All Activity

Nice attitude. I'm sure you'll get plenty of people falling over themselves to help you with your issue using that tone and language.

It is possible that the release of the C-130J will remind of this very important aspect that is missing in the DCS.

Or even just ground unit sectors in general. Can we either assign sectors of fire per waypoint or request the devs to rework the logic? Attached are some examples of what I'm talking about. The orange triangle should be the units sectors of fire. The blue line are where the barrel is pointed. These AI skill is set to excellent by the way. The image with the Brads. The far left one is looking far right even though there is an enemy to it's left about to engage them. The image with the Abrams. The lead vehicle should be looking forward of the element, the second would be looking left or right of forward movement. Both forward moving vehicles are looking behind them while there is an enemy to the front. The rear vehicle should be pulling rear security but is actually looking at their forward movement. Thanks

Hello, I recently tried this script, followed the instructions to the letter but nothing happens when I enter a race zone. I've tried the mission in the github also but again nothing happens when I enter the race zone. Is it just me or has something bugged out after the recent dcs patches or maybe mist version? Tried some missions that avrora has posted as well and they dont work for me either. gazz_airrace.miz

Myeah, at night with no pilot control over pod and F-4's INS.. That was a mission skip for me. Nothing good could have come out of it.

BUMP. I still can't believe this hasn't already been realized.

Seems like the map has received some updates that conflicts with the placement of several units. You can see there is a truck stuck underneath the farp, several static items and buildings intersecting map buildings. And there's a helipad right besides the farp. Doesn't make sense. I made some changes to it like removing the farp and positioning of the helicopter to the nearby helipad and removing buildings that intersects. Syria - Mi-8 - Sling Load.miz

We do not have time to read through a 30 post thread of two people arguing

The two best modules in DCS of course. The Tomcat and Phantom.

Sochi doesn't work for me either,odd...but for some airport it works,(I tried in Maykop-Khanskaya) But if u don't mind modding the game file a bit,I find a way to make the plate displaying things u manually entered. First u need to delete line 152 and line 166 from ARK_MAIN_page.lua,but this file seems can't be packed into the .miz file,so modding the game file is needed. (those 2 controllers seems keeps overriding what u entered from ark.lua using their own logic.) And here is my ARK.lua,u can pack it into the .miz file without touching the original game file. ARK.lua in my ark.lua,u could change the name and callsign(in red circle) to what ever u what and the plate in cockpit will display them. for the beacon_id:(airfilexx_xx or world_xx),u can ignore them,I haven't figure out how to use them yet,and they don't seems affect anything for now To edit ADF frequencies,use mission editor to change them to whatever u want(but no automatic update for the the ADF plate after modding),and manually change beacon "name" and "callsign" in my ark.lua to match them.(also u can try adding more functions to it,or merging those theatres into one section) For Syria,I guess it's not called "syria" for lua variable,as "elseif theatre == 'Syria' then" doesn't work for it,but when I change that to "else",things start working.

When the F-86 was released, it was way out of its depth DCS wise, then the Mig-15 came along. We had the Mig-19, also very limited. The Harrier Gr.1, Gr3 were vastly different from the AV-8B. The Gr.9 was in a class of its own compared to the AV-8B and would certainly have a place in DCS. The FRS.2 would also be a very competitive airframe. The Tornado in development is the German IDS, a very different beast to the Tornado Gr. 1, 1a,1b, and would require a lot of imagination to pass it off as an RAF aircraft. The Bucc is a superb prospect, one that I am surprised hasn't been picked up. The Hunter is in the league of the F-86/Mig-15, it certainly has a place. The Sea Vixen and Lightning would also be strong contenders, in my opinion, given the growing trend for 60's era aircraft. As RB are now sitting in their corner and withholding their toys, the opportunity is there for someone to pick up on the Harrier, etc. Regarding the PvE/PvP statement, I am unfamiliar with PvP as it does not interest me. PvE is a different matter; in PvE, the older aircraft have massive potential (Kola and Germany Map), so it's somewhat ignorant to say they don't. If the argument that older aircraft with early weaponry are non viable, then surely the C-101CC, L-39ZA, Mig-15, Mig-21, F-86, F-5E, etc, have no place in DCS? Why are we waiting for a C-130? The Mig-29A, a VERY limited aircraft, is literally just around the corner. The A-1E Skyraider is in dev, the F-104 also in dev, the OV-10 Bronco by Split Air has a decent following... PvP and PvE non starters by your definition.

As F-16C is my favourite mod to fly and I don't want to jeopardize any F-16C functionality I am hesitating to install F-16i Sufa due to modifiying large parts of F-16C core are required.

Not quite the same, but the An-2 would fit anywhere. I've noticed its absence in a few missions I've made. Civil aviation in general would be great to see in DCS. While the are alternatives to that, having everything in one sim is very nice, and DCS just so happens to be the most comfortable sim for me in terms of user friendliness at this moment in time.

+1 but it is not a priority

I wouldn't say no to modern units, but we're missing huge amounts of Cold War assets - and those assets are still relevant today. Old stuff can get reused years or decades later. New stuff can't be used before it was made (well they can in DCS, but it's not relevant to any kind of even semi historical scenario). Even when it comes to the 4th gen fighters I tend to set missions as early as possible. Certainly not in the 2020's. 80's, 90's, and 2000's units are what I feel the lack of.

I'm not quite sure where that value comes from, but either way, trying to peg a single maximum speed for a missile that lofts is not very useful. It might well be the maximum design mach, as in, the maximum that the airframe had been designed to withstand. This will invariably be a more impressive number than any speed that's observed in operational practice (though unless the missile is massively overengineered, it still tells you something).

Is it possible to create / Store / view the MGRS coordinates of a vehicle targeted through the MMS? Sorry if rookie question...doing my head in

For Mi-24, we got a quick start guide early. It was nice. But know what we still only have?

VR Test on Germany map, instant action at Berlin with UH-1H Nvidia 581.15 August 28 - DLSS/Quality - Quest 3 and Virtual Desktop - RTX 4080 --> With my current parameters and Smooth Motion OFF : Takeoff site : ~64fps. Radar site : ~76 fps --> Same parameters with Smooth Motion ON : Takeoff site : ~51fps. Radar site : ~60 fps - Much more blurry/fuzzy fps value taken from DCS (frame rate counter RCtrl+Pause) The ones given by NVidia App are completely different Conclusion for me, 10-15 fps decrease and image more blurry. I will stay out of this Smooth Motion functionality for VR.

It does not need to though. As the manufacturer describes it, the datalink process is seemingly identical to R-27 and that is the only interaction between it and the host during missile flight. It gets updates in Cartesian coordinates from the radar and target size. That’s all it needs. It even calculates pitbull on its own. And any R-27R/ER carrier can send datalink updates in STT for up to two missiles

You misspelled the name which you put into R_NAV_data.lua, you wrote "Marinas" instead of "Marianas" Anyway, check my example file, how the content of the actual rsbn file should be done (I didn't include ARC, just RSBN). R_NAV_data_Marianas.txt Don't forget to add a comma after last name inside of the Maps_Table, and then add Marianas at the end, so it should look like this: Maps_Table = { "Caucasus", "Nevada", "Normandy", "PersianGulf", "TheChannel", "SinaiMap", "Syria", "Kola", "GermanyCW", "Marianas" }

I'm not saying don't stop development I am just pointing out that I don't know if he's trying to be funny if this is an actual concern (right now) but I empathize with someone dealing with a feature getting reported as a bug. So I want optional random weapons failures.

Okay how is the TWS mode activated in N-001? In Su-27SK manual I find no switch labeled TWS/TWF and no radar function described as such.

Great!