All Activity

MIG-29 dont have it

The after landing checklist is complete. I do all these steps and get the big "Mission complete" splash across the screen. I think the problem is with me not switching the engine master switches off. Just saying above that that checklist isn't in the campaign. The checklists end here: null

Phasing effects happen in real life with multi-engine aircraft, so there shouldn’t really be any reason to want to eliminate the possibility of that occurring in a simulation. It’s natural consequence of having two identical engines turning at nearly the same speed. The phasing harmonics go away easily by simply running them at exactly the same speed. In any case, it basically sounds like part of the sounds are missing on the right engine. Not sure why this thread is marked as “cannot reproduce”, unless only some of us are experiencing engine sound differences, but others are not. If that’s the case, I’d like to find out how to fix it.

You are not alone. Here is another thread, (pointing to a third one.)

Generally I just use Quaggles to strongarm the binds in. https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-input-command-injector?tab=readme-ov-file

That sounds like a pretty good average (like 600 MB/s which is like half of the theoretical throughput) with no slowdowns, I stand corrected then. My pessimistic stance was based on some aluminum USB enclosure sourced from ali with a terrible HDD controller which would periodically get overwhelmed and then the transfer speed would just go down to a zero for a while.

Does somebody know how to add option to map lights switch to HOTAS throttle, i dont see any light switch in options inside DCS?

Getting nothing with this link.

This was reported at least twice, years ago, with no effect.

I have tried cold start and hot start. RSBN/PGRM lights never illuminate, and instruments don't change either. Here is a track of me flying to Mozdok, both RSBN and PGRM are dialed in and RSBN is powered on. I tried RSBN on other aircraft and it appears to be functioning. RSBN-MiG-21.trk

no

The idea in general is ofc great and also something we had in mind for the long run. But visualizations of the systems are currently quite tricky as the aircraft has over 3000 properties that are individually affected by wear/tear. The list is huge and not really "readable" to casuals in its native view. We will approach this step by step and potentially eventually arrive at something similar to what you shared The current goal for the persistence system was mostly to expand the wear/tear system in a way that campaign makers can benefit from it by making a series of missions where the player needs to use the same aircraft and take care of it. So something like "let me repair this and that" was out of the scope for this first step.

Thank you for your finding, we will have a look.

+1

+1

+1

Le roadmap di ED sono molto aleatorie, anche la campagna dinamica doveva arrivare, almeno la prima implementazione, per fine di quest’anno ma dall’intervista di Wags si capisce bene che non a vedremo prima del prossimo anno (chissà in quale periodo, non escludo sia fine anno). Per l’ATC rinnovato credo che esca in concomitanza con la campagna dinamica (spero vivamente non dopo…)

La nuova ATC non era nella road map di quest’anno ? quindi spero per fine anno di avere qualcosa

Thank you for the Really cool Research.......this is an absolute must for Normandy Map

This post is intended primarily for the multiplayer audience, both PVP and PVE. Even the single-player guys who like more than just NATO equipment. The is no intent to ruffle feathers, or go against any sort of grain. But this is a problem and it should be talked about. PLEASE excuse me, this post is a little all over the place, but sort of just trying to paint my picture. There is no floor plan, or any sort of roadmap for the modules in DCS. Modules are quite sporadic, and you can never really assume what is next in line. Which sort of causes a bit of a tough spot to be in for a multiplayer server. There are many players who naturally would prefer NATO with NATO versus their counterparts from the east. The problem with that is, you end up with all the modules we love on one team and essentially far less capable aircraft in the other, at least in a non-restricted environment. Granted mission makers can move things around a bit and try to “balance” them out as best as they can, that is not the point. The only real FF fixed-wing modules in a “red vs blue” environment that are FF are the JF-17 and the newly released 9.12 Fulcrum. Which is no contender in that realm. It seems most people who enjoy the Fulcrum outside the PVE stuff are just defaulting back to the FC3 version. I understand it is a work in progress and has some potential to become at least a little better. But when it is deemed a good counterpart to the upcoming FF F-15C, that is sort of like saying the BF109 is a good counterpart to the MiG21. It's always the same old take anytime a “red” module is brought up, be it, political, documentation, licensing, ROI etc. Politically, I understand to a very small degree. Considering current world events, there may be some challenges. The information aspect of this I certainly don’t understand. Modules that do have the possibility of being made, especially considering the information being used for the F-35; 30MKK, SU24, Mi28, J-10A/B and in a lot of respects the C variant, just to name a few that have a vast amount of information publicly available. Which leads to another realm of discussion: the F-35, the Eurofighter, the Meteor, etc. These are all still pretty classified pieces of equipment. But somehow, YouTube &the public forum “information” is significant. ROI, I think, bothers me the most out of all the reasoning. I don’t understand how, in the video made by Wags and many other places, they mentioned that the ROI for red modules is a factor in straying away from them. The current fixed wing lineup in FF modules (at least fighters/multirole) are the JF-17, a pretty unknown and very underappreciated plane, and the 9.12 Fulcrum, which, as I said before, offers no parity in the current modules or the future modules. While it was very hyped it just really falls short of filling these gaps and made the hype die down quite a bit for it. So, with that being said, I just don’t understand where this ROI is being pulled from. The less iconic JF? The 9.12 that people are just using the better FC3 version of? The shark or hind that most people own at least one of? How is an ROI retermined on something FF wise, you just do not sell.. There are some things I may be wrong about in this post and that is OK! I just really want to see current opinions on filling these gaps and offering more than just a NATO V NATO scenario.

Oh, and did I mention that under the nose cover of the Ka-29TB is the same steerable YAKB-12.7mm 4-barrel HMG used on the Mi-24 D/V ?

Great work, looking forward to the low level flat angle scenery you hinted at the end of your video. The impact of different settings will be much more meaningful.

Since the release of the tinted helmet visor it only renders this tint on about 75% of my screen/area. If I toggle it off I lose my HMD so I have to play like this unless I change my setup. I would ask that a clear visor option be available.

I wonder if this a Proton runner issue. Recent updates may have broken something maybe. Have you tried running DCS through Lutris? Edit ... I hate it when I'm right ... just received some kernel updates, now I'm getting the same issue I have stand-alone DCS and running it through Lutris.

SYRIAN INCIDENT – DAY 1 Following the success of Syrian Incident Day 0.5, we want to extend our sincere thanks to everyone who participated and supported the event. The mission ran smoothly and consistently, delivering exactly what this dynamic campaign was developed to achieve a living battlefield where coordination, planning, and teamwork truly define victory. It was inspiring to watch the frontline evolve in real time, with objectives being attacked, captured, retaken, and defended. The level of organization and communication shown by the participating squadrons has set a strong foundation for what’s ahead.** Syrian Incident** is just getting started, and the intensity will only increase from here. SYRIAN INCIDENT - DAY 0.5 Giveaway Results We’d also like to thank our generous sponsors at Heatblur Simulations for supporting the community with their continued partnership. Congratulations to the winners of the Day 0.5 Giveaway: -- AJS-37 Viggen – HRP | Thrust (matheus_2540) -- F-14A/B Tomcat – IBIS (ibislikethebird) -- F-4E Phantom II – SkittZ (skittz) NOTE: Giveaway prizes will be distributed after the conclusion of the Syrian Incident campaign to simplify logistics and ease the workload for both our admin team and sponsors. Thank you to everyone who participated, your enthusiasm make events like this engaging. Syrian Incident Day 1 will continue on Saturday, 8th-Nov-1400z-2000z, resuming exactly where the battle left off. As the mission time progresses into night, pilots can expect challenging low-visibility conditions and an unpredictable weather forecast. Commanders are already planning their next moves, calculating losses, preparing strikes, and reinforcing defences, while pilots take a brief moment to recover after hours of high-G combat. Get ready for the next day of the SYRIAN INCIDENT - DAY 1 and follow the ongoing campaign updates and battle reports on the official 51st PVO/MDT website, where the progress of each day will be tracked and documented.