All Activity

Hi, that one does not really fall under fighters hunting down helos using A2A radar modes/missiles. Any specific RL example that we know of?

I tested this on my short SP test mission. First time I got CTD as soon as George WASed RF Hellfires, but any subsequent test worked fine.

Hi, I have one blue tooth headphone set works fine. One set of speakers plugged into the line out socket on computer ( This is when a visitor wants to see the system working and experience the sound as well as visuals). I have both outputs working in Windows 11 with any U tube or sound input via Windows 11 BUT it won't work when I connect DCS F18. I just get my headphones ONLY and I have not chnaged a thing except fire up DCS What do I need to set in `DCS to get this to work please

Some good documentation on the RDY and RDM radars recently emerged from the Swiss national archives.

see 2nd post. There might also be a left to right difference which you can update from the Windows Application.

Yes its really good. Never have any issue with it.

what about the tel nof airbase project? because i am waiting for it like 1 and a half years

Did someone already find a solution for the fog-like view in night missions? I am using a Pimax Crystal (original) and have this issue, which ruins the overall experience and makes some night missions impossible to complete.

M3 made two: US F4U-1D and British MkIV (clipped wings). They are separate aircraft in the mission editor. Victoria Cross was awarded to a Canadian pilot flying a MkIV off of the HMS Formidable, who was killed while bombing a Japanese vessel in 1945. As part of these strikes HMS Victorious was also involved. I occasionally see references to "500lb" and "1000lb" bomb in squadron diaries but no official designations. We can infer that they probably did use US ordnance but we can't infer that they did not use British ordnance as well. Particularly considering photographic evidence of other BPF carrier aircraft loaded with British GP bombs and rockets rather than US bombs and HVAR. 1. We have a British MkIV represented, in British Pacific Fleet colors, specifically the same squadron(s) involved in the above mentioned strike mission in 1945. 2. MkIV, launched from British carriers, used bombs in the Pacific in 1945. Ergo "Navy-specific" and "aircraft carrier doctrine" are irrelevant.

The sale is over for now. It was insane sale (for like almost a whole month)....I suggest wait for the next sale.

Hi Thank you, d'ont bother yourself I copied the icons from the file DCSWorld Openbeta/Mods/aircraft .... Skins it’s the same ones. the files 'entry' and 'manifest' are just missing. The icons are well presented in Simapppro now Christian

Still the same in single player, this is what I get after running autostart (Lwin + home) Ive used this feature for years as I only fly M2000C for fun and don't know how to manually strt or use radar or weapons. Only this month it does this...

Indeed I did a mission on the Caucasus map before. Stop and restart DCS, mission on Persian gulf and the ATC is back to normal. Have a good day. Christian

thanks everyone. indeed, the laser code was -1

I think it's just in multiplayer - possibly something enforced by certain servers, will check this and come back

I agree. Kaira + 4 X-25ML/KAB-500L is an excellent means for delivering high-precision strikes.

By this stage of the war,, all Aamerican aircraft could carry British bombs and vice versa. It would just be a case of adding them to the list, I guess..

Hi, currently we are waiting for the new infantry to be implemented in public builds, then we will have to see what is possible. thank you

Hi all, we do have a report open internally and we are looking into it. thank you

Few more words about new motor...of course dual impulse concept is just thought what could be inside. However sometimes the most simpliest is the most realistic and just simple single thrust motor should not be excluded, motor in form of regular R-77 motor, only on steroids Why I didn't exclude this...calculated first impulse that I got simply is not powerfull enough to push rocket in lofting. Not enough kilograms of force to lift rocket without significant loss of velocity. It's nice to have second impulse but pointless if first one didn't make good start. This is however someting else, this is very powerfull and potent motor. Still not very good solution for levelled flight (same 10km altitude and 500m/s starting velocity) -> but...this motor can easily lift starting 200kg in very nice lofting without lossing too much in velocity Dual thrust concept beside these two remains, but I really don't see such a long 200mm caliber motor in dual thrust concept and I'm not going to consider it

Hello! Can we please make the infantry troops visable in the cargo hold? This is a transport helicopter it is very immersion breaking not be able to see the infantry, can't you import static infantry models in the cargo hold, can't be that hard to develop?

Hi, ive just tried to reproduce but all seems ok for me, there was a slight pause while shaders loaded but then working as normal. I will ask the team and see what they say

It's you who don't get it. I'm talking about a situation where the software doesn't need to be changed at all. If all a given piece of software does is read a few values off a scientific instrument and write them into a text file, you don't give a damn if it runs on Windows 11 or on MS DOS. That's the point I'm making. The tech industry is obsessed with changes because changes make it money. If a piece of software is doing its job and doing it perfectly well, it simply doesn't need to be "maintained". It doesn't wear out, it doesn't need oil changes, it doesn't need charging. As long as the hardware itself holds up and the task itself doesn't change or exceed the program's abilities (that's when you update stuff), it makes the sense to simply keep using the solution that works and had always worked. Yes, sometimes it means it has some annoyances in how it's used, but well designed programs already existed in DOS era. In fact, the old clanker might be actually easier to use than a dolled-up modern version when they let an art student loose on the UI, as is often the case. I don't care for your "lots of innovation" under the hood when the only result for me is five more clicks to run the exact same measurement I used to run with one. I especially don't care to pay for shiny new features I'm never, ever going to use, or support for addon kit that I don't have and won't need. Aka, the good old perfect solution fallacy. That you can't engineer out humans completely, so it's not worth securing everything else. In fact, there are ways to harden the system against social engineering by limiting the damage any single person can do, and limiting the damage that can be done remotely. Also, it's quite possible to guard against some exploits by ensuring nobody can perform certain actions that have no legitimate use in a given context. Certain classes of attack, like ransomware, are only possible because the systems are not inherently secure. I believe the main reason mathematically proven security is so rare and expensive is that the techbro way of "move fast and break things" is the normal way the programmers and execs think, and while it certainly gets results faster, it leads to programs that resemble a colander of roaches. If software engineers thought like railway engineers, we'd have a lot lower version numbers, quite a bit fewer features, and a damn sight more reliability. If we had more tools and resources for coding like that, as well as well defined environments that'd make it easier, we wouldn't be fighting a losing battle against cybercriminals. In fact, I believe that we'd see "hacking" gone as a distinct category from plain old espionage (which is all about social engineering). At the same time, I'm actually finding that some modern games are increasingly missing things that used to be taken for granted. Edge scrolling in RTSes is an example, some devs are increasingly seeing it as old fashioned, though thankfully it's usually still an option. Progress is not a one way street like you seem to think. Faster pacing, simpler UI (often to accommodate gamepads) and overall reduced difficulty of modern games can be a good reason to dust the oldies off once in a while. Dune II is pretty much the first RTS ever, BTW. You don't need a fan remake, Dune 2000 and even the first C&C pretty much fixed the worst problems that it had. It's not software rot or even anything modern, Dune II was just clunky compared to games that came pretty much immediately after. Sure, new games have useful QOL features, but that doesn't make early C&C much less enjoyable. Hardly a case of "software rot", unless you really don't have the patience to take the slower pace of older games. And in some cases, like unit selection limits in Starcraft 1, the seemingly clunky mechanic made the game more interesting in some ways (believe it or not, some veterans were pretty ambivalent about this not having carried over to 2).

was thankfull for the fix, still this shelter has some problems, the fire seems to be caused by an overall too big or wrong collision shell, i tryed stuff with the scenery remove object tool and something is very wrong. Other then that, the shelter is still a bit too big in size, should be a bit smaler, (lenght and width) not a big issue but hope it get fixed too. Keep in mind this Shelters were only used to house: Tornado GR1/GR4, Harriers and Jaguars, not sure about the F4 Phantom..

Could someone from ED please weigh in on this?