All Activity

I had the same problem as OP. Sniper pod was missing, HTS pod was also missing. Litening pod texture was okay, though. In my case there was no mod conflict, there was just some kind of hiccup in the update download process. A slow repair resolved it for me.

Разработчики, я так понимаю, на связь с общественностью больше не выходят

На страничке Объектов Второй Мировой в магазине написано: Поскольку сейчас Тихоокеанские объекты выходят платными, вероятно, они войдут в свой отдельный комплект. Скидку на который получат обладатели первого.

This is my gripe with it also, esp when mission ends while there are still missiles in the air (and tracking the target). I think this is very easy thing to change so I hope ED listen to us and change this. Another thing I'd like to change is to get ability to start on runway/taxi.

I've seen something regarding the F18 radio in the changelogs, but I've not retested it as of yet. If the G setting doesn't work, just use the M setting and 234, it doesn't matter which radio you use either if that helps at all.

Yea, it will come with the MC model. I didn't put it on the store page because honestly, I don't have a target date, and would rather just market the parts of the package i'm 100% sure of. I think they stand on their own.

Does VTF 58 offer a Navy Corsair squadron training & flying missions at regularly scheduled nights/days?

Does the 41st offer a Navy Corsair squadron training & flying missions at regularly scheduled nights/days?

Ignoring the obvious "ok but y tho," you can do loops and rolls with the 64 in the game, you just need careful manipulation of the controls. It's also advisable to kill the SAS while doing it as well. An immelmann turn is hard for me to pull off without dumping all my speed and it seems rather silly to do so when more than enough authority exists for a bog standard climbing turns with a bit of bank and yaw.

I've got 3 MFDs along with my main monitor. My Lua file is as follows: _ = function(p) return p; end; name = _('3 mfds'); Viewports = { Center = { x = 0; y = 0; width = 5120; height = 2160; viewDx = 0; viewDy = 0; aspect = 5120/2160; } } LEFT_MFCD = { x = 5195; y = 0; width = 640; height = 600; } RIGHT_MFCD = { x = 6000; y = 0; width = 640; height = 600; } CENTER_MFCD = { X = 6805; Y = 0; width = 640; height = 600; } TEDAC = { x = 6805; y = 0; width = 640; height = 600; } When I'm flying the Apache the TEDAC shows up on the center MFD with no problem, but when I hop into the F-18, the center MFD is blank and the AMPCD shows up in the upper left hand corner of my main monitor. Do I have to edit a file in the F-18 in order to export it to the MFD? I was under the impression it would automatically detect the center MFD and that would be that. At any rate, would appreciate any guidance. Thanks!

A combination of Katanas Are Just Better and other tropes everyone is obsessed with. I've never seen compelling evidence that the variant exists with these blades as opposed to just being an inert warhead like a steel or concrete rod. Either way, for DCS it's moot, because for our scenarios it's rather pointless, we're not getting anything other than K and L, and if we were, I'd prefer to get M, N, F, and C over a specialty expensive inert version for narrow purposes.

You actually kill all your targets? I've had it quit while I've still got plenty to shoot at.

What a fantastic cover. Lemme must be smiling from above. Brass Against - Ace of Spades (Motorhead Cover) And Zack probably approves of this cover: Brass Against - Killing in the Name (Rage Against the Machine Cover) Ft. Sophia Urista

Absolutely. We can help with the testing.

Unfortunately, after many hours of trying to fix some things in code, I decided that we will go back to normal Su-25A simplified weapon control panel. Mixing avSimpleWeaponSystem with FC3 causes some interfierence and bugs that I am unable to fix with code. So, for the sake of simplicity and better user experience, weapon controll panel will work- like in Su-25A Dont worry - still clickable I also added A/G / A/A selector, reworked ripple and interval selectors for su25a avionics and added jettison and main arming panel (master arm, LA override, cannon load) There might still be some bugs, but the main functionalites are working, and I'd like to finish the mod even with some impurities to fix for later.

This was reported a while back

Because only the GPU needs 350w-450w. According to reviews.

No worries, I always provide instructions.

How is this done again?

Hi gents, Rob10, yes FXO and METASHADERS2 folders deleted before posting, thanks. MAXsenna, Canopy static reflections were off in the special options, tried again with static reflections on, issue fixed. Loaded another skin the issue was back, I suspect it's related to Texac's default improved skin package, maybe some conflict with his default textures folder which needs to be placed in the F-16 Liveries folder. Finally turned down canopy reflections to 0 in the graphics setting, appears to have resolved the issue. Cheers!

Spot on. I'm one of those.

Reading all these limitations - I'm surprised that any foreign airforce ever decided to buy the F-104. I live in Germany, where the F-104 was "famous" - or should I say notorious - in the 60ies for it's spectacular crashes and insane sonic booms. They were all substituted with Phantoms which turned out to be way better operable and useable.

Cruise and TAS boxes don't really correspond well in regard to RaNGe and ENDurance. In my example best range Q is shown as 64% TRQ in the Cruise box, while the TAS box is showing 117 kts as the maximum range speed. Max endurance Q is supposed to be 41% at a speed of 71 kts. Lets focus on maximum range speed, 64% at 117 kts. Bottom line is, these tandem values are impossible to achieve in DCS. With a TRQ of 64% I merely achieve 104 kts in level flight (I even allowed a slight descend to keep that speed), so around 12% lower speed than required for maximum range as per the TAS box info. Also the fuel flow in the Cruise box for 64% Q is predicted 991. Checking on the Fuel format page, the calc flow for the current 64% is 1170 in total, which is 18% above the prediction of the PERF format page. Brad mentioned in discord that drag can affect the values. But I am a bit surprised to see the deviations being that enormous. Even in case the prediction fails to be accurate, how can predicted Q and speeds mismatch that far? No, I can't provide any real world data on "how it should be". Rather I am clueless if this is wanted as designed and want to bring this to your attention in case a further refinement is required. Its the size of difference, which lets me doubt that this is correct. Yet maybe it is? If these deviations are realistic, I am curious how the PERF data can be of use in any meaningful way IRL when in fact the values are unreliably off from the actual state of your flight. I wouldn't even know what to actually aim for when attempting maximum range flight, 64% torque or 117 kts? Or are these parts of the PERF page ignored IRL due to their inaccuracies and at least for maximum endurance I rather have to rely on the SFR of the FUEL page? This is a few moments of my flight, before the screenshot above was made. (unlisted video)