All Activity

BVP-30-26M. Is total capable of being loaded with chaff cartridges, and we're. As far as I know the limitation is you can't select the cartages individually. So it's like in the Mi-24. The question is will we be able to load chaff cartridges in one dispenser, and flare in the other, or will it be like it is in the Mi-24 and you don't chaff first till it runs out and then your left with flares.

I doubt Draconus is the only one wanting an accurate representation of the real MiG-29 (not the pre-production MiG-29A since I highly doubt it even had an armament system). But I for one do, and I'd say let's wait and see how it actually works out in practice. When that system is active, you'll be (mostly) looking outside of the cockpit anyway, so there might not even be an issue And perhaps it's an incentive to many to start using proper fence-in / fence-out procedures, instead of flying with "master arm on" during the entire flight...

А про грача так и тишина

When CW Germany Phase 3 - which correspond to phase 1 on your proposal - size is already +200GB I guess whole Europe would be at least 10x larger also in terms of work to implement. I don't know if ED or Ugra would be able to manage this.

Unfortunately, it is now possible to get civilian aircraft of the red coalition only by livery. For example, for B727, C5, Orion. We are waiting for good news.

Modules in conflict: F-14B , Supercarrier module Map: Syria DCS version: 2.9.19.13478 MT Reproduction Steps: 1- Start a mission with the F-14B CAG positioned to taxi toward CAT 3 while an E-2 is already spotted on CAT 3. 2- E-2 on CAT 3 spools up engines. 3- F-14B CAG begins taxi to CAT 3. 4- The first marshaler transfers control to the marshaler positioned behind the jet blast deflectors of CAT 3. 5- F-14 begins its 90-degree turn toward CAT 3 while the jet blast deflectors are still lowering. 6- The marshaler signals “hold” (closed fists). 7- The F-14 hesitates briefly, then continues attempting the turn despite the “hold” signal. Expected Result: - F-14 should hold position until the jet blast deflectors are fully lowered and the marshaler gives the appropriate “taxi forward” signal. - After proper signaling, the F-14 should complete its 90-degree turn smoothly and line up with CAT 3. Actual Result: - F-14 continues to attempt the 90-degree turn toward CAT 3 while the marshaler keeps signaling “hold.” - The aircraft stutters through the motion and ends up stuck in a perpendicular position relative to the CAT 3 axis. - F-14 remains locked in place indefinitely, preventing normal carrier operations. Additional Notes: This seems to be caused by a conflict between the F-14 module, the scripted takeoff trigger chain and the Supercarrier’s marshaler logic. Issue blocks mission progress since the F-14 never clears the taxi path or launches. Is there any possible interim solution until you add the definitive solution to any next update, like editing any launching position of any aircraft (E-2 or F-14 CAG) in the mission editor, just to let me progress in the mission? I'm not worried about campaign statics, I'm only interested in flying the mission. Thanks for advance.

By the time he finishes, DCS would be missing another key element of the Harrier Assault reenactment.

Thanks mate, awesome work ¡¡

Первый красный full fidelity...

I don't understand the pessimism. They are hands full with the Corsair but also taking care of their most iconic module. @-Rudel- Guys, are you tired and sick of the MiG-21. I guess not.

Hi, A question not strictly related to the campaign, but anyway: When locating the enemy the JTAC says something like "3.5 miles to the north of <known point>"; How du I judge 3.5 miles when operating the TPOD? Thanks for a great campaign!

Also a content creator for Mig-29 9.12 should know the technical details before creating content in the first place. If not, better stick to FC3 29.

I tested it in the mission. When performing spot jamming I select SA-10 and it starts to jam SA-6 and then vica versa. Can you check it plz? Otherwise this is an awesome script thank you!

First, speak for yourself, but as you can see, there are users who have concerns about this. Second, you don't fly in VR, so don't enter a level you might not understand, which is related to VR mode (to be precise, the special tab was mentioned as part of the wishes related to the MiG-29 module; no one here is saying it shouldn't work or should always be disabled). If you don't see this as a problem, that's fine, but that's your issue. In the MiG-29A IRL, it doesn't always work. There are situations where rotation is disabled, so we'll see how it works when the MiG-29 is released. If you have one, check out the Ka-50 III instead of artificially extending the thread. EOT.

It is a bug and it will be corrected. No need to rebuild whole game. They just can't tell you when so don't wait for it. Reported. Move on.

Clearly the same principle applied to AI: Clearly, the design is non sequential in IRL airplane. While you may use the flight plan and go sequentially on a pre-planned path. Actual flight plan is shaped by what is going on in the air.

That's surprising. ED didn't want to share their ejected walking pilot? It's good enough for the task imho. I'm one of those that do notice lack of body in VR. It's just flying camera without one. Also surprising how the fast aicraft are synched in MP but the walking guy can't? At least the pilots are there

agreed with ai stupidness. i can only fly 2 hours a week a my priorties are my work and family so 15 mins editing iso flying is a bit much for me. anyway we all have our pirorites its a matter of what u choose. in this topic i am seeking for a automation solution for profile visual. maybe it could be a good idea someone willing to make a software for it and help guys like me as i am 50 and been spent years of flying DCS from the begining with not much time to spent.

Should be also added to DCS VR options. Some of us don't use the launcher.

Doesn't sound normal. Can you provide a short track showcasing this behaviour?

Alpha Jet E as a mod is in the works by SplitAir, who have a great track record with their mods.

Yup seems the only way. Personally I believe the issues like this shouldn't make it into the game. If it was an aircraft flown more often it would make it borderline unplayable.

A fantastic new video from Wags (see here) shows us how the (as of now upcoming) Mig-29A is set up in Mission Editor for navigation. From what I've seen (my interpretation, I can be wildly wrong), setting up a player-controlled Fulcrum's route is non-standard, and breaks compatibility with all other units. RIGHT NOW when we assign routes to units in ME, the procedure is simple and universally applied to all units (air, ground, naval): add waypoints, and it is understood that a unit follows all waypoints in sequential order. WITH THE FF FULCRUM it seems that - probably only for Fulcrums with Skill of Player or Client - this changes significantly: the first three waypoints placed in ME are now fed into the Nav System's "AD" store (AeroDromes, e.g. for diverts) while all other waypoints added are going to be accessible with the swith in "WP" position. The result is that a (player?) Fulcrum's route now always has to be set up with three divert AD points, and only then adds the "real" waypoints. THIS IS INCREDIBLY POOR DESIGN Why? A couple of points it breaks established procedure that a unit follows a route from first to last waypoint. Now, some units (Fulcrums) follow the route like this: from initial point they go to the FOURTH waypoint. It's not made clear in the tutorial, and I assume that this only holds true for player-controlled Fulcrums, not AI-controlled if there is a difference between how AI-controlled Fulcrums handle a route and player controlled do (player Fulcrums ignore waypoints 1-3), this further breaks usability, as the value of an attribute (Skill) changes route behavior. it makes it more difficult for content creators to visually understand a mission. Remember that in ME all waypoints for all units are drawn and connected. If there are multiple player Fulcrums they all now show the divert points, with the routes criss-crossing the map. it requires that mission creators remember that the FF Fulrcum have non-standard route assignments, and they must know how to handle the "(player) FF Fulcrum case" (the first three waypoints are special). If AI and player units handle routes differently, creators must also remember this correctly. it works against (and destroys) established practice from experienced content creators when they create complex, multiplayer missions that provide slots for multiple player types. Let's look at "Foothold" or "Pretense" as exampls: established procedure is to first place a player aircraft, set up the route, and then copy-paste unit with route. Then, we change the pasted unit's type to a new aircraft. The new units inherits the old route and all is well. This breaks for FF Fulcrums, requiring additional steps - if the content creator remembers that Fulcrums behave differently route scripts that process a unit's route for any purpose (there are lots of them: visualizing a unit's path, automatically providing info about the route, automatically placing units along the route etc.) now could break functionality for FF Fulcrums breaking the sequential logic of a linear route depending on a units/skill is incredibly bad design, as it requires additional coding and is not backward compatible DCS's own 'save state' (which, admittedly, is still nowhere) will have to compensate for this design flaw, and the code will have to check for type and skill, and provide extra code to preserve the AP states it can be a source for errors. AP points can be anything, there is no validation built into ME that the first three points in a FF Fulcrum are airfields. A BETTER DESIGN, more in line with established ME procedures would be: If a mission creator edits a player FF Fulcrum, they can enter AD info from the "Aircraft Additional Properties" tab. This FF Fulcrum specific tab can hold three AD locations AD1, AD2 and AD 3 which can be set to any airfield in the map by means of selecting that airfield from a drop-down, perhaps something like this: I think that the current design smacks of lazy, amateur "let's be low-effort and re-purpose existing data, and to hell with possible consequences for users" attitude that reflects badly on ED's dev team. This kind of ill thought-out 'solutions' to trivial problems, solutions that create more problems for everyone else down the line is one of the main reason why I'm so worried about DCS's future, and I no longer feel encouraged to contribute. What we have here is a brand new, for-profit module that reveals major integration design flaws, that takes cheap short-cuts. That to me shows that too little thought has gone into game integration, or that there simply is nobody at ED with adequate integration skills. This is not a good trend, and further confirms my unease about DCS's future.

Apparently it works as long as the armament control is turned on. You're free to turn it off if you're not fenced in. I don't understand the problem. This supposed to be the MiG-29A full fidelity simulation. If it was like that IRL that's how it should be simulated. It's not meant to be catered for DCS player convenience. Get a grip.