All Activity

Just a quick note to say how impressed I was with the relative ease of setting up Skyeye on a home machine. It was less than 30 mins work, mostly because I couldn't remember how to change my server's Tacview settings. I'm still shocked that it hasn't been adopted by more mp servers. When it's processing a transmission, I notice the CPU usage spikes up to 100%. Does that mean Skyeye is spreading the load effectively over all cores? Assuming I stick to local processing on a PC, would it benefit from a threadripper or other CPU that's big on core count? Does anyone else have other ideas on optimizing response time other than using the quicker language model? Thanks again for all the work. It's another example of the strong community support that brings life to DCS. Oh, I just remembered my other question. Is Skyeye impaired at all by that radio effects simulation of SRS? Surely decreased sound quality of a simulated radio transmission is making Skyeye work harder to understand what's said.

No, I don't have an iPhone. And comparing DCS to some random smartphone sim tells us nothing of consequence. And you haven't answered my question: what do you consider to be incorrect regarding the arresting wires. Incorrect, that is, in comparison to how the real-world arrestor cables behave, which is the only thing that matters.

In IL2, I've had occasional occurrences of the unit going black screen. At first I thought I was accidentally fingering the power button but it wasn't that. It's happened both in-game and while on the PP home screen.

Any updates?

ED fixes weapons, not the 3rd party devs. It is frustrating when they say 'Reported', lock the thread, and then ignore it for months and months though.

Several users who held onto their F-4’s into the 90’s and early 2000’s did modernise the radar with a new set, however by then in US service the Phantom was on the way out. I guess it would be cool to have one of those variants, though to be honest we would end up destroying some of the charm of the current module with how challenging the radar is compared to more modern jets.

Before complaining, I'd like to say that I really enjoy these missions... Mission 3, after completing the first engagements and refueling, as I am travelling towards the second engagement, I receive this strange "advisory" that I failed the second engagement and then the mission automatically ends after the 5 sec countdown... What happened ?

Long story short, I like to create "free flight" missions with populated air bases and airports to at least give me the illusion of the world being alive - but I'm having some difficulties finding out what was based where in East Germany. West Germany seems to be well documented, but for the East I'm finding a lot of conflicting accounts on what was based where. If anyone know of a reputable source for what aircraft were based at what air base in Eastern Germany I'd be very happy if you could share it.

Haha! Makes sense! [emoji1] Take care! [emoji1303] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

I had no issues until I was sent to intercept the enemy. The callouts from the Awcs said the altitude was 15.000, but in reality he was at 1.000 feet. The bullseye references was correct though. He was extremely fast and I ran out of gass before I could hit the tanker after being called off the chase... Apart from this issue with the altitude callouts the mission seems to be fine.

Happy to help! [emoji1303] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

We already have a way to source that data for the GPS. after i get the catalog and waypoint entering working, im gonna move onto automatically adding all the airfields, beacons, etc. into the database at runtime.

ok, NTTR is relative easy cause that the US had good data sources for aeronautical data. If you need the beacon data from DCS I have a script for a quick read out.

Not sure what your use case was but DCS has native support for this now so instructions re: Nvidia Profile Inspector, Nvidia app, etc. are no longer needed if you're just wanting to use in DCS.

yup. our target map really is NTTR. Its got all the accurate VOR stations, I think most of the ILS beacons, runways line up perfectly, etc.

We've not made any formal announcements as it is. I think the only formal announcement will come when it actually drops. There's obviously plans I'm more privy to but don't talk about since this project isn't my love child, its scoob and loki's, so I only really parrot publicly what they've said in general chat, media, maybe some in the "questions" thread channel. As for when I work on this personally: I haven't worked on it much right now. A lot of the features we are still missing in flyable at this point on my end atleast are things that are hard to do without DCS SDK. Them two are hard at work on the AI mod right now and yup, everything is done in free time. Such is the reality of a lot of mods and even a lot of 3rd party upcoming modules. 4 years is nothing compared to the Mag3 corsair :p

If you have an iPhone, try CarrierLandingHD and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about. Don’t you think the wire physics is a little lacking in the way it pays out and just generally behaves when an aircraft’s hook is attached to it?

Ok, so maybe just me then. I can't see it being a problem with my system as it doesn't happen with any other plane. Track attached. Corsair-FFB-twitch01.trk

Maybe because the only real AdA module was made by them, and hence French aircraft fans would congregate there. I suspect quite a few Mirage 2000 drivers would appreciate the Rafale.

This is a part of an open post from one the guys in Polychop (regarding lack of Gazelle updates, posted on the Polychop Simulation Discord, 2025-07-23) As previously stated, the devs are in a Crawl > Walk > Run phase learning module code by essentially reading it backwards and deciphering it. Learning two entirely different sets of code at the same time and trying to manipulate both does not fit this model of learning or progression. The 58 is the more recent module to be released, therefore it is going to receive the attention. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's how it goes. The 58 has more bugs that need addressing (yes we have a list for both modules and this is in fact the case) so they will be ironed out before tending to the Gaz. The 58 has been and continues to be the module with more consumer utilization by a considerable margin since it's release, therefore as previously stated, it is going to receive the attention (and again sorry if you don't like that but that's how it goes). Now, that DOES NOT MEAN THE GAZ IS DEAD and or will not receive work in the future. Nobody go running to Reddit referencing this post, claiming that it is dead and wont receive updates because that simply isn't the case. It will receive work in the future, just not right now, and no I can't tell you when no matter how creative you all get with rephrasing the question of "When Gaz Update." I hope it's okay to post it here on the ED forums. Not great news for Gazelle enjoyers, but it is what it is. Getting the new team up to speed with unfamiliar code is not an easy task. Duplicate that by two modules. It will take time, no way around that.

I'm interested in map making for DCS and therefore your scripts could be very helpful. Are you willing to share them? And yes we shouldn't hijack little nose thread...

Got em squared away aside from the tweaking of the exports to fit inside the frames, thanks!

In addition to what others have said, many of the key commands you map will be the same for multiple aircraft. So I’d suggest mapping the common key commands to the identical control on the stick and throttle. The exception will be the fine tuning of the various axes.

Hi guys ! I just made a training with some friends who have F-18, and I've been surprised that the SPJ was useless ! I remember that, before, F-18 could not lock me above 28Nm when type 2 jamming, and now they were not even disturbed at 80Nm ! Has the SPJ been nerfed ?

What feedback do you need I can implement it into our current Foothold server tonight and look for anything you need to know.