graveyard4DCS

Hi, you should start by reading this :

The very high resolution map that is used in DCS F10 view is now available here (free membership) : Enjoy!

Hi, Can we have an update on this bug? 3 years later, it's still the same status: GBU-12 and GBU-10 can be lofted and tossed with the F/A-18C, but GBU-16 is still very long and never gets the LASER spot. Thank you,

If you’ve tried to fly Operation Bakwa Hammer and found yourself wondering how to approach the attack profile, manage fuel, stay on timeline, or navigate the threat environment, I’ve put together a detailed step-by-step breakdown of the full mission planning process. It’s based on a logical structure as it can be used in real-world aviation, adapted to the context of DCS. The write-up goes through all the key planning phases: Feasibility (fuel, timing, weather) Tactical and threat analysis Full 4T study (Task, Target, Threat, Tactics) Route and waypoint design using visual navigation techniques Fuel planning (JOKER, BINGO, push fuel, etc.) Contingency management etc... The goal is to offer a clear and practical framework that helps make complex missions more manageable — particularly when flying alone or with a small element in high-threat environments. It’s not meant to be “the” way to plan, but it should provide a useful reference for anyone who wants to approach their missions with more structure and intent. Enjoy!

Dear Ugra Media Team, First of all, thank you for your continued work on providing new theaters. I’d like to raise a terrain-related issue that affects all maps in DCS (not only yours) and has a critical impact on mission planning and visual navigation: DCS currently displays Tactical Pilotage Charts (TPCs) as the base map layer in the Mission Editor and F10 view—but the actual in-game terrain does not reflect the contents of this chart. This is not a minor discrepancy. Entire features visible on the TPC—towns, roads, airfields, railways, dams, power lines, smokestacks, vertical obstructions—are completely missing from the terrain. This breaks both immersion and function for players who expect the TPC to be an authoritative reference, as it is in real-world aviation. This is the key point: DCS is explicitly showing the TPC as a reference map, which implies that what you see is what you get. But that is not true in practice. Pilots and mission creators plan based on that chart, only to find that key features simply do not exist in-game. We are not concerned if some features exist in-game and aren’t on the TPC chart. The concern is the opposite: if a feature is shown on the TPC, it must exist in-game. Examples of missing TPC features: Towns (even large ones) shown on the chart, but no buildings or textures in-game. Roads and railways that appear on the chart, but do not exist in the terrain mesh. Dams, bridges, smokestacks, or power lines visible on the TPC but entirely absent from the map. These are not minor decorative details—they are tactical elements for low-level visual navigation, mission timing and leg planning, target area identification and IP selection, and obstacle avoidance. What we’re asking: We understand this is not a trivial fix. But we ask for a long-term, map-by-map effort to bring terrain data up to par with the TPC reference layer already used in the Mission Editor and F10 view. Specifically: If a feature is shown on the TPC, include it in the terrain. Start with key navigational aids and obstacles: roads, towns, power lines, railways, airfields, vertical obstructions. This would greatly improve realism, usability, and trust in the mission planning tools provided within DCS. Why this matters: You chose to display the TPC chart as the reference map in both mission planning and live operations (F10). That choice is excellent—but only if the game world matches it. As it stands, the chart becomes misleading, which hurts gameplay and immersion. We’re not asking here for new assets or visual upgrades—we’re asking for basic terrain consistency with the chart DCS already uses. Thank you for your time and consideration! Examples: Old Map - Syria The railway bridge is missing, as well as all the villages to the south. Other example: very large mast/tower missing. New Map - CW Germany No large antenna.

Hi, A first modern VFR ICAO chart for Germany has been released in ED user files. The TPC map used in DCS F10 map will be released shortly! Note that both maps are also available in .mbtiles format for CombatFlite.

Rename to theaters.xml and replace the original file. Please watch the video above to find more answers maybe?

Hello, You'll find attached the syria.xml file with all airfields and beacons for both Syria and Iraq theaters. You can now use CombatFlite on both of them! Enjoy!null syria.xml

After a previous post on runway attacks — “Is (Almost) Everyone Doing It Wrong???” — I thought it was time to look at another area where fundamentals are often misunderstood: formation flying. Yes, it’s fun to fly tight and get the perfect screenshot, but tactical formations aren’t about looking good — they’re about mutual support, survivability, and combat performance. And just like with runway strikes, a lot of DCS players are unintentionally flying in ways that greatly reduce their effectiveness. This post intends to highlight two of the most common mistakes that show up again and again in MP flights and training servers. Tactical 2-Ship Formations: Quick Overview Line Abreast: the default combat geometry. Both aircraft fly side by side, offering full radar separation, 360° visual coverage, and flexibility for offensive or defensive turns. Wedge: wingman is 30–45° back and offset. More maneuverable, better for terrain or fluid situations, but reduces rearward lookout — especially for the wingman. Fighting Wing: tight and offset behind the lead. Works for training, weather, or short strike runs, but has nearly no place in contested airspace. Limits visibility, and reaction time. Common Mistake 1: Flying Too Close Flying tight may look sharp, but in combat it kills effectiveness. The wingman becomes fixated on avoiding the lead, leaving little mental bandwidth for scanning threats or managing weapons. Visual scan collapses. Radar coverage overlaps. Mutual support disappears. Tactical spacing should allow: A break turn toward your six without risk of collision. Enough distance to remain outside minimum range for your own weapons. As a rule: the faster and higher you go, the more spacing you need. 1.5 –2.5 Nm at low level is normal. At altitude or during supersonic cruise, 4–5 Nm may be required. If you're flying that close in combat, you're too close... Common Mistake 2: Flying on the Wrong Side Wingman position is tactical, not cosmetic. You're not just mirroring your lead — you’re scanning a specific part of the sky. The wingman is responsible for a visual and radar sector. Flying on the wrong side creates blind zones and ruins mutual support. Here’s how to choose the correct side: If there's a known threat — fly opposite. If not — position opposite the most significant air traffic. Still nothing? — avoid terrain hazards like antennas or cities. Clean airspace? — fly opposite the sun. That old trick of diving out of the sun still works, especially when nobody’s watching. Want More? This post just scratches the surface. Read the full article to know more!

You can see the CGRS map of Iraq here. You'll see the KB naming system for Desert Storm and for OEF. The naming system for OIF and OEF were the same for the whole CENTCOM AOR so it can easily be derived from the OEF one. You can contact me in PM if you'd like a custom map.

Dear ED Team, First of all, thank you for your continued work on providing new theaters. I’d like to raise a terrain-related issue that affects all maps in DCS and has a critical impact on mission planning and visual navigation: DCS currently displays Tactical Pilotage Charts (TPCs) as the base map layer in the Mission Editor and F10 view—but the actual in-game terrain does not reflect the contents of this chart. This is not a minor discrepancy. Entire features visible on the TPC—towns, roads, airfields, railways, dams, power lines, smokestacks, vertical obstructions—are completely missing from the terrain. This breaks both immersion and function for players who expect the TPC to be an authoritative reference, as it is in real-world aviation. This is the key point: DCS is explicitly showing the TPC as a reference map, which implies that what you see is what you get. But that is not true in practice. Pilots and mission creators plan based on that chart, only to find that key features simply do not exist in-game. We are not concerned if some features exist in-game and aren’t on the TPC chart. The concern is the opposite: if a feature is shown on the TPC, it must exist in-game. Examples of missing TPC features: Towns (even large ones) shown on the chart, but no buildings or textures in-game. Roads and railways that appear on the chart, but do not exist in the terrain mesh. Dams, bridges, smokestacks, or power lines visible on the TPC but entirely absent from the map. These are not minor decorative details—they are tactical elements for low-level visual navigation, mission timing and leg planning, target area identification and IP selection, and obstacle avoidance. What we’re asking: We understand this is not a trivial fix. But we ask for a long-term, map-by-map effort to bring terrain data up to par with the TPC reference layer already used in the Mission Editor and F10 view. Specifically: If a feature is shown on the TPC, include it in the terrain. Start with key navigational aids and obstacles: roads, towns, power lines, railways, airfields, vertical obstructions. This would greatly improve realism, usability, and trust in the mission planning tools provided within DCS. Why this matters: You chose to display the TPC chart as the reference map in both mission planning and live operations (F10). That choice is excellent—but only if the game world matches it. As it stands, the chart becomes misleading, which hurts gameplay and immersion. We’re not asking here for new assets or visual upgrades—we’re asking for basic terrain consistency with the chart DCS already uses. Thank you for your time and consideration! Examples: Eagle Dynamics - Old Map - NTTR No towers, antennas or water tower. Eagle Dynamics - New Map - Afghanistan No power plant. Category 2 city is missing. Ugra Media - Old Map - Syria The railway bridge is missing, as well as all the villages to the south. Ugra Media - New Map - CW Germany No large antenna.

Hi, I'm also regularly updating the .xml files for CombatFLite, in particular to add new theaters (Kola, Germany, etc...). I'll be happy to help you with the update on Syria .xml files as well. I'll work on it in the coming days if you want.

For those struggling to import .miz files in new theaters:

For those struggling to import .miz files in new theaters:

For those struggling to import .miz files in new theaters:

For those struggling to import .miz files in new theaters:

Current state High drag bombs like Mk-82 Snake Eyes and Mk-82Y have only one fuze setting for High Drag employment. None of these bombs can be actually set up for a low drag employment, even if the RET/FF option is still an option (Hornet for example). Expected state When selecting high drag bombs, two fuze setting options should be available: one setting for Low Drag (LD) and one setting for High Drag (HD) Reason: It would replicate the real fuzes The HD settings are not safe for LD bombs (weapon-aircraft separation at the end of the arming delay is too low) Examples: Old FMU-139: LD arming delay is selected on the top. HD arming delay is selected on the bottom. Impact delay is always selected on the HD rotator, even in LD mode. New FMU-139: LD arming delay is selected on the right. HD arming delay is selected on the left. Impact delay is always selected on the HD rotator, even in LD mode. FMU-152: LD arming delay is selected on the top. HD arming delay is selected on the bottom. Impact delay is selected on the middle.

Hello everyone, I'm glad to announce that the Cold War Germany CombatFlite theater is now available! If you don't know how to use CombatFlite on new theaters, you can find more details here: Creating a Cold War Germany Theater (Patreon) Additionally, a first map using this theater has been released on ED User Files: Cold War Germany - Elevation Map (ED User Files) Please note that due to maximum file size in ED User Files, most of the maps won't be published here. Thank you!

A new Marianas VFR Map for CombatFlite has been released. It's available in ED's users files. Enjoy your planning!

A booklet of procedures for Bagram is available here on the same model as the ones for Kandahar.

Yes, still usable, absolutely no difficulties for older theaters, and with some easy work-arounds for the new theaters like Afghanistan (cf. below).

The JP233 drawing is very interesting. What is the original source?? The number of sub-munitions made it possible to make nearly perpendicular cuts without fearing the "perfect miss". Interestingly, we can see that the 4th aircraft is exactly in the situation described in my mathematical analysis (around 20° offset).

A new mission, Operation "Bakwa Hammer", is now available on ED user files. This runway strike mission is designed to demonstrate optimal runway attack strategies based on the principles discussed in Runway Attacks in DCS World: Is (Almost) Everyone Doing It Wrong ??? A detailed analysis of the mathematical aspects of runway strikes, applicable to other elongated targets, can be found my personal page. Key findings indicate that non-PGM ordnance is most effective when delivered at a slight offset angle to the runway, rather than a parallel approach. The optimal angle is dependent on aircraft type and weapon CEP. You can fly "Bakwa Hammer" with any of your favorite DCS high-fidelity aircraft, either solo or with a wingman in MP. This mission challenges you to prepare your own flight plan from scratch, rewarding meticulous pre-flight planning. To cater to different playstyles, each aircraft is available in standard and "immortal" modes, allowing you to focus on the mission's tactical aspects without fear of premature mission failure. Eventually, remember that you can definitely use CombatFlite on the Afghanistan theater for your mission planning.

Perfect for all Cold Ward enthusiasts, and in anticipation for the new Red Flag 81-2 Campaign by Reflected Simulations, you'll find here the 1:500.000 1970 VFR Sectional Charts for NTTR.