All Activity

Bunlar yapmaz ebabil. Bunada el atarım.

Didnt honestly notice that, It is missing for some reason. Will fix it. Another time, thanks for this great explanation. I will adjust it further so it is closer and closer to the original

I'm fairly sure there is no more work being done on the BS2 version.

Having just muzzle flashes akin to the fire and smoke effects to be placed would be a great solution. Place them around buildings or in the forests.

Wow, thanks for the quick reaction! However, what I meant is something like in my screenshot. Reason is that it is already hard to match the sound with the corresponding airframe. But knowing which radar type is in that fighter is even one step harder - and frankly not that relevant IMHO. Please excuse, my first post was not very clear in that regard.

That's what I meant, yes. I do not find it amusing when I spend time carefully placing things in a mission only to later find out that I can't share it people freely because at some point I used something form an asset pack. It isn't always obvious, and it's definitely going to get harder when there are more asset packs around.

What does that mean? Can't another 3D modeler come along and make an A5M Zero? (remember a official ED Zero module has incoming) Or is it exclusive to M3? ED has officially confirmed it for 2024 (Wags/Nineline) and already said at the time that it would be part of the PTO. The fact that M3 hasn't added them to the M3 PTO assts pack it after three years isn't ED's problem. On 2025 February... ED show your zero to the PTO assets pack

The group included planes and crews of the guards units of the Long-Range Aviation: a squadron of Tu-16 of 251st guards TBAP from Belaya Tserkva and two squadrons Tu-22M3 from Poltava 185th Guards TBAP. They were stationed at two nearby airfields, Mary-1 and Mary-2, the only ones available at that time, even if they were further from the target than the border bases (for the "long-range" the difference of 200-300 km was not significant). Mary-1 was home to the 1521st Fighter Air Base MiG-23 and MiG-29, which "played along" as the enemy during the training and periodic inspections of fighter pilots. Here 11 Tu-16s were deployed - three detachments and two control group vehicles. There was a local airport on the other side of the runway, which was another reason for the division of the Long-Range Aviation group. Mary-1 airfield was also used to receive "transporters" with the withdrawing troops, UN representatives were invited there, and the menacing -looking "Backfires" did not fit well into the ideas of Western diplomats about the implementation of the Geneva Agreements. Photo 01: Tu-22M3 from the 185th TBAP go on a combat mission. Airfield Mary-2, November 1988 Photo 02: The 1984 Panjshir operation involved Tu-16s from the 200th Bobruisk and 251st Belotserkovsky regiments. Source: Камуфляж И Бортовые Эмблемы В Афганской Кампании, Авиатехники Советских Ввс, Виктор Марковский - Игорь Приходченко

у меняидея возникла , хоть бы разработчики ее реализовали , это сильно упростит создание миссий , точнее размещение юнитов и других построек на карте с привязкой к точкам

с ботами беда , согласен.

Stumbled upon this and thought it could be useful. Cannot verify its authenticity and it doesn't appear anywhere else that I've found. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/Boyington.html Much of it is fairly high level combat airmanship stuff. Of particular note is multiple references to Zero's using split-S to separate. Perhaps something to implement in the AI as the Zero model is developed.

The F-23A Mod is now available! Download is now available.

Is it possible to create such a function as snapping to points in the game mission editor? That is, create a grid on the map like in the old version of the game IL-2 Sturmovik, and magnetize objects to points for quick and easy placement of equipment nearby

I would shut down VAICOM Pro and DCS then try deleting the export.lua in the Saved Games/Scripts folder, then restarting VAICOM Pro and see if it works then. It should make a new export.lua to replace the old one. v6, boNes

Read my post please...M3 showed Zero in 2022 From https://www.facebook.com/100057409782744/posts/pfbid02SKiu5Hb5bcaMoBLuaiDMLubYsN2d8FqhsR4Rn9HT3CpwaqySdsquxrLB9ey773p1l/?app=fbl

Thanks for the reply. I'm using the one it is supplied with. I'm still waiting on the face pad kit being delivered.

Final update on the Pico Ultra... After one month testing it has been already sold to the next owner... To recap, the setup was easy, the Cons is that one needs to buy the Virtual Desktop from Pico store, cheap but still.... Nice quality, I was running all ta max resolution, the only Cons is the Pico lenses distort the image around their outer perimeter thus making the usable Field Of Vision much smaller. Unusable in warbirds where you need to clearly see controls to the left and right lower end of the cockpit (when you need to twist you body to the extreme to reach things). Still unable to read these tight areas of the cockpit. Otherwise nice visuals overall. I have not tested in jets where one has less body twist to reach and see things. Still A/B comparison with my Quest3, the Quest3 has larger FOV and it is lighter. The face interface it is much softer and comfortable, while the Pico Ultra is kind of hard face interface and hard on the top of the nose. To conclude, to date, the Quest 3 is still be best VR headset quality/price, but one need to master the Meta app and most of all the Oculus Diagnostic tool and best to register as Developer to open up other settings. Looking forward the next gen of Quest. I may give it a try to the Pimax even if the price it is hard to digest.

Oh man, this might work. I had to zip the file so let me know if anyone can see it or not. I will try to get a smaller flight/track file later on if I am able to. 4YA_SA_PVE_V2.106[03_MAR_BKN]-20250812-081202.7z

It resides under the UI Layer: Names have changed over time... null

No still not fixed but solved in here. I posted the same question. You have to edit the LUA file Every time DCS update you have to re-edit the LUA file....

Я тебе разрешаю каждые 10 минут. Можешь даже каждые 5 минут.

Just tried it again - landed with 4,500 lbs of fuel, opened the AR door immediately after landing, taxied to parking spot, rearm and refuel with center tank connected still, 8,600lbs of fuel total. Still not completely full for some reason. I'm on the Falklands, if that matters. ahhh thank you so much, appreciate the help. If I remove them, will it remove them from the posts/comments I've already made on the threads? (im not sure what its called, forgive my ignorance)

Hi! Thanks for another update. I also see that other elements are coming along very well, and many details have appeared on the model itself, including those related to ground crew. Great, congratulations! The model is starting to look really great, and many third-party devs would certainly be proud of it in their first steps. Unfortunately, the front landing gear legs aren't quite where they should be. There are some issues noted in the posts above, but not only that. Here's the original photo, which shows the layout perfectly from the side. And analysis (the fuselage size has been adjusted to the photo): 1/ The angle of the support in the model is too great (too forward). It's actually there, but not to that extent. I assume this isn't a distorted screenshot in terms of the overall angle of the shot, but that's what it looks like here. The wheel bracket itself is now at a good angle, thanks! 2/ The wheel bracket should have one more element at the top, as already mentioned above. 3/ The model still sits too low. I suspect the main support (the one marked 1) is still too short. Since the size of the aircraft in the screenshot and the photo is the same, there's too much difference. Yes, the model in the photo probably isn't as heavily loaded with weapons and is lighter, but the shock absorber deflection isn't as great in real life. I suggest lengthening the components. You can see that the "strut leg" is pressed too tightly into the fuselage in the model. It may also be a matter of angle, too forward, but I also think it is a matter of length. It's also worth checking the model in the screenshot with just a full interiors tanks + 2 external tanks. What does the deflection and shock absorption look like here? I hope I've helped. Sorry for being a pain But the Su-22M4 has a rather distinctive silhouette, especially for us, who grew up with it for years. Thanks for all the corrections, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you!

While it may be true that the lack of coincidence of the markings is an issue in the real F-4 as well (I don't have a real aircraft immediately available I could use to check), it is certainly not a parallax issue. Regardless of head position, the "zero" elevation mark of the radar symbology is always at the same 1-2° positive elevation scale position. On the contrary, in the rear seat, the misalignment can be eliminated with an appropriate head position.