All Activity

The 115 liter tank was removable. It was also the first tank to be emptied by the fuel system. Without a Centerline mounted drop tank: The 115 tank and no gauges to monitor the fuel level in flight. If there was fuel in it the system drew from the rear tank automatically. The pilot would know the 115 liter rear aux tank was empty when he saw the rear main tank fuel level drop below 240liters (full fuel for that tank). With a Centerline mounted drop tank: The system would feed from 115 rear aux tank first as long as the manifold pressure was in cruise flight and below 1 ata. In cruise settings, the 115liter aux tank would be used and then it would start using the fuel in the 300 liter Centerline Mounted drop tank automatically switching off additional boost pumps. At power settings above cruise, it automatically switched on additional boost pumps to meet the demand of increased fuel requirements. When the Centerline Mounted Drop Tank was empty it would be automatically switched to internal fuel logic. The only indication the Centerline Mounted Drop tank was empty was when the fuel in the rear main tank dropped below 240 liters. That means your 115 liter Auxiliary tank is emptied first. When the fuel circuit is using the drop tank, fuel is fed from the rear main tank. When the rear main tank contents drops below 240liters, fuel from the 300liter Centerline Drop Tank is fed to the rear main tank until it is topped off again to keep the internal main tanks full. The fuel system is built around using the fuel in the 115 liter Aux tank first automatically.

In most cases, no one is stopping you from running that old software. Yet people are rarely doing so despite having that option, proving you wrong when you say that: The problem with your narrative that all the blame lies with 'techbros' and execs is that you merely have to look at people's behavior to see that they do expect progress and innovation. How many people resisted the smartphone, and stuck an old IBM PC in their pocket instead? This again just shows that you don't get it. There is no shortage of work. Programmers would gladly build more features and do less maintenance and rebuilding if that was possible. Having the hardware go poof (and replacements not being sold anymore) is/was actually a major issue for our company with our non-cloud version. We constantly have customers begging for more features. It is indeed not worth putting an immensely heavy steel door in a house to secure it, or put in a $1000 lock, when the thieves can just avoid that door completely and break and enter through a window. I bet you don't actually live in a bunker either, and if so, your accusations are pure hypocrisy, since you accept limited security as well, even though you could easily spend all your money on increased security. But it's easy to tell others what to do with their money, and a whole different ballgame when it is your own money, isn't it? This is just not true. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons that the system has the capabilities that it does. For example, you cannot have GPU drivers with giving third party software access to the low level hardware. And ransomware doesn't even need low level access anyway, but just access to your files, to hold those ransom. So the only way to truly prevent that is to not give software access to your files, but that is one of the key features of a computer. In practice, we also see that if the system gets locked down so much that it becomes too hard for people to do what they want, people often simply side-step the security and use solutions that are far less secure. Yes, in most cases it is the user that did something dumb to open that door. In general, I think that most exploits nowadays are targeted at the person and don't even actually hack anything. For example, the 'I need help' scams, where the exploiters pretend to be a loved one, simply have the person transfer the money. The bank app is not hacked at all. But you cannot block money transfers to other people without making it impossible for people to buy stuff.

That's just fine. The problem, is making something functional, and then breaking it. This isn't the first time they've broken the CDU, and you're not talking about an overly complex device. To horribly break something and not fix it, in a timely manner just screams apathy, in regards to this module.

Видимо какой-то баг. Потому что раньше это зависело от ливреи, но с выходом Ка-50-3 модель УПП-800 с контейнерами вихрей была сделана новая и переехала так же на Ка-50-2. Видимо где-то потерялся кусочек кода который отвечает за черную текстуру)

null

Again. Most joysticks are much shorter than real stick which is in aircraft. And this most often is the main issue of player's bad experience.

Thanks for all the hard work on these mods, especially since there doesn't seem to be any official guides! Hopefully someone can point me in the right direction to an issue I'm having. I've got a test mission with an AI Mosquito armed with rockets and set to Anti-ship with an enemy ship in the area. The AI Mosquito detects the ship, lines up and launches the rockets and will follow with cannons as necessary when the ship is from ED's WWII asset pak (i.e. schnellboat). However, when the ship is from this mod set (like the Z39 or Marinefährprahm), the AI Mosquito lines up but never fires. Does anyone know what is missing to make the AI Mosquito actually fire up these mods?

Howdy, Unfortunately I have not had much free time the last couple weeks to test things out, however I did try and get a short track file of the mission in question but was unable to replicate the issue (spawned in, ejected right away, and respawned as before but everything was working as it should). Similarly, in one other scenario ejecting then respawning works as it should.

I tried, but I can't replicate what happened yesterday. I left the nose fuse the default (M904E4), set the arm delay to 2s, left function delay at 0s. For the tail fuze well I selected plugged. I set the same options on SMS; single bomb, RP 6, and 200ft spacing. I even dropped them the same way, about a 20° dive at 2500ft AGL. The bombs are exploding now. Your dud GBU-10 wouldn't have been using the new TGP on a point track of a moving target? There is a known bug with the new TGP where LGBs miss moving targets in point track. That was what I was initially testing to see if it was fixed with the update (it isn't). I took two GBU-12s and 6 Mk-82s. The first GBU-12 didn't track, but I was able to use INR track and manually keep it on the moving target. I was going to use the Mk-82s to clean up, but they failed to explode.

Isn't completely agreed upon. None that I am aware of outside anecdotal and Operational Testing. Approval and use are two different things. Factually, the Luftwaffe was concerned about the possibility of B-29's appearing over Europe. 150gr/sec injection rate would have been very useful for countering that possibility. It wasn't very useful against the altitude bands the other allied bombers flew at as its operational altitude band was above them. It would make sense only if Rodieke's excerpt was a typo. Then it would fit perfectly. In late 1943, early 1944 GM-1 at 150gr/sec was tested. In that time period, Focke Wulf had already modified FW-190A5 airframes to prototype the FW-190A8 and were tooled up for production of the FW-190A8. Eleven aircraft would have been feasible and the FW-190A8/R4 designation would have been applicable in the timeframe. 10/JG11 was the Luftwaffe Operational Test Squadron at that time as well. Otherwise, 10/JG11 did not exist at the end of 1944 and neither did the R4 designation when talking about an FW-190A8 after the publication of Technical Description Nr 284: Fighter Aircraft FW-190A8. The R4 designation was retired for the FW-190A8. R4 denotes the installation of an BMW801S motor which like the BMW801Q/TU engine was equipped for GM-1 right off the production line. It was built to use GM-1, came from the factory set up to use GM-1, and would not be a TS/TU engine without being set up, approved, and able to use GM-1. You keep thinking R4 means "GM-1", it does not. R4 means an BMW801S engine. That engine is inherently set up for GM-1. Once more, the Luftwaffe Depot maintenance had a large supply of older airframes to recycle and re-engine when a S motor was available. In testing of the BMW801S engine, the FW-190A5 airframe that the engine was mounted upon was called an FW-190A5/R4. That designation would have carried over as older airframes were re-engined. Yes. However any BMW801Q/TU engine that arrived in June would have had operational Erhohte Notleistung. The fact a separate Technical Order was published in the Form of "Focke Wulf Technical Modification Nr133" is solid proof of instructions being published to equip any FW-190A8 that did not come from the factory with Erhohte Notleistung. Technical Description Nr. 284 reads "Commencing in July, ALL FW-190A8 will be fitted with Erhohte Notleistung." It says nothing about "new production" but notes the entire fleet will be completely upgraded. It does not block out WerkNummers or designation only certain variants. It says ALL. Yes. BMW801S motors are also a possibility to be installed on an FW-190A8. It just changes the designation. The airframe modifications for GM-1 and the tank are built into every FW-190A8 as originally designed, delivered, and flown by the Luftwaffe. There is no mysterious lack of ability to use the system due to engineering on the part of the airframe or the engine. It was approved and existed as a capability. 80gr/sec test flights: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_V-45_7347_FB_Nr1.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_7347_Nr2.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_7347_Nr3.pdf Approved in July 44 at 80gr/sec. The 115 liter tank was standard as delivered. The 85 liter GM-1 tanks also existed and in the supply system. The set up was tested and production planned since December 1943. The design changes are incorporated into the FW-190A8 as previously shown. All answered by Technical Description Nr 284: Fighter Aircraft FW-190A8. That document clarifies everything that is applicable to the FW-190A8. It specifically address the installation of BMW801S motor on an FW-190A8 makes the aircraft an FW-190A9. By virtue of the instructions in Technical Description Nr 284: Fighter Aircraft FW-190A8 specifically addressing BMW801S engines installed on an FW-190A8 it eliminates the R4 designation for the FW-190A8 specifically. That makes sense too. The FW-190A8 and FW190A9 have the exact same airframe with the no difference from the firewall back. If you put a BMW801S engine on any other Anton, it is not the same airframe therefore the R4 designation makes sense to differentiate the significance of the powerplant. An R4 designation would be redundant and unnecessary on an FW-190A8 airframe.

Actually it is documented fairly well, in several places in the manual. It is also not entirely accurate to say that there is no benefit to using PCIe 5.0 storage. In the simplest of terms, the faster a storage device fulfills a request for data, the more responsive the system. This can benefit games beyond just decreased loading times. There will invariably be those to come along and dispute this. Their opinions are at odds with fact. It is true Gen5 storage generally costs more per unit storage. This is as simple as "You get what you pay for". That should make sense to anyone who spends several thousand on a gaming PC...particularly anyone who bought a 5090. Whether it's "worth it" or "makes sense" is entirely up to the individual; the fact that it can improve performance is a separate matter. (Hint: If someone's idea of "improved performance" is based strictly on frame rates, they are already missing the point).

Hi all, I just wanted to know what led to the downfall of VEAO simulations? I know there're users who mention that the Hawk was a total disaster and that the treatment of customers are appalling and that VEAO didn't want to sign contracts with ED so how did this all started and end up happening? I wasn't involved when it shutdown and didn't know much about it until like 3ish years later but even then, I didn't think it was totally shutdown so can anyone please explain what happened, I'm trying to catch up on the stuff. Thanks.

Is that the DCS FF tune menu, rather than the hardware's accompanying software that you are referring to?

I recently moved from VR to a 3 screen setup. Lack of JHMCS is the single biggest thing I miss.

Обратил внимание что в модуле BS3 используется зелёный цвет контейнера ПТРК "Вихрь" вместо привычного чёрного. Забавно, ведь в мануале к BS3 тоже используется чёрный цвет. Как можно обосновать данный выбор цвета?null

Ho sorry for that. Would have been evn better if you would have point it to me. Thanks

That is good point and question in same time. Do we have actually valid document that give 190kg to 77-1 ? For R-77 sources say 175-177kg and extra 110mm (R-77-1) supposedly made total of 190kg. Now new extra of 300mm made R-77M but this extra 300mm I count only as extra length of motor and that is just propellant and chamber casing what is 15-16kg

This is the clicking I get. https://youtube.com/shorts/ZsDaXTajN9c

Flying a 2000hp 12000lbs warbird doesn’t necessarily mean it needs to be unrealistically twitchy, unstable, and capable of doing Extra330-like aerobatics. I much prefer the current FM, definitely not perfect, but better than before.

That actually makes a lot more sense. I don't find the manual clear on this topic, so I decided to play it safe and use 2_4 and 2_5. I was aware some lanes go to the CPU and others to the chipset, but there really should have been a very clear diagramme explaining all that... Things are similar to the USB slots on the rear I/O panel: just because there's an X amount of slots available, doesn't mean you can use all of them at the same time and expect everything to work. There's a HUB video that explains that, luckily.

@aaronwhite, the ED/Razbam dispute 'blew up' over what ED claims is a breach of contract regarding Razbam allegedly using ED's intellectual property (the API etc) to develop content for a third party without EDs consent. Questions over whether Razbam were obliged to hand over source code only arose because of this.

Virtual Desktop has the hotkey option to swap monitors has anyone had any luck doing this in DCS. I was hoping to be able to swap to the monitor that has Discord on when needed vs peekout from under my quest pro. I asked over on Virtual Desktops Discord but we didn't have any luck. The hotkeys do work but just not in DCS. Thanks J

Hey - this is all a bit off-topic, and would be better suited to the main VR forum rather than the bug report/suggestions forum. In particular, there's another recent thread on thumb/finger mice.