All Activity

Maybe because it's difficult, if not impossible, to image ED going thru this for anything other than believing they have been wronged by RAZBAM.

If you do a search around the forums there is a current bug with Viper and multiple HARM launches causing a crash, so likely a DCS issue rather than an issue with your mission.

Try this. From the Library, right click on the title. Select Properties / General. There it will list Launch Options where you can choose VR, normal or if to ask when starting. I don’t have DCS on Steam but that’s how it works in another game.

That's LANTIRN.

I have not heard anything of this. From what I know, they hope to make the Lantirn pod, but no rework of the current Litening (not enough data).

I don't own the Germany CW map, so can't run the replay, on my end no LGB/GBU auto bombing issues. Do you use mods?

Yes, it is cold starts and sounds like what you are describing. I will try to get off the starter and see what happens.

All, Looking for help. I'm at wits end. I'll be honest my experience with DCS has nearly driven me to free up hard drive space over the past couple of years but I keep hoping to complete a mission to put on a server. I wanted it to showcase a lot, and probably go to far and reign in. Now though while flying the viper, I get two harms off... And CTD. Every time. Server stays up, I can rejoin, have both harms off (every time they impact). The moment they impact I CTD. I can not read log files and get anything out of them but I'll attach. If anyone can help, please do. Thank you. dcs.log-20250720-130049.zip dcs.log-20250720-131930.zip

ED could have paid out the money for the DCS modules, and then withheld money from MCS payments (if Razbam gets money from other MCS projects), or could have made a separate claim. ED could also have first gone through the process of mediation or whatever is happening behind the scenes, before collecting on the fine. Depending on the exact details of the situation, ED could also have chosen to forego part of or all of the fine, in favor of a forward-looking resolution that ensures that similar situations won't happen again in the future, where that loss of income of the fine, is offset by having a successful long term relationship between ED & Razbam and not having the PR nightmare that ED suffers from now (and that this thread is a part of). I understand that you are fully on the 'Razbam made them do it'-train, but ED had options. The current choice they made: Maximizes the fine and the chance that ED can collect their fine Maximizes the chance that the conflict over MCS would spill over to the DCS side Maximizes the chance that Razbam would stop supporting the modules Maximizes the chance that there is a long period of customer impact while the conflict is not yet resolved Maximizes the chance that the Razbam-ED relationship ends Increases the chance that customers are impacted and lose trust in third party modules/Razbam/ED, and thereby has negative long term impact on people's willingness to spend Of course you are free to think that they made the best choice and that all those negative outcomes are fully justified by the income that ED gets from the fine. I think that ED most likely cost themselves more money through lost sales than what they gained through the fine. But it's fair to disagree on this. However, when you start denying that ED could have made different decisions, it is not just a valid difference of opinion over whether what ED did was the best move, but simply becomes another way to put all the blame on Razbam, including for decisions that they didn't make, which is simply not fair. What are those reasonable grounds, then? All I see is people simply believing ED, even though ED has supplied absolutely no evidence for their claims. Please spell out how you think that Razbam violated their contract exactly and what evidence you have for that? At the very least, it means that we weren't exactly told the truth when ED told us that MCS and DCS have nothing to do with each other and that we shouldn't concern ourselves with MCS. When drama from the MCS side spills over to the DCS side, then whatever happens on the MCS side becomes relevant to DCS customers. We actually don't know if the alleged breach of contract by Razbam is something that was intentional and requires a (huge) fine to prevent it from repeating. I think that the most likely situation is that Ron made the not very unreasonable assumption that he would be free to sign a contract with the FAE for the development of the Tucano, since ED seems to have been fully aware that he was working on a deal, and that ED would then negotiate their license for MCS separately. If it was merely an innocent mistake, then it seems to me that it could have been resolved amicably by telling Ron off, and also changing the procedures on the part of ED, where they ensure that every contract for a custom plane is first vetted by ED, before it is presented to a military customer. Ultimately, I think that the only good way to conduct business is to be (reasonably) forgiving when employees, subcontractors, etc make mistakes. Demanding to be fully made whole can feel like it is just, but ultimately it destroys trust and thus relationships. Also, based on the very many people I've seen that say that they have or will reduce their spending due this conflict, I think that ED's choices have cost them substantial sums of money in lost sales, and they would probably have been better off to be forgiving to Ron, so the customers wouldn't have noticed. Winning the battle, but losing the war, is not a good outcome for ED.

I can show the grease pencil bar in VR, but I haven’t been able to expand it to write. Anyone know the trick to getting this to work in VR ?

It should have, but it did not. I had to scrub the drives of everything DCS related and then do it again. Problem is it has caused a new problem that is also unplayable. I'll post another thread since it is different.

As well as comedic value I have also found this thread makes my fingers tired from thinking about all of the energy expended on so much pointless typing. As a result I have kept this short to save my fingers for some useful or even possibly enjoyable task. Update: Fortunately I was able to still click on the "Launch DCS" button

I did some fresh testing with Mk49 Mod 0 against SA-6: I think a big problem is a discrepancy between the Heatblur model (RWR, weapon seeker pre-launch) and ED model (weapon seeker post-launch). In my testing, the Phatoms RWR and the Shrike seeker did pick up the SA-6 tracking radar regardless of which direction it is pointing. I think that is because Heatblur simulates receiving radar sidelobes. But once launched and the ED weapon modeling takes over, the Shrike will only track the SA-6 when it is within the mainlobe of the tracking radar. It will track when fired 40° off axis and will not track when fired 50° (or more) off axis. So unfortunately a seeker tone/ADI bars in the cockpit is no guarantee that the weapon will track after launch.

hello unsure if it will help but i use / (numpad) for center and ~ for pause. i do not not have trap checked. try that.

I think you'll have to create a mission yourself in order for that to work out.

another idea. i see you are running DCS-BIOS. try disabling it and try again. 2025-07-19 21:30:03.635 ERROR APP (Main): Failed to run C:\Users\Flugsimulator\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Scripts\Hooks\DCS-BIOS-Autostart-hook.lua: [string "C:\Users\Flugsimulator\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Scripts\Hooks\DCS-BIOS-Autostart-hook.lua"]:2: attempt to call field 'run_process' (a nil value) i also see this just prior to the crash. 2025-07-19 21:31:16.325 INFO DXGUI_WIN_ADAPTER (Main): ChangeDisplaySettings failed! Result is -1 you could try to rename the DCS folder in Saved Games c:/users/flugsimulator/saved games/dcs.openbeta to dcs.openbeta.BAK. then run DCS, quit DCS. a new folder is created. copy the backup INPUT folder to the newly created folder \Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\config\Input this is the folder that has your controller bindings. this step can be done first.

Here are some current test results. Tested Shrike with Mk49 Mod 0 seeker against SA-6 STR from various off-axis angles. Methodology: Own aircraft spawned 5 NM from radar in active pause. Own aircraft set to invisible so it is ignored by enemy radar. Friendly aircraft spawned at various locations around the radar to test SA-6 locking it up and pointing its tracking radar at different directions. Results: 40° off axis from the direction the SA-6 STR is tracking: "6" visible on RWR, seeker giving tone, seeker steering cues display on ADI, missile tracks target after launch. 50° off axis from the direction the SA-6 STR is tracking: "6" visible on RWR, seeker giving tone, seeker steering cues display on ADI, missile does not track after launch. 180° off axis from the direction the SA-6 STR is tracking: "6" visible on RWR, seeker giving tone, seeker steering cues display on ADI, missile does not track after launch. Interpretation: It seems that on the F-4E Phantom avionics side of things (RWR simulation as well as Shrike seeker before launch), receipt of radar side lobes is simulated. That is why the RWR shows the SA-6 even when it is tracking in the opposite direction. This also extends towards the the Shrike seeker before launch, which also gives tone on sidelobes. This seems to be because all DCS weapon do not exist prior to launch and are actually part of the aircraft code. But once launched, the DCS weapon code takes over and here ARM only seem to track radar mainlobes. Shrike_SA-6_180°_noTracking°.trk Shrike_SA-6_40°_Tracking°.trk Shrike_SA-6_50°_noTracking°.trk

Do you have the download link?

No because i dont have the source files

It’s for accessing the settings for HUD video recording. But it’s not implemented (it’s mentioned in the Chinese JF-17 manual Deka ships with the module. You can find it here https://flyandwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/odt_dcs-jf-17-flight-manual-en-faw240921.pdf it’s briefly mentioned on page 66 of the pdf.

Great ! Will there be an english cockpit ?

Submitted a ticket with a log file (had to use wetransfer since logfile was too big to upload) The gray, visible area in the cockpit is independent of foveated rendering, regardless of which settings I change, even in the Super settings (contrast, brightness, etc.). The gray veil remains as a rectangle and moves with my pupils. I have attached the log file for this. By the way, even if I reduce or enlarge the area of foveated rendering, the gray rectangle remains the same size; there seems to be no connection here.

Thank you very much, I am fully aware that tracking with Lighthouse is a completely different matter. Unfortunately, the faceplate is not yet available for the Super, but yes, I will definitely buy it, as with the entire cockpit setup on the platform, there is always a risk of restrictions in head tracking. Incidentally, the new version of Pimax Play seems to improve room tracking, but I did experience some strange lags while flying, which caused movements to be delayed briefly, which was very unpleasant. I'll look into this further and try rolling back to the old Pimax Play version when I have a little more time to see if that's the only reason.

The current pod of the Viper is a mix between Litening and LANTIRN, as the Litening doesn't have TV and LST iirc. However, the pod has more issues, like having bushes appearing brighter than trucks at some time of the day. Sometimes, IR has wild textures. And it has a tendency to lock street lights instead of trucks or tanks. It is what it is, and I understand not wanting to change it as of now, as the ATP is around the corner and the Litening pod will be reworked to more closely represent the Litening pod. And I think that that's the way to go.

Really? A quick search on YT threw a bunch of hits. It seems to be praised a lot. Watched a direct comparison a while back, that also tested it in DCS, while unfortunately most other reviews have racing in focus obviously. Price has dropped from ≠USD350 to ≠USD220 here in Norway now. So I guess I'm getting one. The name escapes me, but I think there's another software that works with it in DCS too, while it's not free. Cheers!