All Activity

Thank you for the new option for AI overhead landing but while it seems good enough for bigger (civilian?) aircraft, its downwind leg is much much too long for military fighters. Examples: Landing at Batumi: AI F-14B makes slow approach at 1400ft (should be around 300-400kts), breaks over the end of the runway then extends downwind 5nm! (way way too long) all at 200kts (way too fast). Landing at Rota: AI F4U breaks over the end of the runway and then extends downwind to 2.5nm (way way too long). This is not how fighters do overhead pattern. Please fix, USN fighters can already do a nice overhead recovery at the carrier.

It is my understanding that this switch only affects the data source for the computer's range calculations. Both in WRCS and in Direct mode, the needles in the ADI will show where the seeker head is looking at regardless. As such this does not affect the fundamental problem that "Heatblur's missile" will see stuff on the launch rail that "ED's missile" will not see after launch.

Hopefully this will be implemented in the upcoming free version.

Not bad, not bad, but think about my proposal.

No need for all these posts at the various forums. Can't have a look at the track right now. But I did have the same issue until I learned to do it the correct way. When I got my original TM Cougar, I was confused. I also thought pressing that button on the TQS would lock the target. As it turns out you have to press the TMS up button on the grip on the stick, (as long as its correctly bound), to lock the target. Not on the throttle. Have you actually tried that? Just mentioned it like four times now. Cheers!

Hi, please check the first post here, could this be the reason? It was mentioned in the recent changed logs

After several updates, Su-25 missiles stopped being guided by laser code 1113. While Su-25T and Ka-50 missiles (by the letters between the sides) are guided by this code without any problems. I ask you to fix the missile guidance, because the carrier does not matter, the missile does not care where or what it is launched from. Track: https://mega.nz/file/KgsXmTBA#8e15Ty1a2PTjfIDdYPLf18f4yTkLmPaOQBKfThRrzVE Video: https://mega.nz/file/bokElR5I#LncIFHk8repZe56Cfdf8KNLlVlF0BDUT_Usa5BgTjNc Please fix it!

What I mean that some people here thinks that the quality of the image of the sniper does not take to the account that the videos (reference material) is compressed

Question: Do you still have to boresight the Mavericks using the new tpod? Thanks

Hello, dear developers! After the last updates, the HOOK SLMOD version 7.6 stopped working. I spent a lot of time to translate everything into the proper language and make everything work according to my scenario. In connection with the above, I ask you to implement server administration at least at a basic level. So that the server administrator could give a password to specific people and they could log in through the game chat under this password as subdmins. Then, using it, through the game statistics, they could ban, kick and kick out players as spectators. Also, so that subadmins can reboot, select a mission from the list on the server and pause it.

@cfrag I hope the wounds heal and your passion for this stuff brings you back to us someday soon. DML is a great contribution to the community of Mission Builders who choose not to become LUA literate and provides so much capability for building diverse and complex missions.

I think the topic should bei changed then not the discussion should bei closed. because the whole thread is about comparing the Litning vs the Sniper pod. All agreed that the Sniper is modeled very well. The problem apears when you compare the pods. I dont think ED needs more evidence to know that the Sniper is well simulated and the Litning was an early try to get a usable pod inplemented to make gbus etc possible. It was early access not more.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/type-is-campaign/unit-is-mb-339/apply/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3311443/

Not sure, if this has anything to do with it but anyone trying to join has to be using the same version of the sim as the server. IIRC even not having a hotfix installed is enough to cause the issue.

Exactly, if we want to change something we need to provide reference material

I understand exactly how you feel about DCS I want to thank you for all the cool stuff you have done for us fellow DCS players over the years and wish you all the best

It's already there on the Syria map, pal

Hi, we have reported this internally already as you can see it is FLT - FLT - CMBT currently instead of FLT - CMWS - CMBT It will be fixed in a future patch thank you

When in cmws mode, indicator still shows Flight mode.

The TUNER light on the R-828 still isn't working following the latest update (DCS 2.9.18.12722). Surely it isn't too much to ask to have the tuner ligh twork correctly? In the attached mission there is a ground unit tuned into channel 4. You can press the tuner button (S-828 ASU) until the cows come home but the tuner light does not work! Mi-24P R-828.miz

Here is a track file. Tried enabling virtual buttons and not enabling virtual buttons. Tried running with LED scripts and without, tried 120B's and 120C's. Thank you. enabletrack.trk

Will do. BTW we're finding the same problem with the old TGP. Missile is offset right same distance.

Let's try not to get too off-topic here. This thread is about the new pod. The focus should be on helping ED getting it as close to realistic as possible. The older pod has nothing to with this.

This issue may be related the Maverick NOT the TGP. Using the old TGP I get this. Same offset.

Sorry to hear that Cfrag, we wish you all the best and hope when you feel the time is right you will return. thanks Bignewy