All Activity

In a recent message on RB discord, for what its worth- Ron said if RB gets payment, they will happily return full force to finish out and complete the promises for the module, as well as support it. Despite everything, he is willing to make it happen and uphold the modules. For all our sakes, I hope something positive can happen. The F15E is a fantastic gem of a module, I pray it gets resolved.

I knew this question is kinda boring but i just wonder. As someone have little interest in russian. i wonder why ai call his sign 107 as сто семь ноль(170) instead of один ноль семь(works fine on atc calling player).kinda like bug. how ai call: 2025-08-06 22-27-37.remuxed.mp4

What's happening here, i haven't altered a thing now all the modules are in Chinese, DCS has been full updated and repaired and i have not changed anything.

Reasons nobody can verify. Because Razbam deny this version and no court resolution has beeing taken. We have "versions" of the dispute. Nothing else

As other mentioned and by the rumors of a new heli coming up. I'd be surprised if it is not a UH-60 helicopter by how popular that is on other sims. That would fit right into SAR/CSAR missions.

Exactly. ED have already stated their reasons in black and white. As for the modules being deprecated, that statement was simply stating the limitations of ED’s current commitment (ie worst-case scenario). DCS 3.0 is still some time away, in the meantime there is nothing preventing ED from extending their current commitment.

Долго летал на f 16 и f 18, но тут потянуло на родину. Столкнулся с проблемой на су 33 и су 27. Нос самолёта постоянно тянет вверх. Я перечитал форум, смотрел видео, но именно у меня самолёт не тримируется, какие бы кнопки я не нажимал и не зажимал. Тут скорее не вопрос почему его тянет вниз, а как его правильно оттремировать. Вроде ползунок двигается вниз, а вроде ничего и не происходит. Помогите)

Sure, I don't think there's any question that Razbam wouldn't work for free...but I think the thing people don't factor in is the assumption that this all only started when Razbam didn't get paid. If Razbam was supposed to be providing the source code, and ED said "Hey, we really need you guys to move your source code to the repo" and Razbam said something like "Oh, for sure! We're just working on the F-15E really hard right now, once we get it pushed out we'll move all of that source code over" and ED says "Okay, sure". Then we fast forward a few months, the F-15E is out, ED's still nagging them to get the source code moved, and they say they're going to, but don't...for whatever reason. If that's the way things played out, then I can understand why a company would then go to taking legal measures and withholding payments...because you really don't have any other option if someone's making money off of your platform but not upholding their end of the agreement. Now, all of that said, that all makes a lot of assumptions about the requirements on Razbam, and that's something we don't know for sure, and with the whole legal agreement, likely won't ever. At this point, it feels like this is all in the past, and not really worth spending time worrying about, because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter going forward. The only thing left for people to do is to put pressure on Razbam to work on an agreement where ED can at least get the source code. All I've seen from ED's public statements is that they are continuing to work and open to finding a solution, and it makes sense that they would want to get the source code so they can at least maintain the modules in their current state, even if they aren't able to invest the time into any upgrades or improvements. But that would require Razbam to be open to the idea. I have to imagine the bridges are likely burned beyond Razbam coming back to work with ED. It just seems thoroughly unlikely, at least unless there's a bit change in leadership at Razbam. But it's still possible that Razbam and ED can find a reasonable agreement to turn over the source code. So my only hope is that the people who are here and angry with ED are also over on Razbam's Discord saying they are upset and telling Razbam they really want to see Razbam work hard to find a middle ground with ED that at least lets ED continue to support the modules, even if it's in a pretty reduced capacity.

Just remember there isn't always big teams behind third party projects, managing forums, discord and social media take a lot of time and can be difficult to manage, especially when the project itself takes so much time and effort. I'm sure ASC will do their best to keep you all informed and when we are given information to share we will also share it. thank you

UH-1H and Mi-8MTV be like:

Like IRL, a unit that wheb placed somewhere on the map will form a temporary landing strip (including night landing). The C130 may find itself land somewhere in the middle of nowhere to support special operations

+1. The discord has been great, but not everyone uses or is on their discord, so it is helpful to have questions answered in both places

Interesting possibility for a future VR experience. YORO Increases VR Frame Rates By Rendering One Eye & Synthesizing The Other https://www.uploadvr.com/you-only-render-once-vr-frame-rate-improving-technique/

Yeah even years ago it wasn't hard to see with them. I haven't flown at night recently, but NVGs are well... weird sometimes.

When I use the note feature, the text doesn't format correctly to fit the kneeboard page. Is this expected behavior, or am I missing a setting in DCS? null

Maybe somebody know 1) HARM code for C-RAM in PB mode? 2) Does terminal attack settings like HDG and VEL working for JSOW or J-whatever?

I mean, at the moment SAR/CSAR is unexplored even without adding new helicopters. Winch capability for the Hip (it already has one) - basically similar to what we already have with slingloading, just a variable rope length and for the winched object to despawn when the winch is fully retracted and get added to internal cargo (the latter being something DCS already somewhat supports). A winch-able/slingload-able survivor/survivor in a lift-raft. (The latter would be useful as-is for over-water bail-outs/ejections). "Set frequency" and "transmit frequency" commands available for naval units and that survivor/life-raft in the previous point. A way of having naval units list (though even this isn't essential). Unfortunately ED have only expressed interest in doing an M for reasons - an L would definitely be my preferred version.

Hardly - they spoke very little of the ATC system itself and left an absolute tonne of potential questions unanswered. Questions like: Will it support multiple approach types? For example: Visual straight-in (like now - the only type it does support). Overhead Instrument (and there are various types here, it should support at least one kind of instrument approach I'd also at least include PAR given how many of our aerodromes are depicted with PAR equipment). Unrestricted (i.e. only report on final). Will it provide taxi instructions? Both to the active runway and to the designated parking spot upon landing? Will it attempt to manage traffic around the aerodrome? Currently aircraft are all put into the same orbit, which they fly at the same altitude but at different speeds. Will AI aircraft interact with it and obey its instructions? And will the AI be smart enough to not talk over each other? Will it support parallel runways? Will it provide vectors where applicable? Preferably following real-world approach plates if available. Even if it meant vectoring you to at least an initial approach fix, getting you there heading the right direction, at the right speed and altitude? Currently ATC will only provide bearing and range to a point along the extended runway centreline. Will we be able to declare an emergency and have the ATC prioritise that aircraft to land? Will it support touch and goes? Will the ground controller follow a schedule? For instance to try and get aircraft to takeoff at designated times (important not only for spacing, but to aid in getting aircraft to reach their time-on-target at the right time). Will we have ATIS where applicable? Will we be able to request QFE and QNH? Will we be able to say "say again" if we miss a transmission? Will the different agencies be separated where applicable, as per IRL? (ground, tower, approach/departure). Will we have multiple pilot voices and will there be multiple voices for each agency? Will it be intelligent enough to not direct aircraft to taxi, takeoff and land onto runways, runway access points and taxiways that are unserviceable (for instance from debris from aircraft crashes or from damage by OCA strikes). Will it support heliports and rotary-wing operations in general? Will we be able to override what runway is active? Will we be able to designate aerodromes as closed? Meaning that ATC isn't present, lighting doesn't come on, associated NAVAIDS become inoperative etc. Will we be able to override what NAVAIDS are operational or not and whether the lighting is on or not? The last one we can do with aircraft carriers. Will it have realistic detection and identification capability? For example not being able to vector aircraft it cannot detect or identify (when multiple aircraft are present in the vicinity)? I'm sure there are other's as well (like I could've thrown in - will we get PAR units (there's already an RSP-7 in the files) and will we get aerodrome beacons and identification beacons for aerodromes that should have them? Even better if we could get these as a placeable ground unit. Apart from #8 and the 2nd part of #14, 1-14 (at least) is what the ATC system in the other F-16-orientated sim already does and does pretty damn well in my experience - I would hope a new ATC system for DCS would at least try and match its functionality. And 1-7 are what I'd describe as bare minimum for what an ATC system needs to be able to do. Even the supercarrier ATC (which you technically have to pay for) has plenty of shortcomings (and this also isn't exhaustive): It only supports carrier qualifications (CQ) operations and not ziplip, but does not support touch and goes nor bolters (even generally). The AI doesn't interact with it at all, meaning it's not only far less immersive and doesn't feel as alive as it could be, but you also don't have the same situational awareness you should have. There's communications missing (particular related to departure and CASE III waveoff/bolter procedures). It doesn't have the agencies frequency separated (making switch approach/switch tower callouts meaningless). It doesn't support callsigns for the Forrestal. LSO speed callouts only reference the Hornet's AoA range and not the state of the AoA indexer repeater lights (so you get incorrect speed awareness and spoeed gradings for anything that's not a Hornet). There's only a single pilot voice (which sounds drastically different when talking to everybody else) and there's only 1 tower, marshal and LSO voice. It doesn't have realistic detection and identification capability.

From NineLine's post at the start of this thread: That is an explanation: Razbam acted in breach of contract. As to whether it is true or not, we can't really say for sure, but it is an explanation. And if it is valid, ED's contractual obligation to pay Razbam was contingent on Razbam complying with the terms of the contract. That's how contracts work. That's what a contract is - 'you do this, and I'll do that'.

I get what you're saying, I'm not an expert, however doesn't P47 has special trim tabs that are controlled by the trim wheel? I.e. when trimming you're not moving the main control surface but a tiny little 'tabs' on them. Do these trim tabs exert pressure on the main surface and cause it to deflect (therefore moving the stick in the cockpit), or do the tabs simply change the airflow just enough to affect the aerodynamics of the plane therefore changing its attitude/aoa/etc. ? In case of K4 and fw190s the elevator trim is done by moving the whole stabilizer (not just the elevator surface), so again, I'm not sure how that'll affect the stick position in the cockpit, somehow it tells me that it won't...

I disagree with that. With the Mi-8 and the UH-1H we actually have two of the most prominent SAR helicopters in the world. What we need in that regard is not more airframes but a better system for CSAR missions in DCS. [Insert my usual wish for a certain asset here]

In the article DCS: CH-47 FAQ, under the section ‘Features that will be available during Early Access,’ one of the items listed is ‘Head-up display systems.’ However, this feature is missing from the ROADMAP. Has the "Head-Up Display System" been removed from development?

Ну тут у нас с вами просто разный подход к игре. Вам нужен онлайн. А для меня ДКС это имитация повседневной работы авиации в зонах реальных конфликтов последних лет. А вот тут я не припоминаю ни массовых посадок на грунт на Геркулесах. Ни высадки десантов парашютным способом. В основном, они гонялись как транспортники. По гражданским трассам с IFR. То, что для онлайна место ему найдётся, я даже не сомневаюсь. А вот для моего подхода к игре уже не очень.

Если транспортник будет везти груз на передовую базу 4-6 часов, как в реале, то боюсь миссия к этому времени уже закончится.