All Activity

Don't let some of comments around here fool you. Your observations are correct, though your conclusions may not be. However, it's only so because you come from a different time and different world. I was there too. You can see from the list of sims I played over the years on my profile. Your only "sin" here, is that you expect the AI's to play by the same or similar rules that you do. They unfortunately, DO NOT. I have fought AI's that had both of their wings missing, and they still managed to climb at steady 45 degrees nose high, 75 knots, all the way to 60000ft. They could have gone higher as well, however I COULD NOT FOLLOW them. Me, in my completely untouched, pristine plane. The AI's in DCS are like the Agents in the Matrix. They cheat. The system is ALWAYS giving them all the energy they need to continue flying. An AI in DCS will NEVER STALL. EVER. Under any circumstance. If to planes entered a double Immelmann in DCS, one at 170 knots, the other at 320 knots, who do you thing has better chances of completing it? If your answer was the one at 320, you would be wrong. If your answer was the one at 170, you would also be wrong. The correct answer is the one flown by the AI. Also, the AI in DCS ALWAYS has power/thrust to ratio greater then 1. If you initiate a climb at say 150 knots more then the AI that's on your six, the AI will follow you into that climb without any problems. More then that, it will actually catch up with you. You see, as your planes loses power as you climb, and thus you start losing airspeed and eventually stall, the AI wont. It's follow you into low orbit if it needs to. So ignore all the comments that advise you to use energy tactics, unless they mean single strife/slashing dives and then bugging out. It won't work. Some planes are more guilty of this then others (when controlled by the AI), but as a general rule, they all follow this principles. Planes like the MiG-15, MiG-21 and F-5 are particularly notorious of this. They will, out climb and out turn ANY plane in the game if you play by their rules. Fortunately for jet plane users, these planes often have at least some form of advantage that compensate for the AI behavior, be it weapon system, or raw performance. Those who fly WW2 planes, aren't that lucky. Bottom line, IF you want to compare plane performance, do it by using either AI's as controllers for both planes, or humans for both planes. Unfortunately, I own neither the Dora not the Kurfürst, so I can't evaluate the relatives strengths and weaknesses of these relative to the Corsair in DCS. However, when I compared them in the hands of the AI at veteran skill level (avoiding using Ace levels, they are the worst when it comes to breaking the rules of physics), I got this: As you can see, the Corsair soundly beats the Dora, and while not quite as good as the 109, it still pulls a roughly 50% win ratio. The 190d isn't all that hard really. The AI controlled Dora is very close to your own Corsair in performance, and you can generally out turn it in horizontal if you are patient enough. However, you can make things a lot easier for yourself, if you do some out of plane maneuvering. The Kurfürst is whole other can of worms though. I have no idea how to fight that when AI controlled. I have seen it go less then 74 knots and out turning me, I have seen it out accelerate me, and catch up with me, even when I started at 350 knots, and he started at 170. The examples I mentioned above, are actually from me experimenting with a veteran AI in the 109. It also out turns you at EVERY speed. I think we may have a case of an F-5, Mig-15 or MiG-21 in the warbirds here. But if you need some help in taking down Doras, here's one way that I do it: Hope some of this helps. Don't give up. A day may come, when the AI finally plays by our rules as well. When that day comes, I'll start playing WW2 campaigns. Alas..... But it is not this day....

I totally agree. Creating WWII missions with accurate and realistic AI units is a lot more fun than without. These 3D models don't create themselves and I'm more than happy to pay a little contribution!

Yes. After the last update, taxiing has been marginally improved but remains problematic. It should spin readily with differential breaking and a very small amount of power. Currently, you need nearly full throttle for making a 180 turn when stationary.

Practice. You should have a lot of speed and altitude when working it, so even if you stall the generators, you can probably autorotate to restart them.

Mirage IIIC and IIIS is available via VSN mods

Here is looking at it from the other side, have the planes, maps, WWII assets. Creator makes Mosquito campaign saying no WII assets required, instant turn off, I don't buy the campaign, don't want to shoot at modern Russian armor. No one works for free, assets pack is high quality, and not too expensive , which can give you hundreds of hrs of enjoyment. This hobby might seem expensive but the cost divided by the amount of hrs we use it, its one of the best bang for the buck hobbies.

I tested with a shortcut to DCS.exe with "--disable-features=UseEcoQoSForBackgroundProcess" and I got a 20fps improvement, still one thread at 100% on my 5800X3D, it occurs only on heavy scripted servers, rn testing on Greyflag Syria. On low scripted servers I have no CPU Bound (Render Thread) issue and running at 200fps.

Более чем согласен. Думаю что и в реальности буде применение там Геркулеса в зоне БД высокой интенсивности ни о каких трассах и схемах речи и быть не может. Либо выше зон ПЗРК и малкалиберной артиллерии. Либо вплотную к земле. С афганскими заходами. Тут вообще без вариантов. По обычным правилам он не жилец

I did not voluntarily integrate the manual into the Kneeboard, I think it is not its place It is up to everyone to adapt their content, the most important thing was to have functional Keybinds

Wow! A free Sedlo campaign for the F-4! How did I not see this before?! Thanks a lot Sedlo!

I wasn't, but at some time I became interested in the whole 104 affair and it soon showed that lots of strong opinins on the jet aren't based on proper understanding. That in large part is due to the smear campaigns by the press, wanting to hit back at FJ Strauss who had a news-magazine raided earlier. And because journos like to copy each other instead of actually going for a story. The story should not have been based on the "$h1tty jet", but on the fact that the whole organisation was incapable of technically and logistically supporting it, while other, smaller nations did a much better job. That was in part due to the 10-year post war hiatus of operting any kind of aeroplanes, but that's also a convenient excuse for organisational blunder. Parallels to current events are purely coincidental... For people that are actually interested in the 104G/ CF, get a copy of this book. It does a good job of explaining the strenghts and weaknesses of the 104 in it's recce and strike mission in the RCAF (mostly OPS'ing over Germany) and the general state of mind of 1960s and '70s Starfighter pilots. It helps understanding why so many jets crashed, flying an inherently dangerous mission - all weather low level strike and reconnaissance. I can't recommend this book highly enough - if you can only own one book on the 104, it should be this one. It's been out of print for a long time, but it should surface in the bay every once in a while: null

Предполагаю, что применение этого транспортника в онлайне будет в большинстве случаев вне всяких трасс и стандартных маршрутов, на предельно малых высотах и под прикрытием истребителей. Ну или выше 250 эшелона, вне досягаемости ПЗРК, и в обход зон поражения средств ПВО большой дальности. Онлайн сценарии предлагают масштабные боевые действия, в которых не до стандартных маршрутов и полётов по трассам. ЭкшОном там станет щемление крупной тушки Геркулеса через ущелья Кавказского, например, хребта с последующим лихим заходом на посадку или десантирование вытяжными парашютами с высоты в пару метров.

Тут, возможно, вы правы. Позволю себе, на основе вашего предположения, растечься мыслью по древу, так сказать. По моему скромному мнению для разработчиков, с чисто финансовой точки зрения, имел бы смысл разделить Объекты Второй Мировой на несколько пакетов. Количество юнитов Тихоокеанского ТВД представленных в пятничных новостях вызывает, за себя скажу, чувство восхищения и понимания того сколько времени и труда вложено разработчиками в этот пакет объектов. Конечно, есть переживания по поводу анимации пехотных юнитов, но тем не менее количество и детализация юнитов этого пакета (сужу по редким скринам), вызывает уважение. Для создателей миссий просто клад, я считаю. На месте разработчиков, я вообще бы разделил Объекты Второй Мировой на несколько пакетов и продавал бы в полную цену, например Объекты ТТВД, Объекты ВОВ (не, ну а вдруг ) и т.д. а допы к этим Объектам уже со скидкой. В этой ситуации, думается мне, разработчики будут иметь регулярный приток финансовых средств, а юзеры регулярное пополнение высококачественной наземки для создания миссий, а если сподобятся то и кампаний. Ну а такому криворукому пеньку как я, достаточно будет атмосферности происходящего на экране. Ну и под закат. Конечно я ещё тот маркетолог. Разработчикам, разумеется, виднее что и как (без всякого сарказма).

Да, "пари" на повезёт не повезёт за разглашение отхватить 10 лет лагерей и закрытие проекта. Очевидно же что идёт переезд на "гражданские рельсы" симулятора что бы не рисковать. А пока, как говорил товарищ Ленин -"Архиважно молчать в тряпочку" что бы "условка" не превратилась в что то более твёрдое и ощутимое. Эти люди прогматичные. Общались пока сборы были хорошими. Как только доход лаве упал до не приличного так у них общаться сразу интерес и пропал. Не первый раз, уже "традиция" после этого же с РОФ.

Mk II means 3 lug British/American. ..

Sorry for omitting the first part of the path. I changed it in the manual now to the full path (will be available whenever I update the campaign). I assumed the saved games folder was common knowledge, as it is both a standard Windows folder (like downloads, pictures, videos, etc) and it is used to store downloaded missions and skins.

@BremspropellerThanks for the info. Seems as it was/is part of your profession.

Last week we had a mission where we fight against German ww2 bombers. At the end, 20 bombers are circling without the crew, for ever. So I can confirm this bug.

I just noticed that my launcher decided to change to Chinese letters? How to fix this, my lang.cfg is set to EN ? null

The bloated W11 on a I9-9900K with 32GB RAM, 16GB pagefile, 8GBVRAM: if you set resolution at 3840x1080, civ traffic, MSAA 4x, SSAO, SSLR, volumetric lights, flat shadows blur, etc., some "antifreeze" is expected.

My set arrived yesterday and Ive found it uncomfortable most of yesterday. Also the headphones are lacking in Fidelity!!! This morning I integrated my headset into the pimax and it works superbly including improving the fit. Just by winding out the rear tensioner. HyperXcloud 3's excellent Fidelity

Most Weapon mods are Core Mods, break IC and don't work well with each other if more than one is installed. That's why I avoid them.

They decided to buy it for several reasons: - one-size-fits-all "multirole" aircraft, which on paper the 104 did rather well - best performance available at the point of contract-signing out of any aircraft "available" (the F-104G specs were just a paper plane at this time) - customization by Lockheed into the specs that the Euro Air Forces wanted; no hand-me-down USAF (SAC-heavy at this point) aircraft - liberal contracting of local construction of airframes and engines (tech transfer) - INS, NASARR (F-105 radar), IRST - high speed and good range at low level (about 1.5 times the range of an F-4 for a nuke profile) - when the contract was signed, it was assumed that conflicts were going to be nuclear; conventional capability was not considered to be overly important The following F-4 replacements came in: - RF-4E replacing the RF-104G (in GAF service a useless jet without radar) in AG 51 and AG 52 - F-4F replacing 104Gs in JG 71 and JG 74 - F-4F replacing 104Gs in JaboG 36 The F-4s that replaced the 104 in the GAF were F-4Fs without Sparrow capability. The GAF didn't have use for Sparrows due to their limited air defense mission. JaboG 36 was a conventional-only unit, which made sense due to the Phantom's better conventional attack capabilty (which was even limited in the F-4F vs the F-4E). The other conventional-only unit (JaboG 32) wasn't converted to F-4s and later converted to Tornados (like the nuke-Geschwader 104s and the Marineflieger), which came roundabout a decade later.