All Activity

Yup, all good now, thanks!

I have experience that 2xMAV can't align with ATP. When MAV is single on pylon than BSGT can be boxed. Handoff is .... off (30m) every time. Multiplayer, coldstart.

I'll give it a shot.

And couple more announced but erroneous binds: Introduced the auto-rich fuel setting. .. plus AUTO-LEAN and IDLE CUTOFF are all still missing. Added a ‘trim reset’ command. Was already in the Corsair, before the patch, and still there now.

Do you think that ED is only telling you what they want to about a thing that's clearly been a massive pain in their collective ass for the past while now? They have entered into a legally binding agreement with Razbam. That means the amount they are able to say to you, me and everyone else is severely restricted to what was agreed upon in the legal process they went through. The same can almost certainly be said for Razbam. And I honestly don't know what people want ED to do here. It seems they went to the very extreme ends of things, even perusing legal resolution, to try and fix the problem that exists around Razbam's development. But the biggest issue seems to be, going off of what I believe has been confirmed on the forums previously, Razbam never provided the source code that developers are meant to provide (I'm assuming that applies to all 3rd party devs, I could very well be wrong) which means that ED is going to be pretty severely handcuffed in what they can do to fix the mess they have in their lap now. ED tried to make sure the Hawk situation wouldn't happen again, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly ED's fault that it did. The part that's confused me throughout this entire mess is how Razbam seems to rarely have anyone mad, but ED constantly has people acting like there's some grand conspiracy to screw a handful of people out of their money in a game that's reliant on their player base. Maybe I'm off in my own fantasy world here, but from everything I've seen publicly confirmed, it seems that Razbam created this whole mess, escalated things online instead of working behind the scenes with ED, and has been the biggest factor in where fans of their modules are now, which is stuck and hoping that ED can figure out a way to continue supporting them with their hands tied behind their backs.

Don't know why but nobody is taking into accounts these bugs. Is anybody at ED able to answer?

On my part, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your work and your efforts in helping the community, something that ED does not seem to want to help.

Dear Cfrag, Thank you very much for what you have done for us. All mine and our virtual squadron’s missions are based on DML modules. Although your decision is a disaster for the mission editors, I completely understand your disappointment and I am sure I would do the same, in case I were in your position. For me that I am involved in DCS since the Lockon 1.0 era, DML was revolutionary. Many Thanks =GR= Panthir

This is very disturbing. An agreement was reached last year and this is the first time it has been mentioned? But there are no details of the agreement, and clearly work has not resumed on any of the Razbam modules and ED still does not have the source code so they cannot promise how long they will be able to support them. So this "agreement" clearly did the end users no good whatsoever. ED is just continuing to string us along? We get the crappy end of the stick because ED is taking care of ED, Razbam is taking care of RazBam, and no one is representing the consumer. This is the Hawk situation all over, after ED promised us it would never happen again. I guess they are counting on us all having only short term memory. This started in Spring of 2024. Normally I buy almost every module that comes out, especially helicopters. Because of this cluster, I have not purchased the Kiowa, the Chinook, or the Corsair. The only thing I have bought is the Germany Map. And its probably going to stay that way. This is not good business. There is a saying in business that if you take care of your customers they will take care of you. And if you don't......I have supported ED for many years, since the LOMAC days, and I have bought many modules and packs that I wasn't really interested in just to support the continued development of DCS. I'm not feeling that generous anymore if this is the way we will be treated.

During the campaign, my TGP was hit so I go back to the base, shut down the engine and repaired the plane, after that iI did a refuel and rearm, all was ok, go again to the target, weapon armed, find a target with the pod, passed the info to a maverick maverick locked the target but I was not able to fire, tried cannon, rockets bombs, nothing. Put several time the arm switch to safe and arm again but with no results. Any idea ?

The bold is my formatting. The question was worth asking, there was no point asking it repeatedly. Far from being dodged, it's been directly answered, as you can see.

so it seems that either i was doing something wrong or it was the typhoons fault so now at least it locks and handoffs the target properly, now to figure out multitrack :D, thanks for the help

Guess not.

Here's some test results from Aug 1945 with an F4U-1D, which you'll notice, is 10 mph faster, even though it's with a combat loadout, so roughly 1000 lbs heavier than the Birdcage when it was tested. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-acp.pdf

3 times tonight I've hover landed on CVN71 (x2) and CVN11 (x1) and I've had a full CTD - anyone else having this issue? Landed the corsair on CV11 fine and the F14 on the supercarrier fine, just not the Harrier Please don't tell me it's the start of the end

It's true that this is reasonably independent of any complex issues that ED and Razbam might have between them. Perhaps it warrants its own thread, then. I find the question is very worth asking and the answer so far has been, at best, dodging the question. As much as a lot of people are rightfully interested in how ED is going to go ahead with the enormous legacy that Razbam has within DCS I am somewhat surprised that very few people seem to take interest in how ED is proceeding in their relationship to the Steam store about it. As @alejandr0 has repeatedly pointed out, all that is needed for their refund is ED's approval. To me at least the reply so far reads as a press-friendly "we got your money and that's that. Screw Steam users!" But then, I see how the majority of the community, myself included, stick to ED's own store about DCS.

I've been playing ED Sims since Lomac and I've always enjoyed them and the work ED puts in. Reading that all Razbam modules will be depreciated soon is incredibly disappointing. I supported the WW2 add-on and saw that debacle. I bought the Hawk which is still a massive disappointment and now I'll potentially lose 4 modules. I hope this situation can be worked out and that various parties can put egos aside because this situation is getting ridiculous and could be solved so simply.

The amraam command links wont be transmitted by off-board source. The only US interceptors capable of this even today to my knowledge would be the NIFC-CA enabled Standard ERAM and IBCS enabled patriot missiles. For our hornet it's going to be your own radar sending the links no matter what. The only difference is just where the track data comes from, and MSI is built to be agnostic in that respect. The offboard trackfile gets passed to the shooter, who then fires his amraam. Shooter receives new SURV data over link, and re-transmits it over the missile link to the amraam. And theoretically (as wags has alluded to in the TA video) the radar itself can be in silent mode during all of this. With it periodically breaking that silence to transmit the command links. And yes the quality of that data would vary depending on the source observing that target. Another hornet and its X band radar will provide a higher accuracy track than the UHF radar from a hawkeye. Not to mention slower update rates that happen over link-16 (inherent to its TDMA protocol)

Not every legal agreement requires escrow. This is especially true where both parties have existing business arrangements and contracts. It is unlikely that the sort of financial institutions that these companies use would refuse a court order in a hypothetical situation where a court decided that one party was 100% liable and owed a substantial amount. That being said, my expertise is regulatory law, not civil law, and I have no knowledge of any of this case except what I read on the forums a while back before deciding not to buy the F-15E and what went out today.

With QVFR you need to have plenty of headroom with your CPU. What are you using? With a 5070ti you need a pretty beefy CPU to make best use of QVFR. If you have not done so already try adjusting the QVFR settings. Keep the periphery as low as possible (about 0.4) and a narrow foveated region (about 0.25x0.25). With DLSS set the foveated region to at least 1.5 to counter the ghosting.

Harrier, M-2000C, Mig-19, F-15E, and the assests. KC-135 MPRS, Tarawa, KC-130K, all will be lost.

Contact the carrier prior to landing should fix it (even if you just call inbound and don't do full comms). If you abort inbound it will crash too.

Hey Guys, found that at PF51 from North to Southnull

I love the sound of this project and would be interested in joining the Discord to see how it's going! Unfortunately, the invite has expired. Would it be possible for you to send me a new one?

I saw the notice in the email today, and I have one minor bit of feedback: the email mentioned that this applies to Razbam's modules, but aside from the F-15E it did not list Razbam's modules. I had to come here to see which other modules would be affected. Not every customer follows this drama or the forums, and many of us don't remember who makes each module. This is especially true for older modules that have been around for a while, I couldn't have told you who made the Harrier if you'd asked, even though I bought that module and I enjoy flying it. I fully understand the rest, especially not being able to discuss most aspects. I don't know enough to know who's right or wrong or if it's even a right/wrong situation, but I can at least judge by professionalism.