All Activity

It's a real pain to have to individually bind the FC '29 three times when as far as I can tell there's no major difference between them.

Yeah, lot's of people I have been flying with are using farps and airstrips in the areas that are finished, they all see things rendered and I am not seeing what they see. I will try again, just did a repair and will see if it helped at all.

The 3d model for both the Fulcrum and Apache can be turned off in special settings.

Now that we have the controls indicator I've noticed this as well. The aileron trim "neutral" zone has a left bias. It also seems like the deadzone/curve issue, or twitchiness, on takeoff is caused by wind. If I run a mission with 0-2kts of wind I have no issues. When I run a mission with 5-10kts of wind, it's like the deadzone/curves aren't applied and my wings rock with the slightest inputs.

I tried this on Nevada and saw similar. I was trying to zero the altimeter (for Groom Lake QFE) and found that my bombs were miles out and I go NOLA warnings. Also using pre-desig when set with altimeter far from QNH I noticed the desig symbol altitude is wrong. Had A for laser on the hud, but it seems almost like only barometric altitude is being used (in a dive so probably too steep for radar?) not laser range

As far as I can make out whether its wind or target motion is irrelevant. You the pilot just need to do your pilot stuff to track the target so that will take in to account both wind and target motion ... the result is then applied as a simple total vector correction to the nil wing/tgt motion CCIP.

That children analogy - that is beautiful! Accurate, but beautifully funny, love it.

I'm just trying to do basic CCIP bombing, no predesignating. Speed, dive angle all well within parameters and getting the laser ranging but bombs are still falling short. I watched Wags' video.

I'm finally home tonight and will create a track file for this.

+1 for a fix to this. This thread was created in 2019, here we are in 2025 and players still have to choose between a functional kneeboard and passing IC. On the topic of scaling issues, multi-monitor setups break the control indicator scaling too. These basic features should not break just because of alternative monitor setups, and the fix actions should not break IC.

Just and FYI, those videos are of a C-130H with a four bladed propeller. The C-130J is a newer model with scimitar blades that sound much different. See the attached video.

I believe he is mistaken, mixing it up with salvo fire

It’s not a button. It’s simply a bind to simulate pressing through the AOA limit which takes about 17 kg of force.

I have also seen Mach 1.5 limits for the centerline tank. Which is about where you jettison it in my profile/recommended manual profile as well. I have never seen g limits for ground weapons, only speed limits. For example it seems no faster then Mach 0.8-0.9, I’m a bit too lazy to look up exact limits right now. One issue with S-8 is detonation of the rocket motors from aerodynamic heating.

Thank you that clears up why! After you release lock, is it reasonable that it’s also comparing the spot you pre designated with current pipper position? It seems to atleast do this for motion compensation, as you move the pipper it lags as if trying to provide lead for a moving target in the direction you move your nose. Giving the impression that it’s harder then normal to move the pipper

Give me a shout if you are still needing any help.

I received a feedback that CH-47 and kiowa also dont have support yet, I dont have them to test myself, but Ill add to the list. Updated list for @WINWING @WinwingTech : - MB-339 - F4U-1D Corsair - F-5E Flaming Cliffs 2024 - F-86F Flaming Cliffs 2024 - MIG-29 Flaming Cliffs 2024 (All variants MIG-29A, MIG-29S) - New MIG-29A Fulcrum full fidelity - Su-25A (SimAppPro only have Su-25T variant) - MIG-15 Flaming Cliffs 2024 - Kiowa - CH-47

This dialog pops up in the Launcher... and keeps popping up after clicking OK. Only fix is to "ctrl-alt-del" and kill DCS with the task manager. This happened immediately after installing the latest patch (yesterday?). I've never had a lick of trouble with the launcher since its release. Any thoughts? Thanks! -Ryan

If you’re going IP bombing, you’re basically doing artillery style work. Which in the real world is effective, just hosing an area with 500 pounders on ripple to make everything in a grid square miserable. The INS is good enough for that. In DCS the damage modeling makes it less worth the time to do. So it’s a mode that’s modeled, but yea don’t bother. Stick to Computer or Pilot or the Pod if you plan on hitting specific things.

Das wurde vor mehreren Updates geändert. Damit George beim Hochfahren seinen Teil beisteuert, muss man mit geöffnetem George-Menü die "Consent to Fire"-Taste aus dem AI-Helper-Menü drücken (bzw. wenn ich mich recht erinnere für circa eine Sekunde gedrückt halten). Auf Deutsch sollte das sowas wie "Freigabe zum Feuern" heißen.

Time and money spent to implement it mostly. Like every product.

Hi, When launching AIM-7 from TWS or RWS it correctly goes to STT and albeit the TTG is displayed, the missile arrow/triangle does not progress to the target. When launching in STT mode, the arrow/triangle depicting the missile progress to the target according to displayed TTG. Find attached a short track depicting the issue. First launch is in RWS, second in STT, third in TWS and fourth in STT again. Cheers aim7_bug.trk

Sounds like try a repair. His script may have got a hiccup in it.

ADI command bars.trk I am attaching a short track from the flight. As can be seen on the track and in the picture, the command bars (yellow) are still in the same position, even though they should show the required pitch and roll at this phase. The inactivity is also evident from flags K(Крен) and T(Тангаж), which would disappear from ADI if the command bars were functional. In this context, I am correcting my statement that command bars should be on the side when they are inactive.. This condition is indicated by red flags T and K. As far as I know, these command bars help not only with intercepting the localizer and glideslope, but also with intercepting the RSBN radial, etc. See MiG-21.

The F110-400 was superior and was part of the D revision. The decision was that the reliability, fuel efficiency, and repairability was a suitable trade off to top speed since it was almost never used. (Same as disabling the glove vanes) They kept a lot of A’s due to costs and having already purchased parts for the TF-30. Only the Air Force gets to dictate exactly what they want at any expense. The Navy Air still has to fit in with the rest of the fleet’s budget limits so there’s less full fleet uniform revision. And viable spares aren’t discarded. And TF’s pulled out of A+ represented years more parts for the squadrons that stayed in A’s. Toward the end there were about an even number of in service PW and GE engines. Between A+, B, B(U), and D’s which were all squadron by squadron, or CAG by CAG roll outs.