All Activity

For anyone who is still struggling with this - I found a solution that might work for some of you. I use FFBeast but it might help others who don't. In my case it turned out that having too much of a curve on the roll axis (in your DCS control settings) was the reason for the AFCS test fail. In my case a curve of 22 seems to be the maximum it will accept to have a successful AFCS test. Hope this helps!

Hahaha. You missed the point. This thread is not about Enigma. And no one said it was.

You can choose as opponent an Fw-190A It is only one aircraft against which the Corsair can more or less successfully carry out dogfight. This 'brilliant' aircraft is even more helpless in DCS

I'm just not very good at this and probably never will be. The last thing I want to do is screw it up for others cause I can't do my job. If I get shot down or fly into the side of a mountain, I laugh at myself for being a dumbass and start over.

Well aint that something... so whos gonna do developing for these modules now? ED? Whats the plan....

Yes I'm spending the next few months playing with L2MUM in the Kiowa and MQ9 Reapers. More for this integrated gameplay will only help the product, esp in the military realm.

Would not give me any feeling of accomplishment. To an organized group those random human opponents are less challenging and less realistic than the otherwise very challenged DCS AI.

I love MP PVP as it's much more fun with real people. "AI" just doesn't offer any challenge. Only thing putting me off is the massive problems with performance, desync and imbalances between red- and bluefor. Without any modern redfor aircraft this imbalance will just increase more and more.

Are you sure? Tried any trimming in helicopters? Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

To jest anglojęzyczna część Forum / This is the English-language part of the Forum. I agree about the deceleration, but not about the power and perfomance. A very good example: You also need to look at other modules that the MiG-29 in DCS can be compared to.

Many of you are talking about the chaos of "open" servers, and you make fair points. In the groups I am familiar with in DCS, they were the opposite. They were closed members-only servers with missions and scenarios designed by veritable expert Mission Makers. During "mission nights", the paradigm was definitely Dead Is Dead. So your stupid wingman gets you killed, and well, goodnight guys, see you next week. These were very hardcore groups that made such an effort to do things "realistically" that, for a computer game, it could border on the absurd at times. I wanted realism to a point, but it's not a second career. For some people, I suspect that's exactly what they want. The good news, at least I think, is there are much more casual groups out there. As far as open servers, if you get a group of half a dozen people together that know what they're doing, including an organic GCI person, you can just go in there and kick the living daylights out of the whole lot of them. It's very fun. As an independent operator though, I wouldn't have a clue how to get on an Open server and find wingmen or crewmembers. Maybe that just comes down to extroverts vs introverts but thats one reason why it can be really beneficial joining a familiar squad vs just showing up and trying to find friends for a session. Your choices are generally Larry, Curly, or Moe. There are a lot of different possibilities in MP.

Has anyone had issues running this mod since the latest update? I was able to launch the mod, but wasn't able to enter the cockpit or fly. I wasn't sure if there was a compatibility issue with the latest DCS update or maybe something else is going on?

There is no question, for me especially, that DCS is painfully lacking in the Dynamic Campaign/immersion arena. But it will come. I'm just pointing out that it is a taller order (within the extremely diverse DCS ecosystem) than a lot of folks give it credit. BMS had almost nothing to do by comparison... but it did that feature extremely well, no doubt about it.

Don’t forget these values in most cases are given for ratio 69:1 bar or 1000:14,5 in psi. Chamber pressure vs ambient pressure, with full expansion of gases, and without losses in divergent zone of nozzle Same as Russian motors and propellants, only in ratio 40:1 which is Russian standard

Just a note for people with Varjo Aero regarding Quad view and foveated rendering. Please remember that the settings that are described on Varjo web Tips on OpenXR are still valid for DCS. See: https://varjo.com/vr-lab/make-the-best-out-of-your-varjo-experience-update-on-varjo-quad-view-eye-tracked-foveation-and-varjo-base-settings/

Then this tip is not for you. There are a lot of other people seeking better performance. I also thought that was obvious.

Specific impulse wise HTPB is probably in the range of 242-248. There are patents from the late 90's early 2000's which change up the blend to get it higher but these would not be relevant for the 120B/C. 1498409585215997771-06238499 US6238499B1 - Solid rocket propellant - Google Patents

@twistking Very well said. I'd add that with the best intentions, real-world tactics designed to keep pilots alive and to prevent the loss of expensive toys just doesn't translate well to a 'game' with no real disincentive for death or loss of asset. Perhaps if each online player had one 'life' per week (or even month) it would encourage more realistic tactics and execution of missions, rather than just Leeroy*-ing into the furball every time. If people want realism, then dead should mean dead.

This is huge news. The potential for PVP setups online is going to be epic with the F-15C and EF coming online. Cant wait.

That part, yes. But since I dont't experience stutters, freezez and such now... what do I gain?

No more max out of CPU. I thought that was obvious.

Point 1, I don't have anything to report on where it is at in development, but I do understand it to be incredibly complex and you can see aspects changing the core already if you look hard enough. I will ask about a dev report, as it's been a minute. Point 2, The AI is constantly being worked on and improved. The DC AI will most likely have aspects unique to how DCs work. Of course, our AI guys and DC Team talk and work together all the time Point 3. I won't talk about the personal and private conversation between two people; I wasn't there, I do not know the context. That said, I have not seen anything to suggest we don't care about the game aspect of DCS, and in fact, I see improvements to this all the time. Look at DCS back in the A-10C and Ka-50 only days and where we are now, I think, while not always as fast as everyone wants, we are making improvements, and it required hiring people more about gaming and less about simulation. For example, hires for the DC.

I see what you did there!

Those must be modules without native FFB support then, such as the F-18. Otherwise I doubt that very much: many problems have been reported by people with FFB hardware that were fixed by resetting axis curves/saturation.

Я этим не занимался . Если эта документация была , значит все проводилось в соответствии с ней . Но была она или нет , я без понятия .