All Activity

Hey, Just got AH-64 for a trial and I liked it very much so far. Now there is that issue where first of all it takes ages to load the mission and then the stutter and spiking while running as low 30fps doesn't get rid of it. Only thing I noticed was that when I plugged the wireless controller on the usb it disappear and everything started to run smooth as any other module on any map so far.

oh yeah you got me on this one... ^^ but not even the other bug-thread is flagged as reported or similar... so its probably not harmful to bring some attention to it...

I've shared my avionics language and I keep it constant to reproduce that. The only thing I change is Special -> mig-29a -> Customized cockpit. When 'Customized cockpit' value is 'default(medium)' or 'default(low)' - I get this language discrepancy highlighted above. When 'Customized cockpit' value is 'default' - I don't get this language discrepancy. It is a minor issue - and I think it only affect those who need to play with native plane language and lower cockpit resolutions, like me - with pretty outdated PC. Thank you!

HeHo ... jetzt muss ich doch mal fragen, weil ich mir keinen Reim drauf machen kann und ich hoffe, das die Schwarmintelligenz hier ne Antwort findet. Ich war seit einigen Wochen nicht mehr an DCS dran und wollte Heute mal die Mig29 etwas testen. Dabei musste ich feststellen, das wenn ich die Maus bewege, um Schalter zu drücken oder mich außen umzusehen, das Bild kurz stockt. Also bei jeder neuen Bewegung in alle Richtungen und bei beginn der Bewegung. Sonnst läuft alles 1A. Habe es bei allen Modulen und auf allen karten. Tastenbelegung ist noch nicht weiter angepasst - Nur das nötigste zum Fliegen. Mir ist das noch nie aufgefallen und in anderen Sims (MSFS) ist auch nicht davon zu spüren. Nur DCS.... Habt Ihr ne Idee?

I was just thinking this today. I'd definitely love some mod patches and other DCS merch.

Yes this would be a good fix.

null

134, HAD Threat table 1

The work we have already done for the weather has laid the foundation, and sensor blocking is still planned, but may require some extra work. I don't have any timeline to share currently. thank you

That's what I wrote in the 1st post but it's not what I'm looking for. The spinning should stop by default (see above).

Hey mate, I found that if you left-click your mouse on the picture and drag it around to the view you want, it will stay in that attitude. Cheers! Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

null DCS.exe 2025.09.29 - 13.25.04.02.mp4

Yep, ditto for the Su-25 (correct in the mission editor, incorrect everywhere else), HY-2, U-Boat U-Flak, Chieftain Mk.3 etc. I never thought to make the comparison to the YF-17, it is a pretty apt one, though at least that actually flew. EDIT: I see this has been moved out of bugs and problems, despite it being an in-game inaccuracy - I guess ED are content with calling things what they aren't.

Yep, seconded - this was allegedly a priority item in the newsletter immediately following the release of DCS 2.7 - that was over 4 years ago.

Yes, it's been discussed before - and a pet peeve as well that I see people keep using wrong classifications. Including ED, who are quick to say "we are simulating an F-16CM from circa 2005 as been used by the USAF" but keep calling an actual in-service aircraft by the name of a concept that never materialised. It's the equivalent of calling our F/A-18C lot 20 a YF-17. Also, the naming conventions used inside DCS are not consistent. In the ME it's called "MiG-29A-Fulcrum" while in the Special Options it's - correctly - called "MiG-29 (model 9.12A)".

Interesting, that makes sense for toss bombing

I noticed 90% of times we need to make a flight plan actually we have to put waypoints on ground instead of current default (6k ft circa). It's a waste of time for the majority of us, changing it every time. Can you rapidly correct this default for us to have a default elevation for new waypoints on ground? Note: I know if i put on ground the first waypoint then all the next will be on ground. But i still have a 6k ft of default to change one time that i think nobody needs. Thank you.

Hi everyone, I appreciate this is minor (though on the flip-side, fixing it is trivial), but what we have in DCS is not a MiG-29A. IRL the actual MiG-29A (product 9-11A) was a speculative concept from the 1970s that was never built beyond small, scale models. Here's what it may have looked like if it was ever actually built (note 29A written on the nose): This was essentially a stop-gap aircraft, using avionics (including the radar) of late MiG-23ML aircraft (and you can see an R-23R missile depicted under each wing). This model can also be seen in the documentary Wings of the Red Star - the Last Generation about the MiG-29 and Su-27. Here's another image showing prospective loadouts (including the K-25 - more-or-less a copy of the AIM-7 Sparrow), here depicted with semi-recessed stations on the corners of the engine nacelles - much like the Hornet (though you can find numerous other MiG-29A designs - such as this one and even this SAAB 35 Draken-looking one Note how "радиолоцанная станция" (radar station) is listed as "САПФИР-23М" i.e SAPFIR-23M. SAPFIR-23 being the radar fitted to the MiG-23. What we have in DCS is actually just "MiG-29". I'd propose renaming it to "MiG-29 (9-12A)" or "MiG-29 (9-12A) Fulcrum-A", as that's where the As actually belong and this is what the aircraft actually is. Including Fulcrum-A is out of convention for DCS (though DCS' naming convention is inconsistent to begin with), though were it to be done, I'd include NATO reporting names for all Soviet/Russian/Chinese aircraft, as has been done with some ground units. The Ural-375s got corrected to what they actually are (Ural-4320s), let's hope this can get corrected too. I've attached a modified MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua (ironically, the name of the .lua file gets it right), changing line 410 to have a more accurate display name that fixes the issue - this resides inside CoreMods\aircraft\MiG-29-Fulcrum (ironically the name of the .lua file and the name of the folder gets it right). This will break the Integrity Checker so ensure to retain a back-up of the original. MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua

Yep, long overdue.

From i understand listening to different current vendors' conversations on YouTube that touch on working with ED, they have high expectations. If you can prove a working full-fidelty module with reliable non-classifed and publicly available information, then they might be interested. What is know is developing full-fidelty modules can take years. I encourage to keep working towards your goal. If your fixed wing was available, I would buy it.

I think SA-22 does not have corresponding HARM code. HTS/HAD would be best choice.

Yeah, even a single AI 737 would add a lot.

Подтверждаю, постоянно после взлёта лечу на аэродром, забитый в кнопку 1

No idea?

Thanks both, But my 2 week trial has timed out so I cant carry out any settings changes. However I have been through both these tutorials and had no luck. 90hz upscale was awefull on this headset. Everything was blurry!! My biggest issue was the Foveated rendering ( quad views ) stopped working. It looked to be the only way I could fine tune my headset to get some degree of quality experience. But despite being selected in Pimax Play, the headset wasn't applying it. I tried performance, balance, quality and my custom settings, but it wouldn't apply in the headset. Restarted Pi-Play. opened as admin. I even re-installed pimax software to no avail. I have asked for an update for the feedback I gave support for the processes and settings they asked me to provide on 26th, or I'm sending it back and rethinking my VR direction. Ben