All Activity

oh yes. Once they release G.91, they will start working on another one... Thus not having resources to support G.91, and MB-339

You asked the question. I thought you where talking about the manual. May be I misunderstood ... Well, don't mind. It's fine for me.

If you turn inside the enemy, the AI will break and they'll go into "defence mode" which is a lazy turn. Which means flying the Spitfire, once you've turned inside the circle. You can just keep turning, while you reel ib the Germans until you hit them. This works in 1 v 1 fights. The AI also seem to have a offensive mode. Which is much more aggressive. So Paradoxically. It's much harder to get behind and take out the enemy AI if that enemy is in offensive mode, trying to shoot down one of your allied aircraft. Realistically if you're the only enemy the AI has to deal with, it should put up much more of a fight. But the AI doesn't work like that. I've also observed that if you damage the enemy sufficiently it will maneuver much more then if it's undamaged. I've seen it many times, I pull a 109 or 190 into my gunsights in the Spitfire. Because the AI is now "trapped " in that lazy turn behaviour. If i shoot well the aircraft goes down. If i shoot badly. Damaging parts of the aircraft, but not mortality wounding it(like shooting of one of the aellerons ) the AI will kick into gear and maneuver violently to avoid getting hit. It will roll, dive, tighten up the turn weeve about. This is stuff I've seen many times over the years fighting the ww2 AI. In a 1 v 1 the P51 vs 109 seem to give the best fights. They are somewhat similar in speed and use. The Spitfire and I16 breaks the AI as you'll immediately turn inside their turn. The Anton is a bit like Orcs. Not much danger unless there's a lot of them. Same really with the Dora too. Both 190s are easy game for p51 and Spitfire. And the P47 usually handles them fine too.

Awesome Aircraft!! Just while youre waiting, heres my desktop shot of a low flyby in the Mach Loop. Help yourselves! Your welcome

Looks great! Thx for your efforts.

Let me do some research and will get back Let me do some research and will get back

Senaki-Kolkhi, 998.5 hPa. Altimeter reports:

nope. Senaki-Kolkhi, 998.5 hPa. Reports this:

Looking forward to try it out, thanks for sharing!

I don't think SAS is gonna do much when you're shortening your runway Unless you're one of those Airforce ballerina's trying to impress the CO with a pretty flare You're Navy, you don't land, you arrive!

The first part is so vague to be impossible to judge. The second part can very well be false, since it has been said that Razbam would actually make the plane for free for the FAE, other than the exchange of a technical package, so that is not a profit. Are you seriously claiming that the government considers quality so important that it will let them overlook other things?? Laughable. Government contracts are well known for going to the lowest bidder and the lower tier soldiers/employees ending up with crap. There is a reason why soldiers very often buy their own gear. And then you have all the corruption of course. Just look at how so many contracts went to SIG for the handguns.

Sure. I know what you mean So, I start DCS and do the bindings e.g. for the joystick in "general" bindings. Like you described that did not work for any planes. Don't know If we both are doing something wrong, but here comes my work around: I then exported the joystick-bindings within the "general" control settings by clicking into the column of the joystick and then klick on "save profile as" (mine is german). Once saved, I imported this file into each aircraft setting by going into the aircraft's settings, klick into the joystick's column and klick "load profile". Then I selected the previously saved file from "general" (see above) and now I had the setting working. This is far from beeing a good solution for the issue but it saved me a lot of time. I'd prefer to get an explanation why my general bindings did not work as intended without this work around, but I'm hoping someone with better knowledge of things could lead me (or us) to the point I'm still missing. (Don't forget to make a backup of your "...saved games\DCS\Config\Input" folder, before you try this.)

Please indicate where this has been stated by anyone at ED?

Decided to go a different route with my setup. It's a year old and barely used, it's complete with all the hardware and accessories, no rips or tears. Obviously as we all know it's bulky so I'd prefer locale pickups, but I'm willing to discuss anything within reason. $300 OBO Located in the Seattle Area!

From his comment, I took that he also uses productivity software that benefits from lots of cores. Intel can be a good choice for a mixed use machine, since AMD strictly segments its lineup by the number of cores, so there are no cheap many-core options, while that is the case for Intel. I don't know the relative performance of these chips in DCS specifically, so I don't know what advice to give though.

Yes, I can understand it. In fact, none of the french pack or the Charles de Gaulle (CDG), have evolved since a while. So if Currenthill have the time to make a great french pack with vehicles, and why not some special forces (with animation) like the commandos de marine (navy seals) and the foreign legion, and why not the CDG and maybe the Clemenceau /Foch, that would be a great pack that I would download directly.

It was definitely the amount of menu entries... Had to rearrange some mission flows to fix. My estimate is the the dedicated server supports only between 10 and 20% of the total menu items supported by the client.

Reshade is actually a nice software, that quietly sits in the back if unused without eating performance. And with a single keystroke does its thing. You CAN however get lost in the rabbit hole of turning to many knobs and adding too many filters…. and eventually, depending on what you are doing, it CAN add up to eating a couple of fps. My conclusion for reshade is „less is more“.

No, Im saying ED isnt paying Razbam because they're using their SDK in a manner they arent supposed to...using it for one of EDs potential customers for a profit behind ED's back. A govt contract. Im saying if Razbam's modules were top quality, they could probably get away with small things like that...and lets face it: their modules are about average. Not above, not below. About what is expected of you if you punch a clock every single day. Just...never completed, its like the gravy train that rolls on and on and on and on

Not really sure what you are saying here. Are you claiming that ED refused to pay Razbam over buggy modules? And not sure what the government contract bit is about either.

the last place on earth for accurate information would be reddit with blue sky being a very close second.

It almost always is. You know why? Because everyone loves money. Employers do not like BS, even more so if your product is buggy half the time and unfinished with no estimated time of completion. The only other time Ive ever seen this kind of BS running rampant and getting away with it are with government contracts...and considering a possible government contract is what supposedly brought this issue on tells me everything I need to know.

I'm familiar with cases where people followed the contract and yet were not paid, both near me, and from the news. The claim that following a contract means that you always get paid is thus false. And I added 'in general' to my comment to clarify that I was talking about the general situation, not specifically ED & third party developers.

There were at least 2 more such bases.

IDK, but maybe tgere is a way to make a feedback to AMD for this kind of issue.