All Activity

Hi Hannibal, this has been reported to the team, we are waiting for a fix. thank you

Never do windows calibration on devices like these, use their software.

How can we get bombs to go off after 5 or 7 seconds not on impact?

I don't have a crash, but it looks like parts are flying off my plane when I land.

after some posting this problem on hoggit reddit, i check to see if this graphic anomaly is happening for me, and i can confirm this issue exist for me. ON DESKTOP (NOT VR) i went to multiplayer, jumped into Mi24, refuel rearm menu to request LMG so that a kord can be loaded to the gunner position, when i move my mouse left and right, i can see the a grey wall when i move mouse right to slew the player view to right, but when i move mouse to left, i can see outside of the door gunner port to see the terrain normally and expected.

I think so too. I honestly don't know how the mechanics of this work. It's probably being blasted at the same time like @AeriaGloria mentioned.

Try that again - if I am not mistaken, its a direction to check with Wizard (F7 not F10).

I watched the interview and it was great to see their commitment to the C-130.

If you running AMD go roll back to 25.4.1.

Answer: Yes. You can make your own kneeboards. https://youtu.be/8_F31-cQnJY?si=wB9beh5N6F9hwmJ2

BLUF: With the addition of more modern modules, I believe the flare implementation in DCS should be expanded to represent both threats and counter-measures better. This could be done rather simply by adding another flare type and changing how IR missiles react based on which of the flares is being presented to them. Changes would be needed to how flare programming is done, both in how they are loaded on the bird and how they are dispensed on activation. The Nerdy Stuff The current flare implementation appears to represent pyrotechnic flares, similar to the US's M206 flare. These flares were developed after the introduction of the first IR missiles. These early missiles were optimized to track hot metal components of aircraft, like engines and tailpipes. Correspondingly, these flares burn at temperatures mimicking those components, but with much higher intensity. This would cause the missiles to track the flares over the aircraft, as they are set up to track the highest intensity target. These are the flares that everyone associates with "flares". They are a giant ball of light with a thick white smoke plume behind them. To counter these pyrotechnic flares, IR missile designers started to design their missiles with counter-countermeasures. There are multiple ways to do this, but I'm going to focus on the Russian implementation, as most modern modules are US aircraft. Starting with the Igla (SA-18), the Russians began to incorporate more than one detector in the seeker, with each seeker operating in a different band of the IR spectrum. This was done to both improve tracking capability and counter IR flares. I won't go into too much detail as the intricacies can't be modeled in DCS anyway. To summarize, the system uses the two detectors to compare the IR signal of the aircraft and a potential decoy to determine which is the aircraft. Since the only flare at the time was the hot pyrotechnic flare, that's what the systems were designed to defeat. To counter this technique, multiple methods were developed to defeat it. One was the development of new flares, called pyrophoric flares. These flares burn differently from the pyrotechnic flares and give off a different IR signature, notably in the IR band of the engine plume that these newer missiles use to track aircraft. They also have a distinctly different visual signature, looking more like a glitter bomb in an IR camera and almost no visual signature. It also has a different trajectory. One example of these is the M211 flare of the US. The Proposal I would like to see these pyrophoric flares incorporated into DCS. The current implementation of a simple percent chance to decoy on a flare can be kept, with a simple modification. Each missile will now have two percent chance values, based on the flare type being presented. An older generation missile will have a high chance of decoying on the pyrotechnic flares designed to defeat them, with a lower decoy chance on the pyrophoric flares that don't burn as intensely. The inverse would be valid for the more advanced missiles that have different flares tailored to defeat them. You could expand this even further to other flare types, such as kinematic flares or even IR jammers. This doesn't require an in-depth rework of the IR missiles, but significantly improves the authenticity of the threat environment and adds another gameplay element for players. Pilots will need to consider the type of threat in the area (older IR vs newer IR) and decide how to counter those threats best. It's no longer just spamming flares because they are all the same, and all missiles react the same. Consideration will need to be given to what flares are being brought, how many of each type, and what pattern will be deployed with each dispense. The Hard Part There would need to be some interface to allow pilots to load up customized configurations of flares. The data cartridge makes this easier, and perhaps the multi-rocket type implementation in the Apache can be leveraged as a framework. At the very least, pilots need to be able to select the number of each flare type to be loaded. A full implementation would allow pilots to change the loadout per flare dispenser. In the same way, pilots would need more control over how the flares are dispensed from the aircraft. I'm not sure if the current onboard systems of any aircraft are capable of this without a data cartridge implementation. Was that a lot? Yep. Check my post history if you enjoyed for more. I'm not gonna plead, the developer will do what they think they can in the areas they believe need improvement. Hopefully, they will decide this is one of those areas. Some sources: SA-18 Overview Thesis Discussing IR Missile Design JPEO Flare Overview Flare Discussion

It used to be that if you weren't quite trimmed right and drifted too far from the initial hover set point, that eventually all the AP channels would trip off & the auto hover would fail. Have you drifted too far between trims, or did the above fix it?

Notepad++

You can change it in options.lua as scommander2 suggested: e.g. ["maxFPS"] = 72 Just be sure not to touch the GUI settings after that or it will reset. I find I get much smoother performance by leaving the in-game max FPS at 180 and limiting max FPS to 72 in the nvidia control panel (for DCS only). Much more consistent FPS and less stutters for me doing it that way.

Für den Start auf dem Träger Tailwheel locken, für die Landung auf dem Träger lösen. Und bei den Bremsen Kurven einstellen, so dass man sie mit Gefühl betätigen kann (gilt für alle WW2-Flieger).

I understand the flight model was tweaked a bit recently is this correct? Over ruddering seems to have improved a little but the pitch is still as janky as ever and doesn't feel like I'm flying a plane only 1k lbs lighter than a P-47. I know it's a big engine in a smaller airframe but it seesaws more than my Bf109. Just feels too jumpy. Also, does anyone notice when you fire all .50's the entire nose freaks out? Almost impossible to hold the reticle on target anymore. When ground strffing using the dive breaks helps but I don't think that was their intended use. Is that over modeled recoil or is it a PICNIC (problem in chair, not in computer)?

We're adding more classes! Come join us! We're working on adding some non-aircraft related courses soon!

Howdy! VWA offers training on all the aircraft you showed above! We're a dedicated training squadron for new players! https://discord.gg/vwa

Agreed. I know we have it coming for the super carrier, but it makes sense to do this with other modules. I would highly recommend watching the interview Aero plane Simulation Company did with Enigma. Sounds like they are the ones helping spear head the logistics portion of the gameplay and really setting some new records with things they have implemented into the module, to include first person.

dont know have you got enough disk space probably not the answer though

I believe that all aircraft should receive it because at the time of the F-4, they said that it would also be available.

30 knots is roughly 15.4 meters per second, so that can’t be the issue…

You can download the earlier version here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pimax/comments/1m2lopc/pimax_play_1404_out_now_adjustable_local_dimming/

I'd like to know this too and also if the CH47 will use the same cargo management system. Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk

When making a single player mission I found that I was unable to set the Essex's velocity greater than 18 knots in the ME. IRL the Essex class was capable of just over 30 knots. Looking at the lua file "Essex_Class_Carrier_1944" I note that it has the GT.max_velocity = 16.83 in meters per second. Why is the Essex's speed limited in this way?