All Activity

Roger! Thank you for your feedback!!

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

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.)

Also, there will be a patch rolling out around mid-October that optimizes pi_server’s CPU utilization.

I just finished the F-4 (MiG Killer) campaign by Reflected Simulations, and I wanted to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for what is, in my opinion, one of the best DCS single-player experiences available right now. From the very first mission, it's clear how much care and research went into creating this campaign. The historical context, the mission briefings, the voiceovers, and the dynamic feeling of being part of an active and evolving air war all contribute to a deeply immersive experience. You’re not just flying sorties — you’re living through a slice of Cold War air combat history. What really impressed me, beyond the immersion and production quality, was how educational the campaign is when it comes to air-to-air tactics. Each mission teaches you something — whether it's energy management, situational awareness, working with your wingman, or employing the radar and weapons systems effectively under pressure. The learning curve is well-balanced, and you come out of the campaign not only entertained, but a significantly more competent Phantom pilot. The difficulty feels just right: challenging enough to be rewarding, but never frustrating. It encourages you to improve and adapt without ever becoming a grind. The missions feel handcrafted, not procedural — each one has a unique flavor and objective, keeping things fresh and engaging throughout. Huge thanks and congratulations to Reflected Simulations for creating such a high-quality, historically grounded, and truly instructive campaign. It's clear a tremendous amount of passion went into it. Looking forward to whatever comes next!

Не говори! Куча спецов и эксплуатантов МиГ-29, они сидят на своем на бюрократическом разговаривают про цвет индикации. Ща ещё какой-нибудь оружейник подтянется будет говорить, что техничка на пилонах ни такого цвета и шрифт там другой Кто-нибудь разгонные и маневренные характеристики с РЛЭ сверял?

I assume that the monocle was actually only for the right eye, but for VR the alignment could be adjusted as a reticle cross. I wrote about it in another post, there are more things that don't fit around the helmet in VR. The visor is also aligned only for the right eye by default, which causes a certain asymmetry in the display when the visor is lowered. It would be nice to either fix it or add an option in the special tab to display it (left, right, both). Likewise, the module from which the sight is lowered is shifted to the right in the VR display, asymmetrical, also probably aligned only for the right eye...

https://www.patreon.com/posts/uh60l-mod-2-0-138859868 Try start here

ну это они же,только в 6 раз дороже.Мне просто дешевле в оптике у себя дома вставлять

Great screenshots. I am deep into the F1 Mirage right now,but pics like this make me want to start up the Mig 21 next/again.

Да, бланкирование есть. Но при этом нормальная работа Березы не обеспечивается. О чем не двусмысленно указывается в БП. Береза корректно работает только без бланкирования, то есть без РЛПК.

When it comes to sense of humor, I think you're the best.

Okey.

Aircrafts are usually stationed at one airport. So that seems logical to me. Quick RTB. While airdromes 2 and 3 are more like a steerpoint (if you don't need to land at one of these).