All Activity

Did you actually try sweeping the wings back forward after pulling 12G? Because if you did, you might find that indeed, the wing box pinions didn't like your stunt at all, and your wings are now stuck in the "optimum position". If you pull that 12G in DCS, chances are you will find yourself missing something, like your INS, wing sweep or a gauge somewhere. Or not, it's pretty random what breaks and when. I don't know if we have stab flutter, but you overload the plane at your own peril. Yes, in DCS the F-14 can survive a 12-14G overload condition and keep flying, but fortunately it can't simulate the "conversation" with the crew chief that would ensue after you came back (not without increasing the age rating of the sim, anyway ). Also, when did your son fly the Tomcat? That's important, too. In later years in particular, F-14s were severely derated for both maximum Gs and speed. They could, if you pushed it, still achieve it physically, but unless you did it to save your or someone else's life, actually doing so would get you chewed out by the CAG and the airframe would likely be written off. HB is working on modeling airframe wear, but right now, AFAIK we have them in a state they'd between the 80s and 90s. Not brand sparkling new, but not the perpetually broken down hangar queens they were in the mid-2000s. As for controls, yeah, DCS is best experienced in VR, and with as many button boxes and physical switches as you can afford. Modules are designed with this in mind, every dev basically assumes you'll bind everything important to a HOTAS/button box, then use custom keyboard commands for the rest. Using a low button count stick and a keyboard does complicate things, the default bindings are a bit of a wild west. You can do controls standardization yourself, but it's a pain to change every module to your liking.

It's really simple you just need to look into any currenthill or other modder lua file of any anti-ground missile, then compare it to the Mako lua in "A2G" file of the F-22. Focus on every line about scheme or type of weapons and you will see the difference and then you'll found out which line needs to be changed to turn AA in AG.

TC, I use these buttons for my Tobii 5 head/eye tracking hot keys across all aircraft. I use button 56 to enable/disable and button 50 to auto center. You could do the same with TiR as well.

The Model Viewer will not load. I've tried both the built-in viewer in both folders, and the most recent build of the stand-alone viewer. The built-in viewer shows this error in Windows Event Viewer: Faulting application name: ModelViewer2.exe, version: 2.9.17.12034, time stamp: 0x685d4d8d Faulting module name: ModelViewer2.exe, version: 2.9.17.12034, time stamp: 0x685d4d8d Exception code: 0xc0000005 Fault offset: 0x0000000000037b36 Faulting process id: 0x26e0 Faulting application start time: 0x01dbf85dade6236d Faulting application path: E:\David\Downloads\DCS\ModelViewer\bin\ModelViewer2.exe Faulting module path: E:\David\Downloads\DCS\ModelViewer\bin\ModelViewer2.exe Report Id: d2af1f0b-803f-4c0f-b5e7-39bdabddf526 Faulting package full name: Faulting package-relative application ID: There are no logs for it in the DCS Logs folder. Otherwise, there's no errors. it simply doesn't load. I've tried: Updating video drivers Updating and repairing the VC++ Redistributable Repairing the main DCS installation Clearing and rebuilding the shader folders When that didn't work, I downloaded the most recent standalone version. When launching it gives an error that three DLL files are missing (Scene, SceneRenderer, and ZLib). If I copy versions from the game's files and try to launch, I now get this error: What do I need to do to get the viewer working?

Simply modify a few lines of lua. Where are these lines. I mess around with CLSID and I have gotten the Mako on other aircraft but because of the F22 mod limitation to be only AtA munitions it won't let AI launch it at ground targets. AI needs AtG category weapon to do AtG strike whether SEAD or sum else.

Are you talking about cold starts? I used to struggle with these as well, despite following advice in the other thread of keeping starter switch pressed long. Turns out, if I you keep it too long then indeed, moving mixture out of cutoff position does kill the engine for whatever reason. Yesterday I got it figure out eventually. It's just a question of timing. Once the engine catches, I move the mixture to lean first and let go of starter switch immediately after that. The engine starts properly every time now.

I have always had TRAP checked in TrackIR and use F9=PAUSE and F12=RESET. Sometime during the last few patches they have stopped working in TrackIR. I have unchecked the box, started DCS, checked the box and started DCS again with no change. I am not one that removes and reloads programs when it was working and now is not. This takes too much time and never seems to fix the problem anyone is having. Why did it work for years of great flying and now doesn't? F9 and F12 are keys that I don't use and can afford to remap those to TrackIR functions. Wayne

Let's make some things clear. Headset has a fixed LCD resolution. DCS PD or Oculus software scaling or Steam VR scaling and even DLSS all does the same - render the image in different resolution - this is what most severly impacts performance and is done purely by GPU. Changing resolutions have no impact on CPU. The rendered image is then rescaled to the native headset resolution to display it but it's an easy job, with no perceived performance cost.

Steady turn rates are not a goal in the traffic pattern, even in an airliner. Your aim is a constant radius, thus the rate is going to vary. In the overhead pattern, your turn from downwind to final is a continuous, descending, decelerating turn, ideally rolling wings level a split second from touchdown That cannot be done with a constant turn rate.

Same to you. Hornet is not EA and Viper is out of EA this month. Oh, you really didn't know? Every module has such sub. I don't see a difference.

I haven't Played the F-14 module since I got it, as the instructions were easily the worst of ANY module DCS sells., and I have better things to do than try to figure out omissions and errors in documentation - someone was paid to do it, and did it poorly, so if DCS wants it done right, I'm available, for the appropriate fee. Upon flying the F-14 again, I made some very interesting discoveries; the new F-14B can not only hit, but, if you manage your energy carefully, it can sustain 12+ g-force loading, at speeds ranging around the middle-high 400 knot ranging, giving it a turn circle the size of a donut! Depending on which energy state you approach your turn from, that will determine how high you can hold the airframe loading. The best results seem to come from approaching the turn from just below corner, and adding energy. Attacking from above corner might result (depending on your loadout) in runaway thrust, changes in wing geometry, and therefore a departure from the variables that combine to determine corner speed. Honestly, this is absurd! My son flew an F-14 off the Nimitz, and when I asked him what the maximum airframe loading was, he replied; "...seven or eight Gs. We had such a large flight envelope (due to the swing-wing construction), that we would say that some planes fly faster, some slower, but never both." He also mentioned that there was a certain degree of care that had to be taken with extreme loading, as, while the wing box was machined out of a single piece of grade-5 titanium, we were advised against high airframe loading at minimum wing sweep, due to the resulting torsional forces on the wing box pinions. He also mentioned that some of the greatest care had to be taken again against vertical stabilizer flutter. In a high-speed/G turn, the vertical stabs would flutter so badly, that they ran the risk of either complete, or partial disintegration. To make a long story short, 7-8 G-forces were perfectly adequate for the F-14B, as the improved engines, excellent flight envelope, excellent turn radius, and exceptional rate of angular displacement at moderate speeds, made the aircraft a formidable dog fighter. Now, to turn on my computer to find a single F-14 thrashing 4 F-16s, or 4 Su-27s, pulling 12 Gs at 460 knots, well..... let's just say it strained credibility. I don't know what's up at DCS, and I know that *I* couldn't write a combat sim solo, but it seems that certain choices have made some modules less entertaining , and more aggravating to operate, forced us to re-learn basic commands, and just plain frustrating. To those arm chair pilots who naively parrot ; "...Oh, but they do it for realism...", I must ask; now how did I miss that, I wonder... Tell you what; find a real aviator (such as myself), and ask him/her what kind of mouse they use to fly their aircraft. Also, ask them about which keyboard key combination they program for things like landing gear deployment, trims, etc. Also, ask them how large of an opening they cut on their windscreen cover, so that they can't see anything peripherally as they fly. Personally, if I wish to self-destruct, I have a great key combo; LShift+Tab+RCtrl+Enter+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H. I program it into all the planes I fly; all the way from Cessna 172, to MiG-21. I hope someone got the point. I turned to Combat sims after my health problems made it impossible to pass medical, and thus obviated my ability to operate an aircraft solo. Back then, graphics weren't what they are know, but over the years, DCS/Fighter Collection/Eagle Dynamics began introducing module-type packages the were suppose to be more "realistic". Sims can only be so realistic, and I respect that; my reason for purchasing my first one was the promise of the most accurate flight physics, which is a realistic effort to program into a module. But the plethora of commands which all activate the same function on different ways, on different aircraft, is too much. All aircraft have landing gear; all have the ability to turn on the ground; all have brakes, etc. A bit of standardization for commands will help customers feel a bit more ease about getting into the learning curve. Sims are NOTHING LIKE actually flying an aircraft; but at least they can be reason to model correct flight model response, and relax the learning curve a bit. And in the meantime, if you want something that corners like an Me-163 and rockets out like an X-15, have a look at DCS' F-14B - and see if you can get a two or three semester online class to teach you how to operate their ridiculously complex, over sped instruction manual....... Kalashnikov

Just a comment: they`re asking questions and then never show up again. I hate it !

That makes sense. Gonna try it out.

You seriously need to improve some reading skills man. Read my comment once again. Hornet and Viper are huge modules and are in Early Access. As I pointed out, 'from the top of my head'. Now you chose to belittle others with a joke that shows what you're all about. Not the first time either. See the SE threads on bugs and glitches, once again as you post there often and still are unable to see the lack of polish that remains on it.

Outstanding to know since they NEVER place anything on sale, NOT ONCE have I seen this, AND they are probably the highest priced aircraft out there for that sim. I have almost pulled the trigger several times, but held off. Flying Iron has crushed the WW2 scene in MSFS. HIGHLY recommend all their products. They are working a B-17 now for MSFS 2024 and then the team said they were redirecting all their focus to wrapping up the A-7. Really impressed with them.

thanks i will give that a try... [edit] No change, the planes fly about 55ft abouve the water, nose up, struggling to reach more than 65 kts

I am not sure yet.

Seems like after the engine is warmed up, I can move the mixture out of the cutoff position without killing it. The lever is moving in the forward position as normal visually. Most planes I start cranking the prop. When the engine starts to fire, I move the mixture lever to the auto lean or rich position. On the corsair I try to move it out of the cutoff position it just kills the engine. Seems backwards

I saw the discord post of Prowler and it's always the same. "WE did everything possible while ED is doing nothing"..... same sh*t, different day. I don't like Discord at all but i visit RBs discord from time to time and just search for posts from Prowler to see if he wrote something new. The one on thursday was no surprise in my opinion. The same attempt of putting pressure on ED as so many times since April '24. I mean come on.... yesterday someone was talking about all the other modules which were announced especially the MiG-23 and his answer was: "MiG-23? 2 months for being sent to ED for testing" .... the same user asked if that means that we might have had it right now already and he answered "most defintely".... Really????? Is there anyone here taking this guy still serious? The "statement" from thursday is just another move in his strange game he's playing.... But as i said - just my opinion.

What does it even mean? Hornet is not big?! Viper is not either? (it leaves EA with next update) A-10C? Also many helicopters and warbirds to choose from as released modules and including 3 Razbam jets. Read above and think again. Are these your favorite? Surprisingly short list for such early release. It proves how good it is.

Your special, that's for sure.

I wonder if they went for the realistic option in the first place, I wonder how much of an issue people grumbling about a display light or targeting pods not having far beyond the resolution they should have would be, or if there'd be much grumbling at all.

I have read everything that is written above. I got this error today. I completed the mission twice and made mistakes twice. After the bombs exploded. After the attack of the enemy forces, the 3rd and 4th wnullere not far away, I flew behind the 1st.

We're working on it.

It's cool.