that do so and they are the product's target audience. Paid packs will generate compatibility issues and difficult management of missions over time. Imagine 60 unit packs some day and a mission uses 14 of them, how it would cost to Join that mission. This will cut the legs of DCS and paid packs like the WWII were a huge mistake. If you get what you wish on that sentence, people will have a hard time joining your servers, especially the ones that stopped playing for 1 year or 2. I couldn't possibly make a friend get the WWII pack to place a period and location appropriate flak gun on a mission I made because....obviously, why the hell someone would pay for a pack to join a mission and they'll never see that unit again on their own experience or not the target audience at all. And honestly, he was right on his assumption. He never needed the WWII pack after. The right way is to offer a high detail paid pack while placing lower fidelity (but still nice to look at) units on the core sim, like they did/will do with the B-1 and B-5 2... Paid packs with exclusive units are a mistake, the same mistake that was the Supercarrier ''module'' which is the cause we don't have deck crews on the Forrestal still today! Some things should have been made into the core sim so other devs and mission makers can benefit, meanwhile a ton of bug reports over the years to ''why my carrier looks like this?'', ''why I can't spawn on that carrier? :('' Rightfully so. Sorry for the rant, this stuff is the worse of DCS imo. Made me stop flying from 2018 to 2021 because of how community chopping and obstacle for 3rd party it is. I own, Supercarrier btw... love it, but it should be on core sim. The joy is almost canceled having the Forestal deck absolutely deserted by the ground crew and no 3rd party can take advantage of the SC code. Unit packs the same. Lot's of ''you need this to joing that'' etc, will wreck the sim.

The fix did not make it in time for todays hotfix, so it will be in the next update. thank you

It's tough to recommend one because none will feel like Windows. Opinions vary which to recommend. I think it'll depend on the use case. Whether it's more "generalistic/casual" (also the kind you'd put on a non-gamer machine) or mostly PC gaming focused. And whether you prefer an "immutable" or a "mutable" distro (more about it HERE) - the former may be better for a newcomer, but very restrictive once he/she becomes progressively more advanced as a user . Each distro comes ready with more or less and different stuff (drivers, apps, etc) already pre-installed and set - which is an important aspect of each distro, to provide a more "hands on aproach" out of the box for the user, i.e, lose less time installing and testing stuff. It's more about "which one suits my preference", so looking/reading (watch reviews, etc) about each, and maybe test for a short period if curious, is recommended. All are capable of being a "daily driver" OS, but I'd say: "Generalistic/Casual use" - Mint, Ubuntu and Zorin are among the most popular. "PC Gaming focus" - Bazzite, Nobara, Pop!_Os, Manjaro, Garuda and CachyOS are among the most popular. Mint actually works for gaming and is great for someone new to Linux or migrating from Windows, but you may need a bit more manual setup (drivers, Proton, etc). It's a solid choice for stability and minimal tinkering, but gaming performance is not on par with “gaming-focused” distros, which will generally do much better for that use case. Bazzite is a gaming-focused distro (Fedora-based), it works great for gaming (comes prepared with packages and optimizations) and good for someone new to Linux, or migrating from Windows. It might be the "easiest" to adapt, it's ready to game "out of the box". It's great for new users who prefer a "set it and forget it" experience. However, its immutable design means that making significant changes or customizations later on could require more work, compared to other distros (note: all others in this list are mutable, aka "traditional"). The non-english translations are also a bit "crude", which also denounce the "still in development" stage and feeling of this distro. Pop!_Os may be the single best choice for most users who are migrating, if one distro has to be picked (balance of ease, gaming performance, and high-end hardware support). It offers strong out-of-the-box support for GPUs, for gaming and modern hardware, yet remains beginner-friendly enough for a smooth Windows-to-Linux transition. It feels refined if compared to other distros in this list (maybe because it's being backed by a company - System76), even if the Gnome desktop environment feels unrelated to Windows. It's definitely worth trying, in my opinion. Nobara is probably the best overall choice if you’re more adventurous and comfortable learning new things (or anticipate a lot of tweaking for DCS with peripherals or VR). It's built specifically for gaming (Fedora-based), includes game packages and optimizations (Proton GE, DXVK, OBS, MangoHUD, codecs, etc) and, for someone migrating from Windows, it’s very attractive because many of the “gaming setup” tasks are already handled. Some users might find the experience a bit "rough around the edges", particularly with incomplete translations or less-polished features. But, having both KDE and Gnome for the desktop environment means it can also suit different tastes, really good. Then there are three other popular choices that are Arch-based, which are more of a risk, or harder first step, for a new user migrating to Linux. 1) Manjaro is generally stable, performant, with rolling updates, but a bit less predictable and might need a few extra steps for gaming-specific optimization, if compared to Bazzite or Pop!_OS. It does have a large community, so solutions are easy to find, and it may be the easiest Arch-based distro to use and with least Arch-specific pains. 2) Garuda, which is very performance and gaming-oriented, with lots of customizations and tools. It offers great power and flexibility, but updates can occasionally break things, and the learning curve is high. 3) CachyOS, which is highly optimized for gaming (custom kernels, performance-tuned) and aimed at power users. It’s excellent for someone who enjoys tweaking/optimizing and is already comfortable with Linux, but it’s probably quite challenging for a beginner migrating to Linux. The thing with these three distros is that, while they try to simplify, the Arch base they use means a higher potential for constant manual fixes or troubleshooting. TL;DR: best Linux distros for gaming (and DCS World?) from easiest to hardest: Bazzite ↔ Pop!_OS (tie) → Nobara → Manjaro → Garuda → CachyOS The tie between Bazzite and Pop!_OS is because the former is “easier” from the first boot, but the latter is more forgiving once you want to change things.

Linux Track supports TrackIR v2 to v5 https://github.com/uglyDwarf/linuxtrack/wiki https://github.com/uglyDwarf/linuxtrack/wiki/Input-Devices

Exactly this!

I made a mission to double check and what happens is that 2 of 4 helos refusing to take off vertically. The Blackhawk and the Blackshark always take off via rwy. I also tried having only one of each in the mission but the behavior is the same. Though I haven't tried all choppers in the game there seems to be something not right. cauc_helo_vert_t-o_test.trk

There seems to be a serious problem, at times, with communication in these forums. Madman1, your whole comment is irrelevant to the technology presented here. MultiGPU has absolutely nothing to do with SLI/Crossfire, it also has nothing to do with purely workstation applications, neither can you make the assumption that "most" people have or don't motherboards with multiple PCi-express slots (practically every MB today that isn't ITX/mini-ATX is equipped with at least two PCi-express slots, most have three and north), nor does the MultiGPU rely on any drivers from GPU manufacturers... You need to properly read up on what is being discussed here. It cannot be that hard to open the documents that I posted and read, at the very least, the abstract. It's literally one paragraph. Come on people! At this point, I leave it to ED to decide whether they want to look into this more thoroughly. I literally don't have the time to explain things five times over on posts misleading the discussion.

As I wrote in another thread. One way to give MS the finger as much as possible, is to use a Linux-VM in windows and tunnel out with a VPN. The beauty of Linux is that it is lightweight and runs perfectly inside VMs. You can do almost everything in there and just use Windows for those performance hogs (mostly games, CAD and maybe video editing) that aren’t quite there yet.

I'm mainly in the F-16 and F-18. I would like a way to turn off the visor (top, nose cut-outs). I'm using a Pimax 8KX and it is quite distracting (realistic perhaps, but I'd sure like to be able to turn it off). Thanks.

This is the wishlist section of the Forum, so your post is perfectly valid … just don’t expect excitement from other users, as we all have very different wishes. On my own case, I spend my creativity and free time on mission making and learning as many aircraft as I can, and instead of wishing for new modules I prefer to be surprised whenever a new module is released, I’m right now looking forward to learning the Hercules

Indeed, VR is the devil in question here. Then even that becomes more mainstream. Look, personally, I support implementing technologies that might not necessarily benefit me. DLSS with in-app upscaling is an example here. It allows people with lesser hardware to experience VR, and great. For me though, it degrades detail too much. Given how complex and time-consuming programming generally is, one has to think way ahead in terms of what technologies to implement and based on predicted development of the sim. Funny enough, original HTC Vive, was the only VR I was ever able to max out (1080ti). Ever since then, while GPUs get 15%-20% more powerfull per release (~ 3 years) on average, the release of new VR headsets and implementation of new features make the demand rather exponential. In particular, if you look at this generation, the main technologies propagated by Nvidia were further DLSS advancements (degrade your picture quality for better performance - in 2025 we call it a feature, pre 2000, this would be criminal). The other technology being Frame Generation - again, multiplying frames in order to trick the user, does not actually mitigate the still non-articulated frametime. This can be compared to a well known issue in DCS occuring for some users where their FPS is above 30 FPS (often above 80), yet when they look at the ground from cockpit, it jitters. To keep it short, besides the incremental update from e.g. Nvidia, there really are no new technologies that are implemented to mitigate the ever increasing demand from VR. Now, consider upcoming features like dynamic campaign, ever increasing rivet details on each new module, etc... We should frankly, as a community, welcome any performance- giving addition with open hands, be it CPU- or GPU- related. What I'm trying to get across as well, is that it isn't only a win for the top-end user. Remember that people here live in countries where the 5090 or even 4090 is not available yet, or ever will be. This technology gives us all new options.

Haha Well, as said, Bigscreen is on the way. If this was inplemented, even more reason to go with Shiftall. That said, while upscaling never will equal a pixel-per-pixel, it's amazing how good DCS starts to look even with pixel upscaling. As to the general benefit, consider that everyone earns here, especially people with weaker PCs. Not everyone here can run maxed out on even a 2D screen. If you have a free card lying around, it's free performance for you. You can get two 2080ti's cheaper than a single 5090, for example.

Well, some settings are GPU- heavy, som CPU. Consider this though; when MT was announced publicly, the idea was that we were supposed to be able to go from utilizing one CPU core to two cores. Last I checked, DCS can utilize even 4 cores (with less load on the remaining two). My point being that we are slowly, but surely, improving. With VR though, we've actually hit the GPU bottleneck. I can verify that based on my settings and observations from HWmonitor. The real question with this proposal, is that currently, some video-related options, still claim medium-/high- CPU demand. What if that load could be GPU alone?! This is all up to the creativity of the programmer. In any case, the measured results in the scientific paper speak for themselves - 80% utilization of the following GPUs. For reference, SLI/X-fire(Crossfire) could only ever attain sub 60%, and that, was on select titles (PR for selling the GPUs). Realistically, you'd be closer to 40%, and even that wasn't common.

What is enough and isn't is very individual. I'm currently waiting for Bigscreen Beyond 2e, and meanwhile am using the Meta Quest 3. In order to have any resolution similar to 2D monitor, I have to render the resolution 1.7x up. Even if I'd stay with the native resolution, and still keep many settings on medium or close to (view range, clouds, shadows, mirror resolution, +++), I still get the ASW to jump down to 45 fps. In particular, Ka-50 BS3 cockpit is a monster on the fps (vanilla high res textures), which brings the 5090 to its knees. We are very far away from "enough" tbh. Yup, money never was a problem for me. Time on the other hand... But that's me. The genius part of this implementation, is that it would allow to mix and match any GPUs from a manufacturer, and still have it working. You wouldn't be locked to say 2x 980s, instead, a 2080ti and 3090ti would work together. Pretty sure it would be a welcome addition across the community.

Good morning, now onto something completely different. James J Jackson has put together a first set of US ships that do not exactly fit the Vietnam timeline. We will push them out in the "Cold War Vessels" mod, hopefully in a weeks time. Here is a first teaser video: The Frigate Jesse L Brown, a Knox class escort ship named after a Korean War aviator. His impressive story is told in Devotion, a 2022 movie:

The lane width of the highway strip and the highways in general seem about 25% too narrow. German Autobahns have 3,5m - 3,75m lane width PER LANE, meaning four lanes plus emergency lane plus space in the middle where the barrier usually stands make it at least 20m wide. In this Video one can guesstimate the witdh of such a Notlandepiste. Even C-160s were able to land on them... Looking forward to the Update!