All Activity

Maybe using the word "feel" wasn't the best word choice. What I meant to say is that the tail wheel does not free-wheel caster, which then requires that the airplane be operated in a manner that is not at all what you would experience in planes that have fully castering tailwheels. Of course, there is no way to model actual feel, but I think it's important that the airplane steers in a way conceptually consistent with what is physically expected on taildraggers with free-wheeling castering tailwheels. The corsair module has been in development for over a decade...the amount of details in the visual modeling is jaw-dropping, and it's obvious much love was put into this so far. I'm not expecting "zero bugs" at release. I'm sure the developer wants to address the issues/bugs that will come up, as nobody that has crafted something like this module would be content to leave it in EA. I just don't think people should be content with accepting this bug just because they can manage to turn it by blasting a few hundred horsepower through the prop, or because simming ground handing is hard. Just the opposite, I hope this bug is prioritized because it's directly affects the operation of the plane on a basic level.

P-47 stall speed with flaps up is 99kts or thereabouts. Going vertical for a 2000ft altitude gain then nosing over for level flight without losing much more than 100ft in the process at 83kts with flaps up, two bombs, and two bazooka rocket racks is a violation of physics.

Does it mean that all available CPUs can be opted in the render core rather than DCS defaults the few specific CPUs Thanks. There is my research about "exclusiveMainRenderCore". The search mentions that: Since Intel 11th gen+ with two different cores: For AMD, there is no P/E cores. I think that DCS has handled this matter already. According to the dcs.log, both, render/common, cores should be assigned with P-Cores only.

Just finished the campaign, it was great. Thanks for putting it together. I admit that mission 3 took several and I do mean several attempts to figure out. Also helped me learn more about the Kiowa. Really enjoyed the whole campaign. Looking forward to getting into your Hind campaign. Thanks again!

It requires GLONASS (Not the US GPS) which should have limited availability (Russia & Environs) from 82, and full availability by 1995: Then it gradually lost coverage until it was re-prioritised:

I hadn't played DCS for a couple of months and after updating it I noticed it was looking very washed out in the OG Crystal. That improved a bit with the Super (all stock settings). IL2, on the other hand, superb levels in all regards.

Just drop everything and start a new project all together, Gawwwwwwd.

You mentioned that trim on the german models is caused by moving the entire (fixed) portion of the horizontal stabilizer. Interesting...I never studied how those work, so I'm not sure how that would translate to changes in the stick position as the airplane is trimmed to hold different speeds. The other airplanes that have trim tabs, however, should end up in a different position after trimming. It would end up in the position that you were holding to maintain level flight...except after trimming, you wouldn't feel the forces needed to maintain level flight (and you would be able to go "hands off" for short periods of time without the plane immediately changing altitude. Regarding your FFB stick... do you actually have to return the stick to "center" after trimming? Because if the position isn't in a different place after trimming, as you say...then that means it would have to go back to some sort of preset center position. But...maybe it is actually changing position on your FFB, but you don't actually notice it? Ironically, if you are trimming using "correct" technique, you should be using the stick to hold level altitude, and then trim button to "relieve forces" at that new position. So maybe you are trimming correctly, so you're not seeing the stick move per se...just feeling the relieved pressure otherwise needed hold it in position. You should be able to verify it's working correctly in flight by just using the trim, if you just use the trim without putting pressure on the stick. As it trims to a new position, you should see your stick move without needing to touch the stick itself (besides the trim hat if you use that for trim). Hopefully it actually works on your other planes...since 100 percent of the true purpose of FFB is precisely to simulate trimming forces/stick forces. By the way, if stopped on the ground, the stick just falls forward...if the the elevator is heavy enough to droop from gravity. Once you have a little prop blast or airspeed, the air picks it up, which moves the stick along with it (since it's mechanically directly linked via cable/pulleys, or pushrods). The only planes where it might not fall forward is on planes that have balanced "stabilators" (like Piper Archers, Arrows, etc), where the entire horizontal stabilizer rotates around one axis in order make pitch changes on the airplane.

are far as im aware abris requires gps but ive never tested it

The way the Tomcat rewards those who study it.

As soon as I get over the mountain and Chevy 1 identifies the build up in the clearing it bugs. I've seen a video where you're told to hit the targets marked with Willy pete but that doesn't happen for me. Anybody have the same problem? I take out the whole clearing but I can't progress because the mission seems to be lost. It's a piss off wasting time trying to play a paid mission.

That sounds like exactly what happened to me last week on a MP server. I posted about it in this post in bug forums. I did turn off the HTS and it returned the TGP returned to normal. When I turned the HTS back on, it started looking off at some random spot. I did not even use the mark point page on the DED that flight. I did command the SEAD page using the TMS so I could cycle targets before it became unresponsive. I don't believe it's a scripting problem. When it happened to me, the SAMs I was trying to target were alive and shooting at me. I was going to try to test something out in SP, but I haven't been able to play DCS since then.

Sorry for the delay, but all good with AAR in docs. Missed it while scanning docs. PS: Did they ever fix the F-18 G issue or do I have to use the M setting 234.00 to get G. Right now in Mission 13 Prt 1 it still has Com 2 G with no frequency. Haven’t been able to complete the mission as I get no response using G Com 2.

The screenshot was taken with the lua file. I've been using it since it was released on the forums

thanks, maybe this helps

I mean... I feel that way right now, but for reasons outside of DCS... Namely life treating my intestines like the perfect target for a 12G Shotgun....

Have you done a repair? And was it Quick or Long?

Could make a go around a bit rough, but not crash rough.

Thanks for the update @NineLine

It should not work with PD-STT definitely. if it’s reflective enough, maybe with the right background in P-STT, but ground clutter should really make it unlikely. You will certainly miss with a Phoenix in P-STT.

The SA-4, Nike Hercules, Su-7, F-111, Mirage III, Kfir, MiG-23, MiG-27, etc...

If the aircraft was flying purely vertically, as described, then stall behavior in the conventional sense wouldn’t be expected — because the wings are not generating lift in the traditional way during a vertical ascent. Stall is a function of exceeding the critical angle of attack while attempting to produce lift; in vertical flight, the aircraft is no longer attempting to balance its weight with lift but is instead relying entirely on thrust and inertia. If, after this vertical segment, the aircraft transitioned into level flight by gradually reducing pitch angle, it would have done so in a partially unloaded state, producing lift below 1g. In that case, as long as it had retained sufficient energy, it could re-establish normal flight once its speed increased above the minimum sustainable airspeed. This sort of behavior — while seemingly unusual — is consistent with known energy-state transitions and doesn’t inherently indicate that the FM is being violated. Additionally, it's worth noting that low-speed unloaded flight (i.e., with load factor below 1g) is actually one of the most energy-efficient modes of flight for propeller-driven aircraft. This is primarily because: Since induced drag is directly related to lift (and increases with the square of load factor), reducing lift demand below 1g sharply reduces drag — especially important at low speeds, where induced drag dominates. Unlike jet engines, piston engines and propellers are well-suited to producing useful thrust even when the aircraft is slow, allowing for continued acceleration or climb, provided excess power is available. When not fighting against gravity with full lift, the aircraft retains more of its kinetic and potential energy, allowing it to convert between the two more gradually — for example, by accelerating in a shallow dive back to sustainable flight conditions. This makes unloaded low-speed flight a perfectly valid and sometimes optimal maneuvering regime, especially when trying to recover from steep climbs or regain speed after vertical maneuvers — assuming the aircraft has sufficient power to avoid settling into an unrecoverable descent. It would also be possible to replicate the same maneuver manually, starting from identical initial conditions. If the aircraft’s configuration and power allow, entering a vertical climb followed by unloaded low-speed flight and gradual pitch-down can result in a smooth transition back to controlled level flight — just as seen in the AI’s case.

Optical titles still look better.

No, devil, everything vanished. Spent today putting it all back together. Great tip, though. I'm gonna make a backup config folder and tuck it away. Thank You!

You know, and here I thought that the 3rd party partnerships for DCS meant that we weren't all going to die hopeless and alone...