Search the Community

GBU-54s need to be re-programed manually in the INV page after loading the data from the DTC. I think we should be able to select the laser codes from the rearm menu, and they should transfer alongside other DTC data to the aircraft, just like GBU-12s and AKPWS do. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell me that i'm an utter idiot. GBU-54s: GBU-12s:

let me start with a few kind words toward the Mi-24, i love the Mi-24 module, i was an early adopter (pre-ordering it) and its probably the aircraft ive flown the most, i know it is the helicopter ive flown the most, Petrovitch is a lovely co-pilot and is quite helpful in combat and with a decent enough selection of weapons it makes the Mi-24 quite effective against most targets . . . but it could be better, so here are the things that i think are missing and Wishlist of things that should be added most of the following requires no elaboration, when i feel its needed i will put it in (parentheses), and if something is a joke it will be in italics first we will start with the fixes 1- Copilot-gunner multicrew jitteriness (when i enable the CPG's body he jitters alot like the animations are broken and when i move the stick his hand doesn't move with it nor does the check watch animation work) 2-external pilot head movement animations sometimes break (some times the pilots head will just be fixed looking down and to the left, i have experienced this while with a MC CPG and i was in the pilots seat) 2nd, onto the missing features (where did they go?) 1- working cargo bay lights (the switch in the cockpit does nothing both in blue and white modes) 2- working helmet visors (when you lower the helmet visor it should have some level of sunglasses effect so you can fly into the sun without it blinding you) 3-Air to ground mode for the R-60M's 4- the ability to "eject", to jump out of the hind 5- full manual (im sure it will come on release, but i am just noteing it here so its not forgotten) as for the updates, there is one in particular 1- better/more accurate blade tip lights, (IRL they look like one solid circle around the top of the helo, and in photos it is the same, they dont look like 5 individual lights spinning round) now for my favourite section, the Reasonable Wishlist of features, (most of these are also on my fellow hind pilots wish lists and most aren't out of the realm of possibility) 1- reduced loadout ATGM's (having one ATGM per rack on each side, some one who is assumed to be an Mi-24 dev said that they wont waste time on "exotic loadout's" but this is both bad reasoning, and untrue, its not hard to find picture's and videos from Afghanistan and Syria where Mi-24's are carrying only 2 ATGM's one on each side, it is a historic and common loadout and something i have many photos of, the apache has reduced hellfire's, there is no reason the Mi-24 shouldn't) 2- reduced loadout S-8 rockets, (i have been informed that in certain higher altitude parts of Afghanistan Mi-24's flew with only half filled S-8, pods 10 rockets per side, due to MTOW limitations) 3- ability to rotate the Pilot and CPG fans side-to-side (the brackets they are mounted on allow for this movement, along with translational movement, and in the front seat when you line up the gunsight with the bore sight the gunsight and cockpit fan physically conflict with one another, the blades clipping though part of the CPG's gunsight, this would also mean it wouldn't get in your way so much) 4- the ability to remove the PZU (PyleZashchitnoe Ustroystvo) dust filters (i have no idea if this would effect engine performance, intuition tells me it would only slightly, and it would allow the engines to be damaged by dust, the main reason i ask for it is because it looks cool and there are many photos of Mi-24P flying in Russia without PZU even in modern times) 5- PKT/RPK/AK-74 door gunner options with 1985 period correct clothing (PKT, RPK and AK-74 are all more historically accurate to the Mi-24 than the Kord (time wise the Mi-24P came out in 1981 and the Kord in 1998), as well as the PKT, RPK and AK-74 would allow Hind crews to not only carry more rounds of ammunition for the same weight and space in the cargo bay as well as it would allow Hind crews to have Door gunners on both sides at the same time, meaning the door gunners would be more effective against infantry and light targets (wider angles of fire), also as the PKT, PKM and AK-74 fire off the window mounts it would mean that the crew in the cargo bay would be more protected) (period correct kits for the older guns would be nice instead of modern 6B Ratnik kit (2013) on the Kord gunner) 6- remove the door gunner payload and artificial angle limitations (there is no reason i shouldn't be able to load GUV-8700 or Rocket pods on the in-board pylons while having door gunners, just dont shoot at your own weapons and you still have a large angle of fire, around where the pylon mounted weapon is, also the Mi-24's Kord gun mounts get artificially restricted when you load weapons on the wings, it doesn't just stop you from aiming the Kord at the weapons but also at the ground and sky below and above the pylon mounted weapons, effectively stopping you from aiming rearward) 7- Kord PSO scope (as it seem the Kord isnt going any where, nor should it, i think we should get a PSO scope option as door gunners commonly use PSO's on helo door guns, the mount is already modelled on the Kord in game and it would help on getting those long range shots) 8- P-50T Bomb (they are a training bomb, pretty useless in combat but can be used to mark targets and train bombing with, i think they would be cool to have and wouldn't be much effort to add.) Now for a few Pics explaining some of the things i mentioned in the above image we can see the window mounts for the PKV/RPK/AK-74 door guns, it would be lovely to have a door gunner on each side at the same time, also you can see one of the dome lights i mentioned on the roof the above 2 images are examples of 1 ATGM being carried on each side, the top image is in Syria and the bottom image is in Afghanistan (i have many more images and you can find many more with a simple search, in the image above you can see a Mi-24P (i think) with out PZU's, looks lame doesn't it. in the above image you can see a Mi-8 with the blade tip lights turned on (i couldn't find a pic of the Mi-24 with the incandescent), instead of being short separate 5 lights the lights should be a solid disk in the above image we can see a Mi-24 armed with P-50T's in the above image you can see the CPG fan conflicting with the window glass and the gunsight. in the above images we can see PKV door guns on the hind, these would be a lovely addition especially if we can get one on each side allowing us to fly through afghan valley's and shoot out of booth sides at insurgents at the same time, also it would allow us to carry a larger number of bullets so we would have longer durations of fire from the door guns making them more effective even if the rounds have lower/no explosive mass and less range in final, i think that is all, i might have forgot something, if you want more evidence of Mi-24's carrying one ATGM each side i have many photos and some videos ill happily provide in comment's, and if any one wants and extra detail about anything ill be happy to help, right, now off to fly the Mi-24 with a friend (an honourable mention, the L-166V, adlest having an option to show the physical thing with the cover over it for those sweet sweet soviet-afghan and UN screenshots and Missions)

Hello! The draw tool needs refinement. Having used it quite extensively I have a few important changes/additions/fixes that, I argue, are essential to make the draw tool user friendly and thus faster and more efficient to use. There are several topics regarding different wishes and discussions regarding the draw tool, but none that quite list everything needed in my opinion. I do second every one of the suggestions I found with a quick search. Links to the respective threads at the end of this post. Absolute priority number one!: Add the ability to lock drawings As a set of drawings becomes increasingly comples and large drawings overlap, it is extremely easy to accidentally pick the wrong drawing, then move it only to realise a bit later that you just messed up a drawing, say, a circle, that you now have to eyeball to be positioned back to where it was! When a drawing is done, the user generally does not want to move it further. Having all the drawings be there waiting like traps to be selected accidentally has lost me hours of work trying to fiddle with the tool. Expansion of the draw item -list The draw item list occupies only a small set amount of screen space. With dozens of drawings having the list window as small as it currently is is a total waste of screen real-estate and makes the tool more cumbersome to use. Either have the tool resize it self according to available space, or at least give users the ability to resize the list window themselves Allow arranging/filtering of drawings by name Again, as the list grows longer different items are really hard to keep track of unless one constantly arranges the items manually. This again wastes serious amounts of time that could otherwise be spent actually using the tool! I understand that the items in the draw list are in drawing order, so probably give the items a visible draw order index (per layer obviously), and then give the user the ability to order the drawings by name. Layers/categories can stay separate - those are easy to handle. Fix the item movement in the list Re-ordering the items in the list currently jumps the user to the beginning of the list! With dozens of drawings that one may want or need to arrange this is a horrible UX bug. Please fix! Allow the user to change the anchor-point of text labels Often times a drawing needs to be anchored from other points than the top left corner. Plenty of texts would need to be anchored from either the middle of the text-box, or from the mid-point of either the top or the bottom edge of the text rectangle. I would recommend all the corners, edge-midpoints and the whole shape mid-point to be added as possible anchor points to allow for most flexibility An improper anchor point makes drawings really messy and hard to look at especially when zoomed a lot from the intended viewing zoom-level, making large draw sets appear really cluttered Add air navigation symbology Please add default symbology (Jeppesen or otherwise) for NAVFIXes, VORs, TACANs, DMEs, and such shapes as default triangles etc. At the current state the user has to create these by-hand which is cumbersome and unnecessary. Allow drawings to be set invisible by zoom-factor A lot of the time on congested drawings some details might want to be omitted when looking at a large scenario from smaller zoom-levels (e.g. from far away). An per-drawing adjustable invisibility range (both ends!) would really be useful for decluttering the drawing and allowing for additional details to be drawin, but only as the player zooms in enough (or out for that matter) Add dedicated arc-drawing tool (with and without lines to origin) Arcs and sectors are needed to draw more complex shapes without resorting to freehand drawings constantly. A simple circle does not cover all the cases. There are, for example, a lot of airspaces that are built with several arcs IRL. Building similar airspaces with drawings currently is a time consuming process of using circles to help draw freehand - these could be bypassed by simply allowing for an arc-draw. Add racetrack-shape (see "racetrack polygons in Draw function" below) I second this wish. Being able to draw racetracks would be really useful Add editing, adding and removing of shape points (see "Draw Tool - point mode" post below) I second this! So many "oh whoops, wrong button!" -mistakes costing me a lot of time after making a complex shape just because I cannot edit the shapes afterwards. Definately a feature that is needed! EDIT: In fact the existing points can be moved, but more points cannot be added or removed once the shape is completed Allow the user to change the amount of vertices on a circle On the same lines as point no.10. As the circles become larger the amount of vertices is really apparent and may not be sufficient in all cases. Please add a value to change the amount of vertices on a selected circle. EDIT: Suggestion number 12: Allow the user to set text size that is either tied to the screen size/zoom (the way it is now), but also set an absolute size, so that the text size stays the same compared to the background map and other drawings regardless of zoom. There are plenty of instances where you do not want the text to change along with zoom. EDIT: Added some screenshots to illustrate the points above EDIT: Added a commenter's suggestion to the list EDIT: Suggestion number 13: ability to snap route-tool waypoints to existing drawings. To make sure the route would not snap to anything-and-everything a toggle "route too snapping" for a given drawing might be wise to add, as well as to have the snapping be togglabe (much like how in vector-drawing software you can toggle snapping on and off). This way you could keep, say, waypoint symbols (see suggestion number 6) with option "route too snapping", and as you actually do your route, you could eithre allow snapping as a user, or toggle it off for completely free placement of route points. The possible points to snap to could be waypoints, text-field-anchor points (I would imagine these would most often just be left OFF by default) and any polygon/line vertex (i.e any corner point), on a per-drawing basis. This would help out a lot on larger missions where the mission maker wants to give players a lot of possible waypoint references to be used, but not all of them are needed for any one flight. It would also ensure that a single waypoint shared between two different flights would actually be the same, instead of being approximately the same. For additional functionality, the snapped route point could actually inherit its name from the waypoint. Here it would be best give the waypoint a third text field "route tool name", because I bet most ME users would like to name their points akin to "blue_wpts_ABCDE" instead of just ABCDE, that you would then want to show as the route name in the route tool. Previously suggested improvements: Regards, MikeMikeJuliet Image 1: text as intended by the author Image 2: text and image gets cluttered because text scales with zoom Image 3: a cluttered image when zoomed out - this could be alleviated either by being able to set some of the drawings invisible as you zoom out and/or by setting an absolute text size instead of zoom scaling text Image 3: Unused space around the drawings list. This particular list is probably some 150 drawings long and going through it to find a specific drawing (especially if it isn't in order) wastes time completely unnecessarily.

nullwith the cold war upon us, it would be nice to be able to select no HMD in jets like the hornet. Currently only NVG or JHMCS are available to the player through the ground crew and restricting them is impossible (i have a script that blows you up after take off though ). I did a quick mock up of what it could look like. Also a check box in mission options to ENFORCE MISSION HMD SETTINGS to allow for late 80s early 90s PvP environments.

Hi, would it be possible to have an option in the special section of the Mig-21 to remove the rear view mirror from the canopy glass so that we can have full unobstructed view? I find it completely unnecessary as I cannot see enemies up and above because of that massive rear view mirror assembly and its almost useless in tracking bandits on my six.

Please build in an option to keep deck crew for launches, but turn them off for recovery.. for large groups doing carrier practice having to go back and park before being able to launch again wastes time.. need to be able to come off a wire and taxi straight to a cat

When manually controlling AA guns with radar like the ZSU-23-4 or the Tunguska, although an aim indicator is available, the turret cannot be slaved to it. This contradicts real-world behavior of nearly all radar-directed AA guns. This also applies to missiles with turreted launchers. AA guns with equipped radars should be able to slave their guns to those radars in accordance with the aim solution.

Hi all. ELINT Data is stored on the client side of DCS in DCS_AJS37. Is there a way to "hook" into ELINT Data of an ongoing Mission on the SERVER side? That would give us awesome opportunities for mission scripting/building. A simple env.info("ELINT DATA .....") in the logfile would be enough (Stored ELINT Files in the Server LOG Directory would be amazing).

Hello guys! So i was just sitting here and thinking about all the new Aircraft we will be getting in the future and had to ask myself: How will the quantity of aircraft be handled on multiplayer servers? At the moment, every Aircraft has to be placed on the airfield and made client flyable. With increasing number of Air-frames, and i see this problem on some servers already, there is less and less space on an airfield to place all possible Air-frames a client might want to fly. My suggestion would be, to introduce a hollow "Client-Plane", which simply provides a Slot on the multiplayer server, which a player can enter and is then prompted to select a plane from a list of flyable airplanes. This list could be depended on modules installed and can influenced with a white-/blacklist by the Mission-designer. This Problem might not be as critical right now, but surely will be in the future with 50+ flyable airplanes. I searched around the forum, if something like this has already been suggested, but couldn't quite find anything. Maybe there are other solutions, it's just a problem i think should be pointed out.

Yes, snow. I miss it. I love flying in it. You can't have true winter without snow. Thanks.

Hello, Flanker, Fulcrum players and ED team. I am here to bring some love to our forgotten module, and give a little hand to fix some minor things. This is addressed mostly to ED developpers because I am going to give some clues to tweak some parameters for a better world in DCS. It is a bug report with a fix. 1. First thing first, Mig-29's overwing vapor is wrong. It is using the F/A18 overwing vapor when it should be using the Mig-29's. In DCS World OpenBeta\Config\Effects\ParticleSystem2\overwingVapor.lua ; "SpawnLocationsFile = "mig-29.owv"" doesn"t do anything. So it just takes back the F/A18 presets in the "effect" section. 2. I think it is time to add some overwing vapor to the Su-27. Please ED, it is just one simple line of code. Here is the tweak : We need to modify the DCS World OpenBeta\Config\Effects\ParticleSystem2\overwingVapor.lua Since it is wrong, it has to be modified. The presets code section for the MiG29 isn't working, plus, we can add the preset for the Flanker. What we have to do to make it work, is to create a whole new preset for each aircrafts. New code in DCS World OpenBeta\Config\Effects\ParticleSystem2\overwingVapor.lua overwingVapor.lua Now we have a brand new overwing Vapor presets for our beloved aircrafts. Since Mig-29 already has his line of code in his Mig-29.lua, ED team just need to add this line (please) in the Su-27.lua (Which we do not have access anymore), so the Su-27 can have his own overwing vapor : effects_presets = { { effect = 'OVERWING_VAPOR', preset = "SU27" }, }, Voilà! Just need to tweak that and we can have good looking Russian aircrafts pulling up some G's. You can download the new lua file, so you can compare the overwing vapor that you used to see and the real Mig-29's. See you on the battlefield.

Any chance in a future update we could get a checkbox to toggle OpenXR from within the game, rather than needing a command line argument?

I don't know if this is easy or possible. Recently the ED integrity check is not allowing modified lua's to export cockpit displays. For the past few years I've been exporting the Viggen Radar to my external monitor by giving it the name VIGGEN_RADAR in the file: DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\AJS37\Cockpit\scripts\radar\Indicator\init.lua with the following code: dofile(LockOn_Options.common_script_path.."ViewportHandling.lua") try_find_assigned_viewport("VIGGEN_RADAR") This violates the Integrity Check. Would it be possible for Heatblur to add names their displays like the radar and Maverick TV so that it can be exported using either the default viewports LEFT_MFCD/RIGHT_MFCD, or with a unique name as I used to use, VIGGEN_RADAR? null

I would like the ability to both create (which we can with trigger command) - but it does not return a reference object (which would be needed to destroy it later) or the ability to assign a name to the created object (also another way to destroy the fire/smoke object) eg: info here https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_func_effectSmokeBig trigger.action.effectSmokeBig(Vec3, 3, 0.75, "mysmoke") or local smoke_object = trigger.action.effectSmokeBig(Vec3, 3, 0.75, "mysmoke") And Also be able to destroy the created big fire or big smoke object at a later stage in the mission eg: Unit.getByName('mysmoke'):destroy() or smoke_object:destroy() I would also like this to work in both Single player and Multiplayer

Hello, most of you probably know this already, but I'm bringing this up again. The F-15C (and the A-10A) does not have any altimeter setting keybinds. This effectively means that the barometric altimeter cannot be adjusted, which is a critical oversight especially considering the probable rise of instrument flying due to the new (amazing) clouds and the upcoming weathersystem overhaul. This has been an issue for years. I believe I last posted about this like 4 years ago. The other FC3 aircraft apart from the A-10A have the binds (so the A-10 should get these too, along with the F-15) and the do work, for reference. The name for the keybinds are: "Altimeter Pressure Decrease" and "... Increase". I hope this is finally resolved to bring all the modules to the same state systems-wise within the FC3. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

During long multiplayer sessions in the Viggen I often set up one waypoint just for visual navigation fixing. This is especially useful when I return to the base for rearm/refuel. Will we ever get something like this in an F14 Jester, so I can just tell him "use visual fix now" when flying over known terrain feature?

Hello! Having used the real counterpart to the NS430 quite a lot, I am requesting a feature to be added to the cursor when in map mode. Currently: When you activate the cursor when in the map screen and move the cursor to any arbitrary location and press the Direct-to -button, the NS430 presents you with either your current location (the airfield you are at if you are on the ground) or alternatively the point that the cursor is over (though this bugs out at times). Request: As per the real device, if you set the cursor at a point on the map where there are no waypoints (user generated or otherwise) the device should present you with a new user waypoint marked "+MAP" with the current cursor coordinates. This allows the user to set their destination quickly to any point on the map without needing to first navigate to the user waypoint menu and then build a new waypoint by setting coordinates. The following picture is taken from the official GNS430 manual (https://static.garmin.com/pumac/GNS430_PilotsGuide.pdf) Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

If you want to place units exactly according to GPS coordinates, it's very difficult. You have to keep moving the units back and forth until they fit. It would be nice to be able to align units and trigger zones with GPS coordinates.

When I create missions, it sometimes happens that I move units unintentionally. For example, when selecting a unit to copy. Would it be possible to add a checkbox to protect units from being moved? true/false should do the job.

Hi, Having a stick-shaker effect on the F-14 helps a lot in maneuvering, pulling to the exact point where buffeting starts, and not overstressing the airframe. Just wondering, if it would be possible to have it for rotor wash on the Apache as well? Sometimes - especially in VR fps drops and really hard to sense the rotor wash... and probably it's already too late if you're close to the ground - which is the case most of the time in the Apache The cockpit already shaking which helps a bit, but that's not really visible/distinctive having a dropped FPS to 20-30. I fly with a gunner and him having a constant look at the displays senses the rotor wash a few seconds sooner than me, whose job should be to get out (or even not get into ) these situations. Thank you, Best

Hi, It is almost impossible to take a nice screenshot or video, especially in mp, because of all the 2D elements drawn above the 3D view. By the time you hide what can be hidden (tab tab, lshift f10, ctrl y twice ...) the situation you wanted to capture is gone ... And other elements you cannot hide and have to wait for them to disappear (missions messages, bda ...) It's frustrating for content creation. My proposition is to add a shortcut to toggle On and Off the 2D Layer all together (something like "RShift + Print Screen") to give us the ability to capture screenshots and videos without all the other stuff on screen, including : Server/Mission messages (Top right) they always choose the right time to appear to screw ur masterpiece AWACS/AI messages (Top left) Chat window (All the 3 stats) Labels, dots … Mods and plugins drawn via LUA scripts (SRS, Scratchpad …) Controls Indicator FPS Counter and Stats window Status bar (Ctrl+y) Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) box Tooltips Cursor / Crosshair Multiplayer Scoreboard... These elements are very useful, but do get in the way of a good capture. Thank you.

The copy settings to all bomb types doesn't copy the skin Can we make the default skin go with Navy/USAF module so it isn't USAF to start with (ie..any bomb loaded on a hornet would default to Navy skin) Even defaulting to Navy on the carrier would be an improvement.

Currently the TNDL STN and TNDL members (outside of the flight itself, if multiple flights exist inside of a static template) aren't saved within the template, this sucks because it makes it harder for mission creators to easily create a standardized set of STNs for flights between missions outside of manually setting the STNs between every AC which can be time consuming and tedious. Sure you can use the ones generated by the ME and they do 'work' but the only way to know another flights STN is to have them already in your jet as members or have the other flight read them out to you which can clog up the radio. So it's either use the generated ones or have the mission creator spend time before the mission to go through every flight and set the STN which can take a while for larger squadrons with 30+ players per mission. I think this would be an overall QoL update for squadron mission creators that don't give access to the full .miz to Flight Leads that create templates to send over to the MC for importing into the real .miz.