Search the Community

So not something that is obvious to most people playing the game, but it seems the attributes given to units (fetchable in lua with getDesc()) are given out way too liberally. Specifically there is no distinction between a hummer and a proper APC like a LAV-25 The hummer's attributes: { 2, 17, 104, "Redacted", "APC", "ATGM", "Datalink", "Infantry carriers", "Armored vehicles", "All", "Ground Units", "Ground Units Non Airdefence", "Armed ground units", "Vehicles", "Ground vehicles", "Armed vehicles", "AntiAir Armed Vehicles", "NonAndLightArmoredUnits", "LightArmoredUnits" } The Lav { 2, 17, 26, "Redacted", "APC", "Infantry carriers", "Armored vehicles", "All", "Ground Units", "Ground Units Non Airdefence", "Armed ground units", "Vehicles", "Ground vehicles", "Armed vehicles", "AntiAir Armed Vehicles", "NonAndLightArmoredUnits", "LightArmoredUnits" } The only difference is the 3rd attribute which is provided as a index, not sure what they are but they vary between different "APC"s such that its not usable as a discriminator, and then in this case ATGM and DATALINK which are obviously not any use for distinguishing these two classes of vehicle This makes any kind of scripting that needs to be able to understand unit type difficult as we have to separately maintain a hard-coded list of vehicles vs their type I would propose removing the APC attribute from anything that isn't actually an APC (some of those light vehicles have some basic armour but they are not classed as APCs), the Infantry Carrier attribute works to tag things that can carry infantry so that discrimination is retained.

Hi everyone, Would it be possible for the P-37 [Bar Lock-B] and PRV-11 [Side Net] radars to be implemented in DCS as fully functional units? At the moment these 2 are among the best looking radars in DCS, they've been around for quite some time and are both appropriately animated. Both radars were/are very prolific, widely exported and are staple radars of the Cold War. The PRV-11 would also make for additional battery component (even if non-functional) for some of our single-digit SAMs (namely the SA-2 and SA-3) and the P-37 would be a much more appropriate acquisition/search radar for the SA-5, certainly far more appropriate than the P-19 or 5N59S. This, in addition to serving as an EWR/GCI radar, which is what it's best known for. The RSP-7 [Two Spot] and DRL-7 are also appropriately animated, although these would probably require an ATC upgrade to really be useful as the RSP-7 is a PAR and PAR approaches is not something that DCS currently supports. Though I'd still argue for their inclusion into the unit list regardless (alongside their other components - a generator and a radio antenna), even if purely cosmetic. The thing is, air defence radars, particularly early-warning and long-range surveillance radars are something that IMO, is severely lacking in DCS. Personally, it's a real shame that radars that are incredibly prolific and widely exported, that would fit a couple of our SAM systems and quite a few maps (present and in-development) are non-functional eye-candy, despite models being present and in the right format.

Didn't know where to categorize this post, so I just put it in the "Wish List" section (please do correct my choice if it's wrong). This is a minor one - mission editor currently allows Polish forces to use Leopard 2A6M, which is incorrect. Poland never owned or used any Leopard 2A6 or similar variant, they're stuck to "just" 2A5s. Poland does however use M1A2 SEP V3 tanks, as they've been delivered just this year (2025), and it should get access to them in-game. It would be great if it could be corrected to better match reality, thanks in advance!

Since we now have a very beautiful and great sounding P Hind and the old unit is the same helicopter I would've liked it to sound the same. It have always been generic and boring and unauthentic, and there is no reason why you shouldn't update it. Hope ED sees this Also for some reason it's startup sequence audi is very broken atm, cuts off when engines are starting

Dear Eagle Dynamics, is it pland, that FARPS, TENTS, TRUCKS, TANKS, ... get new skins for presets in the DCS-Editor? As a Missionplaner an Missionmaker i miss following TENT-SKINS: - Desert camo - Desert camo with medic cross - Desert camo with numbers (01, 02, 03, 04, ...) - Green camo with medic cross - Green camo with numbers (01, 02, 03, 04, ...) - White with Medic cross - White with blue UN - White with numbers (01, 02, 03, 04, ...) - Tents for Insurgents Different Tents with different sizes. TENTS as Units not as Building to get it in a group for better handling with Triggers. I miss wounded and civil Units at all. You have no civil units to embarc or for Missions like "Avoid civil victims" I miss single Helipads with medic cross. I miss TRUCKS and TANKS with white color and blue UN signs. I miss Medic-Trucks at all. I miss JATAC-Infantery-Unit with Laser, Smoke and IR. I know you can get this with mods, but this has to be in DCS without mods, i think. If you want to make good and realistic HELI-Missions this is absolutly necessary. Cause than yo can say: "Embarc troop from Marker and bring it to Farp XXX to the Tent number 01" Or yo can say:" Embarc the wounded and bring them to the Medic-Tent. Smoke as marker is unrealistic big an Flags ar not good to see. I know, making skins for PLANES, HELICOPTERS, TANKS, ... is hard work and costs a while, but I think, making skins for TENTS and bring them in DCS (basic) without mod is a work of 20 Hours or less. I know this is primarily for Heli Pilots/Player who want to make realistic Missions but it is worth it. So is this planed? How long will it take? If not, Why? Thank you.

I often spend most of my time making missions and I would just like to make suggestions for units to be added. Artillery: Australia, Canada, Colombia, India, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and the United States: M777 Howitzer 155mm (Modern 2000-present) ________________________________________________________________________________ Soviet Russia/Russia, and many many other countries from South Africa to Asia, Vietnam war to current: M46 130mm (1951-Present): ________________________________________________________________________________ United States, South and North America, Middle Eastern and South Eastern Countries, used in Vietnam war to present conflicts M114 155mm (1942-present): _________________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: In order to make them mobile, some sort of animation will be needed where a truck could hitch up an artillery piece and tow it, this would also make for more interesting scenarios for convoys but as a start can do without mobility ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ground launch ATGM (Stationary Units): United States and many others, BGM-71 TOW, from Vietnam War to present (1970-present): _________________________________________________________________________________ Soviet Russia and many others, 9K111 Fagot, from Vietnam War to present (1970-present): Note: It would be interesting to have troops able to deploy these ATGM Launchers in the field after getting to their destination ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yes this is a game/sim for aircraft, but I reckon most players spend their time doing air to ground then any other in DCS, more cold war aircraft are coming out and these units I suggested I tried to aim for a cold war setting to add life the those dates. In Mission Editor for the Towed Artillery and ATGM Launchers, it would be great to have a box to tick to weather or not have a semi circle wall of sandbags as a defence. Picture below with the Artillery or ATGM firing from behind it.

Trying to work out if the ground/area is suitable for a unit/building/base in a top down flat 2d representation of a map in 2022/2023 is beyond lunacy. I get we're dealing with a legacy mission editor, but this needs a significant overhaul and bringing up to date.

Hi everyone, Something I've never been satisfied with is how DCS names units in the unit listing. It often doesn't use full names, or specific variants, won't include things like NATO reporting names, or even occasionally gets the name wrong. 2.7 did change things a lot, and it largely made things a bit more consistent, but for me it still missed a few things and in some cases it changed for the worse IMO. What I was in the process of doing, is editing the default .lua files in the database folder of DCS and changing the display names I was then going to bundle them into a folder for a mod, and see what people thought of it. Unfortunately in 2.7, all of those files got hidden and so I'm now unable to do that. At the moment I've only done the ground and naval units, and for English localisation. I'm pretty much okay with the aircraft as they are, and if I were to make any changes they'd be more minor. The only other one I was going to do is the weapons so it's a bit tidier and more consistent, but I'm going to gauge that on this thread. Another thing I might do is propose a change to the sub categories too, but I'll leave that to a new thread. I still might tinker around with it, so watch this space for edits, what I currently have in mind is rearranging NATO reporting names and native names for ships, as well as putting the approximate year the ship is a representation of. Anything I've marked with a square bracket and a number is in the spoiler below. I know this is a very nitpicky, rivet-counter-esque request, but let me know what your thoughts on it are, do you like what I've done and prefer it? Do you prefer the current system? Do you prefer the old system? Is there anything you'd do differently? And of course, if you notice any mistakes, please let me know and I'll make an edit. Rename Overhaul (Ground and Naval Units) v.1.xlsx

Hi everyone, At the moment there's a restriction in the editor that ensures that non-amphibious ground units can only be placed on the ground - this makes a lot of sense but it does cause a couple of issues: Firstly, on the Channel Map, there's a fortification on the coast near Ambleteuse (Fort Mahon/Fort d'Ambleteuse: 50°48'19"N, 001°36'02"E), which I would like to place things like artillery on (there's enough space for it). However, DCS treats most of the area the fort occupies as water, which means you can't place any non-amphibious units there, despite the fact that amphibious vehicles (which this restriction doesn't apply to) spawn as expected with no issues. It's the same when placing units on static objects (such as the oil and gas platforms), you can only place amphibious units onto them, even though they'll spawn where they should - which means you can't really set up something like a WW2 sea fort (using the oil rig/gas platform as a stand-in). And it's the same situation with non-aircraft carrying ships, you can't place anything that isn't a linked static object or amphibious onto them. Unfortunately though, this time around amphibious vehicles don't spawn as expected, they spawn where you placed them, but in the water and not up on deck, however, if you take an amphibious unit, place it on an oil rig or a gas platform, you can jump it over to a ship (that can be moving), and it will work (mostly) with a few issues that I'll detail below but are not the focus of this thread. Personally, I'd prefer to have the feature turned off (or be made optional), and place the responsibility solely with whoever is making the mission to place units sensibly. As an addendum, this feature might also be useful for placing client/player aircraft exactly as desired on board ships, see this post for more details. M113_Tarawa_Jump.trk

There are so many cool animated units out there in DCSW, would be nice to have access to those animations. Maybe even via triggers. Examples of use: - Place a tank with opened upper hatch, to drop a tv guided Mav right in there, etc. - Build scene with units in different animation sates. Is it possible via lua scripts?

Hi everyone, It seems that units (at least amphibious ones) can now be spawned on the decks of ships, including ships that are moving, and will stay put through turns and speed changes (previously when I had tested this, they would spawn at the sea surface, requiring them to be jumped onto ships, though the mission editor restriction still restricts you from placing non-amphibious units onto ships). However, if you use CA to take control of a unit placed on a ship, it will immediately start floating upwards. It's almost as if the unit is being abducted by aliens or something. On the Tarawa at least, they appear to come to a stop and level out at 288 ft MSL and continue to follow the ship (albeit not exactly in the same place and orientation). But it gets weirder still - if you switch to another unit, other members of the group may start doing some other weird things. In the tracks below, when player control is relinquished to another unit, the remaining units in the group fly off of the deck and start travelling in unexpected directions, behaving quite oddly (drifting, jumping around, appearing to snap between pitch angles). GroundUnitsTarawa.trk GroundUnitsTiconderoga1.trk GroundUnitsTiconderoga2.trk

Hello all, I am sorry to be bringing up the same topic again as from months ago, however I feel it is still worth mentioning again and something that might help out a lot of people who are having issues since the latest few releases. As pointed out in a post in March 2023 by @Taz1004 a lot of the normal map, roughmet, and FLIR texture sizes in the game are absolutely huge. These texture files do not need to be this huge (22+MB and some reaching 64+MB) and are furthermore stored as uncompressed 32bit textures when they can easily be compressed without giving up any visual quality. The FLIR textures don't have to be 4K since all we ever see them through is our MFD's or similar sensors which do not have this resolution in the first place. The textures that are affected are mostly found in a lot of the newer modules but they are not exclusive to them. They are also not exclusive to player controlled modules or aircraft/helicopters. Ground units have the same issues. The issue also occurs with many off the addon modules not developed by ED themselves so perhaps a word from ED to the other developers to have a streamlined and standardized texture creation procedure could be considered? From what I can tell from some of the videos I have seen regarding the latest issues with stuttering many of us seem to be suffering from, it appears that DCS is trying to use as many cores as it can get to constantly load/unload textures between SSD->VRAM->RAM->page file leading to massive bottlenecks on the SSD side as the threads end up waiting on the SSD and thus each other. Perhaps one way to combat this issue would be to have the normal map, roughmet, and FLIR textures reduced in size which would, without sacrificing image quality; 1. Alleviate some of the bandwidth requirements between all these different components. 2. Reduce overall VRAM and RAM usage. 3. Reduce texture loading times. 4. Reduce the size of the sim itself (which stands at 861GB for me personally as I own nearly all modules and terrains). I totally understand the dev team is busy but if a modder can make these changes in a matter of a week or two it should be possible for the dev team to put someone on the task of hunting down these insane textures and make them a much more reasonable size. I implore you @BIGNEWY and @NineLine to please pass this message on to the responsible people and take another hard look at these texture files since this was first reported already over a year ago. As someone who has been using DCS since the days of LOMAC, please pass this on and take it seriously because I feel this could make the sim so much more enjoyable for many. Kind regards, Vincent van Veen

We have 45 naval assets in the game as of September 25, 2024. Most of the newer ones look very good (i.e. Chinese and South Atlantic assets, all carriers). Unfortunately, most of the civilian and Russian models look extremely outdated. Any chance of a model/texture update for the following ships? Battlecruiser 1144.2 Boat Zvedny Bulker Yakushev Cargo Ivanov Corvette 1124.4 Corvette 1241.1 Cruiser 1164 Frigate 1135M Frigate 11540 They do not have to be 8k and every bolt is modeled, just bring them into this decade. Also, is it possible to remove the old Kuznetsov? Finally, I would like to plead for a few more ships. For naval warfare, this area is extremely lacking. There have been some great additions in recent years, and I look forward to more. Maybe some more American ships from the Cold War era (battleships anyone???)?

With the release of Afghanistan map, the Kiowa, the upcoming chinook and the previously released Apache infantry are becoming MUCH more relevant in DCS. There are countless threads on ground AI and behaviour but thats not what this is about We need more red and neutral infantry and emplacements, instead of just a stuck kneeling RPG soldier and a handful of units with AK-74s Specifically: Civilians: we need civilian assets (there are mods for vehicles but not infantry) as a common challenge in afghanistan thats relevant to these new modules is VID, and discerning enemy fighter from civilian bystander. Being able to have people on rooftops and in fields that the player cant just assume are enemy combatants would add a lot of depth to the game. I would suggest just a few models, male and female that would feel in place for a few of our maps. Enemies: a bit more variety here would be good, give us a mortar team that can pick up and move, a guy with a shovel (think planting IED), and a few variants of the generic rifleman ideally Emplacements: trenches, mounted machine guns, bunkers, etc basically statics that shoot, we need more of them, we need to be able to have a machine-gun or atgm position that is small, somewhat disguised, and able to engage targets, and most importantly isnt an infantry unit that will run in circles the moment the target returns fire Any amount of all of these will be a big help, not asking for new behaviours or AI in this, just a few more models basically.

Currently objects in the LUA scripting environment have a getDesc() method that returns various information about the object in question. In the case of Units I would like to propose an additional attributes, specifically the units maximum engagement and sensor ranges (the numbers that inform the red/yellow circles on the F10 map/in the editor basically), enagement range information is somewhat available for missiles through getAmmo() but the same info is not present for ballistic weapons, and in the case of detection range getSensors() works for specific sensors but returns nil for any units that dont have any sensors beyond the mk1 eyeball. This would allow much more dynamic and interesting behaviour from scripts without having to independently maintain this information or load it as part of the scripts in question