All Activity

I'm finally home tonight and will create a track file for this.

+1 for a fix to this. This thread was created in 2019, here we are in 2025 and players still have to choose between a functional kneeboard and passing IC. On the topic of scaling issues, multi-monitor setups break the control indicator scaling too. These basic features should not break just because of alternative monitor setups, and the fix actions should not break IC.

Just and FYI, those videos are of a C-130H with a four bladed propeller. The C-130J is a newer model with scimitar blades that sound much different. See the attached video.

I believe he is mistaken, mixing it up with salvo fire

It’s not a button. It’s simply a bind to simulate pressing through the AOA limit which takes about 17 kg of force.

I have also seen Mach 1.5 limits for the centerline tank. Which is about where you jettison it in my profile/recommended manual profile as well. I have never seen g limits for ground weapons, only speed limits. For example it seems no faster then Mach 0.8-0.9, I’m a bit too lazy to look up exact limits right now. One issue with S-8 is detonation of the rocket motors from aerodynamic heating.

Thank you that clears up why! After you release lock, is it reasonable that it’s also comparing the spot you pre designated with current pipper position? It seems to atleast do this for motion compensation, as you move the pipper it lags as if trying to provide lead for a moving target in the direction you move your nose. Giving the impression that it’s harder then normal to move the pipper

Give me a shout if you are still needing any help.

I received a feedback that CH-47 and kiowa also dont have support yet, I dont have them to test myself, but Ill add to the list. Updated list for @WINWING @WinwingTech : - MB-339 - F4U-1D Corsair - F-5E Flaming Cliffs 2024 - F-86F Flaming Cliffs 2024 - MIG-29 Flaming Cliffs 2024 (All variants MIG-29A, MIG-29S) - New MIG-29A Fulcrum full fidelity - Su-25A (SimAppPro only have Su-25T variant) - MIG-15 Flaming Cliffs 2024 - Kiowa - CH-47

This dialog pops up in the Launcher... and keeps popping up after clicking OK. Only fix is to "ctrl-alt-del" and kill DCS with the task manager. This happened immediately after installing the latest patch (yesterday?). I've never had a lick of trouble with the launcher since its release. Any thoughts? Thanks! -Ryan

If you’re going IP bombing, you’re basically doing artillery style work. Which in the real world is effective, just hosing an area with 500 pounders on ripple to make everything in a grid square miserable. The INS is good enough for that. In DCS the damage modeling makes it less worth the time to do. So it’s a mode that’s modeled, but yea don’t bother. Stick to Computer or Pilot or the Pod if you plan on hitting specific things.

Das wurde vor mehreren Updates geändert. Damit George beim Hochfahren seinen Teil beisteuert, muss man mit geöffnetem George-Menü die "Consent to Fire"-Taste aus dem AI-Helper-Menü drücken (bzw. wenn ich mich recht erinnere für circa eine Sekunde gedrückt halten). Auf Deutsch sollte das sowas wie "Freigabe zum Feuern" heißen.

Time and money spent to implement it mostly. Like every product.

Hi, When launching AIM-7 from TWS or RWS it correctly goes to STT and albeit the TTG is displayed, the missile arrow/triangle does not progress to the target. When launching in STT mode, the arrow/triangle depicting the missile progress to the target according to displayed TTG. Find attached a short track depicting the issue. First launch is in RWS, second in STT, third in TWS and fourth in STT again. Cheers aim7_bug.trk

Sounds like try a repair. His script may have got a hiccup in it.

ADI command bars.trk I am attaching a short track from the flight. As can be seen on the track and in the picture, the command bars (yellow) are still in the same position, even though they should show the required pitch and roll at this phase. The inactivity is also evident from flags K(Крен) and T(Тангаж), which would disappear from ADI if the command bars were functional. In this context, I am correcting my statement that command bars should be on the side when they are inactive.. This condition is indicated by red flags T and K. As far as I know, these command bars help not only with intercepting the localizer and glideslope, but also with intercepting the RSBN radial, etc. See MiG-21.

The F110-400 was superior and was part of the D revision. The decision was that the reliability, fuel efficiency, and repairability was a suitable trade off to top speed since it was almost never used. (Same as disabling the glove vanes) They kept a lot of A’s due to costs and having already purchased parts for the TF-30. Only the Air Force gets to dictate exactly what they want at any expense. The Navy Air still has to fit in with the rest of the fleet’s budget limits so there’s less full fleet uniform revision. And viable spares aren’t discarded. And TF’s pulled out of A+ represented years more parts for the squadrons that stayed in A’s. Toward the end there were about an even number of in service PW and GE engines. Between A+, B, B(U), and D’s which were all squadron by squadron, or CAG by CAG roll outs.

So based on the manual, when flying the mig-29 with a fuel tank your speed is supposed to remain under 0.9 mach, and 0.8 mach for external rocket pods and bombs. However just because these limits were set in the manuals doesn't mean that they weren't exceeded in the field. For example the Mi-8's weren't suppose to bank more then 30 degrees, but pilots often did in actually combat. Also the Mi-24s were only supposed to run their engines at higher rpm settings for only limited times, but im reality they ran them as needed, and what you got was engines that just wore out faster and produced less power over time, but didn't catastrophic fail. Does anyone know how hard the mach limit for the fuel tank and stores had to be followed? Was it there just to preserve the overall life of the fittings? Or was there significant risk of something failing when going a bit over? Again you have instances where planes like the F-14 had g limits of 7.5 but pilots would go above that limit not infrequently, and there wouldn't be catastrophic failures.

See the edit on my previous post. It's working correctly now.

I believe it's the Growling Sidewinder's graphics settings. I also noticed that the textures seem low, but it might also be the video compression.

That's the only scenario I have experienced so far that breaks it.

I'm think you mean Moza. I believe you can purchase an adapter or something. But then you might need the Winwing base. I'm not sure. I only use TM compatible products. Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Hi all, Noticed after last weeks patch my MSAA settings (I set them all in driver rather than jn game as it gives vastly improved performance) are giving me more jaggies than usual so I revisited some settings and I’d like fellow AMD users thoughts with upscaling. I like upscaling and thought I’d give it another go as I prefer the rounder softer look but have the ghosting. Win some. Lose some. So for those that upscale on AMD kit do you set the upscaling in Adrenaline or in game? If you set it in adrenaline to override the game what settings do you leave in game? For ref: CPU 5800XT GPU 7800XT RAM 128 Gb

Mirage F1 flight model felt very stable feel like F16 FBW.

i've tried downloading FC3 Mig 29 & Su27 definitely not working for me and the FFMig 29 is not recognised as either of them, latest OB release 2.9.4. Just need to wait for the OB to be updated.