SkateZilla
-
Posts
21630 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SkateZilla
-
-
On 8/1/2025 at 11:25 AM, CapnCoke said:
I haven't looked into it on how it works so I have no clue. I didn't even know there was a folded flag in CJS. Maybe the devs on discord can provide some pointers.
null
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, H60MTI said:
Mine is doing the same thing! I even removed mods from Saved Games and dropped them back in one by one. All worked until I dropped the Super Hornet into Saved Games. Now freezes at ng.5.
It's either the C-130 Mod or the Armed black hawk:
Explanation:
The reason the C-130 causes DCS to have a stroke when CJS Module is installed, is because the ordinance table is built using the new database names ie ("Weapons.Missile.AIM_120C") etc etc. and when the C-130 Mod tries to build it's ammo crates using a wstype that's a mixed string (integer and table name), DCS has already processed the CJS Ordinance table and shifted the database to the Type.SubType.Unit format, and therefore the wstype string containing both integers and table name is no longer valid, plus the weapon is already defined, as the CJS Mod Tells DCS to Process the Aircraft Weapons Pack first.For the C-130 Mod, the Problem line in the loadout lua file is 180
Ammo_Pallet_Contents({user_name = _("Ammo GBU-31V3B*6 [12949lb]"), clsid = "Herc_Ammo_GBU_31_V3B_bombs", contents = "{GBU-31V3B}", count = 6, mass = 981, wstype = {4, 5, 36, GBU_31_V_3B}})--GBU-31V3BThe DCS Core function calls for a wsType of either 4 Stage numbers or the new format of 3 stage definitions, This line calls for 3 stage numbers then a table name, which DCS see's the table name as invalid due to a weapon already being declared using weapons.bombs.TABLE_NAME.
So the Fix is to update the weapon wstype in the pallet's wstype, you can update it to use the new weapon wsType format:
Ammo_Pallet_Contents({user_name = _("Ammo GBU-31V3B*6 [12949lb]"), clsid = "Herc_Ammo_GBU_31_V3B_bombs", contents = "{GBU-31V3B}", count = 6, mass = 981, wstype = "weapons.bombs.GBU_31_V_3B"})--GBU-31V3B -
On 7/20/2025 at 10:16 PM, DmanGIV said:
I wonder why the Navy didn't design a chin sensor like the F-14 for the ASG-34 IRST21
Chin Sensor on the Tomcat was trash, which is why it only lasted for a few LRIP runs of the A before being replaced by the TCS,
The manufacturer touted an updated version, and it was added as a dual Chin Pod for the D, but was pretty quickly aerodyn covered off as they failed, or just left defunct..
Both cases and the IRST21 in the ASG-34A / FPU-13/A Tank, were the USN trying to add something to counter what Russia had,
the Passive detection on the Mig-29s and Flankers. But face it, the system was better designed and implemented on those. slapping a cheap IR Sensor on the bottom of the chin or on the nose of a fueltank underneath the aircraft, makes it nearly impossible to detect anything above the horizon / nose line of the aircraft. and both configurations are at risk of ground debris damage-
2
-
-
it'd be pretty weird because none of the tankers have the same light array layout.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, H60MTI said:
Tell me how you really feel...Why do you say that, just out of curiosity?
While the fuel will be usable in DCS, the sensor wont. But that being said, even Block II of this pod has been a rough development,...
Ya know we told them not to put a sensitive optical sensor immediately behind the nose gear.... but do they listen? nope.8 minutes ago, H60MTI said:Can't run an ATFLIR and 2 wing tanks?
Pay Attention to the STA (Station) Prefix in the description.
-
19 hours ago, H60MTI said:
That I also see. I like that idea. Granted, less fuel in that tank but the addition of an additional sensor usually outweighs that.
that eyeball has a high maintenance and failure rate due to the design.
-
well the ASG-34 IRST21 is Technically a Tank w/ an Eyeball.
-
USN Never Flew w/ the Fairings, as they didnt purchase them, they re-used the launchers, but did not elect to pay for more covers.
-
51 minutes ago, H60MTI said:
Do your tanks have engines in them or am I high?
They are AN/ALQ-249 Next Generation Mid-Band Jammers.
-
1 minute ago, Skullfrog said:
Good evening,
first of all thanks for this awsome mod. I love the F-18C and always tried to avoid more modern versions of the hornet. But that mod really caught me.
But is there a chance the pylon bug will be solved any time soon or maybe has it already been solved and I didn't find it? I saw many post having the same problem with wrong config of pylons when creating a custom payload. And it feels kind of strange flying with 4 MK82 under the left wing and only 2 under the right wing or as shown in the picture just at the wrong position.
Appreciate your work and any support.
When choosing loadout stores, pay very close attention the the [ STA xx ] Prefix of each store's description.
Since the PSM of the Charlie is only modelled for 9 Pylons and 1 internal auxiliary store location (ie for Smoke Generators), There's a lot of offset or split stores in the list.-
2
-
-
On 6/22/2025 at 8:31 AM, Razor18 said:
Hi There,
Is it the apps problem, or DCS problem, if I can not launch Model Viewer?
null
This is fixed internally, once the latest build passes some testing phases and I remove some things that aren't released, then the public will have a new build.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Stratos said:
Thanks for the update. You need a new model of the pylon?
I have a Model of the Pylon, however Fuel tanks cannot have 2 element attachments, so I cannot place it like I would a Missile using a Launcher.
I'd rather replace the entire external for A/B and F
-
1
-
-
On 2/4/2025 at 8:27 AM, Stratos said:
Would be possible to get the central tank positioned forward as in the F-5A? I feel is important for the overall look of the plane.
The Pylon is integrated into the F-5E Model, I cannot move it. The only way would be to replace the model w/ a new one that I can edit.
On 5/31/2025 at 9:29 AM, Stratos said:Any update @SkateZilla ? Sometime passed without news.
I have other projects that are higher priority at the moment, plus I still have to do a separate version of everything for the F-5E Remastered Version, as the model is not the same and Items don't line up correctly.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, CCG_13 said:
Nothing is working ... it s a total mess ... .... i reinstall the whole game ... and it s the last time ...
Thanks all .
DCS_Updater.exe repair -
I don't think everyone understands the power the latest gen and even last gen cell phones have in terms of sensors.
-
I know guys that use their I-Phones and get killer results.
-
9 hours ago, TheBiggerBass said:
DCS might not be the worst preparation for this ...
There's already a Drone Station platform trainer made by ED for the Pro market.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, TheBiggerBass said:
Good points.
I love flying DCS. But as we see IRL in near east or Ukraine etc. I guess the future of airforce IRL will be huge numbers of low cost unmanned fighter drones anyway. It allows missions where you cannot send human pilots anymore and use much higher numbers of drones.
Still have to train the human drone pilots.
-
20 hours ago, Dos said:
I am no expert on the art of lua but I did notice the ifei does change from white to green when switched from day to anything else - perhaps looking at that lua may help??? Thanks considering it.
IFEI Switches to Green to be NVG Compliant.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SN68 said:
Hey guys, is there any chance to implement this aircraft as an oficial module once is fully completed ?
No, because:
A. It is based off the Legacy Hornet, which is ED's IP.
B. The 3D External Model is licensed and not fully owned IP.
C. I'm not paying for commercial/consumer distribution software license. Whichever Boeing requires, if not both.
D. if A B and C weren't enough, I have cat gifs. *(Sorry Running Trend on our discord)*-
3
-
-
12 hours ago, Tengah said:
Can anyone tell me if this Mod still being developed?
Many thanks in advance.
Most of the IDF Team resides in a part of the world that's in a not so good place right now.
-
2
-
-
On 4/18/2025 at 11:45 PM, minar said:
I think its the dumbest idea yet for the USAF to try to replace the A10 with an F35. They tried this years ago by trying to sack it for an F16 and failed. First of all it can hardly carry anything. Stealth is not needed for TAC air. The guys on the ground want an airframe that can carry a ton of stuff and loiter for hours, the F35 also cannot withstand aa hits either, it also does not have an awesome and devastating cannon. The USAF needs to get its head out of its butt and stop being spoiled brats and thinking that everything has to be high tech and expensive. Its simply not realistic at all. Its ironic because they just chose an overrated crop duster for coin missions. They should just give their a10's to the Army and let them fly them like they want. That or build some updated new ones. The F35 is ridiculous for this type of mission. Its good to see that yet again, they A10 will not die and continue to serve for several more years yet.
That said this is a great mod.
Problem is, the A-10s are all Old, despite getting new wings, which were already made and sitting in a warehouse when FC shut down operations, the main fuselage still endures stress from the GAU/8.
FC is gone, so is the tooling to build more, the only reason the A-10 is still in service, is because A. there is nothing close to doing that specific job on the same level. B. It would cost more to retire it than to operate it, C. Changes in congress at key times caused indecisions in the USAF Budget.
So I can emphasize each point a little bit:
A. It's obvious, there is no other platform with a GAU/8, they tried to mount one on a F-16, it didn't work out that well. The F-35A, being it's replacement, only because it's multi-role. But the Battlefield in the east, is not the type of battlefield where you can sit at 25K and lob LBGs and GPS Munitions all day, sometimes you gotta get down low and dirty, and I do not see the USAF sending a costly aircraft that has next to no AA Protection down low w/ only 180 rounds of GAU/22, it's like shooting NERK darts at a speeding car, not gonna do very much against armour. But the Airforce is consolidating, they don't want one aircraft specializing in one role, they want one aircraft that's OK at many, good at a few, to replace multiple, the Navy did the same thing, at one point it was the United States Department of Super Hornets, F-14s, A-7s, A-6s, S-3s, all gone off the deck, replaced by the F/A-18E/F/Gs. Shoot, if they could strap a trailer to the plane, it'd be replacing their COD as well.
B. Retiring the A-10, Sending it to mothballs, training and re-assignment of personnel and delegating Airwing roles to another aircraft to train on, would cost more than simple keeping the A-10s in service in a reduced flight hour status.
C. Every time the A-10 retirement is on the docket to be voted on, leadership and priorities change, and it gets dropped off the agenda.
Make no mistake, the days are numbered, as each older airframe even w/ the new wings approaches the flight hour limits, they are being retired one after another, and w/ the fleet getting smaller, the remaining airframes are getting exponentially higher flight time, so their journey to their service life limit is hastened w/ every airframe they retire.-
5
-
-
On 4/17/2025 at 3:36 PM, SOLIDKREATE said:
It needs to be set to: "never expire" =o(. Thank you for trying though.
-
On 3/13/2025 at 9:59 AM, Wizard_03 said:
I don't imagine it's wildly different. In fact they have the exact same shape just in different sizes and proportions. Not like one is piper cub and the other is a B-52.
The A->C Shape is extremely different,
Wing Root, Wings, Flaps, Flaperons, Leading Edge, Trailing Edge, Horizontal Stabs, Vertical Stabs, Part of the Lower Fuselage, Entire Landing Gear System, Aft Fuselage, Hook Compartment, Upper Fuselage/Nose Area, AAR System, etc.
Although the A->C Avionics would be easy, the Flight Model would need to be a separate project.
The B is a different animal altogether, as there are systems in the B's avionics not present in the A or C.-
4
-
.jpg.39c81fb8f54dbadac34b419f02a044f3.jpg)
IDF Mods Project | F-16D/I Mod V3.9 - Official Thread
in Flyable/Drivable Mods for DCS World
Posted · Edited by SkateZilla
F-16C Core Avionics were changed significantly over the last few patches w/ the addition of SniperXR, DTC, DL, And more in depth MFD Pages etc.
As well as additional animations for cockpits and pilots,
It's likely both the 3D Model Animations and Cockpit systems scripts would need an extensive overhaul.