All Activity

Actually this is true for most of the existing aircrafts and there is no WWII aircraft for which it would not work like that because all flight controls surfaces are mechanically connected with stick and rudders. Trim tabs works in a way of shifting aerodynamic neutral force position of flight control surfaces, resulting in shifted neutral force position of stick and rudders. The only exception might be aircrafts with fly-by-wire system or aircrafts without trim tabs - aircraft on which the entire rear stabilizer mounting is readjusted. You may see this videos about all kinds of trim systems: Example of mechanism where the whole stabiliser mounting is shifted:

I also just got stutter and crash after last patch or game even worse, game would not load. Log shows: EDCORE (Main): CPU HAS PARKED LOGICAL CORES etc. I now just tried open DCS MT in the MT folder and not the "normal" dcs.exe in the main folder, and now it seems fine? Only tried 1 short flight, but 3 other flights yesterday stuttered and crashed after a short while? I taught since DCS now is only Multi Core it makes no difference what kind of exe file we use?

CDU Alternate Blank Waypoint Modifey as explain in the Book is not working. ACP List is Blank. /RIVER nor MUSTANG is not working. I follow step by step the document and not working as descript above her the Video Regard Tango Lima

We are getting a little off the overly beaten path. Just a reminder to stay on topic and, while on topic, avoid the conspiracy theories and half-truths, please.

If you have a 13th or 14th gen CPU or any CPU with 32 threaded cores or more, disabling hyperthreading will help as you will have lots of solid cores left to play with. For example, I used to run an i9-9900k and I never had to disable hyperthreading because it used 8 solid cores/16 threaded cores. So it didn’t make sense to disable it and I never had any load time issues or performance hits vs disabling the cores but that was due to the low *overall* core count. As an aside, I re-enabled HT and am getting super long load times so I’ll disable it for now. It’s so annoying that ED refuses to fix this. If they have the manpower to make clouds prettier they have the man power to fix the hyperthreading and memory leak issues. Don’t let anyone gas light you into thinking you need “more power” when really this is on ED to fix vs the community dumping more money into their rigs not knowing if it’s gonna fix anything.

The SAM Radar gets active first time: If the TD Box in the TOO mode is in the bearing of the emitter but the distance is unclear and the TD Box drifting up and down f.e. IT would be more realistic. But the aTD Box Spot on target in a millisecond with the right bearing and distance, that is unrealistic. The CLC can get viable data about the distance when the plane changes its aspect and the Radar stays in thats OK but this will need change in the aspect and will need some time.

A very good example is seL4, it's a general purpose microkernel that is formally proven to be functionally correct. It's obscure, but did find some use in Boeing's military UAV program. In general, for the reasons I explained, it's mostly confined to fields like aerospace, healthcare and military, in embedded systems where a bug or exploit could potentially kill a lot of people (formal verification is pretty standard in hardware design, though). Lots of this life-critical code are written in SPARK, itself designed to be unambiguous. Of course, programmers used to C and its derivatives balk at writing in a "bondage and discipline language" with "fascistic" requirements for doing even the simplest things in it. In fact, these criticisms were already being thrown at Ada, from which SPARK is derived by adding even more restrictions, but that's the price you pay for ensuring that at no point is it legal for any statement to make demons fly out of your nose. IMO, this is a much underappreciated quality. Modern programming culture, and in fact a lot of modern software, has its roots in "a bunch of nerds messed around on a college mainframe and came up with this". The "move fast and break things" phenomenon is based on the notion that not only is it OK, but in fact the superior way to develop software, as opposed to traditional engineering. In areas where it's plainly not, like above, development is much slower, but a lot fewer things get broken in the process.

Because that's not remotely true. It's a myth that keeps getting propagated and quite frankly needs to die already. They sent them to the Marines because the carrier forces were rebuilding most of the first half of 1943. Enterprise and Saratoga needed repair and refit after the battles of 1942, and their air groups were depleted. The first Essexes didn't arrive in the theater until the end of the spring/beginning of summer, with major carrier operations not resuming until August. The Marines, however, were in combat NOW and desperately needed new fighters. Every airframe available, with the exception of VF-12, VF-17, and VOC-1, was being rushed to the Pacific as fast as Vought could get them off the assembly lines to rearm the Marines. Corsairs were chosen because they were what was available in sufficient numbers, first. Those three excepted squadrons all completed their carrier trials by the end of April. VF-12 ultimately relinquished their Corsairs, but VF-17 continued operating from Bunker Hill throughout the spring and summer, including a stint helping train the first FAA pilots (so no, the British did not "figure out" how to land the Corsair on a carrier, they were taught it by Tommy Blackburn and his boys!). No further Navy squadrons were outfit because every airframe was earmarked for the Marines, and Vought couldn't produce them fast enough (which was a problem throughout the War, leading to Brewster and Goodyear production under license with the Brewster Corsairs being deemed unsuitable for combat). When Bunker Hill was ordered to the Pacific in September, VF-17 was embarked, fully expecting to go to war from the carrier. It wasn't until they arrived at Pearl Harbor in October they were ordered ashore, not because of carrier suitability, but because of logistics. The Navy was concerned about resupplying more than one fighter type at sea, and didn't have the supply lines in place to support the Corsairs. Because the Marines already had the logistics established, VF-17 was redirected to Espirtu Santo to take advantage of the Marines' established supply lines. The Corsair was never sent to land-based squadrons because of their difficulty or not of landing on a carrier. It had everything to do with timing, availability, and logistics.

They are not, but will automatically become MSI track files if one of the eight slots are open. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

Just to answer this… No, it does not help with any feeling in regard to keeping the ball centered or holding your altitude more constant. I fly with the Moza AB9 and Simshaker driving a bass shaker attached to my chair. Pilot IRL too. However, I can’t fly without the FFB or simshaker anymore. It just adds so much more to the VR experience, and all the little feedback you get for everything in game is amazing. I can feel my bombs come off the racks, landing gear “cah-chunk-ing” into the uplocks and downlocks, etc. You’ll even feel the bumps on ground during slow taxi. And the gun… oh, the gun That’s what FFB is good for. It’s not for getting your plane trimmed, although in some DCS modules you will notice the center position of the stick move based on your trim, which is accurate to IRL. I also get a feeling of how fast I’m going based on stick force required to deflect the control surfaces. Perhaps when someone makes feedback that pushes your butt left or right, we’ll be able to use that to help keep the ball centered. Sure, motion platforms can tilt you for this, but your brain also interprets a roll motion at the same time. We need G-forces to sense small changes in vertical acceleration to hold altitude more accurately. It’s a no-brainer thing IRL to hold altitude, but in any sim it’s always a challenge as you have to constantly look at your VV gauge. Easier when you are in close formation as you have a visual reference for vertical velocity. The M3 Corsair holds altitude well without touching the stick or throttle once you have the trim dialed in, but you still can’t leave it unattended for long and go grab coffee or a bio break. Make sure to keep an empty cup nearby if you need true realism Anyway, hope that helps in case you are considering FFB in your future… I say go for it

Is there any way to add a rocket launch sound to a turret that didn't have one originally?

Feedback on Mission 2: So this mission worked basically flawlessly. I made sure to check out every optional F10 menu question and they worked all fine. I have only found 2 very minor issues. 1) Preset 8 (Guard 1) is set incorrectly on the ARC-164 radio: All the presets on the ARC-210 are correct in this mission btw. 2) The only messages that were either cut out (red) or had too much static noise on it (yellow) are: The "One, gear up" message cuts out after "one", or better said you only hear static where "gear up" should be. That's all I could find really. So top job on the overhaul for this mission! Not sure when I'll be able to play through the other missions because my schedule is pretty tight for the rest of the week but I'll make sure to post feedback here after every mission I played through.

@cubanace Is possible to release a mod using your 3d model? Of course we will respect your name on the credits as the 3d model author.

my issue is specific to the FFB beast apparently. by resetting, I mean deleting these entries (045B ports (vendor ID)). they will be created again once you restart your computer. done with this software : USBDEVIEW

Hi, in a night mission,I noticed the backlights for the rear panel seems not working. (I mean this switch and knob by the way) No matter how I adjust the knob or turn the switch,it always looks like this,only the WCS BIT lights up in the dark. I searched some videos online and I think maybe it should look like this when it's turned on?(pic from old BS2 video) Here is a short track.Ka50 back panel lights.trk Also here are my graphics settings in case if they are useful. This one may cause some headaches for cold start during night,hope for a fix. Thank you.

Hi, Has anyone tried Lossless Scaling multi frame generation with DCS yet for iGPU + GPU? Any recommendations? Thanks.

You don't need to see it. The nice thing about boom refueling is that you only need to get into place and then the boom operator does the rest of the work. Granted DCS's boom operator can be a bit eccentric, but you can get it to work most of the time. Start with the approach to the tanker. Don't come in too fast, you want to nicely settle into a speed close to the tanker's starting from a couple of miles out. When you get closer try to match the tanker's speed before connecting. This will let you reference your engine fuel flow and use it as a guide for your throttle. I find this easier than trying to set a specific speed. You can also get your fuel amount to show up on the DED by pressing LIST > 2. With that you won't need to move your head around as much and can keep an eye on the tanker.

The DCS FF Tune menu.

I noticed this myself a while back! It helps a bunch! Put the flight path marker on the horizon once you get your "height" squared away. Tanker gives you speed in IAS but your HUD reads off in CAS. This is important. I remember wishing I had a radar gun to get the tanker's speed.... then realized that there's a very expensive radar gun on the front of fighter jets. Use this. The tanker is AI, it doesn't care it you lock it up (just don't blow it up!) in A-A or dogfight mode. The radar will then give you both the tanker's speed and closure rate (and distance!). Another trick that helped getting the mental picture was to turn head tracking off. This will let you use the edge of your monitor as you might use the canopy frame on another jet. Put a moderate ordnance load on the jet. A slick F-16 is really hard to refuel since it accelerates like crazy and then doesn't slow down. Rather than try to get your speed exactly right, it's OK to ping pong between the fore-aft position indicators with choppy throttle work. Practice is everything. And screaming into your headset. -Ryan

If you are taking off without load and from the very far end of carrier, you probably won't notice. But imagine you have loaded bombs and rockets and half of carrier deck is full of aircrafts. That means much shorter take off area. Don't forget to properly set take-off trim.

Hello, As the title suggests, I'd like to know if, after making adjustments in Nvidia Inspector, I should open it to fly, or does it work once the adjustments are made without opening it? Thank you for your answers and for helping me with my ignorance.

Out of interest, can you name for me a platform or platforms that you consider to meet your bulletproof standard?

That is interesting, specially since it directly contradicts the fact that the US Navy initially deployed these aircraft to land based squads only, and that the Hellcat was deemed the "simpler" aircraft to land on the carrier.. Also i read that max wing load for Corsairs at 45.6lb/sq ft rather than the quoted 28lbs/sq ft... Hmmm.. Either way the toque roll you mentioned when dirtied up, and applying too much power too rapidly, was a real danger in the old FM.. right now it's "meh" in comparison, to be honest..

Great news, for me anyway I re-installed 'Into The Jungle' into DCS after latest update and it worked most excellent. My flying did not get any better but ITJ worked as advertised. I'll be posting a short video on youtube in a day or so. Hope the guys heal quickly. Miss you all's videos. Appreciate you and your Guys hard and quality work!