All Activity

Weiß jemand,aus welchem Grund man die Hauptseite bzw den Shop im Moment nicht erreicht ?

"There is an internal request to give the Ka-50 a NATO-standard laser code, but it does not seem to get any traction for now. Probably because devs know well that the Ka-50 never did any buddy lasing in its time. Maybe this request will get clearance one day"

There was a mod, a long long time ago, which looked pretty cool. Stopped working many updates ago.

@Zligor Consider switching to Win11 when reinstalling Windows. It has the much better CPU scheduling and ReBar implementeation. HAGS should run without problems not like on Win10 where it is hit and miss. I can't say anything about smearing, not really something that is noticeable on my device. Mine is from the first batch when it got released. Is production quality that random with the PSVR2??

В документах и соответственно в DCS разгонные характеристики явно завышены . Самолет так не разгонялся .

Yea true

Hello again, spend more time trying different suggestions and so far I tried to turn off Hot Plug Scan, Hyper Threading and lowering settings without any success or difference. One more thing I noticed was comparing the Task Manager's GPU Window and every time there is a stutter in DCS this shows up on the window:

One of 24 things they improved the HUD with in Su-27

"that mission requires activation" never seen that message, thus cant replay your file. But what you describe sounds weird and reminds of when I am too excited slewing the Maverick seeker around to find ground targets, but accidentally pressing the RDR Cursor button while slewing, which intentionally puts the Maverick to VIS. Press the RDR Cursor wich is called "cursor enable" and it will cycle through VIS, BORE, PRE and so on. To be sure remove all the keybinds for"ENABLE switch- depress" and try again, see if it happens again.

reported thank you

Roger! Thank you for your feedback!!

Hi, we will need a track replay example if you have one to investigate this further. thank you

Прошло уже много лет, но проблема так и не решена. Проблема в оффлайн миссиях, но я думаю это проблема системная и ее решение может работать и в онлайне. Почему на одних и тех же высоких настройках графики, если ты один в миссии все летает, если 3-5 юнитов в миссии то тоже нет проблем, но если 10-20 или более то уже начинаются лаги. Почему нельзя сделать так, что точно обсчитывается только юниты с которыми происходит взаимодействие или они в радиусе поражения или тп. Почему нельзя сделать настройку радиуса пред загрузки юнитов, или ограничения ими пожирания ресурсов если ты с ними не взаимодействуешь. Да даже если взаимодействуешь, сделать опцию уменьшения пожирания им ресурсов. Почему юнит о существовании которого я даже не знаю, жрет ресурсов как и тот с которым я взаимодействую. Ведь есть же ограничения по пред загрузке территории, леса, домов, гражд. трафика и тп. Почему нельзя так же сделать с юнитами?

Там пилоны в целом коряво стыкуются либо не подходят к адаптерам крыла.)

Hi, please include a short track replay example. Please also check your axis for double inputs, or pot spikes. thank you

Wing flex Manual +Liveries

We are still tweaking and changes will be in a future update. thank you

this is reported thank you

Hi, I'm selling a brand new MSI GeForce RTX™ 4090 VENTUS 3X E 24G OC, in sealed box + receipt dated Sep. 2025 valid for Warranty. Price: 1.950 €. Payment with Paypal. Shipping cost within EU on my expense.

The principle difference between fixed and rotary wing flying is that a fixed wing aircraft will, without any input from the pilot fly perfectly well all by itself in most circumstances. A helicopter requires constant inputs, and not only that, each control input has second and third order effects which need to be countered. This is the trick. At first you will be reacting to each effect but with time you will learn to anticipate the required corrections and without even thinking you will move cyclic, collective and rudder (anti-torque) pedals as one. Some of the best youtube videos I have seen are by vsTerminus - YouTube - these are mostly Mi-8 but the principle is the same, and importantly, the main rotor rotation is the same as the Gazelle (unlike the American stuff which turn the opposite way confusing things further - don't try to learn the Huey and Gazelle at the same time!). Helicopters require a lot of practice but once it clicks they will start to feel more natural. The beauty of DCS means you can have as many tries as you need, without expensive repair or hospital bills!

Fix of Drop FPS after Rearming : Put this file in Scripts\Systems replace existing. WeaponSystem.lua

This has never happened before in 15-20 tests. It's a difficult question; there's no workaround, since if you don't remove the chocks, the plane will remain parked. This is the DCS engine, not the mission. I just got attached to the pads. Let's look at other details. Can you issue other commands to the ground crew—ground power, etc.? If the ground crew isn't responding to all messages, it's probably a radio issue. If the problem is only with the chocks, that's odd. This is the first time I've encountered this. In any case, I'd be happy if you recorded a track of your attempts to remove the chocks. Thank you. We will find out what the problem is.

You are going to have to produce a source for that statement. Particularly about the "failiure" part. I don't take you seriously on the initial one, as you are giving baseless arguments. What was more advanced, and in what specific way?! How does that contribute to the efficiency of a radar, and in what condition. Just to disprove what you just stated; one specific place where the APG-63 wasn't any superior to the N001, was automatization. Based on flight manuals and available information, both aircraft have a very similar part for attaining, what is today regarded as, a kill chain. Both aircraft have very similar workings (from the operator perspective) when it comes to finding a target, identifying it, locking it on and finally, engaging. I see no evidence whatsoever of either one or the other being ahead in this department. (This does not conclude the underlying operation, as scanning time vs. volume of air, ability to operate in ECM-heavy environment, or other peculiarities). The integration of a datalink feature on Su-27, is yet another part of the whole sensor suite which APG-63 doesn't have. Want me to go on? You are obviously out of your league. Throwing around "lobes" and "more advanced" is pointless, unless you trully understand what's talked about here. Also, "specificity" is a coin term here. I replied to this already, but just to show you that you are again incorrect. SAGE was by any means impressive, especially given the early and advanced it was. However, it becomes ludicrous to compare to a mid-/late- Cold War GCI which is not only two-way (and inter-flight, meaning interceptors exchanging information with one another), but also relatively advanced functionalitu like guiding the missiles for a particular flight/aircraft... yeah. Let's throw away the bias, and consider the systems at hand. Though not in this thread.

I urgently need to remember the Ka-50! Thanks for the feedback, I probably added and didn't remove one of the technical WPs. I'll test it and fix it, thanks.

YOU continue to spew bull<profanity>! First and foremost, re-read what I wrote! The statement is that GCI came much earlier than AWACS, period! I made no assumption as to GCI overall, other than stating that USSR pulled the initiative to a much later point, capability wise! Three, USA was absolutely NOT the birthplace of GCI. You slept in class at that time, but during WWII and The Battle for Brittain, UK famously used a national and unified radar system in order to coordinate its air force to down Nazi German aircraft. US wasn't even the second country to make use of GCI, as Germans were also making early attempts (learnung from UK) at a national coordinated defense initarive concerning ground radar stations and own fighter/interceptor aircraft. That's that! (If I'm to be perfectly honest with you, read about what constituates a source of a primary, and thereafter, degree, and then as such, contribute with something more reliable than Wiki. We can stick to your level until you catch up on this.) I also recognize that "Later additions ..." to the SAGE system actually featured the onboard equipment for F-106 to recieve automated (one-way) telemetry regarding rargets intented for a unit. I saw an earlier systems diagram, pre- use of such a reciever (early on, it was all radio comms as stated by me). May I stand corrected. Still, this was neither the thread, nor the discussion. I suggest again, that you stick to it. (I won't repeat what's written, but you seem to be arguing with yourself.)