ViFF

Dear Merker and team, thank you very much for this new update and especially for fixing the integrity check problem. The Israeli community has officially adopted this mod :) Thank you again for the all the hard work you put into this brilliant little airplane! Salute!

This is now fixed in the 2.5.4 Open Beta. Thank you ED!

Is it possible to create a waypoint on the location of the bullseye and see on screen the current bullseye position? It would need to be the radial FROM the created waypoint and obviously the range in NM. Is this possible in the NS 430? Thanks in advance to anyone who can answer!

Congrats AvioDev! Really looking forward! Thank you for all the hard work you put into this! I never lost faith in you guys :) Salute!

same issue for me. unable to select USAF Aggressors static object (ground vehicles) Edit: after further testing i confirm that for Country "USAF Aggressors" the Category "Ground vehicles" the list in the mission editor will not display. So essentially you can't add any object in the Category "Ground vehicles" and you can't select any unit that is already in the mission.

maybe the bearing checkbox is relevant only for an airborne TACAN like that of a Tanker?

Just as an FYI: if you change the ["f10_awacs"] to false the clients will not be able to go into the F10 map at all. It will be completely disabled. Last time I checked the only unit that can enter the F10 map are the Combined Arms slots, observer and game master slots. This is useful for that added level of realism where the only way you can determine your location will be by using the map images from the kneepad. Cheers

Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm also very much interested to know what will be the functionality of the web GUI? If it will be possible to remotely manage mission selection and rotation, difficulty settings, exe kill & restart, etc If it will be possible to assign users with varied or distinct levels for access to all or just certain functions on the web GUI, etc... S!

Thank you for this! Very much looking forward to finally uninstall the bloated client host for an effective exe. How is it handling the memory on large missions with many triggers? Is there a noticeable improvement with combined arms and many moving ground units? Any word if it will be able to host missions on maps that cost money without the need to buy license for the dedicated server? Thanks again for all the hard work being put into this. I am sure it will be a big game changer for the multiplayer crowd! S!

Hi Phil! It can be changed in the host machine \user\dcs\Saved Games\DCS\Config in the options.lua file under "miscellaneous" Just change the "f5_nearest_ac" to false. You can do the same and deny the F10 map and the F11 airport/free camera views ["miscellaneous"] = { ["Coordinate_Display"] = "Lat Long", ["F2_view_effects"] = 0, ["TrackIR_external_views"] = false, ["accidental_failures"] = false, ["autologin"] = true, ["chat_window_at_start"] = false, ["collect_stat"] = true, ["f10_awacs"] = true, ["f11_free_camera"] = true, ["f5_nearest_ac"] = true, ["force_feedback_enabled"] = false, ["headmove"] = false, ["show_pilot_body"] = false, ["synchronize_controls"] = false, }, Cheers!

Sorry a bit late to the party with our server details! DCS Israel has been around since 2013 and serves the Israeli community. DCS ISRAEL Server Dedicated Root Server (physical box) hosted on https://www.ngz-server.de/en/rootserver/overview/ Network: 100 mbps down/up (i can upgrade to 1k mbps but so far I haven't seen we really need it) Specs: CPU: Intel i7-4790K Mainboard: MSI B85M-E45 (MS-7817) RAM: 32GB DDR3 (4x 8GB DIMMs PC3-12800 @800 MHz) Storage: 2x 500 GB SSDs GPU: GTX 1050 Ti 4GB OS: Windows Server 2016 Standard, latest build, with 3 users: user 1 runs Stable host and SRS host, access via RDP user 2 runs Open Beta host, access via RDP user 3 runs all other sims and other apps (BMS, IL2, TS3 Server, SQL, PHP, Filezilla for miz loading, etc), access via TightVNC (user is allways connected) Mods and Script Hooks: SLMOD, SRS, Tacview, LotATC autoexec.conf: if not net then net = {} end net.download_speed = 1024*1024*256 net.upload_speed = 1024*1024*256 options.graphics.maxfps = 30 options.graphics.render3D = false options.graphics.ScreenshotQuality = 0 crash_report_mode = "silent" disable_write_track = true issues The biggest issue is the memory... see attached pic. Can get as high as 12 or 13 GB or more before exe crash. Sometimes runs smooth for several consecutive days, sometimes restart required to avoid exe crash. I'm looking forward to have a dedicated server exe with web interface soon (will it be autumn of 2018???) I understand there is a version in internal testing. Would very much appreciate if I can avoid all the work of modifying the install to do auto-restarts after crash and the trouble of keeping this modification up to date with every update to the stable and open beta branch. :music_whistling: Cheers,

Does anybody have some documentation how to edit the labels.lua file? Some examples to test would be very much appreciated!

The uncontrolled units have different and/or additional 3d objects and don't have pilot in the cockpit. The method I use to avoid the small freezes / lags with dynamicly spawned aircraft is to have the various types of units on remote airfields set to ramp start with 0% fuel. They will have a pilot inside the cockpit. Units with anti collision lights will be on and flashing.

Yes, I know this, but the F-14Bs were planned to receive the upgrade of the AWG-9 to APG-71 as part of upgrade programs OFP317/320/321... or would this have considerably altered the cockpit and displays to something completely different than what HB has already modeled? S!

Sorry to spoil the party, but why apply a double standard? You know what other weapon could feasibly be interfaced with the Tomcat? AIM-120 AMRAAM. Scratch that. Not feasibly. It was already tested and proven. Its just the needed $$$ for full fleet conversion the top brass chose to divert in favor of the ground attack capability.

Updated IAF aircraft request: Aircraft Selection : 4x mid tier fighter [M2KC] + 5x CAS/SEAD/strike [sU25T] S!

Hi microvax, Squadron Name & tag: IAF. Contact Person: ViFF Side Selection: PACT Aircraft Selection : 4x mid tier fighter [M2KC] + 5x CAS/SEAD/strike [sU25T] S!

Hello, is this event still open for registration? I saw this just now and this type of event is exactly what we have been waiting on for a long time! S!

Anybody know if stable version will be updated today to the latest beta?

After doing some perusing on Hebrew forums related to the history of the Mirage variants that served in the IAF and asking some retired SMEs from the IAF I found out to my dismay that the IAI Neshers that were sold to Argentina (IAI Daggers) did not have any RWR nor countermeasures :( These two defensive systems were added only in the Kfir C.2 among many other major changes such as modifying the internal and external structure to fit the American J79 engine that was license built at IAI's Bedek Division (same engine used on the F-4E Phantom). The Kfir C.2 entered operational service in the IAF in 1975. I do not know if the program to upgrade the avionics and defensive systems of the IAI Daggers to the level of the Kfir C.2 was carried out in time for the Falklands Conflict in 1982. So IMHO without these two defensive systems and not having a radar this pretty much places the Nesher in the same or even less capable category than the Mirage IIICJ. I really hope that if the Mirage IIICJ will be chosen it will be with the Snecma Atar 09C engine rather than the Atar 09B with the silly looking "eyelid" afterburner exhaust can. Some data: Static Thrust Sea Level, lbf, Snecma Atar 9B / 9C Full Mil: 9,200 / 9,430 Full AB: 13,228 / 13,669 Weights, lbs, Mirage IIICJ / IAI Dagger Basic Zero Fuel Weight (with pilot & 100% gun ammo): 14,351 / 15,253 Gross Weight, 100% internal fuel + 2xAIM-9: 19,393 / 21,709 So in summary, if you compare the Mirage IIICJ to the IAI Dagger: The Mirage IIICJ is lighter, therefore has better Thrust to Weight Ratio (if both have the Atar 09C engine). The Mirage IIICJ has better Sustained Turn Rate, and better overall Energy Retainment. The Mirage IIICJ has better Acceleration and "Time to Climb" performance The Mirage IIICJ is shorter in length, has better Agility in the Lateral Plane (pitch axis) The above last point has been confirmed by IAF pilots that flew both types. They said that the IAI Nesher was heavier, less maneuverable, less agile, and less capable "holding energy in the turn" compared to the Mirage IIICJ. Conclusion: The Mirage IIICJ will stand a better chance in dogfights vs the MiG-19 and Sea Harrier. Additionaly: Only the Mirage IIICJ has a Radar, which should arguably work in theory for what it was designed for (intercepting Soviet bombers). Only the Mirage IIICJ has the ability to employ the Matra R530 Air to Air SARH Missile. S!

I confirm as well that I am experiencing small stutters since the Open Beta Update 9. No such stutters was in the previous builds. S!

Voted for the F-4E Phantom ahead of everything else for the following reasons: The main reason is that I really wish ED would give the F-4E a higher priority in terms of aircraft modules to go hand-in-hand with the terrains, specifically the Persian Gulf map. With the F-5E already in place and together with (soon) Heatblur's F-14A, getting the F-4E module in place sooner rather than later will be a major milestone achievement in terms of theatre completeness for the Iranian combat aircraft composition. The other reason is that IMHO going the way of the F-16C before the F-4E will result that overall it will take longer to get to early access on both as opposed to putting the F-4E ahead of the F-16. I believe this because the F-16 has complex avionics, ground radar / SMS pages and other MFD screens / TGP / AGM-88 etc. There is this mantra going around that "in terms of coding once it will be in place for the F-18 it can be very quickly adapted for the F-16". Even if this is subjectively true, the development of an F-4E module does not have such an overwhelming number of systems and weapon dependencies "getting it done in the F-18 first" and can move along at least to the early access with basic systems as was noted by Belsimtek before the merger. I really love the F-16 and to this day continuously have countless of hours of fun in the other sim but I also tend to agree with what was mentioned; that the F-16 will be "more of the same F-18" sans CV Ops but on a single engine with a bit more mavericks & CBUs to boot. Both are ubiquitous fighters and would make many international customers happy, but as far as my preference goes I really enjoy the high fidelity and amazing attention to detail that ED and Belsimtek give to the mechanical modeling flight modeling, especially in the older modules and the 3rd generation aircraft produced so far. Please consider giving higher priority for the F-4E Phantom. S!

I love flash sales! in marketing 101 they teach that companies do this when they are about to launch a new product and want to squeeze out a few more extra sales of the old product. Proud student of Swedish language now to understand all those borgy-borg words in the cockpit :smartass: S!

I believe the DCS F-5E is a late production E model that already incorporates the enlarged LEX. From the same link you posted: When the dual-seat F-5F was developed, it initially used the same W4 LEX as the single-seat F-5E. However, initial in-service experience with the F-5F uncovered some unfavorable stability characteristics at high angles of attack. In order to eliminate these problems, some design changes were made to the aircraft. The forebody was redesigned and new radome was developed that was designated “Shark Nose” due to its distinctive contour that resembled a shark. The wing flap control logic was changed to add angle of attack (AOA) as a scheduling parameter along with airspeed/Mach. The new flap system was designated “Auto Flaps”. One part of the design change resulted in a new, slightly larger LEX that was designated W6 LEX that is seen in the figure at the left. These three (3) design changes were certified by the USAF as the “Improved Handling Qualities – IHQ Package”and were incorporated in the production configuration of all F-5F aircraft built after 1979. For production commonality reasons (not to solve a stability problem), the IHQ package was incorporated into the production configuration of all F-5E aircraft after 1979 also. Cheers,

Day 1 purchase here for the NS430 and I also vividly remember reading that the purchase price included all future integrations in other models, the first one planned being the L-39. That was my understanding and a major factor in my decision to purchase without hesitation. I was especially interested and looking forward to the integration in the L-39 module. I remember pics were posted. I will be extremely dissapointed with ED if it is true that my day 1 purchase excludes the L-39 and will required to be purchase seperately! S!