All Activity

Да, бланкирование есть. Но при этом нормальная работа Березы не обеспечивается. О чем не двусмысленно указывается в БП. Береза корректно работает только без бланкирования, то есть без РЛПК.

When it comes to sense of humor, I think you're the best.

Okey.

Aircrafts are usually stationed at one airport. So that seems logical to me. Quick RTB. While airdromes 2 and 3 are more like a steerpoint (if you don't need to land at one of these).

Hello. Here's a quote from the Su-27 manual: That is, the emergence of false information is possible, but not 100% likely.

Yes

My ethernet is all fine but somehow I can not log on to the DCS launcher and I can not go on the DCS website(same with my phone, whether I use the internet at home or the mobile data, the website just ain't opening); but other website is working perfectly fine and I have no issue to use the internet for other things. When I click the help button on the launcher, it shows up API Error. This is what it shows up: Launcher error. API Error Code:0 Method: getFAQ Message:

The problem appears when easy communication is selected? With easy coms you need to use bind "/". With realistic coms bind is "Ralt + /". For airport to appear on comms list you need to be a bit closer to it. Not much close, bit I think it is around 150km-200km. Depends on airports available in this area and if they are closer to your position than desired airport.

With the DCS: Top End Australia map and the RAAF assets they were developing for it, we almost had a 737 model that could have been modified (by ED or Check Six) to replicate a civilian airliner... With them folding before anything was even developed, sadly that window has closed. For Air Policing/Interception missions, civilian air traffic in areas where it should be, is a must. I try to add things like this for immersion in my missions using the Yak-40 and An-26 mostly. Even if they just stripped the E-3 of its radar and defensive system fittings, that's a 707... Ironically, a 707 is also used as a tanker by some countries... A 737 and/or an A320 model aren't that hard to come by, or even making one themselves wouldn't be *that* hard, considering. Doesn't need a highly detailed interior, doesn't need to be fitted and ready for flyable module quality - just needs to pass an exterior look as you pull up next to it after an intercept, or if it's squawking 7500. Even if you couldn't actually control when or where they appeared outside of allowing them to do so and where they'd take off from/land at - still more immersive than...KC-135s in civilian airliner liveries...

So even in GCI we have nothing over target. Only gun mode ?

I had the gear thing (right one in my case) happen already on takeoff, ie. failure to retract even when no flaps were used. Haven't played DCS in a week, but I wonder if re-saving my old custom training missions would help? I recall reading it might, although I don't remember if it was in reference to Corsair or MiG-29 shenanigans after latest patch.

Is there any news about the repair of AG radar?

I just watched the TacView back, and I lost all fuel within 20 seconds. So, call it time dilation; either way, it was too fast. I went to idle immediately after I noticed the fuel leak, which was about 12 seconds after getting hit when my bingo went off at 5k, and it was 9k before I began the attack run from 5k to 0, which was then in about 8 seconds. I'm reviewing the track file to see if there is anything else to note.

Apparently this top heading tape and waypoint symbology/UI is only on the test version of DCS. Is there any chance we could get something like this in the core game? I think it's pretty neat

I'd be willing to try it out, thanks Is there anywhere I can track its progress?

Not that I have come across needing it in any of my missions yet, this would be very handy to have as an ME capability.

This post and replies are ~1 year old. I just built a new rig with Core Ultra 7 and wonder if Process Lasso still needed. Should I use it?

Yes, I apologize for missing EN full manual such a long time. As talked to ED, this is last piece before removing BETA tag

Если бы мы за форумные лампочки тогда с такой же храбростью и упёртостью вписались, глядишь, и отстояли бы.

Что вы очень занудный персонаж, который отрицает окружающую действительность, не поднимая носа от ОСТов и ГОСТов.

Thank you for raising that. Unsure if you realise, but you very conveniently left out the first sentence of my post which addressed literally this. When I say balance (technically I said imbalance), I mean in terms of options - both aircraft and capability, not equality. US weapons and systems still retain a qualitative edge in most areas of performance. Thank you for adding the modules I had forgotten about (particularly the Mirage F-1M and F-104). I've seen no official mention of the Su-17. I remember seeing something about a picture where the silhouette was a Fitter, but I've seen nothing since that suggested a Su-17 was happening. If it does, great, that's a pretty powerful AG aircraft for REDFOR to work with and I welcome it. I would also discount the "MiG-21bis 2.0", I know very little about the scope of it other than it's something Mag3 said they'd do after the Corsair - but unless they're going to add LanceR or Bison capabilities, I see it as more of a remaster (ala F-5E) not a 'new' module. Even with your list, for every 'REDFOR' plane, there's still practically 3 'BLUFOR'. I also discounted anything not "jet age" - the WW2 planes are of little use in that context. I will also acknowledge @Kang in agreeing that 'REDFOR/BLUFOR' are very much in the eye of the mission maker. When I say REDFOR I don't necessarily mean "bad guys": I perhaps wrongly assumed REDFOR/BLUFOR is universally understood. I suppose I could just as easily say NATO/Warsaw Pact or NATO/CIS in a post-Soviet setting... I admit the Flanker is, despite me growing up very much in a 'Western culture' country, hands down my favourite aircaft. And the two-seaters? Whether it's the Su-27UB, Su-30, J-11BS or J-16, something about the profile and the aesthetics commands my attention. I don't know what it is, but they just speak to me in a language I didn't even know I knew. However, I will very much deny it being a "I want/would like 'x' aircraft' in DCS". I do want a Flanker in DCS, absolutely, but not simply because I want it for me. The Flanker is an iconic, recognisable aircraft with a reputation of being formidable - for DCS not to have a full-fidelity Flanker module before an F-35A 5th Gen is...regardless of reason...disappointing. If it were up to me, I'd want a Su-30MKI... Capable of carrying Russian, Israeli and Indian munitions, a hybrid mix of Western and Eastern technologies, 3D thrust-vectoring, very powerful radar and true all-weather day/night capability. Can also be used as a stand-in for the Su-30SM/SM2/MKA/MKM. The ultimate Flanker... THAT is my 'wish'. That, however, is unlikely. Not zero by any means (I had our chances of a Typhoon and an F-35 - and a Rafale - as 'zero'), but low... I will caveat that by saying there is an exceptional mod that adds the Su-30SM/MKI/MKA and MKM by Codename Flanker however, being a mod, it's not official and when there are updates...mods break... But even if that mod was to become an official module (and I'd buy it so fast the bank would have whiplash - if it were up to me, it would be an official module), I still feel the Su-30MKK has a place in the DCS ecosystem - it's different enough (no canards, no thrust vectoring, less capable strike capabilities - compared to the MKI, different radar) to still stand out and capable enough to still give those who fly against it a reason to be concerned. The desire for the Flanker for DCS is about options and multirole capability in a PvP setting, and a PvE/Single Player setting - particularly when it comes to the Su-30MKK (unless you have a suggestion of an equally capable modern multirole 'REDFOR'/Warsaw Pact/Eastern aircraft from around 2000-2015?). In terms of full-fidelity modern multirole aircraft modules, Red/Warsaw/CIS side have only the JF-17, while for the same timeframe (2000-2015) Blue/NATO have the F/A-18C, F-16C, F-15E, AV-8B NA and F-14B currently, as well as a full-fidelity F-15C, Typhoon, Rafale (eventually) and F-35 in future... In any Dynamic Campaign, or any post-2000s scenario, a player (or mission maker) opting to use Red/Warsaw/CIS full-fidelity aircraft is unable to operate in a multirole sense, with equivalent capabilities (except for the workhorse JF-17). No SEAD, no all-weather day/night, no precision strike, no ECM (except the MiG-21 - which isn't exactly modern in the post-2000s), no TGPs, no active-radar homing AAMs, no stand-off weapons. Even flying as BLUFOR/NATO against REDFOR/Warsaw/CIS - you're either flying against aircraft 30 years older than what you're flying, with equally older weapons systems, or you're flying against aircraft the same as yours to mimic that Peer vs Peer conflict (because there's no other real options) OR you're having to fly in/against AI (not as big an issue in PvE or Single Player) or modded aircraft. At the very, very least, I'd love to see the Lock On-era Su-30 AI model be updated - I think we can all agree on that, right?

I'm curios to learn of their intentions with partially adding Qusahwira Air Base. That's like starting a sentence and

Thanks for explaining. And, in my house the Buttkicker absolutely does make noise downstairs. Norwegian wooden house from 2015. Not sure how much problem it would be in a concrete building.