All Activity

It is a bug and it will be corrected. No need to rebuild whole game. They just can't tell you when so don't wait for it. Reported. Move on.

Clearly the same principle applied to AI:

That's surprising. ED didn't want to share their ejected walking pilot? It's good enough for the task imho. I'm one of those that do notice lack of body in VR. It's just flying camera without one. Also surprising how the fast aicraft are synched in MP but the walking guy can't? At least the pilots are there

agreed with ai stupidness. i can only fly 2 hours a week a my priorties are my work and family so 15 mins editing iso flying is a bit much for me. anyway we all have our pirorites its a matter of what u choose. in this topic i am seeking for a automation solution for profile visual. maybe it could be a good idea someone willing to make a software for it and help guys like me as i am 50 and been spent years of flying DCS from the begining with not much time to spent.

Should be also added to DCS VR options. Some of us don't use the launcher.

Doesn't sound normal. Can you provide a short track showcasing this behaviour?

Alpha Jet E as a mod is in the works by SplitAir, who have a great track record with their mods.

Yup seems the only way. Personally I believe the issues like this shouldn't make it into the game. If it was an aircraft flown more often it would make it borderline unplayable.

A fantastic new video from Wags (see here) shows us how the (as of now upcoming) Mig-29A is set up in Mission Editor for navigation. From what I've seen (my interpretation, I can be wildly wrong), setting up a player-controlled Fulcrum's route is non-standard, and breaks compatibility with all other units. RIGHT NOW when we assign routes to units in ME, the procedure is simple and universally applied to all units (air, ground, naval): add waypoints, and it is understood that a unit follows all waypoints in sequential order. WITH THE FF FULCRUM it seems that - probably only for Fulcrums with Skill of Player or Client - this changes significantly: the first three waypoints placed in ME are now fed into the Nav System's "AD" store (AeroDromes, e.g. for diverts) while all other waypoints added are going to be accessible with the swith in "WP" position. The result is that a (player?) Fulcrum's route now always has to be set up with three divert AD points, and only then adds the "real" waypoints. THIS IS INCREDIBLY POOR DESIGN Why? A couple of points it breaks established procedure that a unit follows a route from first to last waypoint. Now, some units (Fulcrums) follow the route like this: from initial point they go to the FOURTH waypoint. It's not made clear in the tutorial, and I assume that this only holds true for player-controlled Fulcrums, not AI-controlled if there is a difference between how AI-controlled Fulcrums handle a route and player controlled do (player Fulcrums ignore waypoints 1-3), this further breaks usability, as the value of an attribute (Skill) changes route behavior. it makes it more difficult for content creators to visually understand a mission. Remember that in ME all waypoints for all units are drawn and connected. If there are multiple player Fulcrums they all now show the divert points, with the routes criss-crossing the map. it requires that mission creators remember that the FF Fulrcum have non-standard route assignments, and they must know how to handle the "(player) FF Fulcrum case" (the first three waypoints are special). If AI and player units handle routes differently, creators must also remember this correctly. it works against (and destroys) established practice from experienced content creators when they create complex, multiplayer missions that provide slots for multiple player types. Let's look at "Foothold" or "Pretense" as exampls: established procedure is to first place a player aircraft, set up the route, and then copy-paste unit with route. Then, we change the pasted unit's type to a new aircraft. The new units inherits the old route and all is well. This breaks for FF Fulcrums, requiring additional steps - if the content creator remembers that Fulcrums behave differently route scripts that process a unit's route for any purpose (there are lots of them: visualizing a unit's path, automatically providing info about the route, automatically placing units along the route etc.) now could break functionality for FF Fulcrums breaking the sequential logic of a linear route depending on a units/skill is incredibly bad design, as it requires additional coding and is not backward compatible DCS's own 'save state' (which, admittedly, is still nowhere) will have to compensate for this design flaw, and the code will have to check for type and skill, and provide extra code to preserve the AP states it can be a source for errors. AP points can be anything, there is no validation built into ME that the first three points in a FF Fulcrum are airfields. A BETTER DESIGN, more in line with established ME procedures would be: If a mission creator edits a player FF Fulcrum, they can enter AD info from the "Aircraft Additional Properties" tab. This FF Fulcrum specific tab can hold three AD locations AD1, AD2 and AD 3 which can be set to any airfield in the map by means of selecting that airfield from a drop-down, perhaps something like this: I think that the current design smacks of lazy, amateur "let's be low-effort and re-purpose existing data, and to hell with possible consequences for users" attitude that reflects badly on ED's dev team. This kind of ill thought-out 'solutions' to trivial problems, solutions that create more problems for everyone else down the line is one of the main reason why I'm so worried about DCS's future, and I no longer feel encouraged to contribute. What we have here is a brand new, for-profit module that reveals major integration design flaws, that takes cheap short-cuts. That to me shows that too little thought has gone into game integration, or that there simply is nobody at ED with adequate integration skills. This is not a good trend, and further confirms my unease about DCS's future.

Apparently it works as long as the armament control is turned on. You're free to turn it off if you're not fenced in. I don't understand the problem. This supposed to be the MiG-29A full fidelity simulation. If it was like that IRL that's how it should be simulated. It's not meant to be catered for DCS player convenience. Get a grip.

See https://github.com/ciribob/DCS-SimpleRadioStandalone/issues/875

Kfir has a oficial module by Aviron 3rd party. A new Hawk T.1 will requiere a UK 3rd party or similar. Alpha jet, T-38 has moding, wait to someone 3rd party make a oficial module. Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

omg fixed now

An indicator for QV problems is the initial game boot up page with the blue sky and clouds. If you have jagged lengths on the top and bottom... it clearly indicates the QV problem about to manifest in your flight.

The AI Mig-15s have very unrealistic FMs.

Because it hasn't been released yet.

Hi, Just returned to DCS after few years. Nice to be back with new powerful PC HW in 2025 and VR... WHen I fly the F86 Sabre it quckly slows down to 200kts as soon as I turn even if gentle turns. Then it takes long time to get up to speed. Is this normal? I know the Sabre has a slow aceleration then it gets fast again. It just looks not normal when flying against AI Mig 15s. I do my kills ok but it requires focus and lots of flaps in turns to keep it stable....

ugra media has make cold war map with parts of Germany, france, benelux, holanda, de Mark, sweden, poland and Cheqhis. Aernes has "plans" to a peninsular Yo canary islands map, OnReTech has a teaser to a Italy, Balkans map, Orbx has Kola (North skandinavia), and surely have plans to a South Skandinavia & baltic map. Ugra will convert your Normandy 2.0 map on a Modern map as ED with the Channel. Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

Same situation that F35

The Litening pod on the center pylon doesnt load the skin texture

Well, it could be independent maps depending on interest of user and his personal location. Then user decides which part he or she wants to install. Phases could be individual map packs. What I do not understand with Germany Cold War map is that phase 3 stops at french speaking part of Belgium while there are key bases in the flemish part like Kleine Brogel, Koksijde, Ursel, Zoersel, Zutendaal, ..., same for a part of netherlands.

Since the last DCS + SRS Update, all clients i spoke to, get massive static as soon as anyone transmits on SRS. It doesn´t matter which comm is being used, also no matter which freq. clicking the PTT button and all clients have to throw away the headphones. Anyone encountering similar things shortly ? This started shortly, used to work fine for years and i can´t yet see what´s wrong...

As you can see from the tags, my request includes a lot of 70's -current trainers and attack aircraft, including the KFIR versions. Alphajets have been and still are used for advanced training. It is indeed a great jet. Along with the T6C texan II it is the mainline in EU NATO training. Nevertheless, I'd be also happy to see a revival of a fully modelled BAe HAWK T Mk1A and upgrades as well as newer LEONARDO M345 & M346 jet trainers. I use the L39, C101, MB339 but the alpha jet is less forgiving and faster. Who said training has to be "easy"? I use the Mirage dual seater and T38A TALON (hope they create the T38C as well) for advanced training too.

has better wait to whole earth technology the actual flat Maps has none capable to reach that distance and size. Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk