All Activity

This is a known crash which has been reported to dev team here: Your log also says that you have core parking enabled which can lead to stuttters/microfreezes, or even crashes in certain situations. Here is a link with information and a tutorial to disable this setting in Windows 11. https://www.dannymoran.com/windows-cpu-core-parking/

Эх! вот бы "красный" какой нить. Ан-24/12

I hope this will be for the Huey and other helicopters too. Happy landings, Talisman

It was an air start nam dogfight-20250802-113941.trk It requires the ww2 marianas map

You can ask to change the game and eventually get it or not, or you can change your style to accomodate to the game you're playing. You can ask the mission designer to prepare the ready aircraft you desire to jump on or make your own.

This issue has brought the whole 3rd party developer risk to light. Anyone that thinks a third party will just hand over code to another party if they go belly up is deceiving themselves. If you believe any of the 3rd parties agreed to this supposed new contractual agreement I have a few bridges to sell you, or to the third party if they actually agreed to it. If a business goes belly up for any reason they are not going to just give up their work for free for another business entity to continue making profit off of their base work. All these 3rd party modules and maps are completely dependent on the original developer unless sold off. Razbam modules are going to either work and die a slow death or ED will just break them all in one version upgrade and be done with the issue and we won’t be able to do anything about it. The only way to prevent this is to have ED buy the rights to a developed module using the 3rd party as a sub contractor. The problem with this is ED can barely keep up with their own work let alone any extra modules being pushed out by other developers.

To find the new IDs, in your new DCS install go to any aircraft and map a single button for each controller. you'll see files created like this: C:\Users\Yourname\Saved Games\DCS\Config\Input\Aircraft\joystick CH FIGHTERSTICK USB {2796EE60-F354-11ef-8002-444553540000}.diff Move these files somewhere else, then copy your old files to these locations. Using Explorer just copy and paste the new name onto the old files. If you're using modifiers they are located here: C:\Users\Yourname\Saved Games\DCS\Config\Input\Aircraft\modifiers.lua Go into the file with Notepad and replace this: local modifiers = { ["JOY_BTN16"] = { ["device"] = "CH PRO THROTTLE USB {2796EE60-F354-11ef-8001-444553540000}", ["key"] = "JOY_BTN16", ["switch"] = false,

Seeing as ED is, besides being the publisher, also an aircraft developer, it's fairly obvious that they always had the ability to work on modules. Presumably, taking over RAZBAM stuff wasn't considered back then, since everyone expected the dispute to be promptly resolved (this kind of early optimism is far from rare). That they are unable to take over was fundamentally true and it seems that it still is. In fact, if they did manage to secure the things necessary to develop those modules, this would amount to enormous leverage. They'd basically be able to tell Ron to either make up or get out, either his studio works on the modules, or they just do it themselves, possibly even hiring RAZBAM staff out from under him (to say nothing of the subcontractors). They'd be holding all the cards and Ron probably figured that out, too. I strongly suspect they're trying to make it so that it's the former and not the latter. Whether they'll succeed, that's another matter.

I would love to have this option. I do never touch a new aircraft without going through the manual. Having the manual even on its early state and missing sone future features would be most welcomed.

Contention discord community is the worst in all of DCS. Channel dedicated to making fun of civilian casualties in UA and Gaza, remarks that if you meet a Serbian in a forest, go the opposite direction and you'll find civilized world, etc. This is all ok, tolerated, probably even promoted. But I am banned from all the servers and discord because of posting a GIF of an evasive maneuver from singleplayer that's been extensively discussed here and led to the increase of the amraam proximity fuze: Trapper, enjoy your antisemitic antiserbian antieverything warmongering toxic server and thanks for showing your true face. As you don't have a single shred of evidence of my supposed "harassment of staff" or "toxic discord behaviour", I'm not even asking for it. All I did was post a GIF of an F-5 dodging Aim-7 in singleplayer training into "memes" section, which routinely contains content as in the screenshot ("this is ok.png"). My post was deleted, I was banned, after a few weeks, I've now realized the ban is from all 3 servers and expires never. Clearly I'm not your target group. Thank God. Sorry, need to go vomit again from your desired target group's comments. See you never.

You can only use barrage in MAN mode. You can't use semi.

One very questionable method but result that I got is actually what I was expecting it will be Determination of hole's diameter based on two different reference measures and than finding third one which dropped out to be in level of what is in R-77 motor So it could be something like this About propellant grain configuration, I think both motors have same 5-point star grain, here signs of slivers can be seen very nicely

Thank you. Everything is exactly as you described.

Ok, I've finally had time to look at this stuff. Let me breakdown everything I found and observed. This is going to be a bit long so bear with me. Let's start with the loadouts. The pilot taking off in the real-world video had: 2x AIM-120B, 1x GBU-12, 1x GBU-38 (on BRU-57), 1x Litening TGP, 2x Wing tanks. With max fuel his weight before startup would've been 36,718lbs --NOTE-- In the real-world video you posted the first F16 seen has one GBU-12, one GBU-38, one Litening TGP, two AIM-120Bs, and two tanks, while the jet taking off has the same loadout but has the GBU-38 as a single-by on the BRU57 Smart bomb rack, a pretty common occurrence. In DCS we can't do that so we will stick with the one-by GBU-38 on the WWP, not too big of a change. Also, the weights are relatively close to the same. Your loadout was: 2x AIM-120C, 2x GBU-12, 1x Litening TGP, 2x Wing Tanks. Weight before startup 36,815lbs. Charlies are heavier than bravos. That gives us a weight difference of 97lbs. (48.5lbs per wing) Another factor for weight though, is the real-world pilot didn't start off on the runway with full fuel like you are doing. He burned some sitting there starting the jet, getting the systems ready, and taxi meaning he probably took off with a fuel weight of about 11,019lbs vs your fuel weight of 12,113lbs. Depending on certain factors he could've burned anywhere between 1,100lbs to 1,500lbs of fuel. So, accounting for that we will go with the middle and say he burned 1,300lbs bringing his new weight to around 35,418lbs. So now we have both weights factored. Yours: 36,815lbs IRL Video: 35,418lbs --Difference in weight = 1,397lbs Let's get our numbers now (All numbers are rounded to the nearest ones). For a 10 Degree pitch Yours: Rotation Speed = w/AB 164 w/o AB 169 | T/O Speed = 179 IRL Video: Rotation Speed = w/AB 160 w/o AB 165 | T/O Speed = 175 For an 8 Degree pitch (increase takeoff speed by 8 percent) Yours: Rotation Speed = w/AB 178 w/o AB 183 | T/O Speed = 193 IRL Video: Rotation Speed = w/AB 174 w/o AB 179 | T/O Speed = 189 Only going to do AB takeoffs You can see for the 10 degrees pitch your numbers were just a bit off. Now, let me talk about what I noticed in the video, because this will be important later. The real-world pilot is at Balad AB which has an elevation of 144ft above MSL (judging by the background he is taking off from runway 30) vs you, taking off from Batumi which is only 33ft above MSL, but that isn't too much of a factor here. Now, if we take into account that in early October, which is when this video is uploaded the temperature would've been around 98 to high 80s. But giving the chances the video was upload immediately is very slim meaning this was most likely shot in June to August time frame meaning the temps would've been around 100 to 115 degrees. The runway temp would've been around 160-180 degrees (based on real world flight line experience as a maintainer at Nellis AFB, the ground gets super-hot on the flight line). So, you got to take that into account for engine performance. Can't really tell what the winds were but I will just put a 2-knot wind in since judging by the trees I couldn't really see any movement but I'm sure there was some type of wind that day across the runway. I made a mission with these parameters: Iraq Takeoff Example.miz And last but not least, probably the biggest factor in all of this, is what he does at the end. The 45 degrees vertical climb. Because he did that and judging by how he took off, I can tell he did an 8-degree pitch instead of a 10-degree pitch. You can tell because he stays pretty low before starting the climb. With that he had a whole (if I'm right about his weight) 13 knots on you when he started his rotation. This is where it gets interesting. I watched your track in slow motion countless times and here is what I noticed. You started to rotate at 164. This is the speed you initially started pulling the stick back. So, your horizontal stabs were not fully deflected yet. At 169 your horizontal stabs were fully deflected which started your rotation. Takeoff was at 197 for both wheels. At 194 you were kind of taking off with a roll, so you didn't have both wheels off the ground yet. The controls indicator showed you applied a slight roll to the right when pitching. Obviously, those numbers aren't what you were looking for. Now let's get to my tracks because this is where it gets good. I also did this on the Caucasus map for those who don't have the Iraq map. Replicating the real-world video as close as possible. In my first track Iraq 10 degrees 156.trk I started pull the stick for rotation at 156 and had full horizontal stab deflection at 161 which started my rotation. I achieved takeoff at 185. In the 2nd track Iraq 10 degrees 160.trk I started to pull the stick for rotation at 160 and had full horizontal stab deflection at 162 which started my rotation. I achieved takeoff at 186. In the 3rd track Iraq 10 degrees 161.trk I started to pull the stick for rotation at 161 and had full horizontal stab deflection at 165 which started my rotation. I achieved takeoff at 187. That was all with using the speed on the HUD. I then decided to test the speed using the external view. I did one take. My rotation needed to start at 154 in the HUD which would be 161 on the external cam. So, I pulled at 154 and had full horizontal stab at 160 in the HUD, which started my rotation. I achieved takeoff again at 186Iraq 10 degrees 154 in HUD.trk Having tested the 10-degree pitch numerous times, I then moved onto the 8-degree pitch. Remember 8 degrees = Rotation Speed = w/AB 174 | T/O Speed = 189 1st track I started pulling the stick at 170 and had full stab deflection at 174 which started my rotation. I achieved takeoff at 189. Iraq 8 degrees 170.trk 2nd track I started pulling at 171 and had full stab deflection at 177. I achieved takeoff at 190. Iraq 8 degrees 171.trk 3rd track I started pulling at 171 and had full stab deflection at 176. I achieved takeoff at 191. Iraq 8 degrees 171 2.trk These three tracks show the problem. The F16 in DCS cannot do a 10-degree pitch and achieve calculated numbers. It can however hit or come close to hitting the numbers for the 8-degree pitch. It should be able to do both. I provided a track from an external view as well to compare with the real-world video doing an 8-degree pitch, and I roughly found the location of where the person was standing when recording. You will see it closely replicates the real-world video. Don't take control, I move the camera into position. Iraq 8 degrees external view.trk Done on Caucasus: 8 degrees - takeoff was 189 Caucasus 8 degrees 189.trk 10 degrees - takeoff was 185 Caucasus 10 degrees 185.trk I even went a step further and tested out Mover's loadout, which was a pretty similar loadout to what I had during my incentive ride. And I can confirm that it still needs a bit of tuning in this area for the Viper. It is so close to being on point. Same results: 10 degrees Caucasus 10 degrees dif lo.trk Takeoff speed = 159 | rotate w/AB at 144 Pulled back at 141, full deflect at 147 w/ t/o at 166 8 degrees Caucasus 8 degrees dif lo.trk Takeoff speed = 172 | rotate w/AB at 157 Pulled back at 153, full deflect at 159 / t/o at 172 I concluded that no matter the speed, with this loadout or a lighter loadout, and going for 10 degrees, that I would takeoff ~10 knots faster than what the calculated takeoff speed is. An 8-degree pitch and flying for those speeds was way more consistent. After watching real world videos in slow motion and watching my tracks in slow motion and analyzing every little detail I almost thought it was the scheduling of the LEFs but came to the conclusion that those are operating correctly every single time. WOW comes off and the LEFs actuate accordingly. So it isn't that. I now suspect two things could be the problem: low engine thrust, or too much drag against the aircraft when the nose comes up. The drag seems like the more probable cause as there is no issue when going for 8 degrees. You are going faster essentially pushing past that drag because you have the speed to do so. Whereas, going slow and aiming for 10 degrees the jet just doesn't want to get up until it is faster. Almost as if the 8 degrees speed is the only speed the jet can get off the ground with. The reason I suspect the engine is because when holding the brakes and running the engine to 90rpm there should be a brief moment where the brakes hold but quickly slip due to the amount of thrust. This is something that is noted in the -1 as well and is noted to not push past 90rpm when holding brakes, and to come off the brakes as soon as the jet moves on its own. It can be one of them or both. I hope this helps with the investigating from team @NineLine @BIGNEWY

Hi TheBiggerBass, On the Discord channel, go to the Cockpit Weapon System (CWS) section and then the "cws-release" subsection. You'll see the link to download version 3.71 in the last post.

I would imagine all the main players in addition to USA who have or had the J model including RAF, RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF etc would be in the initial set.

Can you send the track? Perhaps you are doing a coldstart and forgot to do the Jester Wheel again while the track replays (leading to you flying around with a cold machine, engines off).

Even that seems a bit of a stretch. Contracts can be amended if both parties agree. Publishing rules for new products can be changed. Steam and other webstores change the publishing requirements for developers all the time, doesn't matter how long your product was in development, or when you've signed up the first project on Steam. You work by the current rules, not the ones that existed 20 years ago, just because you've made your first game when Half-Life 2 was a new thing. If ED decided an Escrow was now a requirement to sell a new aircraft in their store, that would be it. Yet, it was not done in this case, and seemingly noone thought about that possibility before they took an open action against Razbam. Actually, when this thing first blew up more than a year ago, Chizh and other devs on the Russian forum were pretty firm in their statements that they're just a webstore for 3rd parties, not responsible if the module is completed or not, and have no means of picking up the development after 3rd party is not able to do so. Interesting to see how the narration changes over time, and we're now at "we'd like to continue but Razbam doesn't want to give us the codes". So a serious question. Which 3rd party modules are actually protected from something like that happening again? Corsair - that thing was in development for a very long time, signed ages ago. Kiowa - Polychop has been around since the early days. Tomcat? Your guess is as good as mine. All confidential information of course, at least until another 3rd party goes belly up. At this point I doubt even ED knows themselves. And if they know, it's not the answer the community would like to hear.

I have updated to beta version 2.9.4.0 but have not had a chance to use and test it much yet. Have you had any problems with 2.9.4.0 at all? Come to think of it, yes, If I remember correctly I was warbird flying the last time it stopped on me. I will make a note next time. Happy landings, Talisman

What would give us, the DCS community, calm and reassurance would be knowing where we stand for Razbam's modules. The lack of information means we don't know if the Razbam's modules will be updated or deprecated. The uncertainty continues to fuel the this on-going debate. I know the strike eagle has worked even though no updates in over a year. Mike Force Team

This looks nice and fair Lift coefficients will be needed as well, either Cy f(M) or Cn f(alpha), three Mach numbers will be enough (1, 2 and 3M)

oh thats neat.. glad to see that was included.. although hidden I know how to start MY WAY, but was a bit confused when the mission was rattling through stuff that i never really did. Thanks!

Haha, I am up for that, maybe not a pint thought unless it's a pint of wine . Actually this is an interesting point, I doubt any of us would be so argumentative if we all met in the real world. Online forums are not representative of our personal character, so let's not be too harsh with each other, it's not people's real character represented in forum posts. I seldom play DCS these days but the Mig 29 may change that Mizzy

...for me it's about having a choice... having a checkbox in the options like camera/cockpit shake to turn it on or off would do the job