All Activity

The campaign is of a very high standard. The dialogue adds a lot of realism and is a great addition. It's just a shame I can't turn off the subtitles; they're a bit distracting me. The missions are very well planned and offer a lot of variety. I enjoy the unexpected twists and turns of the action. I put on some music from that period (I really like it) and have a great time. In the ninth mission, I noticed slight differences in the flight directions given between the kneeboard and the cartographer.

Once again, poor little Brewster can't measure up. Beat me to the explanation though.

Indeed Bull, but the activity on this thread and the views it's had should probably show them there's an issue!

Wing loading is total weight divided by wing area, so depends on fuel, ordnance, pilot, etc. The Corsair has roughly 33% more wing area, but is only 17% heavier (empty*), so assuming the same weight of ordnance and fuel, the Corsair will have a smaller wing loading. (* assuming the numbers I found online are accurate, with 235 sqf, 7635 lbs for the Mustang, and 314 sqf, 8,982lb for the Corsair). 45.6 lbs/sqf for the Corsair would correspond to the maximum weight (approx. 14330 lbs divided by 314 sqf = 45.6).

Can anyone comment on this? Do you have the full super carrier experience in this mission? salute to startup, salute before taxi etc?

I'm too lazy to check but I think it is always uncaged. The Aim-9s are caged and can be uncaged with the 300-600m gun range button.

How do some people have centerline aerobatic smoke in the P-51? I only see the hvar smoke generators

Thankyou Calvin... the last guy I spoke to PeeDee, Ordered April this year, and has recieved it. Five months earlier Dec 1st 2024...not a single shipping message to date still. Marshallman

Lol, just saw the fascist b&d comment... I think I see why NL got us back on track

Thanks for the follow-up. That track (and the CTD) was made after I updated and after a slow repair. I also made sure no mods were loaded at the time. I had experienced a crash before the one I reported, so I ran the slow repair just in case. I couldn't get it to crash with any other combinations of George commands, only that specific sequence--but it has been consistent for me, both before and after the last hotfix. The last few times when troubleshooting, I've only done it on that single player Afganistan Weapons Range mission, but I will also test it on other missions.

А что, РАЗБАМ фсё, разорвал отношения с ДКСом? Странно, ведь модули сами по себе летать не будут, да и перед пользователями должна быть какая-то ответственность.

So a microkernel and not really a fully fledged platform/OS, and one for which nothing much really exists outside of the embedded space. Right-o. Anyway, shall leave it at that given we've meandered quite a bit off topic here.

i tried playing around with the new qag and while its clearly a big improvement over the old system i did find some issues while checking it out and using it. firstly when i checked the bomber intercept and bomber escort mission types i couldnt seem to be able to set the bombers to be anything other than A-20Gs in any era or any map i own, interestingly enough i could set the escorts and other enemy AI to be more modern bombers like B-1Bs i ran into my biggest issue with it so far when i tried to make my first ground attack mission. I originally intended to set up a simple strike on an artillery position with a few 2S3s and trucks as targets and a couple units for air defence but as soon as i spawned in i found my targets had just taken the road and were moving away from their intended position which then forced me to quit and take it to the mission editor where i learned they were heading to my airfield for some reason and had to manually set them to their proper intended behavior which just made me feel like it defeated the point of making the mission through the qag in the first place. beyond the few issues i ran into i do really like the direction of the new system overall and i think the UI and the general way things are set up is very nice but it did leave me wishing for some extra features in some areas at the moment i've mostly found myself wishing i could introduce enemy aircraft into ground attack/sead/antiship missions as air opposition and to maybe have a way to decouple other friendly air groups/air defence groups from the main player/target group so there can be more flexibility to choose different tasks for them or have them spawn in different places without needing to head into the mission editor and it's level of depth this is definitely a step in the right direction for singleplayer and small scale coop gameplay in DCS and with just a little more work put into it and a little more fleshing out i think it could become something really neat, i hope to see it keep evolving in the future

I haven’t had the issue since the last few updates. I think one back in may/June addressed the issues?? As well as fog and dust storm settings I also had it induced when looking at smoke effects from the F4s engines and the smoky Mig-29 engines. It was always more prevalent when you looked through HMCS at particle effects (engines, smoke, fog, dust). I verified it in the hornet HMCS, A-10 HMCS. Out of interest @signormagnifico do you have AMD or Nvidia card out of interest?

Actually this is true for most of the existing aircrafts and there is no WWII aircraft for which it would not work like that because all flight controls surfaces are mechanically connected with stick and rudders. Trim tabs works in a way of shifting aerodynamic neutral force position of flight control surfaces, resulting in shifted neutral force position of stick and rudders. The only exception might be aircrafts with fly-by-wire system or aircrafts without trim tabs - aircraft on which the entire rear stabilizer mounting is readjusted. You may see this videos about all kinds of trim systems: Example of mechanism where the whole stabiliser mounting is shifted:

I also just got stutter and crash after last patch or game even worse, game would not load. Log shows: EDCORE (Main): CPU HAS PARKED LOGICAL CORES etc. I now just tried open DCS MT in the MT folder and not the "normal" dcs.exe in the main folder, and now it seems fine? Only tried 1 short flight, but 3 other flights yesterday stuttered and crashed after a short while? I taught since DCS now is only Multi Core it makes no difference what kind of exe file we use?

CDU Alternate Blank Waypoint Modifey as explain in the Book is not working. ACP List is Blank. /RIVER nor MUSTANG is not working. I follow step by step the document and not working as descript above her the Video Regard Tango Lima

We are getting a little off the overly beaten path. Just a reminder to stay on topic and, while on topic, avoid the conspiracy theories and half-truths, please.

If you have a 13th or 14th gen CPU or any CPU with 32 threaded cores or more, disabling hyperthreading will help as you will have lots of solid cores left to play with. For example, I used to run an i9-9900k and I never had to disable hyperthreading because it used 8 solid cores/16 threaded cores. So it didn’t make sense to disable it and I never had any load time issues or performance hits vs disabling the cores but that was due to the low *overall* core count. As an aside, I re-enabled HT and am getting super long load times so I’ll disable it for now. It’s so annoying that ED refuses to fix this. If they have the manpower to make clouds prettier they have the man power to fix the hyperthreading and memory leak issues. Don’t let anyone gas light you into thinking you need “more power” when really this is on ED to fix vs the community dumping more money into their rigs not knowing if it’s gonna fix anything.

The SAM Radar gets active first time: If the TD Box in the TOO mode is in the bearing of the emitter but the distance is unclear and the TD Box drifting up and down f.e. IT would be more realistic. But the aTD Box Spot on target in a millisecond with the right bearing and distance, that is unrealistic. The CLC can get viable data about the distance when the plane changes its aspect and the Radar stays in thats OK but this will need change in the aspect and will need some time.

A very good example is seL4, it's a general purpose microkernel that is formally proven to be functionally correct. It's obscure, but did find some use in Boeing's military UAV program. In general, for the reasons I explained, it's mostly confined to fields like aerospace, healthcare and military, in embedded systems where a bug or exploit could potentially kill a lot of people (formal verification is pretty standard in hardware design, though). Lots of this life-critical code are written in SPARK, itself designed to be unambiguous. Of course, programmers used to C and its derivatives balk at writing in a "bondage and discipline language" with "fascistic" requirements for doing even the simplest things in it. In fact, these criticisms were already being thrown at Ada, from which SPARK is derived by adding even more restrictions, but that's the price you pay for ensuring that at no point is it legal for any statement to make demons fly out of your nose. IMO, this is a much underappreciated quality. Modern programming culture, and in fact a lot of modern software, has its roots in "a bunch of nerds messed around on a college mainframe and came up with this". The "move fast and break things" phenomenon is based on the notion that not only is it OK, but in fact the superior way to develop software, as opposed to traditional engineering. In areas where it's plainly not, like above, development is much slower, but a lot fewer things get broken in the process.

Because that's not remotely true. It's a myth that keeps getting propagated and quite frankly needs to die already. They sent them to the Marines because the carrier forces were rebuilding most of the first half of 1943. Enterprise and Saratoga needed repair and refit after the battles of 1942, and their air groups were depleted. The first Essexes didn't arrive in the theater until the end of the spring/beginning of summer, with major carrier operations not resuming until August. The Marines, however, were in combat NOW and desperately needed new fighters. Every airframe available, with the exception of VF-12, VF-17, and VOC-1, was being rushed to the Pacific as fast as Vought could get them off the assembly lines to rearm the Marines. Corsairs were chosen because they were what was available in sufficient numbers, first. Those three excepted squadrons all completed their carrier trials by the end of April. VF-12 ultimately relinquished their Corsairs, but VF-17 continued operating from Bunker Hill throughout the spring and summer, including a stint helping train the first FAA pilots (so no, the British did not "figure out" how to land the Corsair on a carrier, they were taught it by Tommy Blackburn and his boys!). No further Navy squadrons were outfit because every airframe was earmarked for the Marines, and Vought couldn't produce them fast enough (which was a problem throughout the War, leading to Brewster and Goodyear production under license with the Brewster Corsairs being deemed unsuitable for combat). When Bunker Hill was ordered to the Pacific in September, VF-17 was embarked, fully expecting to go to war from the carrier. It wasn't until they arrived at Pearl Harbor in October they were ordered ashore, not because of carrier suitability, but because of logistics. The Navy was concerned about resupplying more than one fighter type at sea, and didn't have the supply lines in place to support the Corsairs. Because the Marines already had the logistics established, VF-17 was redirected to Espirtu Santo to take advantage of the Marines' established supply lines. The Corsair was never sent to land-based squadrons because of their difficulty or not of landing on a carrier. It had everything to do with timing, availability, and logistics.

They are not, but will automatically become MSI track files if one of the eight slots are open. Sent from my moto g stylus 5G (2022) using Tapatalk

Just to answer this… No, it does not help with any feeling in regard to keeping the ball centered or holding your altitude more constant. I fly with the Moza AB9 and Simshaker driving a bass shaker attached to my chair. Pilot IRL too. However, I can’t fly without the FFB or simshaker anymore. It just adds so much more to the VR experience, and all the little feedback you get for everything in game is amazing. I can feel my bombs come off the racks, landing gear “cah-chunk-ing” into the uplocks and downlocks, etc. You’ll even feel the bumps on ground during slow taxi. And the gun… oh, the gun That’s what FFB is good for. It’s not for getting your plane trimmed, although in some DCS modules you will notice the center position of the stick move based on your trim, which is accurate to IRL. I also get a feeling of how fast I’m going based on stick force required to deflect the control surfaces. Perhaps when someone makes feedback that pushes your butt left or right, we’ll be able to use that to help keep the ball centered. Sure, motion platforms can tilt you for this, but your brain also interprets a roll motion at the same time. We need G-forces to sense small changes in vertical acceleration to hold altitude more accurately. It’s a no-brainer thing IRL to hold altitude, but in any sim it’s always a challenge as you have to constantly look at your VV gauge. Easier when you are in close formation as you have a visual reference for vertical velocity. The M3 Corsair holds altitude well without touching the stick or throttle once you have the trim dialed in, but you still can’t leave it unattended for long and go grab coffee or a bio break. Make sure to keep an empty cup nearby if you need true realism Anyway, hope that helps in case you are considering FFB in your future… I say go for it