All Activity

7" Touch screen on the right Aux Console. https://blog.hempstick.org/2025/09/ubuntu-touch-screen-on-aux-console.html

great tip, thank you, I didn’t knew what that button function was

its your true speed Airspeed usally gets displayed in either indicated or true Indicated is how fast the air is flowing past your plane and that can change depending on your altitude. Its useful for maneuvering and such. True is how fast you actually go compared to the ground. so at around 30000ft your Indicated vs True speed is something like 500I vs 800T, The reason for that is because the air at higher altitude is generally thinner, meaning when your plane is measuring how much air is flowing past your plane, it will pick up less air and think youre going slower. (its a bit more complicated, but that is enough to understand the concept) Most planes do have the ability to calculate the actual speed (which also is why mach is not bound to your altitude) NOW, the reason why the Su-27 is showing your airspeed in True is because youre in BVR mode. You dont need to know how fast the air is moving around you, since youre likely moving rather fast already, and you need to know what your actual speed is, as that is also important for a missile launch (it also plays into closure rate to your enemy and and and) When you go into Nav, Vertical Scan, HMD, or HUD BFM, or ground mode, it will change to Indicated speed (123I), as you need to know how well you can maneuver.

In this mode TAS is displayed. In vertical scan mode IAS. In navigation IAS, etc... I suggest you read a bit on how messurement of speed works in aviation.

Yes. DLAA will also cause blurring of aircraft. Are you using quest link with a cable? Do you have any supersampling enabled of are you running at native resolution?

In air-to-air mode on the SU-27, what does the ‘T’ after the speed in the upper left of the HUD mean? At the same time, its value differs from the value shown when not in air-to-air mode. null

I wish to have more ways to adjust mouse behavior, and I am not alone. You can set up Mouse Buttons on the Stick and Trottle, but as the Coursor disappeares sometimes short, it sucks. So my Wishes are: - A settable default Point / fix point on the screen for the mouse coursor - A time settable for when the mouse coursor returns to the settable default point after the mouse stops moving - A settable time for when the mouse coursor disappears - An option to prevent the mouse coursor from disappearing complete It helps at least all the Headtracked Ones, and as it seems the VR People too. With Love, Psycho

Pic 1 and 2: showing Magic I seeker window with ordinary glasses Pic 4: showing Magic I with magenesium fluoride window Pic 2: showing why early Magic I seeker has similar performance like AIM-9B

hello NOJOY, This is the only forum I’m able to post in. How can I get access to write in the forum you mentioned?

The thing with DCS is that it is a Digital Cockpit Simulator. It'll give you a good experience inside the cockpit, but regarding the outside world, not so much. And that's it. ED has no focus on building a better AI, be it friendly or foe. No integrated air defense systems, no full on ATC experience. Unfortunately that real life like experience belongs to BMS. And it has been this way for the last 15 years. ED focus is on releasing module after module because that is where their expertise is at. Once I accepted this fact, I've learned to enjoy the game more for what it is, not for what I expect it to be. On the other hand, the thing that has been bothering me is the fact that lately DCS has become the "good enough" simulator. Where a module is released, and if it is good enough to fly and people have fun, ED will release it. The bare minimum today is acceptable. I remember when ED first released the A-10C, one of its main selling points, and something that ED would brag about, was that what we got on the sim corresponded to 90% of the real thing. ED cared. Cared about fidelity and details; today not so much. The Chinook was released in a pre-alpha state, with lots of basics features missing. Kola map, approved by ED, has the worst ground textures since FSX. And the Mosquito is celebrating its 4th anniversary without any further development. But hey, they are all flyable, people have fun with them, so why bother making them more detailed and faithful to the real thing. right? And don't even get me started on the whole Razbam situation. My trust is gone. Today I saw a video about the C-130 cold start procedure. All look great, but again, will it be released in an almost finished state? I don't trust it will. Latest releases have been plagued by bugs and unfinished features. In the end, I believe that who gonna save DCS is the community. If only ED would be so kind to give modders more flexibility and access to create new things, this would take DCS to new heights.

I flew there, and there's this. Digital Combat Simulator Black Shark 2025.09.11 - 07.17.53.05.mp4

пример использования Ха-25 МЛ (работает, не сломали) https://rutube.ru/video/25d8e9e0d986ebc36792e1b4add40d06/

Firstly, I have already rethought of what DCS is previously. I had to in order to "maintain my passion and support" because what I wanted to achieve wasn't going to be possible to do with the level of support and focus on quality testing that ED is providing, which nearly brought me to the brink of walking away from DCS completely - until I lowered my expectations and change my thought on what DCS is... so I'm definitely open to re-thinking of what DCS is. While I share a number (or honestly - most of the concerns raised) - I do believe DCS was meant to be a combat flight simulator. That's always been the goal. While there are definitely issues, I strongly disagree with the proposition that it's because DCS was never meant to be a simulator. I think the problems that have occurred are from many angles. Some self inflicted, and others external. IDK how many developers and staff have been pulled away from DCS due to wars and conflicts going on at the moment, but it wouldn't surprise me if both COVID and the war has had a significant impact on ED that has reduced the amount of resources they have at their disposal. By how much, and what factor it impacts, only ED themselves would really know - we can only speculate. I think ED is also partly a victim of their own success. DCS has grown - significant in different areas that ED have tried to introduce into DCS - and as a result, I think we might be in a period of time where there's more than they can handle at the moment. ie: Seeing Combined Arms neglected as they focus on other areas - DCS really has become quite big from a development and maintain point of view. The more functionality and modules, the more to maintain everytime a change is made. IDK where this leads to - but I'm darn glad that DCS still exists and is being maintained, even if not to a standard I would like. I can of course sit back as an armchair critic, and say what I would love to see change, which at the top of my list would include putting more focus onto Quality, Stability, and content creator support. I would love to see issues and bugs that they introduce with a new patch that wasn't there previously be treated as the highest priority - so we all had a reliable and stable platform, from the individual player, right through to content creators, but but it's easy for me to say when I don't have to balance the budget, pay the bills, or deal with who knows what challenges they face and what they need to meet in order to keep DCS viable within the limitation of the resources that they have. That's not saying that I don't think there's areas where ED could have significant improvement in (I obviously do). However, calling DCS as 'simulator simulator', and that the 'software is the game' as though it's a puzzle to try and solve to get it working is really more hyperbole. If it comes down to taking DCS as it currently is, or not having DCS at all - I'm going to try and focus on the things I can be grateful for more than the things I'm disappointed in. I think that's the only way really to actually appreciate DCS. We'll always find things that we don't like (and yes - in DCS's case we probably don't have to search too far ) - but even with those - DCS is still an incredible and amazing product that I am so grateful for. In the end, 2 people can have the exact same experience with DCS, one being frusturated, and the other grateful depending on where they focus more. I've done enough living being frusturated - I'm trying to see what the other side is like with the glass half full instead.

It's been a while since I last played with the DTC. However, the DTC only works with limited aircraft. The following method is pretty solid. Edit the frequencies from the radio tab on each aircraft type. For example, list out all the radio freqs for the 50 channels in the F-14B. Once you are done, click on the "copy settings" icon from the Airplane Group dialog. It is located next to the field labeled TAIL #. Another window will open to the left. Check the Radio Settings box, select "All Allied units of this type (BLUE)" radio button. Then press OK. All of your F-14B aircraft will now have the same radio frequencies. Does that help? The location of the Copy Settings Button: Check Radio Settings, select the radio button: All Allied units of this type (BLUE). Then press OK.

I will have to ask, but as I understand how it works with our FM, it cannot be turned on and off while you are flying.

SAV state to MIZ state OK, I'm a dummy, I run a Campain on my Dedicated Server, and due to updates and reboots being able to have the "SAVE" state available is great. and what I have found is that when I take the sav file convert it into the miz file and start up the mission again, the mission loads but you cannot get into any of the aircraft. You can highlight it, but when you select it ... nothing. From Spectator everything looks like it is running properly, you just can't enter an aircraft. Is this a known issue or am I the only one seeing this?

Unfortunately it's the same couple dozen people on this forum and we don't see the whole user experience since probably a majority of users don't know this forum is a thing. I think the issue is the team doesn't want to acknowledge the issues because there's to much on their plate already and instead of being open they rather be all smoke and shadows or hope the next shiny EA toy will distract us. Yes multiplayer is and has been popular. Need to remember not everyone has the same play style as you. Having a redfor with the same aircraft and that has the same capabilities as you is lame or trying to restrict them because they don't fit in the red role sucks. "Oh you're F-16CM that's not meant to be a red aircraft only has AIM-120s as a BVR missile? ok here's only AIM-9Ms." You cant disable datalink or remove the HMDs because eagle dynamics doesn't have the option to do that. So for example you can be on a cold war server in a F/A-18 or F-16 and rock a JHMCs with datalink all day long because there's no way to stop it. While the true Red aircraft are already at a disadvantage from the start. PVP used to be really good a few years ago but like Blackhawk said, anytime a red missile became better, somehow the 120 is superior next patch. The SD-10 was great, now it's almost R-77 hot garbage. PVE BVR combat is a joke because the blue side is so OP compared to the red flaming cliff aircraft. "Oh no a Su-27 shot at me with an Fox 1... let me notch the radar quick and do a barrel roll" Or how it really happens. "Hmm got a RWR contact from a Su-27. Fox 3..... splash."

I would recommend following jonsky7's advice. My observation to your monitor config lua - verify these entries are accurate, including UPPER case: UIMainView = Viewports.Center GU_MAIN_VIEWPORT = Viewports.Center

I'm trying. Have has a rough few weeks. I think it is just the way things are but I'm willing to do some checking. I turned off DLSS. I still have DCAA turned out. Does this cause issues too? Turning off DLSS didn't drastically improve this issue. I do have DLAA turned on. Does this cause issues?

Fully tracking this is going to be unpopular and probably not happen as a majority of players fly at 30,000ft looking at their MFD with a feed from their targeting pod. BUT! for those low and slower aircraft that actually see more then 3 pixels of a ground vehicle. I think it would be appropriate if we can have modified vehicles with mine rollers, bird cages, and Duke system antennas. Since these were widely used in Afghanistan and Iraq, this would give campaign and mission makers more tools to play with. And for those that have been over there it might just sell it even more seeing a vehicle with a duke antenna wobbling around. Possibly a better "combat" skin with sand caked vehicles as well. Just another wish to the wish list.

Bumping for an update estimate on this issue. It's happening for way too long now!

Maybe I'm just asking for too much but I like the autorudder. It makes for coordinated turns which is most of the time what I want. I'd like to be able to have it automatically be overpowered when I give a rudder input with my twist stick, though. Is there anyway you can add this? Just make it so any user rudder input disables the autorudder feature temporarily OR make autorudder have a toggle outside the special menu for in-game.

Probably not as popular but some non combat vehicles would add to the realism and emersion to the digital battlefield. These are modern US vehicles since that's what I know. Maybe someone else can chime in as well for other countries. As a mission maker I would 100% use these. Medical: M997 Field Litter Ambulance (FLA) medical hmmwv M133 Medical evacuation vehicle (MEV) medical Stryker Bonus (not a ground unit but on the topic of medical) UH-60L or UH-60M Medevac AI. Possible reskin of the current in game 60A. Or just reskin the 60A since it's dated. Support: M88A2 "Wrecker" Armored Recovery Vehicle. Essential in armor units, Abrams, Brads for example. M984A4 "Wrecker" Recovery Truck. LMTV version, used practically in all units with vehicles, HMMWV, Strykers for example. Other: M1117 Armored Security vehicle. Mainly used by military police, common at check points. M149A2 AKA the water buffalo. Heck yes.

I was aware of this problem. Previously, it was connected to the A-4 module. The fact is that there is no sound only in multiplayer and not all units. For example, the air defense has a sound...

Ah, it's the terrain way out there that's the concern, then.