All Activity

I would love to try your Apache and Hind campaigns someday. I’m currently enjoying Mig Killers. Thanks!

There's really just one thing needed here:

This is half way between a bug report and a feature request: DCS's built in support for hand tracking is highly immersive, but not practical, because of how control interactions are triggered by a moment of 'touch'. For example: due to the switch positions and limitations of tracking, pushing the throttle fully forward will often... incorrectly turn off fuel pumps or engines in the A-10C eject stores in the F-16 activate the fire suppression in the F-18 due to tracking limitations and just closeness/stability, interacting with the UFC in the A-10C can incorrectly trigger a fire supression handle in many aircraft, interacting with the lower front and side panels can lead to accidentally ejecting HTCC still exists for DCS entirely because of this issue. Suggested fix Add option to require a button to be held for an interaction to happen Add option for a pointing gesture triggering a 'laser', like a controller, which *also* requires a button to be held if the above option is also on "A button can be held" should support: mouse buttons (e.g. PointCTRL with stock firmware, generic 'ring mice' from amazon/ali express) - this would need to ignore the mouse cursor position and just use the hand tracking position directinput game devices (e.g. pointctrl with HTCC firmware, slugmouse) nice to have: optionally some kind of gesture, e.g. pinching thumb and index fingers XR_FB_hand_tracking_aim makes this easy, but is not universally supported. It is currently supported on Quest Link in dev mode only, Quest-series headsets via Virtual Desktop, and Ultraleap-based devices (including the hand tracking module on the original Pimax Crystal) it can be implemented more generally by comparing joint positions this should be optional because like hand tracking overall, it is not perfect; people who have buttons bound are likely to want to disable this to further reduce the chances of incorrect interactions

How's your Su-24 mod is going?

if you still have the problem pleas copy-paste your script to let us check it

To be fair, there are F-2 valiant, which has x4 prototype of M39 20mm cannons. These were variants manufactured as part of the Project Gun-Val program in the early 1950s. These aircraft were pivotal in the transition of the U.S. Air Force's standard guns from the WWII-era .50cals to 20mm cannons.

Is this still an issue? Having just tried to use the thrust control grip to control my radios nothing seemed to change, does this helicopter currently have a working radio and am I missing something obvious or is it currently bugged/unusable?

Funnily enough you're talking to an ex-AS/400 dev and admin. Try getting devs for that platform if you've got a big project coming up. You'll find them surprisingly few in number and surprisingly expensive because its now incredibly niche. I moved away to other stuff years ago because the market was only going one way. Now try getting support for that 30 year old ERP suite you're still running. Or getting parts for your long since out of production mainframe when something goes pop. An example would be when I first started out in my IT career my then employer was still using the AS/400's predecessor (System/38). We got rid of that for an AS/400 because: - The OS and ERP software had zero support and we had to do 100% of everything ourselves if it needed changing - The operational cost savings alone covered a lot of the considerable bill. System/38 ran on 3 phase, required a fully air-conditioned space to operate in, had no feasible UPS capability and a simple power cut during business hours took roughly 12 hours to get 100% availability back from. And when things did break (and believe me, they did) then parts were increasingly scarce and expensive. - It was literally impossible to get any disaster recovery as no one else used that crap anymore (and a disaster did occur a while after I left when someone literally burnt the offices down, yet having pivoted to current kit meant the business was going again within a day and is still going now 25 years later) - It was quite hard to recruit staff as no one really fancied working on hardware/software that was almost as old as they were And I could go on for hours about how much better it is to write software now versus on those kinds of platforms. An awful lot of things we just take for granted now (testing frameworks, source control etc) just weren't really a thing on that vintage of platform. Things have moved forward with bloody good reason.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine Could we please see an update for this or at least be informed about where this is at as it's pretty bad that the module doesn't have a correctly functioning altimeter coming up on a year into early access. I have no problems with EA but it's infuriating to see your altimeter jump up to 9,500ft and set 1050.0 HPA in the REF page because you (the user) forgot this is completely bugged/not properly implemented at the moment! I understand there is probably plenty of work going on under the hood/behind the scenes, and I know in the past few weeks we saw plenty of avionics related improvements added but this is a basic/fundamental of any aircraft and is desperately needed!

Could you elaborate on your statement? I'm curious what you're writing about.

Havent flown it yet. I am curious, was the FM changed to accomodate standard hardware, or was it actually improved? I have a long throw center stick and good rudders, and concerned the model may be less accurate now but more palatable to most short throw sticks. If thats the case I would hope they would just have an option in SPECIAL to accomodate either. OR... has the accuracy and quality of the FM actually been improved, even for those of us running physical setups better matched to warbirds?

same problem and complete reinstall not fixing it. Frustrating.

Except for DCS then the base product is free. Nor is it likely the case that any/every other DLC will work with DCS 3.0 without any change. The problem is that the platform is moving on and the only DLC that absolutely can't move with it is the Razbam stuff because no one who can is currently willing to change it to keep up. I used to jokingly refer to Windows 7 as Vista Service Pack 2 (I didn't think Vista was actually as bad as the press it got once 3rd party driver support actually caught up with it).

How many RB modules do you own ?

Tell that to fintech, their AS/400 mainframes and the associated software. Well-written software shouldn't have a shelf life, if it does its job adequately, replacing it just because a new thing exists is stupid. Updates should have a clear purpose, if the new version doesn't offer any actual improvements (be it for security, functionality or scalability), there's no need to spend thousands of dollars on the new shiny thing. In enterprise software, when talking software that costs $100k apiece, "full clean start" is often simply not on the cards, and even if you do, good luck convincing the customers to spend that much for "works the same as before, but we made the source prettier". Also, when you're doing office work in a word processor, fancy new graphics tech is useless, and in fact MS Office had been steadily getting worse since the 2003 version or so. The only compelling reason to update is if you need to connect a given PC to the internet, and even that is mostly the result of both TCP-IP and Unix being used as if they were serious designs and not hacked together experiments. It's actually possible (if slow and expensive) to write a computer system that can be mathematically proven to be unhackable. Such systems are rare, but they do exist. Indeed, those hardware/software combinations tend to be in use for a very long time. Tell that to people who make 8-bit pixellated throwbacks. Flight sims need fancy visuals because they actually affect things like spotting, and because they aim for realism by definition. For other genres, it's a choice, and "as good as possible" is far from the only one. CMO, for instance, does perfectly well with entirely unimpressive graphics, they do exactly what they need and nothing more.

hello. "child failed to connect... timeout period expired" this means your connection to update server failed. have you edited your HOST file? C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc also check that you DNS is resolving api.digitalcombatsimulator.com by checking in NSLOOKUP. also restart home network equipment and retry.

It's pretty simple, really. If it's being sold as a new product, it's justified. DLCs are not separate from the base, and as long as it works, so should they. They also shouldn't interfere with one another. I do mind when things go in the other direction, that is, a largely incremental new version being peddled as a fresh product. MS, incidentally, is very guilty of that. Flight sims aside, look at Windows Vista and 7, and at 8, 10 and 11. In fact, going by the internal version numbers, we're still on a really souped-up Vista.

Thats not great for situational awareness though? And you would be able to 'padlock' your view in real life to a missile or threat aircraft. Its more for convenience and control rather for defeating realism. Also, another reason for using the map (and I tend to agree with you on the part of realism) is because it is sometimes just too difficult to spot an airfield, even when you are close by.

Hello, everyone About a month ago I posted this bug report about CCIP Errors in this forum section: A few days ago I came across this Note in the "DCS F-16C Early Access Guide EN" PDF file which made me think of a possible cause of my experience of CCIP Errors (Page 157 - "NAV STATUS DED Page") When I Checked My custom mission neither of the two conditions of a good GPS availability was mat (“USA is one of the countries assigned to the player’s coalition" Or "Unrestricted SATNAV is enabled"): When one of them is true the Viper CCIP is accurate once again - which marks the solution! Another clue is the difference between the info in the "NAV STATUS DED Page" of the two the missions settings versions Degraded GPS precision mission settings - Note the floating TD (Target Designator) Box above the actual target = red smoke base line: Good GPS precision mission settings: I hope my discovery helps anyone who stumbles with this CCIP problem & (@BIGNEWY) prevent ED team wasting their precious time investing this issue!

Have fun building! I recently built a new PC for myself with the exact same motherboard

Just waiting for the Ram to turn up now.

I did that couple times and nothing changed. Here is the log. dcs.log

Thanks, its late here but we will check it out in my morning.

took a bit of time but here's the track, it's a bit longer than most bug tracks but it's the first engagement anyway so I think it should work for you. I think I found the culpirt anyway: in this case the missile exploded exactly as the lateral distance was 15 meters, the total distance was higher however as the missile was offset also vertically (and above the stated proximity fuze limit). Let me know if you need another track but I'm pretty sure this is the issue. I've been able to routinely perform this maneuver in both the flanker and the mig-29, you just need some rudder input to increase the roll rate. aim120_proximity_fuze_range_bug.trk

I found there to be no need in the F-16, since you're in reduced gain already if you have the refuelling door open. The hardest part is actually throttle control because of the lack of physics (interaction between the boom and your aircraft). When I learned aerial refuelling only the M-2000 was available and yes initially I reduced axis sensitivity until I got more used to my setup.