All Activity

Noted, will test without it.

By the Spitfire we have: 250 lb Mk.1 GP Bomb 500 lb Mk.1 GP Bomb By the Mosquite we have: RP-3 25 lb AP Mk.1 Rocket RP-3 60 lb F No1 Mk.1 Rocket RP-3 60 lb SAP No1 Mk.1 Rocket 250 lb GP Mk.IV Bomb 250 lb GP Mk.V Bomb 250 lb MC Mk.I Bomb 250 lb MC Mk.II Bomb 250 S.A.P bomb 500 lb GP Mk.IV Bomb 500 lb GP Mk.V Bomb 500 lb GP Short Tail Bomb 500 lb MC Mk.II Bomb 500 lb MC Short Tail Bomb 500 lb S.A.P. Bomb

It is outdated now and best not used. thank you

I am not sure, I didn't tested specifically for it lately. I will try to test some more. It was shared to forum by Bignewy a few times: It started using it a while after MT was released. But maybe you are right - it does nothing now. As I said above, I will try to test more. But for sure for older builds I was seeing performance improvements and Core 0 was not on 100% all the time.

Hi, this is a known issue and reported. I have merged the threads thank you

I think it's just a pitot heat test switch, but I don't think that it's functional in game. I don't have any evidence or source to prove this though.

Flight model is more then stick to control surfaces modeling. I flew with a 20cm extended stick. Never needed curves. Changed to a 10cm extended force feedback stick, never needed curves, including on the Spitfire. The Corsair was more reactive than a Spitfire on the controls. Which doesn't seem very likely as its been described as a stable aircraft and I've never read any pilot use the same adjectives for a Corsair that they would use on a Spitfire (like the aircraft reacting to your thoughts) a common description of the controls of a Spitfire.

Here is an example, I have an aviation YouTube channel, posted a video with a title created by me, first day I got the usual 3000 views. Asked chat GPT to create a title for my video, then I changed and that same video blew up with thousands of views. I have tried it for other stuff and it has been a disappointment.

I need to hear more about this book!

Hello, I am trying to use the WCMD and the JSOW in PRE mode and I don't see any AZL ( azimuth steering line ) displayed. According to the manual it should be . I have a valid target/ coordinate . If I pickle ( and within range ) the wpn is still released and hit the target. What could I be missing ?

Perhaps you have found some sweet spot in the settings there, but let me elaborate: The lighting outside is doing quite alright overall, I'd say. My gripe is entirely with the cockpit lighting, which, upon reaching a certain point of the twilight will suddenly jump in their brightness quite considerably to give a 'blinding at night' impression if not adjusted. It might be possible to circumnavigate that problem by adjusting brightnesses proactively, but I particularly dislike this odd mechanic.

I'm on a 20cm extension and have no complaints regarding any "expense of fidelity." It feels comparable to the P-47, P-51, and A-8 on the same hardware.

Я уже писал, в другой теме. После того, как миссия загрузилась, я поочередно перебираю свои 6 ядер, с помощью affinity mask (в диспетчере задач "задать соответствие") . Сначала от процесса dcs.exe отключаю нулевое ядро, затем его обратно включаю, затем первое, и так все 6. После этой процедуры, у меня становится все плавным. Могу пройти 2/3 ядра, и все станет пучком. Но уже привык, и поочередно прохожу, отключаю/включаю от процесса dcs.exe все 6 ядер. После этого можно лететь. И летать можно часами. Никаких затыков! У меня: i5 9400F; 1660 SUPER; 32 гига оперативки; 2Tb SATA III SSD.

We have already explained, at this time we can not share the information due to confidentiality agreements on contracts. If that changes in the future we will let you know.

I hate to disagree, but it is 100% relevant to this thread. Which 3rd parrties/modules are under zero obligation to surrender the source code upon leaving the job? That is most definitively something people should take into account when choosing modules to purchase.

Indeed, as Raven pointed out, I have no control over the AI's behavior. In my campaigns, wingmen operate independently. Understand that it’s a separate aircraft to which I assign orders to follow the leader and carry out missions. You can prevent an AI aircraft from taking off by placing an obstacle in its taxi path. This is harder to do with helicopters. Sometimes it works, but other times, for unknown reasons, they take off vertically from their parking spot. In the case of the Soviet-Afghan War Dawn campaign, if you’re supposed to take off from the beginning of the runway, your wingman should, in principle, follow you. However, I’ve already noticed that it sometimes takes off directly from its parking spot instead. If you’re supposed to take off from Charlie, I’ve created two wingmen: one that taxis and another that takes off to follow you. There’s no other way, because by default, AI always takes off from the start of the runway. That’s why I included the warning: "Don’t worry about your wingman—he’s doing his job!" During test, I had very few issues with AI.

Even though it's now 2025, I’m still encountering this issue. Do I still absolutely have to modify the official aircraft files (like those for the F‑16C) in order to mount a custom missile? I really don’t want to alter the stock code.

Attempt to reconstruct this case, very low launcing velocity, fair altitude and very high distance to target. If it's true, number in circle present seconds till impact, so 100 seconds which is very long travel. I have no clue where is target on altitude and how fast it is so let's consider it to be same. Several options: 1) levelled flight 1G overload plus 3G reserve 2) initial lofting maneuver and ballistic trajectory but keeping 3G reserve Both of these cases are pointless, not even close to reach target 3) initial lofting maneuver, then ballistic trajectory without any overload and/or reserve and at the end gliding with 1G overload with included 3G reserve Only this thrid case can bring rocket that far and also to have at least some velocity at the end Approximately 67 seconds of passive flying object, with locked fins in zero position, with no lift force whatsoever. I have no clue could it be case, it is completly differnet approach compared to other Russian rockets, I mean on absence of this overload reserve. But only this way I manged to drag rocket that far

I dont really understand what the issue is here. What are you meaning when the missile does reach its target?

Yes, but helicopter needs to be aligned with your scope. In other words, read the manual.

There you have the answer.... I haven't listened to the Enigma interview, because in the past that man attacked ED and said things that he should have thought a little before saying them... That's why, as they say in my country "it's not my thing". I smell that you yourself have answered the second question... there was already some work done on the core by ED on the loadmaster, ASC has improved it a lot. Very bad business... if, as you say, it's "connected" to the plane, I'm afraid it's simply a camera, not an independent entity. Remember, currently, a downed pilot is an independent entity and has no limitations on where he can go or move. And I'm suspecting what it might be, a derivative of the orbital external camera. The easy way, in AI, is for ED to create an infantry-type entity and give it that "role", and as far as we know, these are currently properties assigned to certain vehicles and I'm not sure if that feature can be added by a 3rd party, because due to mods, I don't think it can be done either. In itself, it shouldn't just be an FPS, it should be an improved version of what we currently have from Combined Arms' JTAC functionality. If the code for a JTAC isn't locked by contract (remember that CA was based on a military contract for the creation of a JTAC trainer for the UK Army), ASC could very possibly improve it, and I'd bet my life if they could do that. The problem remains the same; I'm afraid there's some "building block" missing that ED has to implement first, because like it or not, I'm willing to bet that no 3rd party has access to the main core; ED simply creates the minimum step for them to be able to create (even if it's just declaring a function or procedure). That's something I've always required from ED with Vehicles and Ships, the ability to add "cockpits" and make them controllable in first person to make even a mod (we've been waiting 17 years).

This topic is in progress. There is another thread somewhere here with details on it and the WIP state including instructions to get it working in that WIP state. Cheers /topic/349847-exporting-screens/#entry5668772

Thanks razo+r, I suspected as much.

I have to bump this, as it is August 2025 and the issue (that was once solved) is still there. @BIGNEWY @NineLine can you please highlight this once again to the devs?