All Activity

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!

Why was the AN/AAQ-28 Litening Pod section of the F-16 Viper Manual deleted with the addition of the AN/AAQ-33 Advanced Targeting Pod? Also how long is the F-16 going to be considered Early Release?

LOL, ok. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CrhbfSnpX0

Because we love drama

OK, thanks for the info, guys. Have a good flight.

Well for starters there's BuAer's own report. The flight manual itself describes the stall behavior as "not abnormal." The problem with the stall in the landing configuration wasn't the stall behavior itself. It was the pilot RESPONSE to it, and how applying too much power too quickly could induce a fatal torque roll. The landing gear bounce issues are another matter entirely and not aerodynamic. The F4U's wing loading was LOWER than the P-51 at about 28lbs/sqft. The P-51 wing loading was about 40lbs/sqft (the F4U-1A even had better power loading, at .19hp/lb to .15). The Spitfire's wing loading varied heavily on the version, but typically around 24lbs/sqft.

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/hubschrauber-absturz-grimma-102.html

Why don't we stop dwelling on issues that have nothing to do with the dispute and focus on the facts? It seems that there's a part of the community here who believes that if everything isn't a conspiracy theory or if their point of view isn't correct, they have to invent a new theory every day to keep fueling this post... It's been said repeatedly, even if this reaches 100,000 replies, legal processes are what they are, unless someone one day publishes something "confidential" and finds themselves facing a defamation lawsuit and a letter demanding to appear before a lawyer in court. The problem with "noise" is that it's only created to try to keep said "interference" from fading away and to ensure that some "monolithic points" don't die. This is very tiring and honestly it's a permanent broken record... Honestly, those who defend the "pitchforks and torches" should think very seriously not only about the damage they are doing to the community, but also to the creators, because I wouldn't be surprised at all if many are silent precisely so that said community, if things don't fall within their parameters, will rush to kill with a knife by defaming someone on the networks... this way nobody feels like doing absolutely anything because it seems that we are becoming an authentically toxic community.

Just as radar trackfiles are not MSI trackfiles. I believe you are thinking about this wrong. MSI trackfiles can be built by both radar trackfiles AND FLIR trackfiles. While FLIR trackfiles aren't MSI trackfiles, neither are radar trackfiles. They BOTH build MSI trackfiles and MSI trackfiles can always be interacted with.

Adding this because I haven't seen it mentioned in the source code debate, apologies if it has and I missed it. As with all my posts, this is just my understanding: When ED first announced that they would change agreements to require the source code for third-party modules, my understanding was that that requirement was tied to the overall third-party agreement, not the agreement that is signed for a module; if that is true then the third-parties who were already developing for DCS when VEAO went under, Razbam being one, are not obliged to provide the source code for any modules they create in the future, as well as any modules they had created before. If anyone has anything official that contradicts that please post it, the last thing I want to do is inflame the debate with incorrect information. Edit: Please note that this would not prevent a third-party voluntarily submitting the source code or voluntarily signing a new third-party agreement.

Da ich mein Quest 3 verkauft habe, bin ich mir nicht zu 100 % sicher, aber es wird auf der linken Seite angezeigt, dass du eine Latenz von 45 ms hast, richtig? Und die Latenz ist wie festgenagelt. Keinerlei Varianz. Wenn dem so ist, wirst natürlich immer ein Stottern haben. Warum ist die BIT-Rate bei dir os niedrig? 200 Mbps scheint mir viel zu niedrig zu sein. Ultra Einstellungen und nur 200 Mbps und dann niedrige Latenzen? Ich glaube nicht, dass das so etwas wird. Da müssten 500 Mbps her. Wie ich schon schrieb, ist es lange her, dass ich die Quest mal aufhatte, aber ich bin mir sicher, dass 200 Mbps viel zu niedrig für ULTRA-Settings ist, wenn es um Latenzen geht. Mal einen anderen Codec ausprobiert? 10 Bit ist ein gewaltiger Sprung gegenüber den 8 Bit der anderen Codecs.

Кресло Миража 2000, вопросы в личку. Доставка из-за рубежа.

FLIR trackfiles are pretty explicity not MSI trackfiles if you read the sources. You can desigate them to slave other sources to them to create MSI trackfiles. They are not MSI trackfiles onto themselves. It applies just the same to AOT's.

Next Steam sale is in 61 days. And DCS stuff is always on sale during Steam sales.

Let's delete our posts so the thread keeps on topic.

CEP of HARM, when radar stop emmiting is also wrong, preety good chance to hit other target inside baterry, instead of village few miles away... It's not some super secret weapon, plenty of RL data about HARM performance in such circumstences.

Razbam seems to claim that even before this issue arose, ED was not always adhering to their (financial) obligations. Also, all the information we have suggests that the obligation to hand over the source code only exists for newer contracts (and thus for newer modules), not the old contracts for the old modules. And this information includes a statement by VEAO (before the ED/Razbam fallout) who claimed that a large part of the reason they left was that they would be forced to hand over code and other materials for new modules. But even more importantly, it includes even ED's own statements after the VEAO departure, where they only said that they would require the source code for new modules. No. You are making things up. This is not what either party is claiming, nor is it what any of the leaked stuff is claiming. There is no basis for what you say. ED stopped payments and cut off access to DCS due to the Super Tucano thing. Nothing to do with not providing the source code for DCS modules. As far as we know, there is no court case. Except for losing out on a quite a bit of money that they think that they are owed. That is clearly a big issue to them. You ignore that a lot of people have expressed negative sentiment towards Razbam, and of course there is a lot of overlap between customers of DCS and other flight sims. So it is very strange that you think that Razbam doesn't face any negative consequences (other than a major financial hit, which you don't seem to consider to be relevant for some bizarre reason). All those feelings and frustrations seem based on a completely incorrect assessment of the situation.

There should be links to the aircraft manuals in the ED Launcher.

The current implementation of the "enable water injection" key command does not affect MAP. At 1,000 feet and full throttle, MAP remains at 57", regardless of whether the key command is activated.

Ach, das Thema ist gefühlt so alt wie DCS selbst. Man vergisst nach all den Jahren auch vieles wieder, weil ja auch extrem viel rumgeschraubt wird. Wenns dann mal läuft, freut man sich, fliegt und rührt am liebsten nix mehr an. Ich hab mich immer durch diverse Guides gearbeitet und irgendwas (meist ne kleinigkeit) brachte dann die Verbesserung. Hier z.B. grad aktuell: Es gibt noch zig andere Threads hier in den tiefen des Forums und alle mit immer wieder den gleichen tips. Blöd hald, dass die wichtigsten "üblichen Verdächtigen" settings geschätzt so ca. ~30 Punkte sind. Viel Erfolg!

Maybe what you work on can benefit from new features, but that's not the case with every computer system. In fact, it's a good question whether those features are really needed, or just really wanted. I'm pretty sure not all are in the former category. Quite a few were fine with one of those indestructible old Nokias. I don't think you considered the question, how many of smartphone users actually need them? Some have now discovered that they, in fact, don't. Marketing can make you want anything with enough, well, marketing. I was without a smartphone for a very long time, and when I got one, it was because I really did need some functionality that only a smartphone could provide. Although, I needed it because of an externally imposed fiat by people who assumed everyone had a smartphone. My house has steel doors with heavy duty locks, thick outer walls (mostly for heat insulation) and windows with reinforced glass. It's not a bunker, but it's far from easily breached. In fact, it's not possible for the kind of thief that targets private housing to get in before the security company's contractual response time. That's exactly what I'm talking about, too. The only way for a typical thief to make it inside would have been to scam his way in or steal a key. The way the house is designed provides inherent security. There are no exploits, no crawling in through an air vent or decoding the radio waves to open the door remotely (you can get in the garage that way, but the jalopy in there isn't actually worth stealing ). Likewise, buying any sort of stolen information gets you no closer to the keys. Then it's not a cyberattack, it's a scam. I wasn't talking about those. Scamming individuals is another thing entirely, and is much older than computers. Of course I understand what I'm asking for. In fact, I think all this software should have been written that way in first place. That's obviously not the case. All commonly used modern software has those issues (especially anything based around Unix). Almost all modern software is moving too fast. Most modern software breaks too many things because of that. In fact, those issues actually start with hardware. Why should I need to restart my PC regularly when there had been VAXen that had an uptime of years, and mainframes on which you could install a patch to the running OS without turning off the system? The fact that the IBM PC was a crummy (but very modular) office machine running a hacked together CPM clone probably has something to do with it. It was never designed as something your life revolves around. Again, I don't care what people want. I care about what people need. Again, the marketing department is there to make people want all the crap you're making and then ask for more. And then, the programmers wonder why people act entitled when requesting new features. In fact, a lot of people could do with a cleaner separation of wants and needs (but it's hard when every marketing department in the world is dedicated to muddling this line).