Leaderboard

Yea, several people are working on it, but the star of the show is Bhoop and the EFM. You all are going to LOVE this thing.

Thank you @VFXBLENDER for your response. i saw the YouTube videos showing the use of ZELL in the United States and West Germany in the 1950's and 1960's. I don't know if there is any publicly available information for the ZELL systems on the F-104. When I saw the Aerges F-104 videos showing their latest updates, I imagined the ZELL system might have been an option. I saw myself and F-104 strapped to the booster rocket just waiting to launch and go after the bad guys. This would be great for the CW Germany map. Mike Force Team

In my opinion it would be better if Aerges would implement a full English cockpit option themself. That way its secured in future updates and we can easily choose from dropdown box in special tab.

I think this would be awesome for the F6F and F4U. As for a later date due to China's sensitivities could we have a West Pacific map which includes more of mainland China

Congrats @currenthill on this new assignment and set-up. Seems to be best as so many have found what I have found - that you really can't tell realistic stories outside of training ranges without your stuff at this point. Do appreciate these developments in the FAQ a lot also: Good to know we'll be able to keep your anti-ship missiles working alongside the new & improved stuff! Much appreciated!

Congratulations on your collaboration with ED, it's great to have you on the forum.

Congratulations on this development, Currenthill - well deserved. Another question for your FAQ, when you update it next - I’m sure many of us use updated HARM/RWR files (I combine yours and Nightstorms to support a variety of mods) - will your files be updated to remain compatible with any updated core script files for these codes? Well done again and thanks for all the work you’ve done and are doing for this community

Hey! Thank you for your support and interest in the Currenthill Assets Pack. In this post I will keep an updated FAQ, where I try to answer the questions already asked or things I want to explain more in depth. FAQ Q1: Will Currenthill Asset Pack be part of core DCS? A1: Yes. The new assets will be added to the DCS core engine free for all of you to enjoy. Q2: Will all the assets from the Currenthill mod packs be added to DCS? A2: No. The library of new core assets are based off of the inventory of the Currenthill mod packs, but each asset are carefully chosen to be added to DCS. Each new core asset are implemented mostly from scratch to uphold a specific consistent standard of things like mesh and textures quality, animations, FLIR textures, LODs, destroyed models etc. Q3: Will the new core assets conflict with the Currenthill mod pack assets? A3: No. All new core assets have unique names and will therefore not conflict with the Currenthill mod pack assets. Q4: Will there be more batches of new core assets? A4: Yes. The first announcement letter describes the first batch of new core assets, but there will be more to come. Q5: Which assets will the next batch contain? A5: For maximum suspense, the content of the next batch won't be announced until it's announced. Q6: Are the new core assets the same assets as in the Currenthill mod packs? A6: No. The library of new core assets are based off of the inventory of the Currenthill mod packs, but each asset are carefully chosen to be added to DCS. Each new core asset are implemented mostly from scratch to uphold a specific consistent standard of things like mesh and textures quality, animations, FLIR textures, LODs, destroyed models etc. Q7: Will the new core assets take up a lot of storage space? A7: No. They will be better optimized than the Currenthill mod packs. The average size per asset is around 500 megabyte. Q8: Will the new core assets have FLIR textures? A8: Yes. All the new core assets will come with FLIR textures. Q9: Will the new core assets have LODs? A9: Yes. All the new core assets will come with multiple level-of-details (LODs). This means less detailed models will be displayed at longer viewing distances. There are LODs for both the models and the destroyed models. Q10: Will the new core assets have advanced weapons? A10: Yes. The collaboration with ED makes it possible to implement more advanced weaponry like the 9K723K1 short range ballistic missile and the dual seeker IRIS-T SLM missile. Q11: Will I continue to develop the Currenthill mod packs? A11: No. The new core assets will take up most of my DCS developing time. Q12: Will I continue to support the Currenthill mod packs? A12: Yes. I will implement a best-effort approach to keeping the Currenthill mod packs working with DCS updates. Q13: Will I remove the duplicate assets from the Currenthill mod packs? A13: Yes. I will most likely remove duplicate assets to avoid any kind of unnecessary confusion. Q14: Will the core assets support Combined Arms? A14: Yes. The new core assets will support Combined Arms cockpits where it's possible with the current limitations. For example, guns of all kinds are more likely to be player-controlled than advanced missile systems. Q15: When will the first batch of core assets release? A15: SoonTM. Q16: Will the new core assets come with different liveries? A16: Yes. The new core assets will come with summer, winter and desert liveries. There may be a few exceptions, for example aircraft assets. Q17: Will the new core assets have the CH prefix in the mission editor? A17: No. For consistency and ease-of-use the new core assets will be integrated with other DCS core assets. Q18: Will the new core assets have improved collision and damage models? A18: Yes. The new core assets will have improved collision and damage models with more damage zones on par with the latest ED core assets.

lol no thnx

Based on Wag's comments WRT the Whiskey info becoming available, that's the smart money.

It's simple then. You just have not experienced the issue OP was describing and talking about. If you had, you'd see how the aircraft at some point during the flight requires unexpected and heavy nose up trim inputs and how, on the next landing approach, the underlying issue goes away and all of a sudden the pilot is left with all of the nose up trim and the jet jumps up. On the next approach, headwind or not, everything is going to be back to normal and a perfectly trimmed aircraft can be landed without any issues. I've experienced this somewhere between one and two dozen times, give or take, over several years. It's not common and for the most part happens after an hour or so-ish, so if you haven't experienced it, good on you. But I guarantee you, there is an issue with the A-10C.

Hi, the issue is reported, as soon as we can free up dev time for the issue it will be addressed. thank you

With navaids there is a clear, and very important, difference between the physical ground based navaids and the instruments in the cockpit with their inherent merging, added calculations and so on of these navaids into much more abstracted navigation aid. The FMS in airliners is the state of the art today. It combines everything (GPS, INS, DME, VOR, ILS and so on) into an opaque and abstract navigational solution, by merging signals from all these technologies. Earlier/older instruments did bits and pieces of this merging and abstraction. A basic old fashioned "ILS instrument" is also a rudimentary merging and abstraction of usually 3 completely separate technologies (LOC, GP and DME. In very old versions the DME is replaced with marker beacons). The instrument itself can be seen as one single entity. The basic principle today is that GNSS is the primary instrument, while INS is the secondary/complimentary instrument. As an always working backup (GPS can be jammed and spoofed), there are only two acceptable solutions. One is VOR/DME, the other is DME/DME. The backup for precision approaches is ILS, but only with DME. Thus DME is essential. Without it, all commercial airliners would be grounded, with some exceptions. VOR/DME works basically as a TACAN. DME/DME use multilateration, all done by the FMS. Two DME stations are enough. The FMS finds out all by itself what stations and what kind of stations it uses at any given time. It would use DME/DME most of the time, but add a VOR station every now and then for instance, or use only VOR/DME for a period of time. All based on error estimation and available stations. The point is, there is no such thing as a VOR/DME "signal" or "station", in the same manner as there's no DME/DME signal or station. DME/DME is at least 2 separate stations obviously, and they are far apart. The output from the FMS is the same if it uses VOR/DME or DME/DME, or VOR/DME/DME for that matter, or GNSS (to some degree). A TACAN station has bearing and distance functionality. The bearing is similar to a VOR in overall functionality, but the distance technology IS a DME. There's no difference. It is the same thing. The main point here is that a DME is a separate thing. It's not "part" of any other station. It's not "part of" a TACAN (even though this usually is the case) or "part of" an ILS or a LOC or a GP or whatever. It's a completely separate entity, and DMEs are often installed as standalone units. A DME "for an ILS" may be used more often by FMS's doing RNAV than it is used for ILS approaches. The "part of" is a misconception, probably due to the way aircraft instruments are merging and abstracting for instance a VOR/DME or an ILS. Another reason for this misconception is perhaps the organization of frequencies/channels for all these technologies. This organization can be seen in the large table at the bottom here: https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Instrument_Landing_System_(ILS)_Frequencies and is well known to most here I think. It is used both for instruments and for frequencies for ground channels. In an aircraft, when the ILS is tuned in to 109.10, what happens is: The LOC frequency is tuned to 109.10, this is done manually The GP is automatically tuned to 331.4 The DME is automatically tuned to channel 28X or (1052 - 989) Obviously the ground equipment must also use these frequencies for that runway, or this wouldn't work. In civilian aircraft the GP and DME are usually never tuned to a channel as such. The GP is tuned automatic from the LOC frequency. The DME is tuned automatically from the VOR or LOC frequency. DME isn't used much in GA anymore, but the way a standalone DME was tuned was not usually by the channel, but by the corresponding VOR/LOC frequency. There are 200 VOR+LOC frequencies. There are 252 TACAN channels. The military has access to more channels than a civilian aircraft normally has. An FMS will tune the DMEs to whatever it thinks gives the best navigational solution without the pilot knowing anything. In that sense I think the beacons.lua files are a bit odd compared with the real world. I can understand TACAN, since this is two technologies merged into one complete system. For everything else, all that is needed is DME, LOC, VOR and GP as standalone units. A VOR/DME is simply a VOR + a DME. Any version of ILS can be made by combining LOC + DME and eventually GP, or no DME but marker beacons. There's no need to have a separate VOR/DME and a separate ILS with DME (with obscure channels), and one ILS without DME and so on. It's a pity the DME in DCS don't work. It renders almost all ILS'es useless. There are NDBs also, but that's really ancient. Then there's the Russian system which I know nothing about

The cuban MIG-23ML has R-60MK, R-24R/T, I'd seen them when I was in the Cuban armed forces in the 90s and were used in Angola in 1984 by the Cuban pilots.

Are there any updates regarding the development of the radar overhaul? Or about the PHIMAT and JL100 pods?

It is not messy in real life. All the existing navaids with their locations and frequencies are available online for free from the respective AIPs. For example here's Norway (enroute are in part 2 ENR 4, landing navaids are in part 3 of the document, separate for each airport). https://ais.avinor.no/no/AIP/View/136/2025-01-23-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html Obtaining historical data is more difficult, but since the maps in DCS represent modern times, this is not a big problem. The problem is that DCS developers do not know, or do not care about the issue.

There are multiple issues with DME on DCS maps. IIRC it was all reported at one time or another, but fixing it is not a high priority. -using DME component of a VOR/DME navaid with a TACAN radio - doesn't work -using DME component of a VOR/DME navaid with a VOR radio (like C-101CC) - also doesn't work -using DME component of a ILS/DME navaid - doesn't work because these don't exist in DCS at all, while in the real world this is the most common type of ILS installation at the airports. The last issue makes it impossible to fly almost any real world ILS approach in DCS. Most of them use ILS/DME and require ability to measure distance from ILS. null