All Activity

Thanks all, I appreciate it. The solution to my Corsair issue was in the DCS “FF Tune” settings where I was able to reverse the trim axis. The last update had the nose-up and nose-down trim effects backwards for me, and it was fixable in the DCS options. All good for now.

They are using totally different tools than what DCS users have with trackfiles. For them debugging having the correct inputs likely lets them see how they are interacting with the program. While I'm sure this is true to some degree, I think too many people who make or watch these videos assume that everyone watches them (they don't) and greatly overestimate their value to promoting DCS.

I had the same issue I think. I describe it more along the lines that the mirrors are rendering at a slower frame rate than the main image. I noticed it was happening across various modules. I resolved the issue by selecting the highest resolution option, and deselecting sequential mirror option, and selecting rendering for every frame. In my case, I cod click those options within game sitting in the cockpit, and the results were immediately noticeable.

I see. I do think those are cool details as well. The Tomcat is full of details like that, and it’s fun to sit in the cockpit in VR to take it all in. But for some reason, lack of those details doesn’t make me feel like it takes away from the hornet experience. Also, ironically, sometimes too much specific detail makes it look less realistic. In the sense that it might end up looking like a picture of a particular airframe parked in a particular museum. When something is picture perfect, it cam ironically seem “less crafted”. It’s fair to say that the tools you use to create cockpits are just tools, but what’s important is the final work and the feeling it gives a user. It is an art form regardless of the tools used. But everyone feels differently regarding what makes good cockpits (or good enough). As long as textures and other details are highly optimized to avoid unnecessary performance loss, it’s hard to be against the idea of improvements. As long as it doesn’t look worse lol.

also, anyone wondered how the pilot switched on the navigation operation switch, when it's under that glass cover?

Not a problem just the wrong location for what you want.

Could someone share how to make those skins and send it to the chat or who ever has custom made ones

Fight fire with foam I say, life too short for internet arguments. I did run what Juanjo posted through a translator and it sounded positive, the devs spoke recently on a podcast and said they are very much full steam ahead on the F1M and finalising cockpit improvements (sounds like the very dark cockpit that the CE launched with needs fixing too)

Can some please try to also check the bombing slant range? I just took a calculator and the slant range during bombing is always a minimum of 0.1 NM and sometimes more short. That equals more then 100 feet ground distance. I my bombs also always fall short, even though I do the same as mr. Wagner in his video. Here are 3 screenshot pairs. With simple math one can calculate the slant range = SquareRoot of Distance Squared + Height Squared. In one case the slant range was even less then the flat ground distance (1st screenshot pair). I tried with and without Laser On. Maybe I am missing something, I am not the youngest anymore. I also reported this as a bug on the Discord. Also the range scaling during bombing doesn´t work. It always is fixed on 2.5 nm range scale. During Rocketing the scale startes at 12.5 NM. Cheers

Добавлено: Дополнительная английская версия ИЛС/ИПВ (игровая, для удобства пользователей). Всё для народа.

Good catch. Judging from from F-16 startup videos on YouTube (like this one and this one), the hatch is actually supposed to be open on a cold start. As soon as the engine is spooled up (and presumably the hydraulics come online) the hatch can be seen closing. Right now in DCS, it doesn't. I am also able to repeat to get the hatch to close by selecting the gun (either dogfight mode or A-G gun strafe mode) and having master arm on.

If the aircraft was imported from the USSR it had labels in russian. If the aircraft was made in one of the allied countries it had cockpit in native language. Here you can see some aircraft from different WP countries, equipment made in the USSR is in russian, local- in local Still weird. If you are german why would you use english in a russian built plane? Or german-built for that matter. Those aren't military jets. And not built in Russia Eheh, sounds like american metric

Ability to practice BFM with non-lethal results, perhaps as an F10 option from wingman radio, lock-on and knock-off like real world training

Yep I got that.

I just did thanks for pointing me into this information tidbit

I was just in the middle of making a dickish reply to grim_reaper, but you have invoked the better angels of my nature! Ooops. I guess I posted that just a little while before you actually inspired me, but cheers! I guess I could run it through a translator, but I didn't, so I don't know what that guy said in Spanish.

So how does this work with the known issue in the patch notes? "Currently the HELMET COOP mode usage sequence has a bug if RADAR state was OFF, before mode was activated. As a workaround to correctly Lock a target using the radar as the supporting sensor in Сooperative mode (COOP), the radar must be on (ILLUM-DUMMY-OFF switch must be in the DUMMY position) BEFORE activating the IRST modes (IR, CC, HELMET, OPT). For this mode you need to also switch IRST modes using the CW CCW switch movement and not use the keys 3, 4, 5, or 6. Activating IRST modes using the keys does not ensure target lock by the radar as an additional channel in Сooperative mode. We plan to correct that for the next update." SO does that mean the radar mode must be in dummy, not illum for the radar to lock in STT? Currently with the bug in place? Also does this also include radar close combat mode where you still can't IFF, or is it only for the IRST close combat modes where you can't IFF?

I'll be honest I chucked an +1 in there to show that I still care and am looking forward to it, I am happy with what we have and any suggestion its done out of a sense of entitlement is a bit reductionary. I don't think I've seen a more polite group that own and support a DCS module maker! With that said it has been over 3 years now and we have bought the F1 based on a roadmap so its not unfair to ask for an update or insight into the progress of a properly modelled radar and the F1M itself. Aerges are professionals and I'm sure can appreciate the overall sentiment.

I made a bug report where missiles are missing in a similar manner to this bug report and no chaff was even used with mine.

DCS 2.9.20.15384 Bye Phant

I don't know. I was laying in bed the other night after drinking 2 pints and smoking the days last cigarette-shaped thing but greener, and while hearing the train in the distance, I think I looked up something on the Internet like "Aerges", and I saw their homepage, and the rest is just a blur because I fell asleep at that point. I vaguely remember seeing a box about the size of a VW Beetle. Look it up.

wonder how do you know that, what market research is behind that affirmation? My guess is that if that were true, someone would already have developed such a Sim.

He's talking about this test button I believe,the same test button is implemented on both Mi8 and Ka50,but missing on Mi24,would be great if it's added

Awesome, is the ZSU-23-4 the version of the shilka that also has 4 manpads strapped on the back of the turret?

Well if they were more complex they’d be full-fidelity If you want to “learn the systems” that’s the way.