All Activity

Yep, seconded - this was allegedly a priority item in the newsletter immediately following the release of DCS 2.7 - that was over 4 years ago.

Yes, it's been discussed before - and a pet peeve as well that I see people keep using wrong classifications. Including ED, who are quick to say "we are simulating an F-16CM from circa 2005 as been used by the USAF" but keep calling an actual in-service aircraft by the name of a concept that never materialised. It's the equivalent of calling our F/A-18C lot 20 a YF-17. Also, the naming conventions used inside DCS are not consistent. In the ME it's called "MiG-29A-Fulcrum" while in the Special Options it's - correctly - called "MiG-29 (model 9.12A)".

Interesting, that makes sense for toss bombing

I noticed 90% of times we need to make a flight plan actually we have to put waypoints on ground instead of current default (6k ft circa). It's a waste of time for the majority of us, changing it every time. Can you rapidly correct this default for us to have a default elevation for new waypoints on ground? Note: I know if i put on ground the first waypoint then all the next will be on ground. But i still have a 6k ft of default to change one time that i think nobody needs. Thank you.

Hi everyone, I appreciate this is minor (though on the flip-side, fixing it is trivial), but what we have in DCS is not a MiG-29A. IRL the actual MiG-29A (product 9-11A) was a speculative concept from the 1970s that was never built beyond small, scale models. Here's what it may have looked like if it was ever actually built (note 29A written on the nose): This was essentially a stop-gap aircraft, using avionics (including the radar) of late MiG-23ML aircraft (and you can see an R-23R missile depicted under each wing). This model can also be seen in the documentary Wings of the Red Star - the Last Generation about the MiG-29 and Su-27. Here's another image showing prospective loadouts (including the K-25 - more-or-less a copy of the AIM-7 Sparrow), here depicted with semi-recessed stations on the corners of the engine nacelles - much like the Hornet (though you can find numerous other MiG-29A designs - such as this one and even this SAAB 35 Draken-looking one Note how "радиолоцанная станция" (radar station) is listed as "САПФИР-23М" i.e SAPFIR-23M. SAPFIR-23 being the radar fitted to the MiG-23. What we have in DCS is actually just "MiG-29". I'd propose renaming it to "MiG-29 (9-12A)" or "MiG-29 (9-12A) Fulcrum-A", as that's where the As actually belong and this is what the aircraft actually is. Including Fulcrum-A is out of convention for DCS (though DCS' naming convention is inconsistent to begin with), though were it to be done, I'd include NATO reporting names for all Soviet/Russian/Chinese aircraft, as has been done with some ground units. The Ural-375s got corrected to what they actually are (Ural-4320s), let's hope this can get corrected too. I've attached a modified MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua (ironically, the name of the .lua file gets it right), changing line 410 to have a more accurate display name that fixes the issue - this resides inside CoreMods\aircraft\MiG-29-Fulcrum (ironically the name of the .lua file and the name of the folder gets it right). This will break the Integrity Checker so ensure to retain a back-up of the original. MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua

Yep, long overdue.

From i understand listening to different current vendors' conversations on YouTube that touch on working with ED, they have high expectations. If you can prove a working full-fidelty module with reliable non-classifed and publicly available information, then they might be interested. What is know is developing full-fidelty modules can take years. I encourage to keep working towards your goal. If your fixed wing was available, I would buy it.

I think SA-22 does not have corresponding HARM code. HTS/HAD would be best choice.

Yeah, even a single AI 737 would add a lot.

Подтверждаю, постоянно после взлёта лечу на аэродром, забитый в кнопку 1

No idea?

Thanks both, But my 2 week trial has timed out so I cant carry out any settings changes. However I have been through both these tutorials and had no luck. 90hz upscale was awefull on this headset. Everything was blurry!! My biggest issue was the Foveated rendering ( quad views ) stopped working. It looked to be the only way I could fine tune my headset to get some degree of quality experience. But despite being selected in Pimax Play, the headset wasn't applying it. I tried performance, balance, quality and my custom settings, but it wouldn't apply in the headset. Restarted Pi-Play. opened as admin. I even re-installed pimax software to no avail. I have asked for an update for the feedback I gave support for the processes and settings they asked me to provide on 26th, or I'm sending it back and rethinking my VR direction. Ben

This will be present with GCI. But without GCI you do not have TD "box".

Did I use the wrong term? With 'Opacity' I meant the transparency of the MFD. I would like to set it to approx. 50%.

What puts me off MP? schedule and time dedication reliance on 3rd party apps like Discord or SRS poor or no briefing/mission plan (public servers) unrealistic mission settings and randomness of powers on both sides (public servers) DCS MP performance and visual weirdness (jumping/warping aircraft) no RL friends playing risk of meeting griefers, trolls and cheaters (public servers) What I miss in SP? unpredictability and skills of human opponents much better interaction with wingman and other friendly flights more realistic comms between flights and services (ATC or JTAC)

Bignewy from Eagle Dynamic stated, "If they wanted to go official they would need to reach out to us.", when I asked about any potential mod to official full fidelity module works in conjuction with ED. I PRAY for a full Fidilty Jaguar module - $79.99 each - day one purchase for me if you do this, SkyForge Studios.

I am having the same issues - load one aircraft and fly it on an otherwise empty Caucasus map and it workls fine - Load 2 aircraft and the mission wont load - gets stuck at 'ng5' Cant seem to find the problem but still looking. The game was running fine last night and first thing this morning - my PC is up to date and the game has the latest update.

Hello mate! I havent figured out how to release the R-73 beyond 30° off the nose. If i use the HELM mode i can use the IRST within its 30° gimbal limit. The manual says -"R73 missiles can be launched without releasing the lockon button, but the target must the tracked via the HMD"- That means for me i just look with the HMD to the target without locking it. Just like in the F16 or F18. I´am used to get a sidewinder growl noise when directing via hmd to a heat source. This can be either the sun or an airplane. I´am always stuck with the IRST in helmet mode. What am i doing wrong here?' Settings are default. Radar to ILLUM, COOP switch in no retard position.

вот сюда вставить их https://www.ozon.ru/product/zashchitnye-ochki-bez-dioptriy-dlya-pico-4-2635450033/ у меня такие,тока я плюсовые вставлял ,они выпуклые и пришлось выпуклой стороной в сторону глаз ставить,иначе в линзы шлема упирались

The quirk I'm having the most trouble with is the lack of information when locked onto a target with the radar. All you get is range and aspect. The lack of a TD box over the actual contact makes it hard to maintain visual situational awareness, particularly when you're about to get into a merge.

What's the SA-22 ALIC? I would like to feed it into my HARM table.

Put all the mods back in in one go. It hasn’t been confirmed that it was even a mod that did this, which it shouldn’t. If it breaks with the mods then take them back out to confirm. Like I said, there’s other stuff in Saved Games including auth stuff.

I also avoid public servers for a variety of reasons - one of which being certain behaviours I have observed there (and have been subjected to) that I don't care to repeat. AirQuake simply doesn't interest me, and loading entire SAM sites on a Huey to drop them off using scripts is a bit... err immersion breaking I have joined a few squadrons back in the day, and I have had a few of my own as well, but these days I fly SP with the occasional hop on a privately hosted mission with a friend of mine. That works just fine for me.

MP generating missions, like in other flight sims, even really old ones. Not a long-ass list of random airfields and aircrafts. Where you have to spawn not knowing where or why. Chosing some random weapon, flying to some random place, doing some random stuff, invent your mission by yourself in your head. Like every pilot is forced to be an air force general with detailed knowledge about the whole battlefield and air mission planner, which feels lika a chore, like a mission editor. Such random missions equals subpar experience and often close to no interaction with the world. It should be like in other sims, where you can see a map with airfields and automatically generated missions to chose. Where you have route & nav points already in your nav computer/cardridge, you just set proper weapon suited your mission. Naturally cooperate with other elements of your flight. This equals great experience even in much technically worse sims then DCS.

Note, he says he already did both, though and looks like something somewhere in Saved Games causes the problem. H60MTI, it's time for manual trial and error method, unfortunately, folder by folder. I'd start with excluding MissionEditor one. A few guys in other threads reported issues with launching the latest version of the game and a file in that one was the culprit (albeit their symptoms were a bit different?).