All Activity

Sharing the coordinates is a start, but you still end up with a talk on. You can put the grid in as a waypoint, then use the waypoint as prepoint, but unless you get a perfect pepoint (rarely happened) and have a relatively empty area you still ended up talking the other crew on. The grid is a good start, but the talk on refines it.

Did you ask George to turn on the systems ?

So you're claiming that two months after the start of serial production at two different factories, Fw people (!), BMW people and AGO people meet up at a third place to identify the need for those exact access panels already there. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-8_Besprechungs-Niederschrift_4-4-44.pdf Got any comments on the required changes to the oxy-tank arrangement (like in the Ta 152) as well? Btw this part: Is completely made up by you. Really? Where? It says that the D and TU motors are interchangeable and that with the start of production of the TS/TH motors (TH never happened) that aircraft will be called A-9. There's not a single word on exchanging or swapping the motors (TS) in the field, which you're implying. The A-9 was a thing since early '44. At first projected with the F motor and later with TH delays, earmarked for the TS. In August. No R4 designation. Except that it never mentions motor-swaps. "Anlauf" means "start of serial production".

And Baubeschreibung 284 does not change a thing on FW-190A9 production. All FW-190A9's were built with BMW801S engines. Baubeschreibung 284 only speaks to older airframes using older engines that are re-engined with a BMW801S engine. Those aircraft are to be redesignated as an FW-190A9. The engine installation changes the type designation. No FW-190A?/R4...just FW-190A9's and whatever Rusatze kit was installed. Can you imagine the nightmare of keeping track of your FW-190A8/R4//R6 around or having to order parts for your previously flown FW-190A8/R6 before it got a motor swap??? Baubeschreibung 284 simplifies all that just calling in an FW-190A9/R6.

So there's no workaround or mod for this? What a shame.

FW-190A5 fuselage. Can you spot the difference? FW-190A8 Fuselage:

Is there a fix for this on DCS World Dedicated Server? I don't see an autoexec.cfg to edit. This is pretty confusing stuff, a little disappointing... slmod is awesome and I heavily rely on it for stats and admin. Seems ED is always an update away from breaking something into oblivion. Thanks for any more detail anyone could provide.

without using any other third party app or having to insert files into a saved games folder, please explain how waypoints set either in the mission editor or mission planner tool would then give leg distance, bearing of each waypoint and this be loaded into the kneeboard prior to takeoff, and easily available during play? If you read my post, you will note time and also VR considerations. Note personally i use open kneeboard and also have a drawing pad/stylus that can write into that directly - however most players will not. This is not about what i want, but what is better for the module and players in general with simple improvements. This is about getting basic information calculations into the kneeboard from the off, which is easy for a PC to do if you have known GPS positions. Having the bearing, and distance to the next waypoint as part of the kneeboard would be invaluable. It was then a logical progression to have a speed table to calculate times on the fly in a vertical column, or even two columns would make sense. Again i do that myself and have experience, but this is about making it more realistic and helpful to the majority. It wouldnt be too much of a push to have a base fuel calculation either for each waypoint.

It might be related to materials from the searches I'm doing, I have no experience in this and don't know how to troubleshoot it. Ive done the same thing with lots of configurations. The information is spread out over years. I'd like to get started on modelling but I have no end to end process. I managed it about 8 years ago iirc.

I just noticed that the plane Icons in SimmappPro under "Game Peripheral Display" /MFD for M-2000C, AV8BNR, F-15E and F-15E_WSO disappeared and are replaced by placeholders. Why is this? Is it a bug? I really don't like this, please let me know how to fix this! (I suppose it has something to do with the RazBam issue? But I still want this fixed!)

A-8 serial production started in February '44 at Focke-Wulf Cottbus and Fieseler (Kassel), so two months later, delegates from Fw and BMW meet at AGO to conclude they'll need access panels that have already been there. Makes sense. Well, we do have factual proof of US airplanes actual firing rockets for starters. Quite the opposite of any fully-fledged and operational GM1 system in combat on a 190A-8. Nope. Fw Entwicklungsmitteilung 3 August 44 already stated the TS engine to be used for the A-9. Thats almost four months before Baubeschreibung 284 (late November 44) and just about after the GM1 device was cancelled from the specs for both the A-8 and A-9. No mention of your "R4" in association with the A-9 in that report.

Hi, any chance you could put a new link? Also, is there some better resolution texture out there for the U-2?

Unlike the "Uncontrolled", this option is to make an AI helicopter start its engine but not yet proceed to its waypoint. Just stay still, on the ground. It's easy for planes to put obstacles to block AI from taxiing. For an AI helicopter, it will try to take off and proceed to the waypoint right after its engine is running. This option is very useful when creating a scenario that from mission start, a group of helos preparing, loading & embarking while their rotors are still spinning, taking off right after some conditions are met. I know there is a way to spawn them in air and let them land right after. But I think letting them land from the beginning looks better and it's easy for creators to put static objects or units around them. It will be better to have optional setting to open the cargo doors like "LAND - COMBAT LANDING".

First iteration about this new one

Some war happened very recently which involved F-35, among other modern fighters, vs very old US and Russian fighters that were operated by another country. So the idea of matching aircraft era to recreate real world conflict can go down the drain

It has an 82 pages Quick Guide in english, so you don't really have a point. What it needs is the more comprehensive Flight manual in english, but the developer has been quite candid in explaining the trouble they have had translating the manual, and I truly appreciate that. Fortunately DCS has so many modules, I usually fly each for an extended period of time, I'm currently on the free T-45C which I'm pretty close to finish ... that's why I was looking forward to my next Module to fly, I'd love to return to the JF-17 but the manual is important to me, so I will leave it on the Hangar for a while longer. Instead I will pick the Mirage 2000 as I want to fly it for a last time while I still can, as I understand that DCS 2.10 will likely drop support for the Mirage

and how many Trainers have we gotten since? I could be mistaken, but the Hawk was probably the first... now we have the L39, C101, and the MB339... plus one of the Mirage F1 variants is a two-seat trainer.

It was posted on discord Monday the 21st, and on YouTube of the midway sale. So its really a week long sale. The news letter only comes out on Friday. Sadly i dont think they put news of sales or anything in the forums on the day it happens for some reason, so we have to look elsewhere for news of sales. https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/1150906653059846184/1396869586070011944

My test: zoom out and see if characters are still readable. HB AJS37, F-14 : different tech (letters don't seem to be made of segments) -> they are perfectly OK RB M-2000C : text doesn't appear to use boldness at all -> I think it's OK, even though characters seem too thin when zooming out (they almost vanish) ED A-10C, AH-64 (helmet HUD), F-16, SU-25 and Su-27/33/JF-11 : text boldness does not appear to increase when zooming out -> I think they're OK RB AV-8B and F-15E : text boldness does not appear to increase when zooming out -> I think they're OK Deka JF-17 : text boldness does not appear to increase when zooming out -> I think it's rather OK, even though characters seem a bit too "fat" when zooming out. Aerges Mirage F1 : text boldness does not appear to increase when zooming out, yet texts are small they are very hard to read from a distance -> I think there should be an option for bigger text ED F-15C MFCD, MiG-29 MFCD, F/A-18C HUD and Ka-50 HUD : text boldness appears to increase when zooming out ->I think they're bad Modules with no HUD, or no HUD text: CH-47, F-4E, F-5E, F-86, L-39, MB-339, Mi-24, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21 ,Mosquito, OH-58 ,all 8 warbirds, SA342, Yak-52, UH-1H. For now, I'll make separate reports for the Ka-50, the F/A-18C, the F-15C MFCD and the MiG-29 MFCD. If you know any another way of showing whether fonts are unreadable in some circumstances, please tell. @BJ55 I cannot reproduce your issue, even when using your options.lua. I'm pretty sure your issue comes either from your graphics card settings or your shaders cache. First try purging your shader cache (in your Saved Games/DCS folders, empty the "fxo" and "meatashaders2" subfolders). EDIT; I'll test with fog and repot back in the other thread.

For me this is one of the biggest points here, even more than the modules themselves. Post Hawk ED was supposed to have taken steps to prevent the situation from repeating, but obviously this didn't happen with RAZBAM. Why not? And does this problem extend to other modules?

Ope, this thread is now past 30 posts. ED doesn't have time to look at this topic anymore.

Yeah there were a lot of things teased by RB over the years that never really went anywhere. Like I said, originally i'm pretty sure what ended up as the AV8B was meant to be an FRS1 and looking at that then attempts to derive an FRS1 from the AV8B didn't go anywhere either. You can already get credit back from DCS if you bought the F-15E from them (Steam purchases are another matter). I suppose if a hypothetical in-house F-15E ever came into being then DCS MIGHT offer a discount to any RB F-15E owners who never asked for a refund. It'd be a tougher sell though if a different third-party did a remake to then expect them to sell a number of units at a very significant discount.

OK, Credit goes to Ouky for the Hud Colors, Caracal and Cipher for the Yellow MFD fonts. Thanks guys, My combo F-16C Hud/MFD color and no MFD in "Hud only view" is up. Hope this helps F-16 Yellow MFD Fonts and HUD color change.