irisono
最新回复 发布由 irisono
-
-
vor 12 Stunden schrieb draconus:
Try this:
custom_args = { [115] = 1.000, -- Remove Entire TCS Chinpod -- [116] = 1.000, -- Add ALQ-100-only Chinpod -- --[701] = 1.000, -- Spine GPS Dome Visibility -- };"--" comments the line removing it from code processing.
Works great. I appreciate your help.
-
Am 27.10.2025 um 20:18 schrieb Swordsman422:
In the description.lua for each skin between the skin name and countries list:
custom_args = {
--[115] = 1.000, -- Remove Entire TCS Chinpod --
--[116] = 1.000, -- Add ALQ-100-only Chinpod --
[701] = 1.000, -- Spine GPS Dome Visibility --
};Excuse me, but I'm a newbie and have never modified a lua script before. How do I need to change the lines described above so that TCS disappears in the skin?
-
The discussion about the increased emergency power is old. It started soon after the module was introduced. People have always complained about the performance of the Fw 190A and the fact that this module is being intentionally left underpowered in DCS. Thanks to the effort and hard work invested by many historically knowledgeable and respected forum members to gather the necessary evidence for the existence and use of emergency power in the Fw 190A8, ED decided in early March 2023 to revise this module accordingly. Unfortunately, nothing has happened to date, absolutely nothing. Several threads that repeatedly bring up this topic have been closed by ED. This dubious behavior leaves many WWII enthusiasts incomprehensible and very disappointed. At least, that's how it is for me.
-
5
-
-
vor 12 Stunden schrieb Eclipse:
Over 2 years since the last news. Is the really the latest?
It seems so. It's a shame.
-
Am 23.3.2023 um 01:37 schrieb Mars Exulte:
The MiG-15 FM is known to be completely borked, and has been for years, OP merely repeats what has been stated a million times before.
Completely irrelevant. It's been screwed up since day one. Likewise with the AI F-5, although the MiG is a much worse offender.
Unfortunately true, despite the fact it could be fixed with some table adjustments in an afternoon, those sort of easy fixes are typically the ones that linger longest around here.
And before somebody comes in spurging about my ''easy fix'' comment. AI literally use what is effectively a spreadsheet. It is not a FM like for player aircraft. So yes, it is literally adjusting numbers. You can even do it yourself, or used to if it hasn'tbeen encrypted since then
I completely agree with all three of your answers. I'm always amazed why there are people who try to gloss over obvious flaws, such as the FM behavior of some AI aircraft. It's also quite surprising that three and half years after the announcement, DCS still hasn't introduced GFM (see link below).
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/a134f231fe8269e1c78dd6d0dd8c3c9d/
-
2
-
-
Am 9.7.2025 um 17:12 schrieb Saxman:
Update:
We're close to having the Zero dialed in. I've got it to the point that the Corsair can now extend away from the Zero as it should, and AI Corsairs can actually shoot them down. We've fixed quite a few issues so far:
- Engine displacement was too high.
- Corrected the gearbox ratio.
- Propeller diameter was too small.
- Manifold pressures were too high (it was pulling 67in MAP at WEP!).
- Removed ADI (a system that to my knowledge was only ever installed on the A6M6, and never actually saw combat).
- Sea Level speed was too high (there's some debate over whether this actually affects AI performance or not, but this was the real key for me when I tested it).
- Roll rate has been corrected to tested values (max roll rate is 56deg/s at 150mph tas and falling from there).
We're still looking at the other aerodynamic data. If anyone has info for the A6M5a or could help with calculations it would be a big help.
I admire your expertise and dedication to bringing the Zero mod to a realistic level. If you're successful, do you plan to make your work available to us all in the form of a remastered Zero mod, perhaps via user-file downloads? That would be fantastic and a great contribution to the WWII community in DCS.
-
1
-
vor 2 Stunden schrieb Bremspropeller:
The CWG map won't go anywhere and if anything, it's just going to be fleshed out even more during the next couple of months. In it's gurrent state, there's precisely one historical F-104G airbase on the whole playable map. Two, if you account for the short intermezzo of RCAF CF-104s at Zweibrücken. Maybe four if you account for some shorter USAF F-104C detachments in the early 60s.
The mod's nice. It's nowhere near to what Aerges has demonstrated as their quality and devotion to modelling a module in the past (C-101) and present (Mirage F1), though. Aerges has shown they'll go the extra mile for user requests and they have demonstrated ongoing support for multiple sub-variants of their modules (two in the C-101, four for the F1).
The F1M is not going to change the world or anybody's life. It's going to e out of place in A-A and also A-G for it's time frame (late 90s). It is, however, going to be a nice round-off and it'll be the first modernized cold-war module in DCS. All the thech developed into the F1M (including the radar-revamp) will be beneficiary to the 104, which will proably also come in several variants. What kinds of operational scenarios a module fits in, is entirely up to the the user.
Aside from your statement: "The F1M is not going to change the world or anybody's life", I think your other statements are wrong.
In order to generate historically inspired scenarios, you have to make small compromises with the time era of the maps available in DCS. Only in the rarest of cases (e.g. WWII) will you come close.
And no, the F-104C mod isn't just nice. It's really good. Excellent exterior graphics and cockpit textures, clickable cockpit, believable flight model. All of this comes close to a FF module. What has Aerges shown us so far? A very nicely designed cockpit video presented with pompous music. And the crucial thing in the whole sim business, and you seem to have forgotten this, is some degree of commercial and publicity success. With every day that the F-104 module doesn't appear, the risk of failure increases.
-
Am 3.6.2025 um 00:05 schrieb MiGCap1:
Bad news and bad decision.
The F-104G would be an ideal addition to the new CW Germany map and it would for sure draw many buyers just because of the map.
I completely agree. It's a waste of time and a missed opportunity to capitalize on the momentum of the CW Germany map. There's a huge risk that the excellent F-104 mods currently available will undermine this project's success and revenue.
DCS only offers a limited number of operational scenarios for the F1M anyway.
-
1
-
-
With a clean configuration and closed coolers, I've tried all possible combinations (auto lean, auto rich, supercharger high, low, neutral, various RMP settings). I barely get above 250 kts at 5000 ft. Not at all the 295-300 kts as claimed by another user. I haven't been able to get water injection to work. I suspect this latter feature hasn't been implemented yet. Technical literature shows higher performance figures for the F4U-1D. I hope these shortcomings will be corrected in the next update.
-
There's no way around the Hawker Hunter if DCS is serious about creating a Cold War scenario. This wonderful aircraft served in many European air forces (UK, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland). It would be an indispensable contemporary of the Mig-15, Mig-19P, F-86 and the upcoming modules Mig-17, F-100, F-104, G.91R in our new CW Germany and Kola maps. The Hunter had a long, successful career from 1953 until well into the 1990s - more than 40 years! It has earned a place of honor in DCS.
-
3
-
1
-
-
vor 21 Stunden schrieb Art-J:
None of above are applicable at all to gaming scenarios, though (unless someone like Reflected wants to create a detailed historic single player campaign set at some clearly defined period).
I'd rather point out here (once again, as it's been done already) another aspect, which is much more relevant to DCS:
a) all five ED warbirds, which are more or less usable for mid-'44 scenarios, have standard (conservative) max boost or manifold pressure settings, so why should Anton and Anton only be improved in this regard?*
b) thus, if we gave Spit, Mossie, Thunderbolt and Mustang an option for mid-'44 higher boost / MP settings just like we gave it to Anton, wouldn't we end up back in square one? Anton would become faster, but so would all the others.
* Granted, P-47 is a bit of a freaky exception, as it can already be ridiculously overboosted in a dive beyond standard max power rating, but It can be done only by diving to sea level and flying straight, so it's not very useful in all offensive situations.
Thanks to the effort and hard work invested by many historically knowledgeable and respected forum members to gather the necessary evidence for the existence and use of the WM 50 emergency power in the Fw 190A8, ED has decided to revise this module accordingly. It's not a question of whether it should be done or not, but of when.
See also:
-
vor 22 Stunden schrieb Mr_sukebe:
??
The evidence that I've seen suggested that:
- MW50 wasn't used until mid-44, by which time
- The Luftwaffe were struggling to fuel their aircraft
- The Luftwaffe had already been pretty much shot to pieces, and whilst it was building plenty of aircraft, didn't have well trained pilots, or the fuel to train them
- The Luftwaffe fighters had mostly been pulled back in defence of Germany, hence why there was virtually no Luftwaffe involved in DDay (2 aircraft IIRC)
- Luftwaffe pilots were encouraged to avoid combat with allied fighters and focus on the bombers
- The planes in question were often loaded with weapons to try to damage bombers, at the expense of their weight and ability to dogfight allied fighters
All of these points about the state of the Luftwaffe and its pilots are true for this period. But this has nothing to do with the performance of the Fw 190A-7/8, but rather with the >10:1 numerical superiority of the Allied air forces, the high level of training of their pilots, and the tactical lessons learned by these Allied pilots.
We're here talking about the Fw 190A's performance and the fact that this module is being intentionally left underpowered in DCS.-
1
-
Despite overwhelming evidence that the last Fw190A models were equipped with MW 50 and that they were frequently used in combat missions, and despite ED's acknowledgment of this fact and NineLine's commitment on March 6, 2023, that ED would implement this correction on the Fw190A, two years after ED's statement, nothing has happened. Or am I mistaken? It's time for ED to address this issue and the fact that this module is being intentionally left underpowered.
-
vor 19 Stunden schrieb Galinette:
The model is very accurate in modelling its IRL inaccuracies. No kidding, and IRL pilots pester about it.
Do you have any sources for this, in my opinion, very questionable claim?
-
Without this VTH function, cannon hits in air-to-air combat are erratic and very inaccurate. The gunsight of the M2000 is really poorly modeled compared to other DCS modules (F-16C, F/A-18, F-14 etc.). I can't imagine that the gunsight worked so unpredictably IRL. On the other hand, the air-to-ground gunsight function is excellently simulated.
-
In a simple mission I get massive stuttering after 4-5 minutes. As far as I'm concerned, the sim is unplayable with the F-5E Remastered. The latest update doesn't seem to have fixed anything.
-
1
-
-
In fact, with the current state of DCS, it is not advisable to engage in a dogfight with your F-4E, Mirage F-1 or even F/A-18C against UFO aircraft. The AI flight models of some DCS modules are unsophisticated and completely unrealistic. Measured by their real technical parameters (power- and wing loading, G limits, etc.), these DCS modules can rise into the sky like rockets, and they hardly lose any energy during high G-maneuvers. They can fly abrupt turns without being damaged. In reality they would lose their wings. The UFO behavior of modules such as the Mig-21Bis, Mig-19, Mig-15, F-86F must be corrected as soon as possible. The best solution to address this problem is the introduction the long-promised General Flight Model Program (GFM) announced by DCS in Dez. 2021.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/a134f231fe8269e1c78dd6d0dd8c3c9d/
Before the introduction of the F-4E module, I warned about exactly the problems you describe here. Apart from a lot of support in the relevant forums, not much has happened in the 3+ years since the DCS announcement. Perhaps small FM corrections have been made to some WWII AI aircraft.
The whole AI dilemma is not just limited to AI opponents. Your own AI wingmen perform strange maneuvers and mostly behave completely unrealistically. I wonder how the announced dynamic campaign is supposed to work with such an AI. Unfortunately, the "2025 and beyond" video did not give us any answers to this serious and urgent problem.
-
4
-
-
vor 6 Stunden schrieb 303_Kermit:
....
@Bremspropeller
Your posts are kind of nasty manipulation and somehow remind me old soviet joke:
Radio Erevan: -"Is it true, that Ivan Vladimirovitsch won a car Volga on a lottery in Moscow"
Party spokesman: -"yes, it's true. However.... Not Ivan Vladimirovitsch, but Vladimir Ivanovitsch... Also... not in Moscow, but in Petresburg...and not on lotery, but on the "Red Square"... and not a Volga, but a bicycle...and not won, but was stolen..."
You're wasting my time sir.
Kermit, your statements don't seem to resonate in this thread. Maybe it's because of your sources or problems interpreting them correctly. I understand that this annoys you. But have you asked yourself whether you are annoying us with your way of communicating?
-
6
-
-
My positive impressions of this "2025 and Beyond" video:
- The insights into the dynamic campaign
- Great fire and explosion effect probably generated with Vulcan features
- Scenes from the Fulda Gap map
- ED seems to be making progress in the WWII Pacific.
- Highlights: Saab 35 Draken and F-100I am disappointed by:
- Too little Cold War content.
- E.g. no early Mig-21 types or Mig-23/27, Su-17/22, An-12 info
- Where are the Mirage III/5, Hawker Hunter, Skyraider
- No mention of the EARGES project F-104
- F-35 is unnecessary because FF will not be possible and Blue-Red-Force remains unbalanced-
6
-
1
-
-
That was a very nice surprise. It gave me the feeling that this module is not being wasted away by the given circumstances. There is someone there who is devotedly looking after this aircraft. The M-2000 is one of the best modules that DCS can offer. For me, it even ranks ahead of the so-called DCS stars F-16 and F/A-18. I regularly fly all three and also the F-14.
-
2
-
-
The same here. Massive performance drops with the F-5 remastered on my DCS setup. Has anyone already submitted a ticket to Technical Support?
-
The same here. Massive performance drops with the F-5 remaster on my DCS setup. Unplayable!
-
vor 16 Minuten schrieb Beirut:
I did.
Great, I see a white knight for DCS.
Well, show me which post you used to make this request to DCS and tell me whether you expected 8500 development hours. Development time that could have been used much more sensibly for more important things.
-
5
-
1
-
-
The first cockpit pictures of the F-104 and the announced new features of the F1 are great to say the least. It is a real pleasure to see how Aerges is moving up to the Champions League of 3rd party developers with their high quality modules.
-
2
-
How Did I Kill My Engine?
在 Bugs and Problems
发布于
This exact malfunction happened to me twice yesterday. The sequence of the faulty behavior was exactly as you describe it here. Has anyone already submitted a bug report to ED's technical support?