All Activity

Try this, backup your entire Saved Games folder somewhere - and then remove it. Allow DCS to rebuild it from scratch. Launch DCS and confirm you still have the same issue. This was a huge update; took me over 300GB to update. Yes, after update I got MiG-29A Fulcrum new module installed. No issues with F/A-18C like yours spotted so far. (Edit: Tested for you both Nevada and Caucasus too)

Indeed, and that is only a problem from a UX perspective (the player FF Fulcrum now is the only unit that does not follow the route in sequential order, the semantics of waypoints in a route have changed for FF Fulcrums of skill Player or Client). The semantics for a 'correct' (as I understand it) flight set up for a FF Fulcrum group's route is RoutePoint 1 --> AeroDromepoint 1, RP 2 --> AD 2, RP 3 --> AD3 (i.e. the first three route points as assigned in Mission Editor go to AD points 1-3). The FOURTH route point (as assigned in ME) is the first 'mission waypoint', i.e. the route point that you are heading for in an engagement: RP 4 -> MWP 1, RP 5 -> MWP2, RP 6 -> MWP3 (I'm using non-standard terms 'route point' RP, 'aerodrome point' AD, 'mission waypoint' MWP for clarity only) HOWEVER: In Wag's Video, the first AD (airodromepoint) [02:00 in the video: "The first three points that I'm going to lay down are going to be the aerodromes corresponding to the switch in the AD position"] is Shindand then Farah (first divert) and the last AD is Qala. At 02:39 Wags then proceeds to add three more route points: "Next will be the three waypoints which correspond to the switch being in the WP position", and then proceeds to place three points enroute from Herat to Shindant, which all happen to be collinear with a route directly from Herat to Shindant. The last bit is important to recall in your analysis. Imagine that there was a mountain range or known SAM location between Herat and Shindant that we want to avoid so we move route points 4 to 6 to the West. The waypoints 1-3 (route points 4 to 6) are no longer in line with the straight route from Herat to Shindant. Add an AI wingman, fly the route and see what happens: Your wingman will fly directly from Herat to Shindant - because it takes Route Point 1 (= AP 1 Shindant) as its first destination. It will fly directly into the SAM site. AI wingmen DO NOT follow the "first three route points are aerodromes" semantic of the route, they simply fly from from route points 1-6: Herat (spawn)-Shindant-Farah-Qata-routepoint 4-routepoint 5-routepoint 6, and then land at the closest faction-owned airfield. This is VERY different from what you want it to do: Fly from Herat to Shindant while avoiding the SAM site and following the player. So the only reason why it looks as if AI is doing what you want is because route points 4 - 6 are (by coincidence) in line with the route from Herat to Shindant. You should have known that something was amiss when you tested the scenario and found that instead of landing at Shindant, your wingman would go on to Farah. If you arrange your tests against your expectations, you will quickly see that your desired scenario falls apart, that AI wingmen do not follow a player FF Fulcrum's route point semantic. Below please find a demo mission with a Roland SAM site that kills the AI Fulcrum because it does not follow the player's route. fulcrum me tests2.miz

and this one is of high quality and set at kola: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3345732/

Maybe this one? https://shop.echo19audio.com/en-eur/pages/dcs-addons

yeah, I removed them all from the mods directory manually. Oddly, the Hornet is behaving normally in Sinai, it's just goofed in certain maps. Anyway, it is repairing for good measure and then I'll test. Added: Yea, no mods now, ran repair, but still same problem. Did you get the Mig-29 today by any chance? That's the only other thing that has changed.

Hi, if you have public evidence that the sms format should switch please DM me. thank you

Press and hold the Uncage switch

same ctd

Камрады, подскажите, пожалуйста, почему в 3D Max сетка прозрачная, а в DCS прозрачность пропадает? Что я неправильно делаю?3D Max.bmpMap-157.bmpDCS.bmpMaterial.bmp

Want to point out as well that the altitud warner and the fuel range are yet displayed in feet and NM respectively no matter if you chose imperial or metric. Thing to fix.

Yes it’s messed up. I made a separate thread about the opposite problem to this one here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/378967-english-cockpit-with-metric-units/

The monocular is terrible. Even worse than the Apache’s IHADSS — you see it as if it were just a handspan away from your face, with perfect resolution and focus (I wish I could see that clearly up close). It feels more like having a metal disc the size of a CD stuck away from your helmet than an actual monocular fitted to the eye. The Ka-50’s one looks infinitely better (and it’s basically the same thing). It’s missing configuration options: you can disable it, but then you just get the yellow circle floating in empty space. And if you remove it, you also lose the top part of the helmet that adds immersion (the two tracking pivots). I think an additional option is needed to blur it — maybe in LUA you can tweak the position or transparency so it looks more realistic. Something will surely come out, but now keeping the monocular visible in VR is terrible and distracting (the opposite of the intended use)

I have checked for you what you are reporting and all is good here. No mods, clean update. I am sure Repair will sort this out. After that, install only one mod at a time and test thoughtfully. Mods which are sitting in Saved Games can also conflict with overall structure of units, controls, functionality of different modules, and therefore are not supported. Edit: Sorry! Repair will not remove mods from Saved Games subfolders, you got to clean that yourself.

I can confirm that the map affects directly to the radar performance, specially the ability of locking in RAD mode. Or at least I am having so much that impression. It is true that Caucasus is the one that makes it perform best.

Hi all, The new Fulcrum is awesome and (almost) everything I hoped it would be! Shame I didn't get to spend much time with it today, as I am leaving on holiday! Thank you for the ED team in getting this one out the door! The gun. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a deal breaker but I was suprised ED didn't touch it. Now, flame-suit on, remember this is a wish list, no need to release the hounds..... I was disappointed to find it was more or less the same anemic garden hose pea shooter from FC. I wish a bit more had gone into updating the in-cockpit sound and visual effects . Watching test fires and live fires, that thing is violent, blustery, has a huge muzzle flash and is generally unpleasant. The team did a great job with it on the Hind, it actually "feels" angry. I seems on the 29 it was a little forgotten about...

Hi Max I tried your solution, but it doesn't work. I still don't have this command line. It works with the mouse, i do like that for now. Thank you Christian I will be able to try a repair

this has been reported thank you

Found this post trying to report the same issue, I agree with average_pilot, it seems like the visor is rendered with light and reflections coming from sides and behind, where helmet and your head is, and light should not come from that directions. I mean, like if it is rendered as a floating object not taking into account your head and helmet. It is inmmersive and usable, but in fact it does less good than bad about vision quality

Cool effect yes, that has no basis in reality. That’s not how real visors behave.

Yeah I feel the same, I have it now set to metric, the US jets are still in feet as far as I know but not sure about the other FC3s. Should be connected to native settings in the gameplay tab. Also my english Cockpit now shows NM instead of KM but the rest is Meters and KMH....come on ED

Fair enough but in the past six years I've never once had to do that before. The mods are in the Saved Games directory. Anyway, will try. The Hornet is not even showing up as human-flyable.

Hi @MAESTR0 I would really like to suggest the inclusion of Wittmund Air Base (Fliegerhorst Wittmundhafen) in the Cold War Germany map for DCS. This air base is highly relevant for several reasons: Cold War significance: Wittmund was one of the key NATO QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) bases in Northern Germany, directly facing the Warsaw Pact airspace. Home of the F-4F Phantom II: For decades, it was the main operating base of the German Air Force’s Phantoms, which makes it extremely important for any Cold War scenario. Modern continuity: Even after the Cold War, it remained strategically important and later became the home of the Eurofighter Typhoon, underlining its lasting relevance. Mission building potential: Adding Wittmund would provide excellent opportunities for realistic QRA missions, intercept scenarios, and a better overall coverage of northern Germany. Given its history, location, and operational role, Wittmund would add a lot of immersion and authenticity to the Cold War Germany map. I strongly believe that including Wittmund would make the map more complete and allow mission builders to recreate both historical and fictional scenarios with greater accuracy. Thanks for considering this suggestion!

Ok I found the issue, it’s a collision between where the mission designer places their knee board (ala 1.png) and where Viacom places its kneeboards… not your fault at all, not Viacom’s either just a collision in an undefined name space.

It is cool BUT it seems it renders lights and reflections like if you have no head, with light coming from sides and back causing really weird effects that should not happen with a visor attached to your fade.

Hi, with the latest DCS update and the changes made to the Caucasus theater, I'm wondering if the changes made by Balthek are still valid. Best regards and thanks.