All Activity

Sorry for false information. Try NVPI.

DCS Radar: Huge DCS World Update: MiG-29A Early Access Launch, Map Overhaul & Possible Walkaround Mode?

Thanks buddy! Its quite a challenge to get my head around this Russian stuff, feels good to have such awesome community in DCS! Thanks @Wags for the reply, really looking forward to your tutorial video! Keep up the great work

I ll join ya mate!

Game crash or black screen? I had serious black screen problems, but deleting the Mission Editor folder in Saved Games and running a repair fixed that. It might be worth a try.

Strangely, this option is no longer available in the latest version from September 10th.

Same problem for me too. Running the Pimax Crystal Super. Game crashes just before I try to click the fly button.

Yes I just tested the new options and the mirrors do indeed work properly now. As in, fluid movement and fairly high resolution but they still cost me 20% of my framerate and the sequential option does nothing (on my system) to improve their performance.

Even the Ai Intruder mate

The "4th generation" nomenclature is more of a Western PR move anyway, but if you follow that logic you could make an argument about 9-12A being more of a 3.5gen fighter. Think of it as a stepping stone, an F-4 on steroids basically more in line with an F-14 (or early F-15A) than F-15C/16/18. This and a FFD Su-27 are probably my most anticipated modules (fixed wing anyway) of all time, and I am elated we have one in DCS atm.

Hello, this has already been requested and discussed in other threads. This post exists as a wishlist item for you to upvote in the hope to sway ED's decision makers to make the remaster the upgrade we deserve. Here we go then: Add cockpit integration for the DCS NS 430 GPS The NS 430 is a perfect fit for the F-5 with its extremely limited IFR navigation capabilities With GPS jamming being WIP, GPS navigation will become a deeper and more interesting feature (for all aircraft) Thanks!

Ich habe es herausgefunden. Das entsprechende Kontrollkästchen fehlte in den Ansichtsoptionen des Explorers. Ich habe es eine Weile nicht benutzt. Oh, you were faster. That's exactly it.

I'm waiting for your video so I can learn how to properly use regular and cluster bombs. Thank you very much!

I'll ask the team, thanks.

This generally is caused by using Notepad (which is a terrible editor and can corrupt files so use Notepad++ instead). So either, use a different editor, or rename the file manually afterwards in Windows. This can cause the same problem for other files as well, e.g. people not understanding why a .lua file isn't taking effect, which they don't realise is actually being named .lua.txt EDIT: you should change your Windows settings to always display file extensions so these things don't get hidden in the future.

I feel like Krymsk confuses the system because both runway ends use the same PRMG channel. Return mode works as expected until the handoff to Landing mode. Happens regularly to me when testing RWY 22. Meanwhile on the same flight I can quickly hop East to Krasnodar-Center and have it all work perfectly on RWY 09.

I downloaded my Mig-29A module and was able to play it for half a day, then I turned DCS off, and then when I restarted DCS and tried to load any mission that has the MiG-29A module in it, it would then take forever to load and then crash every time. This only happens in VR and only with the MiG-29A module for some reason. Everything else works fine. I have attached my crash logs in hopes that someone can help dcs.log dcs.log.old dcs.20250919-184054.crash

This exactly! What I wouldn’t give for a visor in the Mi-8!!!!!!!! The automatic exposure compensation of the pilot’s virtual eyes never adjusts to the outside lighting level in the Hip. Probably because the pilot sits so far from windows compared to a fighter cockpit. A visor would take care of that problem quickly!

They have said “advanced” IFF will come in the future

Yeah, was starting in maykob

Try landing in Krymsk aerodrome and see if it works.

Thank you, that's very kind of you. I'll try it out tomorrow. Exactly, my editor renamed the file to autoexec.cfg.txt, even though I used the .cfg extension. How can I work around this?

i know that but i was the target aircraft so i know the jammer was not active not a factor in this scenario

Right now, everyone measures performance in completely different ways — with different missions, modules, and settings — which makes it nearly impossible to compare results or provide meaningful feedback. With an integrated benchmarking system, we could all test under the exact same conditions. Why this matters for players We could finally find the optimal hardware and graphics settings for our rigs without guesswork. We’d have a reliable way to compare upgrades (e.g., “Will a 9950X3D really outperform my 9800X3D in a heavy mission?”). Squadrons could make sure everyone has a smooth experience before big multiplayer events. Why this matters for ED Consistent performance data across thousands of users would make diagnosing and prioritizing performance issues much easier. It would help separate true “bugs” from cases where users just have mismatched settings. It could even serve as a tool for measuring improvements with each patch and verifying optimization progress. Example Benchmark Scenarios GPU Test: Empty map, no units — great for isolating GPU performance. Mixed Scenario: Moderate number of ground units and some AI aircraft — balanced test. Full Stress Test: Large-scale battle with lots of AI, explosions, and scripting — perfect for CPU benchmarking and mission-load testing. Having this tool would give ED a goldmine of telemetry data and would give us players confidence that we are making the most of our hardware. It could even be automated to submit anonymized results, helping ED continuously improve performance. I think this would be a win for everyone — players get clarity, ED gets better data, and DCS gets even closer to being the ultimate combat flight sim. Thanks

The MACH Indication on the ASI should be congruent with the ASI needle and the value shown should be the same as on the TAS indicator. It isnt. The Mach window is in a completely unrelated place and there is no indication of the current Mach number. This is a bug. @NineLine 0:38 ff (though grainy) shows correct behaviour, with the Mach window around the ASI needle. There's several other instances in the video showing correct ASI behaviour.