All Activity

I've said this to both NineLine and BIGNEWY on occasion where we've spoken - DCS needs to rein in its timeline. Preferrably 1946-2000. Just having a date range like that does 3 things: 1. This date encompasses the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, all major post-WW2 conflicts (minus the GWoT and ISIS) and allows for some of the more advanced weapons and systems (like the R-77 and AIM-120s) 2. It gives developers a robust timeframe to select aircraft to simulate - none of which upset the apple cart *that* much... 3. It manages the expectations of players as to what aircraft could be in DCS, and what can't. This whole ED/RAZBAM thing is extremely disappointing - from both sides. That has cost us, the customer, among many other things: a MiG-23. Not a Flanker, but still a very iconic Soviet-era fighter/interceptor. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has comparable info and could make a MiG-23 module for DCS but we had one right on our doorstep, but business and personalities got in the way - and the customer lost. With India (finally) retiring their MiG-21UPG (Bison), and their MiG-27MLs having been retired long before that, maybe somewhere down the line, we'll see a UPG and an Indian-based MiG-27 in future - before the documentation gets officially 'archived'. If the Fitter is coming to DCS, REDFORs frontline attack aircraft capability is going to increase substantially. A MiG-27 would only bolster that. Now...back to the Flanker... The 'Russian security laws' argument is a curly one. It sort of stops at the MiG-29A, and in how ED have discussed what their sources and resources are for developing the F-35... The MiG-29A exists so, clearly, there's a way and means to produce Russian-based modules. I suppose, for Russian aircraft, it comes down to what, and how old it is. And, of course, money. If there is any company that has enough 'acquired knowledge' to develop even a reasonably accurate full-fidelity Flanker, it's ED. They literally built their business on the back of the Flanker series. The sensitivity of high-end Flankers and their capabilities are understandable from Russia's point of view, which is why I believe they (the Russian government) wouldn't blink at a late 80s Su-27S, and will be equally as uncaring at the prospect of a 20-year-old export Flanker variant that, after modernisation upgrades in recent years, probably doesn't exist anymore in reality (i.e. the Su-30MKK were either replaced by MK2 or J-11BS - or were upgraded beyond the original standard to the point what they were and what they are now is chalk and cheese in comparison - speculation on my part, I haven't done the research to verify that). I am very familiar with the Codename Flanker mod, and a few members of their team. Believe me - if I had the money to burn, they'd be funded in full. I didn't win the $8 million lottery last night, so I just have to keep on trying... But once I do - I'd be happy to part with $2M (the assumed cost of developing a module) to bring a Su-30MKI to DCS. As for improving global international relations...that's the easy part. All we need is either hyper-advanced aliens to reveal themselves and say they want nothing to do with us if we keep doing what we're doing, or a being calling itself 'God' needs to reveal itself and bring its followers into line. So, of the options available, what livery would you like to see on your Su-30MKK?

Is there a way to edit the track files so I can just include the segment when I was having issues? No double inputs. I'm unfamiliar with the term "pot spike". I'm assuming it's relating to a potentiometer, but what is it and how would I check for it? Cheers!

Have you checked the special options for FFB trimming? Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Just train the speech recognition some more, or add Whisper to it. It uses AI and is much better. That's the beauty of VAICOM, hence why I mentioned it. It circumvents the radio menu, (I actually have it hidden), and communicates directly with DCS, so that is not a problem. You will quickly learn and remember them the more you use it. Like I wrote, VAICOM is free, you should give it a go. Maybe it works with VAICOM. VAICOM works with some radio commands that are not in the menu. Like you can refuel on the ground without bringing up the refuel/rearm GUI. Also, VAICOM does not push buttons. One uses ordinary VoiceAttack commands/profiles for that. Cheers!

Currently when trimmer is pressed only the stick position moves while trim position stays in place, this is visible on the input overlay. When the trimmer is released the trim position is moved to the current stick position over a few frames. I'm not sure if there's a jolt because of it when using a spring loaded joystick, but with FFB joystick this causes a strong jolt of force as the stick tries to jump back to the old trim position and follow it over the few frames to the new position. A fix for this would be the trim position constantly following the stick position while the trimmer button is depressed.

Hi, just going to revive this thread since I am having a similar issue. I managed to shoot down 9 of the bombers with my wingman and land at the airstrip next to Anderssen but it still isn't a mission pass. I'm also not getting any dialogue after the missiles launch. The best I can get is a draw. I've attempted a few times now since I landed at Anderssen the first time and had a bug with my flight control surfaces another time. I thought for sure this time the mission would be a pass, but no luck. Cheers!

The A-10 isn't officially called the Warthog, either, and the F-16 isn't officially named the Viper (not the Block 50, anyway). MiG-29 is called Fulcrum by the Russians, too, mostly because it's a cool name and they haven't managed to come up with a better one. In the mission editor, it'd be nice to have the proper name, especially if there might be more variants in the future, but as far as the official product name goes, I'm not bothered. The name serves its purpose and perhaps there's a legal point to not calling it exactly the same as the real plane.

Р-27Р ракета следует за самалётом до момента предпологаемого удара противника. Эйм-7 ракета работает правильно. Трек это показывает. Тэквью показывает, что Р-27Р ракета совсем не следует за самалётом. r27 gyazo.mp4 1v1 miz3-20250923-201636(1).trk Tacview-20250923-201626-DCS-Host-1v1 miz3.zip(2).acmi

What is "Fulcrum", the aircraft isn't called that, why did they even add that nickname? Will the lightning 2 be called "F-35 penguin"?

@CommandT Roger! All good buddy! Have you tried with an extension? Cheers! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Currenthill is now part of the team. Why not just bring in the guys from Civilan Aircraft Mod and Military Aircraft Mod? Wouldn't that be much quicker and easier? Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

I have VoiceAttack already, I had it setup (for most important things) for when I flew Russian FC3 aircraft but its not 100% safe/proof to use all the time, sometimes it doesn't recognise my commands, maybe due to my accent or whatever, sometimes command menu changes depending on what's happening in the mission... also takes lot of time to remember all the voice commands. So right now I switched to using buttons on my stick and MiG-29 Fulcrum being WIP still I leave things be for now as I'm expecting things to change over time and just slowly learning the new module, how everything works, what is not working properly, etc. Also, while talking about me expecting things to change, right now there is no "attack my target" command with MiG-29 Fulcrum module (and I wonder why they left it out?)

Yes it is, I’m all ok with what you are saying, my problem is only about the description staying like it is, I was too fast with the « take my money button », next time I’m going to be more carreful about expectations and take more care about words VS what is really inside, for me it’s not a big deal to make it clear.

Ich habe meinen 15 Jahre alten Laptop im letzten November durch einen gamingtauglichen Desktop abgelöst (siehe meine Signatur). Zwar bin ich nicht mehr berufstätig, lege aber Wert drauf, dass neben Gaming auch sämtliche Officeanwendungen und andere kommerzielle Software soweit wie möglich ohne Kompatibilitätsprobleme läuft. Ich habe mich daher für einen PC mit Intel CPU und Nvidia GCU entschieden. Angeblich soll zwar die momentan aktuellste AMD Generation ein paar Prozentpunkte Geschwindigkeitsvorteile bieten. Aktuelle Benchmarktests zeigen da aber ein recht uneinheitliches Bild. Mal ist Intel vorn, mal AMD, jeweils immer nur mit ein paar Prozent, die im Betrieb wohl kaum wahrnehmbar sein werden. Gefühlt lese ich jedoch häufiger von AMD Usern mit Kompatibilitätsproblemen als von Intel Usern. Daher habe ich mich eben für eine Intel CPU und Nvidia GCU entschieden und habe es bisher auch nicht bereut. DCS und MSFS laufen jedenfalls sehr flüssig darauf.

Red Alert behavior is a built-in feature. Normally, Red Alert activates automatically when a unit detects a target (either by radar or visually). This state causes the unit to prepare for engagement by deploying all available systems, such as radars, launchers, and other assets. If you manually set Red Alert in the Mission Editor, it simply skips the warm-up phase. Additionally, an ammo truck nearby can rearm systems like MLRS units. The rearming process usually takes around 30–40 seconds, and you can actually observe each missile being loaded during that phase.

In what way? Train Microsoft Speech Recognition Purchase and install VoiceAttack Download and add the free community driven plugin for VoiceAttack Setup VAICOM according to the manual Copy the VAICOM commands to the included VoiceAttack profile That's basically it. "Two, engage bandits" "Three, engage my target" Cheers!

First our Newcomers: ["M8rocket"] = { explosive = 2 }, --US, 18 kg 4.5-inch-rocket, ca. 13 kg warhead, 2 kg explosives, fragmentation ["HVAR USN Mk28 Mod4"] = { explosive = 3.5 }, --US, 5 inch 61 kg high velocity aircraft rocket, 21 kg warhead, 3.5 kg explosives, penetration, fragmentation ["Tiny Tim"] = { explosive = 68 }, --US, 36 inch 569 kg rocket, 227 kg warhead, 68 kg explosives, penetration, fragmentation over blast ["ASM_N_2"] = { explosive = 240 }, --WW2, US, radar-guided 850 kg ASW-glide-bomb, build around a 1000-lb-gp-bomb-warhead, The relevant lines from the splash-lua (hopefully complete ...) Discussion about a recent update dealing with the bombs A bit older with interesting hints on weapon-values in the lua-files by AeriaGloria: "When looking at DCS LUA warhead expl_mass values, also bear in mind that sometimes ED doesn’t always use the explosive weight, but uses the entire warhead weight as the explosive weight, this is done for M151 screenshot you posted and M229. This is almost always to make up for DCS not having fragmentation modeling." "Also, I said piercing has no value in DCS AFAIK. The cumulative field is for armor penetration. Cumaltive thickness is in meters of armor. And if armor it hits is less then cumulative thickness in size, then cumulative factor is applied. In case of S-8KOM, it’s .3 for thickness and 3 for cumulative factor. So if it hits armor less then 300mm in thickness, expl_mass is multiplied by 3 for total damage dealt" I won't subscribe his sentence here: "As far as I know, the piercing_mass figure has no effect in DCS. It seems to be related to true explosive weight in some way regardless of LUA figure for expl_mass." Hmm ... the German's WW2-bombs efficiency against somewhat hardened targets was always low compared to US or British WW2-bombs. German bombs have in common "piercing_mass = 1" - even the semi-piercing SD-models. While that variable for the Allied bombs is much higher and rises more or less reasonable with their penetration-capability. Just an educated guess, never checked it out here, consequently. https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/tree/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs Please be cautious with your invest of time. It's always sad to see engaged community-members drift into resignation just because DCS remains what it is.

Hopefully this gets looked at.

how are the chances it just came off and is not broken? Mine quitt today after 4 1/2 years of solid use.

I would love it. When I was in a squadron we did non-firing dogfights as well and just called out “guns guns guns”. With a feature like this we can do that in SP as well, practicing without the frustrations of getting shot down

Yes, I understand and it’s why I support this wish I do the same!

I programmed my stick to use a button and 1 HAT switch to open, navigate and sellect communication commands also, which is why I ask for this, I ordered VR headset also so having this on the stick is handy. Over time I might just move to voice activation software but that one is more tricky to setup.

That was it. Go figure. The only Mod i had was swastika and engine sound. I removed the engine sound mod and there's the drop tank. Thanks !

In the real world, when a GNS 430 is fitted to such an aircraft such as the MiG, isn't it more of a kluge? If you stick one in a Cessna with Bendix King radios, obviously it will allow tuning of both nav and comm radios as an alternative to the dials on the radios themselves. But these are Soviet era radios. In the real world, when such a device is put into some old Soviet aircraft, does that kind of integration with the nav/comm system actually even work? I always assumed that they just mounted it somewhere (or duct taped it) only to provide basic gps and show the pilot a convenient position reference. I have this device fitted to both the Mi-8 and the C-101. I never expected it to actually tune the radios, even though I know the device is capable of it when properly wired in. If ED makes a Cessna 172, then yes, I would absolutely expect it to do all of this stuff. Product description for the MiG-29 aside, is my assesment correct?