All Activity

FYI: some drivers worked till 23H2 not 24H2, and that was the reason I asked.

ran across this to supplement my study https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1514018475 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1-140/AA.HTM

What do you mean? I guess in real life you would never rearm a jet with the engine running, would you? Yeah I think that was the issue too. It was how the rearmarment process was programmed which lead to the behavior that is luckily fixed now for everybody who flies on servers with quick landing, refueling and take off turn around gameplay.

Thank You!

Hi, thank you for your report. This has been sent to the team.

Just had a scan at Claringbould's info online. Interesting stuff. Funny how all over the place available onlines sources are, e.g: Wiki states the F4u was first used by VF12. Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia This summary of VF12 doesn't mention the F4u: VF-12 - Wikipedia VF-17 was next mentioned by Wiki, and this suggests that they had 152 victories with the F4u However, this suggests that VF-17 were given, Hellcats before "firing a weapon in anger": VF-17 The original "Jolly Rogers" World Naval Ships Forums Archive VFMA-124 was apparently the first marine squadron, though there's no mention of k/d ratio. They do however mention that the squadron members had an average of just 25 hours in the aircraft. Hardly what you'd call experienced This includes a claimed victory/loss for VFMA-124, of 69:11. U.S. Marine Aviation in World War II: VMF 124 in the Solomons. VMF-113, VMF-312, VMF-323 were not in combat until 1944 VMF-214 claimed 203 victories, 97 of which were apparently confirmed. VMFA-214 - Wikipedia VMF-224 didn't have F4u's until their Marshall island campaign, and it looks like they didn't see combat with the F4s until 1944: HyperWar: USMC Operations in WWII: Vol V--Western Pacific Operations [Chapter V-1] Another interesting stat: "claimed a 12:1 kill ratio against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero and 6:1 against the Nakajima Ki-84, Kawanishi N1K-J, and Mitsubishi J2M combined during the last year of the war" That 2:1 disparity highlights to me that the Corsair/Hellcat were both significant steps ahead of the the Zero, and that the Japanese really should have been introducing their better late war fighters at a higher rate.

Hey! Thanks for the positive feedback on the new DCS core asset pack. I'm going to update all of the mod asset packs, to feature LODs and reduced texture sizes, to make the packages smaller and the assets less demanding in missions. I will also remove the duplicated assets that are now featured in core DCS. I'm also going to update all weapons to the latest standard. I started with this one as a template, since it only have one asset. Military Asset Pack Turkey 2.0.0 released! Changelog Version 2.0.0 Added LODs Changed textures to reduce size Added encyclopedia entry Changed folder structure Distribution model This Military Asset Pack is available in the following versions: The standard full download. Remove old asset pack version and unzip this in your Saved Games mods\tech folder. The incremental download which updates your full download and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your current installation.

Yes absolutely!!! Not easy to remedy.....Ill go for the .85 especially with the 4090......Been watching the CPU usage too...very interesting

To be fair the aircraft itself doesn't have a gateway function the AWACS and other assets do. You're also making assumptions based on limited or no data. ED folks have said the gateway is modeled others have said it's not so who knows what is/isn't actually going on. Personally I think if we can't see client aircraft data on the TAD through the gateway we shouldn't see AI aircraft data. Keep it the same for both then it removes any confusion.

I know that at the moment there won't be any paratroops on launch (until ED adds them) But can we transport troops inside? even if for now there's maybe no visual model yet, it would be great to transport troops to and from an airbase/FOB. But i guess that wouldn't be possible unless troops are part of the warehouse system. Might have to CTLD troops in the meantime between points. Just a thought I had

I actually want to keep this behaviour as it allows rapid Targeting of the SPI from the HMCS. Nate

I doubt a big radial engine like this would be so fragile, seems overdone.

Hello again, Due to the ongoing bug with the CH47 Chinook CDU where the screen goes blank while trying to access certain pages, or the page doesn't change, I have modified how the waypoints are entered. I have removed the ACP entries, so now the LAT/LON coordinates are entered directly into the FLPN/ALTN FPLN pages. I believe this solves an issue that can pop up when two or more ACPs are entered with the same name, i.e. when you create a new list of waypoints in "TheWay". If ACP 1 already existed, and a new ACP called 1 was entered, when the ACP 1 was being entered into the FLPN, the user would have to select which ACP 1 was to be used. There is no way for "TheWay" to see the "new" Waypoint selection screen, so it could get out of sync with DCS and create INPUT ERRORS. This new method also speeds up the creation of a FLPN, as it doesn't have to create the ACPs first. It seems that the underlying CDU systems are working as they should, and it is only the CDU display output that is bugged. So you are still able to create new, and add to existing, ALTN FPLNs. (the display just doesn't follow along when data is entered) The ALTN FPLN summary is still updated, and the route can be shown on the HSD by enabling it. https://github.com/jonsky752/DCSTheWay/releases/tag/v2.5.9 Cheers Jon

You can still tilt them. Their FoV was weird before. The top mirror isn't too bad. The problem is the side mirrors, especially in VR where you likely have to turn your head to see them properly. The pilot's head moves too much, and even with small movements he leans way out into the mirror and blocks the view.

Hi Raven, the team have tested and they are not seeing any issues. could it be a local issue, some strange keybind?

It does, however they've added a switch to the circuit panel on the left side (the bank of fuses in front of of the throttle, the very first switch on the bottom row. Flip it up to enable the system) that turns the system on. After that, injection turns on with the throttle.

I've set my cursor X/Y axis' each with a curvature of 20-30. That slows down cursor movement for small axis movements but keeps the higher speed for larger axis movements.

Nice, I'm using one I found on Etsy, lol. I'd love one that actually matches the real console, tho.

Rudel posted excerpt from manual indicating how it' supposed to work now (?) but I find it even more confusing really

How do you accomplish accurate training without the ability to use the ARK for accurate landing approaches?

Hi av8orDave. Early access can be as long as it needs to be for the module, its a process where we give huge discount to users who then are able to enjoy the module and development process and give feedback that helps development. Some enjoy being part of the process and watching the modules grow to completion and some do not, and I understand early access does not suit everyone. The team are working on tasks and as soon as those tasks are ready they are tested for the patch releases. Patch notes will show the work being completed. thank you

Is there any sort of "guidance" around how long early access is supposed to last for these modules? This was released over a year ago and still doesn't have a functional CDU. Seems kind of, I don't know, wild. Hard to believe someone is working every day on this. I don't mean to be negative, but it might be good to set expectations appropriately.

When I cold start, I always align my HMD. I have set up a vehicle about three miles from the end of the runway so I can boresight my Mavericks prior to takeoff. I use the latest procedure for boresighting. When I reach the target area the maverick is pointing in the vicinity of the target according to the TGP, but it is never actually on the target. I align the maverick manually and press the alignment button again. I fire, hit the target , CABOOMBIE and all that. Select the next target and the Maverick is off again according to the TGP. When using the D type I have the TGP set to AUTO and the Maverick set to PRE. When using the H type I have the TGP set to MAN and the Maverick set to PRE. I understand that the Maverick has to be in range for the AUTO handoff to work on the D type andAUTO handoff does not work on the H type. I'm convinced that the alignment process does not workcorrectly when cold starting. I am using the old targeting pod and D type mavericks. Regards

С внешнего вида воевать можно и на смартфоне. Скачал игрушку в телефон: ни тебе джойстика, ни педалей. И стОит - копейки. А тут - целая наука. Ее познавать необходимо, с нуля... С рисунка Леонардо да Винчи

Hi, I have bumped the report internally, but that is all I can do for now, it just depends on the artists work load. thank you