All Activity

Put all the mods back in in one go. It hasn’t been confirmed that it was even a mod that did this, which it shouldn’t. If it breaks with the mods then take them back out to confirm. Like I said, there’s other stuff in Saved Games including auth stuff.

I also avoid public servers for a variety of reasons - one of which being certain behaviours I have observed there (and have been subjected to) that I don't care to repeat. AirQuake simply doesn't interest me, and loading entire SAM sites on a Huey to drop them off using scripts is a bit... err immersion breaking I have joined a few squadrons back in the day, and I have had a few of my own as well, but these days I fly SP with the occasional hop on a privately hosted mission with a friend of mine. That works just fine for me.

MP generating missions, like in other flight sims, even really old ones. Not a long-ass list of random airfields and aircrafts. Where you have to spawn not knowing where or why. Chosing some random weapon, flying to some random place, doing some random stuff, invent your mission by yourself in your head. Like every pilot is forced to be an air force general with detailed knowledge about the whole battlefield and air mission planner, which feels lika a chore, like a mission editor. Such random missions equals subpar experience and often close to no interaction with the world. It should be like in other sims, where you can see a map with airfields and automatically generated missions to chose. Where you have route & nav points already in your nav computer/cardridge, you just set proper weapon suited your mission. Naturally cooperate with other elements of your flight. This equals great experience even in much technically worse sims then DCS.

Note, he says he already did both, though and looks like something somewhere in Saved Games causes the problem. H60MTI, it's time for manual trial and error method, unfortunately, folder by folder. I'd start with excluding MissionEditor one. A few guys in other threads reported issues with launching the latest version of the game and a file in that one was the culprit (albeit their symptoms were a bit different?).

Ciao, vi consiglio di scrivermi in privato per poter mettere il vostro gruppo all'interno della lista di quelli italiani. Qui il topic sempre in pin.

Thanks, I think about designing three notches into the shaft of the 3D-printed ejection handle and put a microswitch into the housing which "rides" across the shaft's bumps and sending three signals to the Bodnar Board. You just have to pull fast enough, but I think 1 signal per second would still work.

For everyone who has severe performance issues with VR, or even a DCS crash right after selecting an aircraft, the following might be helpful. Recently, I had several cases where DCS crashed after I hit “fly” in MP or SP. So, immediately after selecting the aircraft but before the briefing screen. It kept happening over and over again, though not always. At first, I thought I had solved it by deleting the metashaders. However, that turned out to be just coincidence. I had extremely long loading times and frequent crashes, and nothing seemed to help. Until I rather accidentally noticed that in the graphics settings, “3 monitors” was selected under “Screen.” In fact, my graphics card was trying to render not only the VR headset but also both of my monitors. (And sometimes it even managed to do it!) I was already wondering, since the last few patch notes talked about performance improvements, but I was experiencing the exact opposite. After setting it back to just one monitor, everything started running smoothly again. How exactly that setting got changed—whether through an update or a user mistake—I no longer know. Occasionally, I switch the graphics settings to 2D for screenshots. Most likely, when switching back, I picked the wrong preset. It would be nice if the player presets could be renamed so you know which one is the right one. With presets one, two, and three, it’s not very clear. Hope this helps someone out there.

+1

As it does on the Rhino. When you use hardware trim. When the trim is backwards in the sim, it will also be backwards for the FFBeast.

Thanks!

@fabio.dangelo Thanks! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

I spent significant time researching and comparing what we know about SPO-15 variants with actual video of SPO-15LM. Much to my surprise I only confirmed the limitations in azimuth resolution. The SPO-15 in it's original form fitted on more expensive aircraft had ability to collect illumination signal from 16 azimuth sectors, each 20 degree wide. This was done with 4 Luneberg lens antennas, each having 4 feeds. In addition there were 2 more antennas for UP/DOWN detection. Each of these antennas was connected to local RF converter/amplifiers. There were 2 variants 4 channel #204 and 2 channel #202 devices. These were placed in close proximity of antennas, and their role was to receive the RF illumination and amplify the signal so it can be transferred to the the central processing unit. In full system there were 4 #204 and 1 #202. 16 + 2 channels were lead to the SPO-15 central processing unit. Here there were 4 cassettes 31 each containing 4 amplifiers to accept 16 channels from #204 amplifiers, and a 32 cassette to accept remaining 2 channels for vertical detection. Amplifiers in 31 and 32 appear to be identical based on the components I could see in both of them. Luneberg lenses #204 units #202 units Up/Down antennas SPO-15 display SPO-15 control panel (more options than on LM version) 4x power supplies Analysis and control circuits (the brain of this device) However our SPO-15LM was likely an attempt to cut the costs... it has 2x#204 units for front sectors, resulting in reception of 8 antenna feeds it has 2x#202 units used for: rear wide angle azimuth antennas 2 UP/down antennas Here you can see the actual configuration (the control panel was likely for Su-17/22). With this setup the designers faced interesting dilemma: They got 10 azimuth inputs from #204 and #202 amplifiers + 2 more for vertical. They opted to free 2 inputs on cassettes #31 in order to connect sectors #11 and #14 (rear antennas). However 2 pairs of front azimuth channels were spliced together. Coverage remained the same, but the resolution of directions was lowered. This is why the manuals for the 29s show 2 antenna lobs merged together. null Personal though on cost savings: one might argue that interceptor does not need full resolution of azimuth in the back plane. We can accept this reasoning => cost cut they had to produce slightly more narrow assembly base (there are 2 slots less for #31 cassettes). In terms of complexity of wiring slightly reduced and slightly less material used. => minor cost cut they used same number of cassettes in the "brain". => No cost saving here for 10 channels they used same number rf convertes/amplifiers under assumption made under #1 => no savings instead of adding addition #31 or #32, 2 pairs of channels got spliced together => they saved money on additional #32 or using #31 instead of #32 I can only conclude that whoever made decision on where to save money did prioritize the price over functionality. For slightly more money the SPO-15LM could have had better azimuth resolution on the sides. In other words: he was either dumb or did not care.

Fair point! Ha! So the title was that simple? No wonder I couldn't remember it.

Thanks! Close to two years and this excellent feature never made it to the changelog. Just like the "unknown" OFF state for toggle switches. [emoji4] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

It caught me out also when the changes were made so dont worry. Glad you are enjoying it.

Да тоже нашел, говорят там в проекте еще ягуар, альфаджет и мираж ммм...

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/group/2025-paris-air-show/illustrated-news/the-store-dassault-aviation-new-simulation-section-to-explore/https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/group/2025-paris-air-show/illustrated-news/the-store-dassault-aviation-new-simulation-section-to-explore/

Yeah. I confused it with the events of January 19th, when pair of F-15C engaged MiG-29. Nevertheless...

Ah great. Thanks! Good to know it's meant to be that way haha. Loving the new pod!

For aircraft that is primarily an A2A fighter/interceptor command for wingman (and flight) to engage bandits should be on top of the commands list, not last, because it is of most importance (esp when reaction time needs to be fast). Please change this. Also, Please add command for wingman & flight to Turn Radar ON and OFF, this is a must have IMHO but its currently lacking. If you don't have space for another command, then remove the Engage Infantry option as you can't even see infantry from the air in MiG-29A.

I would say that this is a big part of the problem. That people are making comparisons to a mod for a 27 year old game, shows how limited the offerings are. If there was a modern alternative to DCS, where that alternative makes different choices, then people who don't like the choices that ED makes, would have an alternative. In general, I think that having that alternative would be very healthy in a lot of different ways (for players, third party developers, but also for ED).

It does not matter. If I place radar to dummy, and in IRST scan mode lock someone, I will get radar range in 3 seconds. If with radar in Illum and IRST scan mode lock someone outside laser range, then place radar into dummy, I will then get radar range within 3 seconds. You just can’t use radar in coop mode while it is in dummy, so you need to move it back to Illum while keeping coop switch forward for that. Eventually coop switch forward will force radar to MPRF and 25 km scale

Тут народ вангует что у dcs в разработке rafale(но как мне кажется это инфа с редита вполне может быть и фейком).

So what is missing from the original post is that people avoid the public servers. A lot of people will host a server from their machine, for 2 or 3 friends, where they are free to play how they like.