All Activity

Looks like the functioning of the radar is going to be very complex, than what we are used to in FC3 or western counterparts.

The more i fly this plane, the more i like it, glorious history , great ingeneering

Пощёлкал https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/news/changelog/ С удивлением обнаружил, что "Scripting API. Changes to the behaviour of net.dostring_in(). This API can be used only with trusted scripts/missions! More details here: Changes to the behaviour of net.dostring_in() - ED Team - ED Forums" нет в русском варианте.

Ah... I see it. Thanks! So, it's www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/Downloads need to have the file updated.

Issue is still persistent with todays update. Getting roughly the same amount of crashes, last was with 40 players connected and 4hours runtime. something we noticed, our latest cold war server on germany does not crash at all so maybe some specific modern unit or model?

Publisher

I have never seen that as a reason. I have always understood coming from The General Of Day Fighter for the Luftwaffe that the reason was the Luftwaffe effort was to counter each raid just before it hit the target with a maximum effort to just bring down bombers with orders to ignore allied fighters. That is what the excerpt stating the directives I posted earlier from POW transcripts. Just like Goering wanted the bombers to have a visual on the fighter escort in the Battle of Britain, Hitler wanted the German people to see the Luftwaffe defending their cities. That strategy was dictated from higher and one of the reason's Galland just went back to flying as his input had no effect anyway.

Where is the "server" env which I used to use? Seems don't work anymore. Have to fix it on the go during event.... PS: seems it's now "scripting"

Some time ago it was possible to "preselect" SKR in ACQ, and as soon, as the laser spot was caught by the seeker, the crosshair was placed over the lased target. Right now, the way to overcome the limtation that came with change of this behavior, is just to observe the rectangle that follows to some extent the pilot's head, and as soon as it became large and solid, we have the indication that the laser has been spot by the Hellfire's seeker. This moment we know, that it should be possible to switch ACQ on the SKR. I once saw a thread somewhere where @NeedzWD40 explained it quite comprehensively, but I still have hard moments with getting the point, why the dotted cross can't appear automatically, without having to "hunt" for the moment when it becomes possible to turn it on. If it would work as it was initialy implemented, it was pretty natural, that selecting the SKR prior to getting the spot, pilot (or CP/G) declares he has need to see the crosshair as soon as the laser is spotted by sensors. Such behavior rather contributes to improving situational awareness and shooting precision. Apparently something deeper must be escaping my overview of the subject.

That's true (small note we currently have 3, so we are talking about the 4th version). They all operate within the same range. Unfortunately, electronic warfare in DCS is relatively flat and shallow. I hope that one day this will change and follow the Falcon's BMS example, where even in the F-16 we have different tones when the ECM and RWR are working.

fixed. if you ever have that issue, its a USB issue that needs to be adressed by resetting some specific USB's with USBDEVIEW. all 045B ports (vendor ID)

So, Physical Evidence from a crashed plane showing up in England in August of 1944 is dismissed. All these FW-190A8/R11's had GM-1 at 150gr/sec... https://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg301.html So is my wife and half my friends. They disagree and so does every translator available. It is not a cut and dry thing so quit trying to minimize the discussion.

He didn't have one plane. In fact almost no Navy or Marine pilots did. With the exception of VF-17 and some CAG birds, you flew whatever plane was available. Some SQUADRONS didn't even have their own aircraft, and instead every group at a base drew from the same pool. Boyington is confirmed to have flown combat missions in three aircraft: 17883: 17740: (Interesting because of the extra national insignia on the underside of the left wing). And he was shot down flying 17915, though I'm not finding any photos of that bird offhand.

I can read, thanks. My point still stands. It requires functionality that is not present in DCS and that ED clearly is not interested in implementing - or we'd have it already.

Ist eine klasse Sache das die Herc ihren Weg zu DCS findet. Zumal es ja mittlerweile möglich ist eine Mission zu speichern, für deren Einsatz wird mir die Zeit etwas zu knapp. so wird was draus werden

So what you're saying is you don't want the gateway modeled in DCS so the A-10 can get Link 16 equipped aircraft data (which to be fair and to your point right now only AI aicraft data is shared not client)? This is the first time I've seen someone report a bug for a feature most want to actually work (i.e. have the gateway modeled so SADL and Link 16 equipped aircraft can talk)

I love how you provided sources rather than just spitting out opinions on how you think the module should behave. Well done. This post should be a template for all.

у меня 590.26 дровишко.Кто нить на нём ещё летает? Может обычный 577-й лучше использовать?

No, that still doesn’t work. There was a reason that the Luftwaffe waited close to the German border before engaging the bombers, ie to avoid the shorter range allied fighters. If a bunch of 190s had gone in at altitude over the channel, there would have been time to get a shed load of Spitfires up to meet them. The nuisance raids were effective because they went in at very low level, so as to avoid radar, giving little time to respond. The only vague would be to go in at low level, then try to max climb to 25,000 feet to intercept, putting the initiative height advantage firmly with the allied screen of fighters. That might have distracted some of the screen, but not all, and the 190s would probably have been cut to ribbons. You really think that any of the above options sound sensible?

You can find it in your DCS folder - DCS World\Mods\aircraft\F-16C\Doc

I'll try to take some time to put up a proper trackfile later, but I did some quick testing. When engaging moving targets with LGBs the bomb appears to track the laser but where that laser is actually pointing appears to be at a completely different point on the ground than where the ATP is currently tracking on the screen causing the bombs to miss wildly (roughly 1,000 ft away). Area track seems to work perfectly fine as does a point track on a stationary target. Always a chance that I haven't learned the nuances of the new pod yet, but this seems like a bit of an issue.

The document linked before proves otherwise. Again, no mention of GM1 use in frontline service, except maybe for special Mosquito hunter units (which might even have been 109s - can't be bothered to check atm). Native speaker here. No need for grasping straws on your end.

I have the files for it i will try

In the publication I read I did not get impression Galland was not talking about trying to blanket England in German fighters. Instead he was advocating intercepting the escorts over the channel with the express goal of engaging escort fighters in order to force them to drop their extra fuel. It wasn't about intercepting bombers or fighters over England. It was about saving the SE fighters to engage Allied escorts forcing them to turn back due to lack of fuel instead of wasting them trying to concentrate on escorted bombers over Germany. Once that happened and the escort was stripped away, the heavy twin engine fighters such as the JU88's could them engage the bomber without interference. As for the entire Allied Air Fleet and the ADGB responding.... They had a very hard time with just 40-50 FW190's carrying a tiny bomb load. In fact, they were not effective at all in stopping the raids. You really think they would have been more effective trying to reach out across the channel AND maintain their Defense of Great Britain?

To verify the claim that the AI has 100% situational awareness and no blind spots, there is absolutely no need for advanced flight testing skills. The procedure takes no more than five minutes: simply enter a known blind zone of the AI—one programmed to unconditionally engage any airborne target—and remain there briefly. Then transition into an area where a human pilot would immediately recognize a threat. This is exactly what was done.