All Activity

I never said that people are asking for making the contract public. I said people don't have the right to see even the smallest part of the contracts because it's not their business. But the keep asking for things like this (as you said by yourself): This is for sure a part of the contract and we as normal customers don't have the right to get this information. Not how it is writen, not how long the clause and not if it's even part of the specific contract. Just not at all!! I don't know what people here think they are to even ask for something like this. I don't get it and it's really annoying to read questions like this again and again.

2 things: -Everthing pre-2018 is beyond ED commitment, everything post 2018 ED claims they have the game files for, so technically they should be able to keep supporting those -Who did you send your money to buying a Razbam module? Because AFAIK, the site that requested my payment was Eagle Dynamics', not Razbam's In a twist of irony concerning that last point: as RB stopped receiving customer payments through ED, any upkeep from RB's side has been suspended Who's paying for that extra diskspace? Some guys already are running 2.5 for the Hawk next to Current version, what are they gonna do if other modules get orphaned? At what point is that gonna get silly?

Thanks @Flappie It seems that on F18 the issue is also visible on the HMD. Would you be able to add it to your comparisons ?

nullnull

Ищу ролик DCS, который смотрел в 2021–2022 годах: два Миража летят строем, в небе виден самолёт AWACS, потом они вроде как сражаются с миГами-29 в конце два самолёта выравниваются (миража), один пилот отдаёт честь рукой и катапультируется. Возможно, автор — француз. Буду благодарен за любые ссылки/таймкоды!

I know that information is contractual. I understand that But we as customers are the other side, the paying side of this niche hobby- business. And part of this is based on mutual confidence, that is builded through years of relations with us, customers. This confidence can be destroyed by many things, some very fast, some very slow. Just consider the damage to that confidence could do when, i say when no if, we, customers cant fly anymore 4 modules if we want DCS up to date. Just think about It, ask ED to think about It and take decisions. We as customers will take ours depending on yours.

Any chance someone could make this? This is i believe the 2023 bird.

we will be sharing news soon. thank you

Bump! @SkateZilla any update?

I agree it would be nice to have some way to show. But what you are asking for is related to contracts, and confidentiality agreements, so please dont ignore what I am saying. As mentioned if that changes in the future we will let you all know.

Hi Currenthill, will this update be released before the end of this year, or do we have to wait until next year?

Im not sure, I will try asking in their discord about the BD campaigns

I'm still having performance issues with stuttering after reinstalling DCS completely from scratch. I've started testing, starting the SIM with nothing plugged in, no HOTAS, no displays, no extra modules, no mods of any kind other than DCS. In other words, bare-metal DCS. The version I currently have of the Nvidia drivers, with an Asus TUF RTX3080 OC, is 580.88. When I start the FA-18 in this configuration, it runs smoothly and perfectly without stuttering. The moment I connect the WINWING MIP, the full HOTAS and nothing else, the moment I get into the runway with the plane and begin to climb, the stuttering starts, making it impossible to fly, let alone complete a mission. I'm reinstalling everything in slow motion, due to work, absences, family, etc. Everything was working fine until the update in middle march. After that is a nightmare. After reading threads like this one: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/369884-choosing-the-right-nvidia-driver-is-the-latest-version-always-the-best/?_fromLogin=1 Could you give me your opinion on which are the best versions of the NVIDIA drivers for DCS? That thread is from earlier this year, and some changes may have occurred regarding the versions. dcs.logdcs.log.old Thank you very much.

Also have the feeling that the map isn't really alligned.

No one is asking for the contracts to be made public. People are asking about which products may have the clause about the source code. ED could handle this two ways. Say, "Hey, we hear this is a big issue for you guys. We will try and reach out to the 3rd parties to see if we can get this information to you". And they then talk to the 3rd parties and see if it is okay to reveal only that information. Or ED could do what they are doing now. Say nothing and do nothing. I'm not saying ED HAS to do anything. The user base seems to be waivering on some of these issues that are coming to light due to the circumstances, some more than others and some not at all, and people are asking for clarity on this from ED. You would think or hope ED would do what they can to help provide their customers with more clarity and alleviate their concerns. And maybe they are, maybe they are working on that in the background. But none of that is getting communicated and it comes across as talking to a wall at times. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to the CM's, I'm just being frank.

Tacview-20250808-095819-DCS.zip.acmi Here's one

I dont want to see the contracts. I want a new statement from ED saying: "As you all known about our new file sharing policy stated in 2018, all new contracts signed with all 3rd parties since that date are part of that policy" Thanks for your kind supportt Its no so hard to understand. If ED is unable to make such statement, me and i think other customers cant make an informed decisión about buying 3rd party modules, and so, a % of us are not willing to buy any under those conditions.

https://youtu.be/KpXol98UDeA?si=I9VAA9cZpqo2n82O Тут скорость 1.3М дальность 40 км , цель летит со скорость 945 км/ч Высота не известна Я думаю около 8-9км

Interesting stuff... keep it coming guys.

Many Thanks for this great Info! I will see today how things work.

Yes, you can clearly see that in action in Yoyo's Mi-24 campaign, for example: there it takes roughly 8 minutes for the wingman to take off once you're in the air. Basically AI helicopters think they are heavies, and taxi/take off like a C-5 Galaxy would. So much for "the year of the helicopter" ED promised us years ago, eh?

https://youtu.be/RvmHMgEPCQM?si=62fddx3-sA_Upx91

In most cases, the AI took off from the runway. The exception was when I was traveling slowly and the distance between the two helicopters was too small (obstacle?). In that situation, it took off, stopping behind me on the taxiway. A similar situation occurred when four helicopters were taxiing and the distance between them was too small. Three or four took off from the taxiway.

Here is the biggest concern one, 2 PL5s, 2 BRM pods (the weapon with the most drag on the JF17,) Same parameters, Syria, 35k, 20c 40nm Speed of mach 1.01 (0.09) slower than 2 SD10 & 2 PL5s

this has been reported thank you