All Activity

Кабана забираю , написал в личку

I don't know what it is and what to do with it, but Redfor's planes are 20 years behind modern NATO planes and it's not fun to play such campaigns. Even before you bring up servers from the 80s, I wouldn't call it the 80s if an FA-18C or F-16CM flies older missiles with avionics from the 2000s! And we play real scenarios with airplanes from the 80s against modern airplanes that were made after 2000! This is exactly why I am writing ideas on how to bring a more modern Flanker or Fulcrum into the DCS world, which seems to be in demand!

Mate, the FC3 Mig-29 is actually the "improved" version of the LOMAC one. DCS World, and its philosophy, hadn't even been imagined 21 years ago. Same apply to all other FC3 modules.

Αναζητούνται μεταχειρισμένα ανταλλακτικά, στροφεία, πέδιλα, υαλοπίνακες αλλά και άλλα για ελικόπτερο Heuy λόγω παύσης λειτουργίας του εργοστασίου παραγωγής νέων. Σε γενικές γραμμές πάντως πήγαμε πολύ καλά κατά την περιπολία μας στο Tsikhnvali, μέχρι και φορτία αιωρήσαμε με ελάχιστη ταλάντευση! Δείτε σχετικά: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2130177062

I like flying different aircraft of all eras. It will take me a long time to get bored. I wonder if real world pilots get bored of flying an F-16. Or a spitfire. DCS has not reached it's potential yet with regards cold war and WW2. There is a lot of interesting stuff coming along.

Regarding the fact that an FC-level aircraft has been developed with its documentation, I would recommend this comment in another topic. Link:

As I said: I am not an expert, nor a Pilot or RIO. I just can take the things as they are. I can't even tell if these stories are realistic in any way. The only thing I could Imagine is that they would shoot the Phoenix at 20 NM with ACM Cover up. The case when he stated they would make shure no friendly is in line of sight because the Phoenix would bite off something - no matter what. It also could make sense because of the 30 Seconds long burning Motor... As I said: I can't judge the stories, but it didn't sound unrealistic if I correlate it with other stories. I can't say how good or bad the AWG9 really was. It sure was dated as the D-Tomcats got the APG71 so I really think this was a huge improvement. But all of that doesn't matter much to us. Even if we knew how the things should work in real life. We won't get it. Think about it. If there is a buyable Software that simulates all the behaviour of weapons and weapon systems like radars correctly, bad boys could use it to train how to evade missiles, where the weak spots of Fighter Systems are and so on. We don't want that for sure. If you want something "realistic" learn to use what you have. Try and adept. And then again the idea of this game is not to be a competitive game. So buffs and nerfs don't make any sense. There are better and not so good simulated behaviours. But the good thing is: no lifes are in danger, nothing depends on how realistic it is. You can play it pretty hard with modules like the Tomcat or you can get away with things like too hard landings and even overstressing the simulated airframe. It only matters for you (which is a good thing).

https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation https://github.com/dcs-retribution/dcs-retribution There's no need to thank me, mate.

Naja, der PC selbst ist potent genug - CPU ist gut, RAM ist gut und vor allem ausreichend, die interne SSD ist auch fein, obwohl du relativ schnell an die Speichergrenzen stoßen dürftest. Aber man kann ja jederzeit noch eine zweite SSD einbauen, das ist wirklich kein Hexenwerk. Das Problem ist die Grafikkarte, die ist zu langsam. Du kannst mit einer 2080 TI zwar eine Menge VR-Anwendungen recht gut nutzen, aber für DCS in Kombination mit einem VR-Headset mit sehr hoher Auflösung halte ich die Karte für zu schwach - selbst für ein Headset mit deutlich weniger Auflösung. Für DCS solltest du dich nach einer Karte ab RTX 3080 Ti umschauen. Fast optimal wäre das dicke Flaggschiff, die 4090 - aber selbst die schafft DCS mit allem drum und dran noch nicht vernünftig, auch wenn das immer wieder von stolzen Besitzern behauptet wird. VR steht und fällt leider mit der Grafikkarte, deswegen müsstest du da nochmal ein paar Eurocken auf den Kopp hauen. Und ganz wichtig: Ich kann deiner Aufstellung nicht entnehmen, welches Netzteil verbaut wurde. Aber bei Komplettsystemen wird das Netzteil meist nicht großzügig bemessen. Du solltest ein Netzteil nehmen, das 1000 Watt liefern kann. Nicht erschrecken, das System wird weit weniger verbrauchen, du wirst nicht vom Strompreis-Pleitegeier gefressen. Aber du brauchst bei dicken Grafikkarten auch gute Netzteilreserven. Die 1000 Watt wird jetzt so mancher als Overkill betrachten, weil man theoretisch mit deutlich weniger auskommt. Aber da würde ich keine Risiken eingehen - die führen schnell zu einem hübschen kleinen Knall und magischem Rauch mit Bratelektronik-Duftnote. Ich verwende seit mehreren Jahren Be-Quiet!-Netzteile in unterschiedlichen Rechnern - bisher ist mir nie eins kaputtgegangen; das kannst du also als sanfte Empfehlung betrachten. Ja, das sind jetzt eher schlechte Nachrichten ... Aber wenn du dir jetzt eine Crystal kaufst, wirst du damit nicht allzu viel anfangen können, das Geld wäre umsonst ausgegeben, weil die Grafikkarte nicht hinterher kommt. Was möchtest du genau in VR machen? Wenn man das weiß, ist es leichter, ein Headset zu empfehlen.

Same voiceover problem seems to be in mission 3. Propably in every mission Chatter between Jester and player are "sound to all" so they work. All radio communication is radio transmissions transmitted from a designated zone. It has worked well but it seems that something has been changed so that it works only if player is inside that zone. If it's so it will be easy to fix but will take some time to get patch to ED to be published. This still doesn't explain the tanker problem.

I've discussed this extensively with my community, and several people have pointed out that there's simply nothing more to do once you've mastered a particular aircraft. There's no dynamic campaign, no goals to strive for. If you don't have a squadron to fly missions with, the game quickly becomes monotonous after mastering the flight and procedures. This is especially true if you're playing solo, making it even more tedious. Consider this, if you've been solely engaged in air combat for 10 years, there's little novelty left to captivate a veteran who has achieved all their goals. After 2-3 years it won't be boring if someone is a beginner pilot, but after a longer time it will be boring! That's why I've attempted to formulate goals that can provide ongoing motivation and incentivize players to log in and play, particularly those who might otherwise go days or weeks without touching the game due to boredom. Providing players with goals to strive for will create more challenges and engagement within the game. I've observed this pattern with several YouTubers as well. They develop a fondness for a specific plane, but after a few years, they find themselves in a position where they've reached a plateau and have nothing new to showcase. Consequently, they become inactive because there's no further goal to pursue.

Bro... what?

It not about "rejecting everything", its about "rejecting things that would distort the spirit of the game". As per ED statemet, DCS is about realism, which means every module (FC included) are developend using real plane official documentation and specs: I don't think that creating a FC level module of (say) the F-22 using wikipedia data fits this definition. Personally I would prefer the same business model used with A-10C-II and BS, with new versions of an old module (revised, corrected and improved) published some years after the release of the previous one.

@BIGNEWY I think the expansion of FC is a positive move. Are there any plans for further expansion or to develop other FC type modules?

Does anyone know that ENGINE section in SimappPro is for? I have two WW MFDs configured, one for Left DDI and one for RIght DDI. They work correctly. I was trying to see what ENGINE displays so I designated one of the two displays to ENGINE, but it still displays the MFD. null

yes, you can lase for other aircraft. Laser code of the lasing aircraft needs to be the same as bomb code on the aircraft that is dropping bombs. You can also send points to another F-16.

Примерно так это и будет выглядеть. Желтый "куб" для примерки, в итоге будет собираться конструкция из рамок напечатанных на принтере. Остается придумать как лучше сделать загрузку ну и дальше пилить ручки.

Да никто ее против. Если они не будут в одном небе встречаться. Ну по крайней мере так бы я сказал лет 5 назад. Сейчас уже не столь категоричен. Но я помню, как многие лелеяли надежду в то что со временем все упрощеные модули отвалятся и останется только хардкор. Иной такой принцип был оправдан, когда все модули делала конкретная группа разработчиков. Ну или тех чьи модели вызывают доверие. Теперь все это уже не важно. Теперь модели разные. А если не выходишь в онлайн - то значения нет и подавно.

Reservation numbers were only passed out to the first 100 who submitted requests on 5th October 2023.

I have already said part of this in the newsletter, but I wanted to add and expand on it here. The announcement of the FC2024 upgrade was both welcome and also something I felt was a little underwhelming. Of course I understand people like myself (those who have been involved with DCS and Full Fidelity modules since 2015 or earlier) are not the target audience of these new 'additions' to the FC family, I felt that adding FC-level modules of aircraft that are already FF modules was a bit backwards in going forward. I provided what I thought was a good compromise - very similar variants to the FF modules, but different enough in their own ways to still provide owners of the FC modules to 'progress' to the FF module, if they so chose. These same variants would also be just different enough that those who already have FC3, or the FF modules, incentive to purchase these FC modules also - making the investment much more profitable. I understand it's not as simple as tweaking a couple values in a spreadsheet and viola! new plane, but by providing players with somewhat less capable versions of aircraft that are already Full Fidelity modules it does not diminish either the already-FF modules, nor does it ignore or exclude the FC modules. By being similar (both aerodynamically, externally and internally) they could share flight models (though in some cases with less efficiency due to differing engines/control surfaces etc) - reducing the level of work required, while maximising the appeal, and these can be gradually refined as time permits to be more reflective of the real aircraft - as every other FC aircraft has done at some point. F-86F - F-86A Sabre The major offensive difference being that, unlike the F-86F, the F-86A can't carry missiles - which is perfect considering the MiG-15 is a 'guns only' fighter also. Having a 'less capable' variant of essentially the same place provides ease of learning (the intent of FC) with the logical progression to the 'more advanced' FF F-86F module that adds the complexity of early IR missiles. MiG-15bis - MiG-15PB While eventually the 'PB' was dropped when the modifications (plumbing for drop tanks on the wings) became standard, the MiG-15PB was powered by the slightly less performant RD-45, providing incentive to 'upgrade' to the FF MiG-15bis module for better performance characteristics. F-5E - F-5A Freedom Fighter - no radar or RWR (similar to the F-86 and MiG-15 in that respect), the addition of 'tip tanks', optional IFR probe. A good mix of 'something the others don't have' but also lacking some things the F-5E has, and with no ability to really operate in night-time conditions - so there's incentive to upgrade. Plus, if someone just wants to do aerobatics or practice formations and/or mimic Patrolle Suisse without the 'clicky pit hassle' - this could be that outlet. Additionally, with the optional IFR probe, one can practice probe-and-drogue IFR on a Western-style aircraft with simplified systems instead of the Su-33 (which also serves as the FC carrier operations option. I can see future FC-level aircraft as being a way to 'get around' the loss of, or inability to obtain, documentation for older aircraft that would be welcome in DCS but either do not yet have models representative in DCS, or have models in DCS but are not flyable. As well, by focusing on 'older' aircraft, this 'simplifies' the cockpit in that it does not require MFD pushbutton submenus thus requiring less buttons. For example, F-16A - Visually similar, though faster and more nimble on account of being lighter - restricted (depending on Block) to IR-only AAMs. The F-16A would be a highly attractive FC-level module to encourage customers (new and old) to purchase. The F-16A was in use with many countries in DCS, and in the regions depicted in the DCS terrains current and future. The F-16A would provide high capability ease-of-learning and would naturally push those who chose this as their first 'FC' module to progress to the more complex, more capable F-16C FF module. It could also, depending on whether or not documentation could be sourced, provide a solid foundation for an eventual FF-level F-16A module. Mirage III - Similar to the Mirage 2000C, and the Mirage F1, the Mirage III would also be a great addition to DCS as an FC-level module. Its standout quality, compared to the F-16A above, is that it would be able to utilise the radar-guided Matra R530. It would be limited in terms of ordnance carried but would otherwise be useful in various conflicts that are able to be simulated in DCS as well as being used by a number of countries included in DCS. F-7MG - A Chinese license-built variation of the MiG-21, the majority of the J-7/F-7 family were daytime interceptors that utilised only IR-guided AAMs. They differed externally from MiG-21s by having a 'double delta' wing. The F-7MG (export production J-7E) differs from the E in that it had a doppler radar (so it could work at night/in all-weather, at least on paper - still IR AAMs only), HUD and HOTAS. This variant can also carry a wide variation of IR AAMs - including Chinese PL-5/PL-8 missiles, French Magic IIs and US AIM-9s. It did, however, only have a single gun and that gun only had 60 or so rounds. Standard loadout was 2x IR AAMs and 2x drop tanks (outboard) as well as, optionally, a centre-line drop tank. In DCS the F-7MG is 'primitive' enough to not require multiple complex MFDs (making it an ideal candidate for an FC-level module) and different enough from the MiG-21bis to stand on its own. Users could progress from the F-7MG to the MiG-21bis FF module, or to aircraft such as the JF-17. A FF-level module could also be developed from this if desired. Thanks for reading, and I hope to see other aircraft come to future DCS FC upgrades - just preferably ones that everyone might want to buy, not just 'simplified' versions of modules we already have aimed at newcomers. If it can be helped.

Hi Don't ask me why, but when setting intensity_max to 0 for the landing and taxi light, those "ghost" spots disappears. Maybe someone from ED can explain me why?

Hi zusammen, interessant, dass ihr noch beim Thema der Radklötze seid. @Ghostraider: Ich hatte es in diesem Thread schon mal geschrieben, es müssen die Wörter Place und Wheelchokes für sich alleine übersetzt werden, ich kann sie nicht im Kontext dazu sehen. Und im Spiel erscheint zuerst Place, dann Wheelchokes. Daher kann ich es nicht umdrehen in "Radklötze platzieren". @Landei: Ich werde das in "Platzier" ändern. Meiner Meinung nach klingt Platziere flüssiger, aber wenn du das recherchiert hast, dann sollte es geändert werden. Mir ist es vollkommen klar, dass es schwer ist, mit den deutschen Übersetzungen (gerade auch bei der Steuerung) umzugehen, es gibt eben auch nicht für alle engl. Fachwörter deutsche Übersetzungen, daher rätseln wir intern öfter, wie wir das am besten machen. Die schnelle Umschaltung im Spiel zw. DE und EN wäre ne klasse Sache, ich werde das mal wieder ansprechen, aber wir Übersetzer können nur Vorschläge machen. Beim Apache hatte ich bei ein paar Steuerungsbegriffen hinter zwei // die englischen Begriffe dahinter gelassen. Ich weiß aber nicht, wie das bei euch ankommt, ob das so Sinn macht. Gebt mal Feedback dazu (insofern ihr das Modul habt). Aktuell hab ich die Quelldateien für die Übersetzung wieder in der Mache, daher kann ich zum nächsten Patch Änderungen machen. Wer ernsthaftes Interesse daran hat, uns bei der Übersetzung zu helfen, sich auch die Zeit dafür nehmen kann, kann sich gerne bei mir per PN melden.

I just gave it another shot, now with IL2 Great Battles. That shakymess is still is there, seems less in a darkened room. Looked on the site for news, nada, i'm gonna ask James for help once again.

Ну да, ты ж его не развалил, для тебя это достижение. Хотя может ты это выставил не в достижение, а в оправдание своей никчёмной посадки. Полетай уж побольше на чём-нибудь и покажи что-нибудь более умелое. Пока что твоё уменье слишком примитивное.

Unfortunately, you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough, so you completely misunderstood. It will be interesting, however, if the NATO equipment runs out of the repertoire, then what source of money will be there to guarantee success, because at some point it will run out. Sellable skins or FC products that cannot be implemented in full fidelity and can be included in DCS World do not in any way interfere with the operation of fully clickable products. Everyone decides for himself whether to allow only FC or fully clickable planes on his server! This rejection of everything that is new leads nowhere. This is an idea anyway, it doesn't have to be interpreted as arriving tomorrow!