All Activity

I have the same problem with arresting on the Essex in the Marianas WW2 map. I have spent hours practising with a wind of 28 kn. Across the deck, with full flaps and despite regular ( about 20-30) good approaches at 90 – 100 kn. The hook refuses to catch. I have tried setting flaps 2 with no benefit. I have carefully examined my replay footage on an outside (F2) view and I believe my problem is the flight model at low speeds: If on short finals you reduce speed to 90 Kn. The aircraft becomes very unstable by touchdown. If you fly any faster and try to flare a little at the last second to lower the tail, you lift off and miss altogether. Possible developer solutions: Check that there is no inherent problem with the Essex model. Tune the Corsair's flight model to allow more stability and sink at speeds under 100 Kn. Raise the Essex's wires a couple of inches. (It wouldn't even be visually noticeable) Lengthen the hook. Meanwhile, I'll continue to practise. Regards, Myself.

They are quite easy to understand and you have described it fully. …which is still more than it should be and which creates insecurities that didn't exist and shouldn't exist. It's that simple. This is a bad solution, implemented hastily with no warning and seemingly no testing of value. The number of things it breaks for no gain is ridiculous. The workarounds create bigger problems than what initially existed and does the exact opposite of what was intended with this whole idea. Hell, even the OP gives a big red warning sign. The reason I say that you didn't do any testing is because you've managed to break SLmod for a number of people — probably other common and crucial mods that are used all over the place. This should have been an immediate discovery and show-stopper. I would suggest a two-step process: Hotfix-patch rollback. Do any of the things cfrag has suggested. Or see two posts above.

Anti Detonation Injection - Its main purpose is to prevent engine knocking and premature ignition. At low altitudes it has secondary effect of increasing manifold pressure ( cool air = more dense ) In my opinion it is not simulated yet. Because I think there should be "jump" in power at low altitudes, just like in P-47.

This isn't any different then if Activision contracted another company to do some work on a COD title, and they turned around around and took the engine assets to make their own game or make something for another client. Activision would most likely either sue them into oblivion or withhold all payments from the moment they caught them. This isn't a bourgeois vs proletariat situation... this is a case of one group violating the terms of a contract by doing something they weren't supposed to do. This situation could end tomorrow with the signing of one contract. But that side won't budge... and they're the ones with more to gain... and all they have to do IS SIGN A CONTRACT.

The "when?" seems to be the problem to me not the "why not?".

Der kann soweit ich gesehen habe auch den Bildschirm aufnehmen. Aber sonst bekannte Vertreter sind: Fraps, OBS, Shadowplay

Easy to test, how long can you run full throttle before the 3 minutes remaining light turns on if you don't press the water injection on keybind?

There is an known issue with most/(all?) aircraft landing on ships and crashing DCS.

This thread was posted over 10 years ago, so I assume 2.0 is no longer happening, but I figured I'd ask. I love Tacview and was looking forward to it. I'd pay for 2.0, no problem. I've been using 1.x for so long. I've also never necro'ed a 10 year-old thread before, and I want to impress the ladies by telling them that I did so.

I found next, nice video of ATP with examples quality of the image:

Would it go back to court if for whatever reason that settlement agreement is not implemented?

Hello, I came back to DCS after a long break (a few weeks). After the last update, I have a strange behavior of the AV-8B: Landing on a runway is perfectly fine, but as soon as I have to land on a ship (whatever it is), I systematically have a DCS crash after the touchdown. Has anyone had this problem?

Answer to both is that I don't want to reinstall the software thats on it.

The button pressure cannot change anything, as the water injection is already activated at full throttle (is automatically activated at full throttle)... Without water injection, you should not reach 57.5 MP. But you reach the value, so the water injection is probably implemented The button is not a "turbo" button that increases the speed. It allows higher MP values by injecting a mixture of water and methanol. So if 57.5 MP is reached at full throttle, this only happens because the water injection has been activated. What happens in the P-47 when you activate the injection (with a button), happens in the F4U when you push the throttle lever all the way forward.

Correct, also when you guys start attacking each other, those are hidden. If you say Star Trek is better than Star Wars, those are hidden. Things like that. Stick to the first post. Even your comment is leaving out part of the story, and much of the story is not even out there. Once again, its all under a confidentiality agreement and within lawyers hands.

Yes, Apache manual is really great! Thank you so much. It covers all topics well explained and the integrated links to other related topics are very intuitive. It‘s my number one source learning and flying the Apache in DCS.

I dare to doubt that and will only believe it when you show me where they confirm this exactly. If it really only gets 54MP at 20k ft, then something is fundamentally wrong. At sea level, you can get 57.5 without any problems and without pressing an extra button. So if M3 really did implement it the way you think they did, there must be a confirmation somewhere from M3 (which I don't believe, because I don't see any change when I press this button at full throttle - how could I, since the water injection is already activated at full throttle), otherwise it is quite reasonable to assume that M3 implemented it realistically.

I use the ones for Virpil without issue, so my guess is no

Thank you Heatblur for adding the ability to set the full Link-4C address using the kneeboard. This has been invaluable for multiplayer use where the flight may be broken up among multiple 'groups'. Would it be possible to add a setting for the default Link-4C address (all four digits) and D/L frequency in the 'Aircraft Additional Properties' tab in the Mission Editor? The use case I have for this are 'backup slots' that I often include for players who are having issues (CTD, poor connection, etc.) and need to jump back into a game partway through. Since these 'backup slots' are air spawns the players do not get the option to configure these settings themselves. It would also allow mission designers to allocate addresses and frequencies ahead of time, lessening reliance on supplemental information (like custom kneeboard pages) and troubleshooting before takeoff (getting Link-4C to work requires very specific setup, it would be nice for newer RIOs if I could make this as easy as turning the system on). If allowing the full address and frequency to be preset in the Mission Editor is not feasible, the first two digits should be enough since the rest of the address and the frequency can be set in the cockpit. Thanks!

Warbird dumbo here, what is "ADI" in these contexts? It certainly isn't Attitude Display Indicator...

not yet, neither no time of those qualified people nor translators have no knowledge of avionics terms .... sad

Hi @MadMax3600, you can try my version of HDS with SAMPack_S-300_Series inside, it's working with the latest version of DCS. The only problem i have are the guns of the SA-22 Pantsir from HDS. After one of the old big DCS update, the aiming system and the recoil became corrupted, I tried some modifications of the LUA files, but the guns are still useless (AI or player). https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QivT43h06V5uvpaVcxRfTNJJfu_Gtd9S?usp=drive_link

Just FYI Gents, I am not 100% sure how bad ITJ has been affected by the latest update, however it's not sounding good. Kandy is getting better, and we touched base briefly today via text. Sounds like one of the community members who was instrumental in assisting him on providing scripting advice has encountered some major issues with how ED is coding DCS now to protect their work if I understand correctly (not a coder or software dev). Sounds like some game breaking issues are starting to pop up or could with mod maker or mission developers, so please be advised you may encounter issues with ITJ. I would love to say we will fix them, but from what i understand, the way ED has structured the code now could possibly prevent us from correcting future issues. Hopefully ITJ continues to work, and I will test tomorrow. I did see Bignewy was reaching out to people for feedback, but I am not sure what that entails. More to come.

or the developer seeing the big picture, the reputational and tha financial situation, found excuses and decided not to release the module yet

@Slant I have also had this issue; it seems the 'Navigation Target Points' settings are not being applied to dynamic spawns. I am unsure if this is an ED Dynamic Spawn issue (which other aircraft use this tab?) or if this is something Heatblur can fix themselves.