All Activity

Hardly - they spoke very little of the ATC system itself and left an absolute tonne of potential questions unanswered. Questions like: Will it support multiple approach types? For example: Visual straight-in (like now - the only type it does support). Overhead Instrument (and there are various types here, it should support at least one kind of instrument approach I'd also at least include PAR given how many of our aerodromes are depicted with PAR equipment). Unrestricted (i.e. only report on final). Will it provide taxi instructions? Both to the active runway and to the designated parking spot upon landing? Will it attempt to manage traffic around the aerodrome? Currently aircraft are all put into the same orbit, which they fly at the same altitude but at different speeds. Will AI aircraft interact with it and obey its instructions? And will the AI be smart enough to not talk over each other? Will it support parallel runways? Will it provide vectors where applicable? Preferably following real-world approach plates if available. Even if it meant vectoring you to at least an initial approach fix, getting you there heading the right direction, at the right speed and altitude? Currently ATC will only provide bearing and range to a point along the extended runway centreline. Will we be able to declare an emergency and have the ATC prioritise that aircraft to land? Will it support touch and goes? Will the ground controller follow a schedule? For instance to try and get aircraft to takeoff at designated times (important not only for spacing, but to aid in getting aircraft to reach their time-on-target at the right time). Will we have ATIS where applicable? Will we be able to request QFE and QNH? Will we be able to say "say again" if we miss a transmission? Will the different agencies be separated where applicable, as per IRL? (ground, tower, approach/departure). Will we have multiple pilot voices and will there be multiple voices for each agency? Will it be intelligent enough to not direct aircraft to taxi, takeoff and land onto runways, runway access points and taxiways that are unserviceable (for instance from debris from aircraft crashes or from damage by OCA strikes). Will it support heliports and rotary-wing operations in general? Will we be able to override what runway is active? Will we be able to designate aerodromes as closed? Meaning that ATC isn't present, lighting doesn't come on, associated NAVAIDS become inoperative etc. Will we be able to override what NAVAIDS are operational or not and whether the lighting is on or not? The last one we can do with aircraft carriers. Will it have realistic detection and identification capability? For example not being able to vector aircraft it cannot detect or identify (when multiple aircraft are present in the vicinity)? I'm sure there are other's as well (like I could've thrown in - will we get PAR units (there's already an RSP-7 in the files) and will we get aerodrome beacons and identification beacons for aerodromes that should have them? Even better if we could get these as a placeable ground unit. Apart from #8 and the 2nd part of #14, 1-14 (at least) is what the ATC system in the other F-16-orientated sim already does and does pretty damn well in my experience - I would hope a new ATC system for DCS would at least try and match its functionality. And 1-7 are what I'd describe as bare minimum for what an ATC system needs to be able to do. Even the supercarrier ATC (which you technically have to pay for) has plenty of shortcomings (and this also isn't exhaustive): It only supports carrier qualifications (CQ) operations and not ziplip, but does not support touch and goes nor bolters (even generally). The AI doesn't interact with it at all, meaning it's not only far less immersive and doesn't feel as alive as it could be, but you also don't have the same situational awareness you should have. There's communications missing (particular related to departure and CASE III waveoff/bolter procedures). It doesn't have the agencies frequency separated (making switch approach/switch tower callouts meaningless). It doesn't support callsigns for the Forrestal. LSO speed callouts only reference the Hornet's AoA range and not the state of the AoA indexer repeater lights (so you get incorrect speed awareness and spoeed gradings for anything that's not a Hornet). There's only a single pilot voice (which sounds drastically different when talking to everybody else) and there's only 1 tower, marshal and LSO voice. It doesn't have realistic detection and identification capability.

From NineLine's post at the start of this thread: That is an explanation: Razbam acted in breach of contract. As to whether it is true or not, we can't really say for sure, but it is an explanation. And if it is valid, ED's contractual obligation to pay Razbam was contingent on Razbam complying with the terms of the contract. That's how contracts work. That's what a contract is - 'you do this, and I'll do that'.

I get what you're saying, I'm not an expert, however doesn't P47 has special trim tabs that are controlled by the trim wheel? I.e. when trimming you're not moving the main control surface but a tiny little 'tabs' on them. Do these trim tabs exert pressure on the main surface and cause it to deflect (therefore moving the stick in the cockpit), or do the tabs simply change the airflow just enough to affect the aerodynamics of the plane therefore changing its attitude/aoa/etc. ? In case of K4 and fw190s the elevator trim is done by moving the whole stabilizer (not just the elevator surface), so again, I'm not sure how that'll affect the stick position in the cockpit, somehow it tells me that it won't...

I disagree with that. With the Mi-8 and the UH-1H we actually have two of the most prominent SAR helicopters in the world. What we need in that regard is not more airframes but a better system for CSAR missions in DCS. [Insert my usual wish for a certain asset here]

In the article DCS: CH-47 FAQ, under the section ‘Features that will be available during Early Access,’ one of the items listed is ‘Head-up display systems.’ However, this feature is missing from the ROADMAP. Has the "Head-Up Display System" been removed from development?

Ну тут у нас с вами просто разный подход к игре. Вам нужен онлайн. А для меня ДКС это имитация повседневной работы авиации в зонах реальных конфликтов последних лет. А вот тут я не припоминаю ни массовых посадок на грунт на Геркулесах. Ни высадки десантов парашютным способом. В основном, они гонялись как транспортники. По гражданским трассам с IFR. То, что для онлайна место ему найдётся, я даже не сомневаюсь. А вот для моего подхода к игре уже не очень.

Если транспортник будет везти груз на передовую базу 4-6 часов, как в реале, то боюсь миссия к этому времени уже закончится.

"Emergency autopilot disengage" will also disengage 2 SAS channel making aircraft unstable

In my experience, people who think AI is hot stuff had either never tried to use it for anything serious, or their mental capacity is not enough to produce anything better. For instance, it can write sitcom episodes that aren't that different from the human-written fare. Which says more about sitcoms and their writers than about the AI... It can be a tool used to alter existing imagery and text. Used with care, some people had good results with it. It's not a revolution some people expect it to be, but it's not completely useless. It just shouldn't be used to generate "original" text.

I am trying to install this mod again, it worked a while ago. I got the newest version, followed the procedure as described in discord. I do get the wallpaper, but not the plane, anybody else having this as well?

I am more interested in why it and the MH-60 is on hold..?

How DARE the AI use actual air combat tactics by employing their aircraft's advantages. Maybe, I dunno, try using the Corsair's strengths.

Thank you guys. Good to see that something is in the making. All I know is that when we have a human ATC which knows what he is doing even the most boring practice sessions feel so much better and also more challenging due to the fact that you have to spend more attention on the communication while following your task and flying the plane. So if there would be an affordable fee to pay for our MP Servers, I´m pretty sure we would spend some money for this.

We haven't heard anything official about the dynamic campaign for a while. I'd be interested to know when ED is planning to release it.

I've been an avid supporter of the module. I bought it on Day 1 and flew it on every map I own, including multiplayer missions, obviously with all the plane's limitations. I forgave the months of waiting for everything to work properly, but honestly, four years after the module's release, more than a year was wasted with the plane exploding while taxiing and no one understood why, rendering it unusable. Even today, calibrating the depressurizer on the collimator to use weapons is a lottery. I'm sorry to say it, but they really disappointed me. I know IFE is a capable software house, I can see it from the success of their modules on Flight Simulator, but evidently their interest in DCS is very low, so I don't think I'll buy any more of their modules. Sorry for the outburst, but anyway, I believed, I invested money in a product that then sadly ended up abandoned.

Que maravilla! Pa la saca!

Swiss Air Force J-5017 100 Years Edition Fliegerstaffel 17 1925-2025

No,The Kneeboard is not implemented... I will look if I can do it ...

Sorry, I always use my rudder device rather than using keyboard. However, the following keybindings are no longer to work (in F-14 as example)?

Probably a C-130J, but I might be wrong. Edit: I just saw some photos of a C-130H with a cockpit a lot like in those videos, so might have been a later or upgraded C-130H as well. /Edit Great videos! I guess that means the race is on for epic landing spots on the South Atlantic map as soon as the module gets released. Well, and all other maps as well obviously.

A UH-60 module was talked by Wags on the January Q&A (17:39). But by now, the Helicopter teams has centred on the AH-64F, CH-47F and a third helo (no revealed). If they start to work on a Blackhawk module, has many info to build a UH-60L version.

You can actually bind it immediately after purchase- so it activates the license on your ED account. The discord FAQ has instructions, i already bound mine to my account of course it can't be accessed until release, but the wording there is a little confusing since it gives the impression that you have to wait until release to redeem the code, which is not the case..

That's somewhat doubtful. Feet above Mean Sea Level? Feet Above Ground? Feet slant range? Yards slant range? As far as I can tell, Mavericks fly a mostly direct trajectory, and in the A-10C we have no way to force a high or low trajectory (unlike, say, Hellfires launched from an Apache or Kiowa Warrior). I'm not even sure if an obscured line of sight will lead to loss of target acquisition after a weapon has been launched. If we had a track of your failed attempts, we could try without clouds and confirm or reject your theory with some solid data. What I can say is that the Maverick seeker on its gimbal can acquire and track targets that the missile can't actually reach (without losing track after launch). As a rule of thumb, there's this imaginary keyhole that pilots should always consider when launching Mavericks - make sure the seeker (pointing cross) is within this imaginary keyhole and the missile should be able to hit its target. Of course it's possible your missile missed because of going into clouds, but it's more likely you were simply launching outside of the keyhole constraints. With a track, this could be cleared up.

Thats the most you can do atm unfortunatelly. Just put the ILS lines at the end of the beacon.lua file, and send the file to others. Don't forget to make a backup copy of the original file copy as well. Modifying that file will surely break IC in most of the other servers, but you can set your own server up without the IC. It's not a hard task to do.