All Activity

The F-14 is such an iconic aircraft, and having a docu-campaign dedicated to it is a big win for the DCS community. I’m really excited to see how the storyline unfolds. Campaigns like this not only test flying skills but also bring a lot of immersion and history to the sim.

Was genau meinst du den? Es gibt nur eine F-15C, und die kann nur Luft-Luft, sie hat keine AG-Funktionalität.

Will the rest of tutorial videos from Wags start rolling out soon for MiG-29 ?

Hallo, ich hab die F15c von FC3 (Belsimtec) trotzdem wird mir die AA Variante nicht angezeigt, ich kann sie plazieren aber mehr nicht. Die AG funktioniert tadellos. Irgendwelche Ideen?

a canard is the little wings on the front of the main wings, sorry for my english, I french

Вы вторую миссию начинали? Всё так и задуманно . Это начало истории, пазл будет складываться с каждым новым вылетом. Замысел простирается дальше одной миссии. Он будет вести игрока — через каждый бой, каждый вылет и в небе и на земле — вплоть до финальной, 18-й "серии" этой кампании.

Thanks to fellow member =GR= Jackal from the squadron, DML is working as a charm so CSAR is back on, along with DML persistence module, CSAR missions can be flown on another day if necessary! @cfrag Thanks for your efforts and support!

Please take a scan here;

ED struggles enough getting the Hornet finished as-is and that's after removing or not planning for features that are perfectly accurate for the stated scope, even for the exact timeframe, variant and operator. Hell, this even applies to modules that are missing trivial additions, where there's no research or technical hurdle, the features are perfectly accurate to the exact scope ED stated and they're features present on other ED modules and yet, despite all of that, we can't get them. It's not only unrealistic (in a couple of senses of the word) but something really wouldn't sit right with me if unrealistic features get implemented while perfectly realistic ones (like TAMMAC maps for instance) get snubbed. And what's even more realistic still? A 2005 Hornet with 2005-era weapons. And this is a false equivalency - DCS mission design is designed to be a sandbox and completely up to you - the aircraft often are not. This is by design - the idea is that the building blocks of the missions are supposed to be accurate, but the scenario you make out of them is up to you. I'd argue that restricting away fictional or hypothetical missions and only permitting accurate, historical ones is far more limiting in terms of gameplay, than having aircraft that's supposed to be accurate. The other thing when it comes to missions is that DCS more often than not lacks coherent, comprehensive assets on relevant theatres to make realistic missions and campaigns - it's always the same ship of theseus thing where far more units need to have stand-ins because the correct one doesn't exist. So in that sense, it would be impossible to make accurate, historical missions in the first place. Let's just take an example - aircraft carrier operations. Using the non tanker version of the S-3B? Well that's an aircraft variant from prior to 1998. Using CVNs 71-75 of the Supercarrier module? Well, what they're fitted with means they range from 2008 (CVN 73) to 2017 (CVN 72) at the absolute earliest and yet they're using a Sea Sparrow version from the mid 1980s. Using the E-2D? That didn't reach IOC until 2015 either, only it's defined with the wrong radar and the performance is wrong even to that radar. We've already got an incoherent mess and we've only gotten started. And let's say we get the GBU-54, okay great, we've made the already incoherent aircraft even more so, great! Are we going to get anything else a 2012 Hornet might have? AIM-120C-7 for instance? No? I mean, we can't get it for the F-16CM either, even though it's accurate there. It isn't puzzling - it's perfectly consistent with the design of the game, as stated previously. I mean, nothing is stopping me from having a Pakistan vs Sweden scenario, set on the Falkland Islands, set before the first manned aircraft took flight. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to what weapons are available to the aircraft or what systems it has. Except this is utterly dreadful logic which taken to its ends permits basically anything so long players have the choice not to be affected by it: Let's make the Hornet's radar see things 400 nmi away, if players don't like it, simply choose not to set your radar scale so far out. Let's add the PL-15 and PL-17 or hell any other weapon ever, players still have CHOICE not to use these, so what's the issue? Let's make the aircraft fly at mach 5, don't like it? Choose not to fly so fast. Found a bug with a weapon? Choose not to use it, problem solved! Or how about, if you don't like the fact that the Hornet predates GBU-54 and doesn't have it, choose to fly something else that does have it. Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere and again, given ED's issues with finishing their aircraft, even to very narrow scopes I don't see any good reason to have that line any further from where it is now. If that wasn't the case and the Hornet had all the relevant features it should, maybe I'd agree with you, but it doesn't, so I don't.

Absolutely. There’s a note about that in the mission description. In short, you’ll need to pull the script out of the .miz and modify the fuel tank capacity, save, reload into the .miz. The script is well-documented and you’ll see exactly what to do once you open it.

Ist im Moment schwierig, wei ich das Modul schon wieder deaktiviert habe und ich mich erst mal weiter mit anderen Baustellen beschäftige. Ich mache das aber später mal. Ich habe parallel aber bei auch schon mal bei Rudel nachgefragt. Scheint so zu sein, dass das Teil mit einem separaten Pedal wesentlich leichter steuerbar ist. Leider kann ich aus gesundheitlichen Gründen kein Pedal nutzen.

Any word on the VR performance, Afghanistan, GermanyCW, Kola, Mariana’s Normandy is horrible. Only mediocre VR performance in Caucuses. VR PiMax Crystal V1. OG.

ok, I use a pretty old VPC rudder pedals set and with that the OV-10 taxis pretty easily once a bit of practice, I can even turn it on itself inside a hangar, like this: perhaps you could purchase a used set online ( as they can be pretty expensive if purchased brand new) ? Eduardo

Ich habe den Mod gerade mal frisch installiert, und obwohl meine eine Bremse sogar etwas verkalibriert ist, lässt sich die Maschine für mich ohne Probleme am Boden differentiell bremsen, abheben, landen und nach dem Aufsetzen runterbremsen, ohne dass sie nennenswert in irgendeine Richtung zieht. Kannst du mal einen kurzen Track im Kaukasus aufnehmen und hier teilen?

It says 2.9.13 or above (higher).

I have yet to survive a mission by myself. In almost every mission I get hit by the Sam's, no matter how hard I yank and flare...

Скорее всего автобитрейт включен и получается 100 и так и сяк. Если не выходит 500 значит дело в сети, а снижение битрейта это костыль.

What about " canards " my english is véry old, explain what mean "canards "

Just edited my post at the same time than you did. I'm already using these tree bindings but they don't seem to work as they should. Almost no effect, at least not enough to compensate the strong right drift. May be '(unstable)' has some meaning ...

How does it works? I tried to install it in the main DCS folder, firstly with OVGME, it didn't work and then I copied CoreMods and Mods folders in the main DCS folder and it didn't work, In my settings, I don't have any new category of inputs and in game, when I press space, it doesn't fire But, I can chooses ammo type in the ME, so it is recognized by DCS but I can't fire

Just checked, and the Mod seems to have the binding you need: but I haven't tested it personally.

a stupid question maybe I find that if i want to limit my groove time in 15-18s I have to line up in 0.5 or 0.6 nm (tacan distance on hud). If I line up in0.7-0.8 groove time will be too long. But we should line up in3/4 nm right? So how can I line up in3/4nm and limit groove time in 15-17….. just do a math Lets Assume the plane is traveling in 140 ias no wind and ground speed is 140too. The plane will fly 2.3 nm per minute. That means in15s it will travel 0.58nm. In18s it will travel 0.69nm. But 3/4nm is 0.75 right? In practice, mother is moving and wind is blowing and in descending 140 ias means slower gs. so Hornets will never approach in 140relative ground speed. And it sometimes doesn’t fly as fast as 140 maybe 135. So if we line up in 0.75 as standard, we are likely end up in 20s groove time….. Can anyone share some experience or tell me what’s my mistake?

Right now we don't know what the resolution will be, but it's looking bleak. We're definitely unlikely to get one before there's a definite answer. Afterwards, if RAZBAM goes away, I assume the aircraft will be up for grabs. Perhaps the Red Star people would be interested in it, they seem to be doing a really good job with the MiG-17. I'm more worried about the Harrier. The F-15E is such a popular aircraft that someone will, sooner or later, step up, probably with an actual AI WSO. Any Harrier variant would be tricky to get right, relatively hard to get docs for (Brits are notoriously cagey about declassifying stuff), and a rather niche aircraft. Not sure about Mirage 2000, but as long as it keeps working and being sold, it could be fine, being the most complete and polished of the RAZBAM modules.

I do too, but that's one issue amongst many and the patching is not quick with several layers of priority as mentioned in the forum. Don't take my comments as dismissive. I always look for user side work around especially for something customizable as bindings, as the patches and fixes take long to come. Happy flying.

I would like the option to delete the replays that do not work any more or not wanted with in DCS replay folder in game.