All Activity

Is there a solution to this?

Hola, recibi una compra de tiendamía y me ocurre lo mismo. Podría reclar a Winwing?

Great, thank you a lot for quick response and fixing this!

Действительно, в особом режиме переваливают за 100%. Что ж, значит руководство немного вводит в заблуждение. А я по началу даже думал, что у меня что-то с джойстиком - вроде РУД на максимум, а оборотов маловато.

Cheers yes I certailny has fallen down down in the pit! But what a great pit to be in and I am never crawling back. Yes this seem to be a technology with lots of development and updates so I can see tweaks and upgrades being needed and thats totaly fine to be honest. With VR-headset flying in DCS is as it always should have been.

Funnily enough for both of them the hardest part is convincing them that there is a problem. Coincidence? You decide! Perhaps an optimal solution would be to actually include different models of these SAMs to better mirror their real life counterparts, but I am wary of what the ME unit selection list might look like soon enough.

@bandit648 THANK YOU very much for your constant work with this, really. It increase DCS experience even more.

If only ED could patch it as quickly as the Soviets did.

The dev team has stated their goal is October, but with any release sometimes it depends on ED so they might not have a 100% accurate date just yet. Hope we get to see more content soon especially in September and October as we get closer

Your AG radar was in snowplow, you should set it to SLV.

Что нового появилось в обновлении пака России 8 июня?

Pod jettison issue is already reported:

BUMP! Now with Streamdeck v 7.0.0.22005 MSI installed it's still the same ... the bug is still there, but Thomas T from support stated that the win keys work in a macro when Techsupport tested it. I don't get it, even just tried a fresh installed Win11 PRO with Streamdeck. NoGo as with windows 10 and 11 LTSC. My guess is something like windows anti macroing protection blocks win key incorporated macros, which is not bypassed by the Egato drivers, and Razer etc has it worked out OK.

It won't clear waypoint and shouldn't. I asked about this like 3 years ago,it's intended. If training mission suggests other things I guess it's outdated.

I observed that the the Radar Elevation Zoom function does not work with the Litening Pod if the HOTAS control is bound to an Axis. It does work if it the HOTAS control is bound to a button press. The HOTAS axis zoom function does work with the ATFLIR pod if bound to an Axis. If the Emergency Jettison is used the center mounted Litening Pod appears to be ejected in the 2D view but the Pod still functions on the jet for targeting, etc. Can anyone confirm these observations? Thx!

Dynamic campaign is supposed to address issues with ground units apparently. So let's cross our fingers. We only have to wait .... TWO WEEKS! ... side note ... Proximity fusing needs to be seriously looked at. Growling Sidewinder's recent video shows why. A missile close enuf that its engine illuminated the underside of his plane, yet it didn't trigger. I've seen lots of missiles that should have triggered fail to do so, in online videos. I'm also disappointed that they don't have legit warheads i.e. expanding ring, only generic "shrapnel and explosion."

ED has already made it's mind about that. You can see it at the tags they gave the topic: They have to decide at some point which features to implement and which not, otherwise it could be dragged into infinity. 1) If we would get the GBU-54, we probably would have gotten a 2012 F-18 and not a 2005 one, right? 2) Having a 2005 plane in 1989 is just as unrealistic as having a 2012 introduced weapon in 2005. This argument goes both ways. 3) While technically correct, if you don't want it don't use it, I find it a very bad argument. If you want the GBU-54, just get the A-10C2. If you want the GBU-54 on the F-18, just play a different game. You don't have to use DCS. It's just such a ridiculous argument to make in my opinion. It's the same as with the Swiss single AIM-120 launcher. It doesn't hurt anyone having it. The F-18 can carry it but it's the wrong version of what ED is trying to simulate, just like the LJDAM is the wrong weapon/period for the simulated F-18.

yes, this aircraft does not have support for keyboard control of the flight surfaces nor throttle. If you don’t have a joystick, you can connect an x-box controller which is not ideal but it is less expensive.

For single player, I have a button on my HOTAS assigned to bring up the DCS comms menu (i.e. press F1 for Flight, F2 for ATC, etc menu)... New to multiplayer, using SRS, have the same button as my "PTT" button. Went into a multiplayer server yesterday and when using the PTT button, the DCS comms menu doesn't show (which is good....) Went into the same multiplayer server today with SRS also running... my PTT button does transmit on SRS, but annoyingly also brings up the DCS comms menu, so I have to press the PTT button twice to make it go away. Any way to set it so that in multiplayer my PTT button will not toggle the comms menu? Would prefer not to have to manually change control allocations when switching between multi and single player, if possible... thanks

Ive been using the G2 and DCS has been running reliably. about 4 days ago I setup a new crystal super and it seems to be progressively crashing more and more often. My lizard brain says its a broken cable that is disconnecting with head movement. I have no proof of this and it seems to not do it in menus or "test" environments so its probably something else but it feels like a bad cable. Sometimes I get 20 to 40 min sometimes I get just a few min sometimes straight away. usually crashes making large head movements usually looking down and then back up. The display will freeze on the last good frame it sounds like the core and background stuff is still working. I can hear the jet respond to inputs but display output is frozen. Ive attached a log from Syria free flight f14 take off from Lebanon ( I think the one just before sunrise) I saw nothing of value in the log but I might not be looking in the right spot. Any clues?? Thanks! dcs.log

Thanks again for adding IDF SAMS in new 1.4.0. version. Fantastic!

Thx @Dangerzone for this thread! I´m sure I don´t have my rig fully optimized but it´s playable, (i get 70fps stable in Mp servers over syria map tho im using msaa x4). correct me if im wrong, but IMHO dcs fps limiter is a great idea (max FPS slider), i´m using it at 70, so my GPU works betwen 65/95% load depending on flight situation. but it´s constant 70fps. my specs: Ryzen 9 5950X - RX7900XTX- 64GB RAM DDR4- 1TB M.2 SSD - Quest2 (using oculus cable link + OXRTK + OTT fov at .75) i´ll have to get back w you with specific dcs settings but key thing is MSAAx4 PD 1.3, terrain, water, shadows at high

Если у тебя претензии к кабине Мига, только в малой затёртости РУСа и рычага тормоза (ну и подобные вещи, с которыми пилот взаимодействует постоянно). То я соглашусь. Но мой посыл был в целом к тем, кто защищает ободранные кабины, которые так любит хитблюр. Да и Миг-21 тоже в ту же кассу.

I know there was a thread about this wishlist but and since that thread is now locked and I would really like to add my 2 cents about the subject which I believe are sound and somehow backs up this wish (GBU-54 Laser/GPS fitted to DCS F/A-18C), I took the "liberty" of creating this one. The other thread was locked because ED (backed up by a few members) believe this to be unrealistic because the F/C-18C modeled in DCS is from 2005 while the GBU-54 was introduced/integrated on the F/A-18C in 2012 (some sources indicates sooner but lets stick with 2012) but I fully disagree and here's why: The weapon (GBU-54) was introduced in 2012 which is only 7 years from the service date of 2005 of the F/A-18C modeled in DCS. As such it's not far fetched that 2005 F/A-18C's could or did have been fitted with the GBU-54 seven (7) years later, this without the same F/A-18C's having received any meaningful upgrades in the meanwhile. Which is far more realistic having a 2005 F/A-18 carrying GBU-54s OR having the same 2005 F/A-18C flying in a 1989 campaign (Task Force Challenger), the campaign that comes with DCS F/A-18C? This is obviously a rhetorical question because the answer is clear: It's impossible for a 2005 F/A-18C to fly in 1989 (unless someone invents time travel) but again it's not impossible for a 2005 F/A-18C to be fitted with a weapon that entered in service with the US Navy Hornets circa 2012 (or 7 years later). Yet, ED accepts the scenario of a 2005 Hornet flying in 1989 but not the one that the same Hornet uses a weapon (GBU-54) that came a few years after. Puzzling, I must say! Some users have backed up this ED decision because of the reason above (Hornet being from 2005 while GBU-54 from 2012) but the truth is that if the GBU-54 was integrated in DCS F/A-18C then these same users would still have the CHOICE of not using the weapon. The same applies to mission/campaign builders that have this same opinion. However, having the GBU-54 in DCS F/A-18C CATERS to everyone! Who wants to use the weapon will/could use and who don't, won't use it. Simple as that.

I think it worked for some time against the SA-2 Dvina in Vietnam, but the modifications were introduced to prevent the missile from hitting the ground.