All Activity

.

A thunk on weapon release is realistic.

Worked for me yesterday?

Any update?

When I had that issue, it was a mod for me. Once that mod, forgot exactly what mod but it's on that post, was removed from my tech folder, it started working again. Just start with a clean mods folder and start putting them back in until you find the problem file. Can be time consuming but it works.

Yes, I know. Some of the above was hyperbole, though I have had it happen. Very disconcerting when it does.

I just found another bug in Russia Mod that the coastal missile systems like Bastion and Bal-E won't fire at target ships, they only deploy to combat-ready status ( both Radar and Launcher) and just sit there watching the target.

If, as it says in the manual: "When a helicopter is starting from a “cold” state at the beginning of a mission, it is already connected to external power supply by default. Therefore, there is no need to explicitly request to connect to it." Then if there's a reasonable possibility that an aircraft will have to 'scramble' in a hurry, shouldn't it - wouldn't it - be possible for systems that take a long time to initialise - like the full INU alignment - to have already had this done & be sitting hot running off ground power while the engines are cold ?

I know you said you had a 5090 but what is the vram usage at the point it stutters? Also do you know your Frametime during this as well? You might just have the resolution on the headset too high..

I accidentally ended up in a 2v2 instant action in my faithful Diesel Missile Truck running an interception on two bombers, excuse me, TWO FULCRUMS. We picked up the contacts at maybe 30 miles in the clutter. I think we we're in loose formation around angles 18 they we're around angles 25/30. I wasn't expecting this, I was expecting BOMBERS so you can imagine my surprise in my virtual flight suit realizing how fast the closure was head on. That was when I realized it wasn't the bombers. I popped the interlocks off, bore sight, NOSE, point the LOCSS at some pixels and ripple off a few Great White Hopes. Blew straight through the merge into two dead fulcrum falling out of the sky much to my surprise. In the excitement as I looked behind at the burning wreckage I lawn darted straight into a mountain ahead of me. Is was pyrrhic victory but for a few seconds I was in shock. I not only survived the merge I technically splashed a Mig 29s in my gas guzzling lead sled. I seriously doubt I could replicate it on demand. Too many variables just worked out. The shear amount of switch-ology and hacks those guys had to know back then blows my mind. So much seat of the pants and muscle memory. The crew really had to be in sync and there is no forgiveness. "Fighter Pilot <profanity>". I was flying with Jester and 1 Veteran AI wingman against 2xMig-29s we started at 80 miles. They we're jamming too. I tried again and again and got killed every time I would try a turn or go vertical. Best Advice is what others have said. If you have the time to do anything just throw whatever rocks you have in their direction and go fast and keep going.

@BIGNEWY @Wags @NineLine Should probably find someone who interacts with your customer basis better if they are going to represent ED by presenting your information on the Road Map. Especially since wags just bragged about your renewed standards on how you approach bringing on third party devs and people to represent ED to include their social media posts and how they behave with people on the forums and others. This is not the first time SD has jumped in with wild accusations and sierra talk when he was proven wrong. I will accept my firm response to him above as a provocative measure, but he consistently likes to antagonize and kick the hornets' nest with unfounded opinions and what clearly appears to be a lack of real-world experience, which I have plenty of. Just sayin.

With that said, if we end up with the F-35, then we need also the F-22, the Chinese "Stealth", the Russian F-57, and advanced radar. That will change the entire battlefield, and may seriously detract from the game overall. Hoping they decide to direct some resources to this Nevada map instead.

You also have continuous cm released for 1 per second release

It ultimately depends on what you're trying to do. The MiG will usually be trying to intercept something over friendly territory. That means it can afford to go low, since ground forces are unlikely to be shooting at it. So what's the Phantom doing? If it's trying to CAP (say, to prevent friendly CAS from being splashed), it's at a massive disadvantage, because MiG will be in the weeds and the Phantom isn't that great at searching, anyway. If it's escorting, then it's a matter of keeping the MiG away from whatever it's protecting. The MiG will likely eat it for breakfast, but it might run out of gas or simply be unable to catch the strikers afterwards. If it's a mud mower of some sort... it had better have some escort, or it's going to have a bad day. OTOH, if the MiG is the one doing escort and the Phantom is an interceptor, it could try blowing through the MiG screen and killing the strikers, then hightailing it home at supersonic speeds. In any case, "unload and bugout" is only good when you can afford to do so. In most cases, it'll mean you just abandoned your mission objective. If you can accomplish your objective while leveraging Phantom's advantages over the MiG, great, but there's only a handful of fighter missions which would allow you to do that.

A slew of the paring spots cannot be used/addressed. In the ME you see the spot numbers on the ground, but if you try to assign air aircraft to them, the numbers are not in the pull-down list. You can also not drag an aircraft on to them.

I'm going to assume that this is not exclusively on my end and I intend for this to be a general repository of reports in English on this topic. OpenBeta F-18C INS is non-functional in the sense that I cannot get the alignment to remain consistent or stay aligned in IFA mode across the same mission with the same procedure and same settings two times in a row. HUD drifts over time by inconsistent margins, HUD symbology fails to appear at times or go away at times, especially with CCIP symbology. Without any weather effects and without much effort, the INS will lose true alignment very easily.

Auch sehr cool! Wobei ich die kurze Anleitung eine sehr gute Idee finde, so kann sich das jeder selbst bauen und ein bisschen damit beschäftigen, wie man DCS hacken kann (im positiven Sinn) und einen Blick hinter die Kulissen bekommt. Vermutlich sind Leute, die sich beacons.lua aus den Userfiles runterladen und sie per Diff mit der Datei aus dem Spiel vergleichen nicht die Zielgruppe von Flo's Post.

First and foremost, thanks for the amazing and pro-bono work you do, Currenthill! To talk about the attention to detail, or overall fidelity of the units doesn't even begin to cover it. This is by all means, art! The pedant in me can claim that you have much to be proud of, don't take that lightly either! I'm not sure what plans you have in store for the future, obviously the units you present on your www. are a fine work, and implementing more of them into DCS natively, would be a dream. However, I do also look at this from the perspective of a mission designer (when not in the air). It would of course be awesome to have the Ka-52 AI implemented, as well as simply more of the units that you bring. Even more civilian, with different color palettes on each unit. It allows for creating more vivid and realistic scenarios. A place where I see an immediate deficit in unit choice, asumming it could be of interest to you, is the department of soldiers/civilians. We currently have very few models of soldiers, and even fewer if you consider the new high-quality ones, that are properly animated. I am wondering if you would be interested in widening this aspect of the simulation. Have more soldiers, from different countries, with variations of weapons/apparel/camo patterns/colors/ranks? As an example, even adding a basic model of a recognizable officer (prestige uniform), would already open the doors to creating missions where a pilot might need to verify/engage or verify/protect a high-ranking persona. With the addition of more transport modules (Huey, Mi-8, Mi-24, CH-47F, C-130J (soon), +++), this would not only bring more authentic feel to the transport mission, but also allow to create more varied combat environments. I hope this could be of interest to you, appreciate your work again, and do keep the models coming. Uploading some WIP missions that show just how a creative mission designer can untilize such units! You give us the tools, and this is the effect (not complete)

To hell with realism, just for a photo...

I've had this happen without mods.

The I-beam is not a CCIP indicator, it is a steering cursor based on the currently selected sight source to point the nose of the helicopter to where the sight source is looking. Rocket employment is described in the manual starting on page 500.

Just remove ALL mods and retest. That's what ED will tell you to do. Helpful or not, it rules out a major cause of DCS "issues". If you replicate in a clean environment it points more towards a base issue vs a mod conflict (which happens all the time).

That's not really helpful.

Please no, HIP has mixed shots of Arma 3/Reforger, no DCS.... He has using them to get more views / dramatic content.... "facepalm". And no, ED has none confirm a FPS mode.... only a "experimental" testing on the mig-29A video. Remember, the C-130 has none "legs".

Possibly...