All Activity

The 250 MC II and the 500 MC II, are the only bombs in the DCS British arsenal that will fit American aircraft. Only useful fuses are 1 and 11 seconds. Better than nothing. ..

There are 2 perspectives here. One is: How will it work for me? In that regard, you're right, a subscription model might work badly for me in the future. Of course it also means I might get access to the entire product catalog at once for a comparatively tiny amount of money, and cost would only accumulate over time, so it might even be cheaper for me in the long run, if I was otherwise purchasing new modules every couple of months anyway. The other perspective is: How does it work for ED? The way I see it, ED is forced to sell modules. Old modules don't sell well, so they need to kick out new modules and keep the crowd pleased. Modules are insanely complex, development times are long, and while necessary work is underway for new modules, old modules get moved back on the list of priorities. Take your pick, I'm sure you'll find more than enough examples right away. And the core? Well, we don't pay for the DCS core, we pay for shiny modules, and modules in turn pay for the core. I'd say this model doesn't look sustainable to me. Issues keep piling up, features like ATC revamp aren't even mentioned nowadays, we're stuck with a dozen weather presets, vertical clouds aren't a thing yet, the air pressure remains the same across an entire map, AI path finding can drive players and servers insane... You catch my drift. A subscription model could work as an incentive to focus on the core of DCS rather than on new modules. And at that, it could pay for asset development like the PTO Assets pack that spawned this particular discussion - of course that's a ton of work, of course devs and artists need to be paid. Fragmenting the player base with payware asset packs is a legitimate concern, and a subscription model might work better than the current one. But I'll be the first to admit: I'm happy it's not my choice to make and my burden to carry if it goes wrong. And ED have kept the lights on in very demanding times, so they must be doing something right.

I’m very excited about the A6M5 Zero coming to DCS, it hits close to home! Huge thanks, ED! The PTO 1944 Assets Pack looks incredible, especially with the Shokaku aircraft carrier. Are you implementing full carrier operations for the Zero on the Shokaku? Any details you can share? Also, will owning the PTO Assets Pack be required to access carrier ops? Thanks again!

Anybody found out about the arguments for description.lua for Pilot suit? I can't seem to get it to work while trying to "invent" entries in the description.lua while using the templates for Pilot suit top and suitBottom. Also, it seems there are two different liveries in use for Pilot in cockpit and Pilot ejected. Really no fun at all to try and work yourself through this mess with important information missing.

Well if vehicles can be airdropped, transportable, then if they are CA compatible you should be able to drive them after the drop.

That is fantastic to hear, and tbh, so long as this base function is in- I don't mind waiting however long it takes until "you can drive it in yourself" and I bet that has a lot to do with ED needing to support it 1st before It can be put in.

ooh, thanks

I honestly believe this is just meant to be "Dynamic mission capabilities" being able to switch from one role to another and complete different mission types. I don't believe they meant it was tied to dynamic campaign or a new system of sorts. But im curious to hear from the ASC team.

I feel you, man. Same here. I only enable Tacview when I really need to analyze a mission I consistently fail. My source is the Tacview wiki: https://tacview.fandom.com/wiki/FPS_Loss_While_Recording_Your_Flight_in_DCS_World I spoke with the developer on Discord a while back, hoping for some updates, but no luck. Everything suggests Tacview 2 will face the same performance issues.

Is that a fixed, full version, or do I have to install v1.41.1 first?

I only understood some of those words but I hope you're right. I stopped using tacview for a few reasons and the performance was on the top of the list.

I’ve been checking the Tacview wiki and found that the root cause of performance issues in DCS seems to be how active objects are enumerated and passed via Lua. Tacview exporter is now fully multithreaded C++, using less than 1% CPU on the main thread, with all the heavy stuff (telemetry fusion, data cleanup, compression, network telemetry) handled in the background. The real bottleneck? The LoGetWorldObjects() function (it’s the only option available), can’t be split across frames, and gets super inefficient with lots of objects. The way to fix it would be a new API from DCS that’s more selective, progressive, and efficient for enumerating objects. This could minimize load and spread it over multiple frames, boosting performance for everyone using Tacview (and potentially other exporters) Any chance you could look into implementing something like this? It’d be a huge win for the community! Thanks!

MB-339 has it's integrated GPS system. This also has the maps airfields, radio beacons and so on in it's database for selection. So no need for the NS430 in my opinion. It also can be used with a text file based data card. With the newly added option of the DTC in DCS ME (currently for F-16 and -18) this would be a nice addition to the MB-339.

everything acceptable, just i cannot stand trees anywhere under .80, because i do not want to see trees growing out of the ground as I fly along... i am at 13ms frametime, barely sufficient for 72 fps but that one thing is what i cannot tolerate

Just curious, why is it that the CH assets can't seem to do attack group or attack unit? They can fire at point but that seems about it.

Всё так.

Thanks so much, it means a lot to me. This is my first attempt at a real campaign and I am sorry the experience started with a bug. The more I am happy you enjoy it now

This is hilarious, I always cal lit German spoken underwater. For reference, the F-84 and F-86 had an even worse accident rate in Germany, but nobody goes around calling the Sabre a widowmaker...

CTRL does the job...No to figure out why my HIMARS won't attack group or unit. Ugh...

4.1к вроде и немало с одной стороны, но на фоне размеров всего дкс сообщества - ни о чем. Хотя и не скажешь что вообще незаметно. Но это не точно.

Не хотел принимать участия в этой дискуссии, но с этой мыслью трудно не согласиться.

Они влияют потому, что тех людей, кто понимает и смотрит на английском, больше, чем потребителей исключительно русскоязычного контента. Но даже у этого русскоязычного видео 4,1 тысячи просмотров за 6 дней. Понятно, что реальных владельцев игры среди них полтора человека, но тем не менее.

Правильно ли я понимаю из этой таблички, что на высоте 20 000 футов C-130J весом 100 000 фунтов, удерживая IAS = 178 KNOTS пролетит на тысяче фунтов топлива 81 морскую милю, и это будет самым экономичным режимом полёта на такой высоте? https://www.docdroid.com/pDQh0cn/italian-c-130j-performance-manual-pdf#page=196

I suppose this is a feature of the real plane and something we could do with scripting missions or multiplayer servers... BUT maybe there is a miracle, and we are talking about a system you guys are working on to produce those missions in DCS so we can fly them offline(bought the plane already): Dynamic Missions: Fly diverse mission profiles such as tactical deployments, covert special operations, or humanitarian aid flights; all of which highlight the operational versatility of the Super Hercules.

Interesting and a strange decision by Northrop. Except for the F-15 all planes of the US Air Force have a refueling hatch somewhere along the upper centerline of the fuselage.