All Activity

I had the same problem with the top strap, somehow nothing seemed to fit. The solution came by chance - I always had the strap above the mask (as would be intuitively correct), but the headset sits much better when the top strap is inside the mask of the headset at the upper edge. So the top strap touches my upper forehead directly and then the mask lies on top without any negative influence (distance to eyes or incident light)

this dcs game dont have any TOT, take off time, Scheduling, or real life something, its just just going to charge kill kill and death

Hi, items marked in blue are in progress on the roadmap, we will consider other tasks and wishes once the remaining tasks are closer to completion. Tweaks and bug fixes continue as always. Thank you

Now that the F16 is out of EA, will there be an update to the roadmap to include items that are going to be worked on next? Obviously more than what is already there. It has been nice knowing what is coming next and kind of where the development is. Or, will there be a poll made to let the community pick or decide what we find more important? Sort of like what we did before.

Please if anyone is still seeing issues let me know, otherwise I thing we can close this issue as fixed. thank you

Thanks for the reply, I there any CPU that can handle such thing at the moment? or is it useless to swap? Greetings

Mismatch of weapons. Accepted! We will fix it. Unfortunately, the voice over of the main characters will accompany you throughout the campaign. The actors are native speakers and Americans. Mission-1 the main character has a Texas accent. There are two main characters in the campaign. The second of them is also a native speaker.

I have not. That kinda IS their intended use.

I basically asked the same a few weeks back, and was rightfully pointed towards the disclaimer at the end of the video: One can still argue on this being "misleading", but in the end it's ED's choice of marketing of course

I don't think the Corsair could set them that way.

Thanks for the feedback! I had a hard time translating military staff language into English. And probably such a concept is really confusing. I wonder how you rate the AH-64 Outpost briefing.

Hi Hannibal, this has been reported to the team, we are waiting for a fix. thank you

Never do windows calibration on devices like these, use their software.

How can we get bombs to go off after 5 or 7 seconds not on impact?

I don't have a crash, but it looks like parts are flying off my plane when I land.

after some posting this problem on hoggit reddit, i check to see if this graphic anomaly is happening for me, and i can confirm this issue exist for me. ON DESKTOP (NOT VR) i went to multiplayer, jumped into Mi24, refuel rearm menu to request LMG so that a kord can be loaded to the gunner position, when i move my mouse left and right, i can see the a grey wall when i move mouse right to slew the player view to right, but when i move mouse to left, i can see outside of the door gunner port to see the terrain normally and expected.

I think so too. I honestly don't know how the mechanics of this work. It's probably being blasted at the same time like @AeriaGloria mentioned.

Try that again - if I am not mistaken, its a direction to check with Wizard (F7 not F10).

I watched the interview and it was great to see their commitment to the C-130.

If you running AMD go roll back to 25.4.1.

Answer: Yes. You can make your own kneeboards. https://youtu.be/8_F31-cQnJY?si=wB9beh5N6F9hwmJ2

BLUF: With the addition of more modern modules, I believe the flare implementation in DCS should be expanded to represent both threats and counter-measures better. This could be done rather simply by adding another flare type and changing how IR missiles react based on which of the flares is being presented to them. Changes would be needed to how flare programming is done, both in how they are loaded on the bird and how they are dispensed on activation. The Nerdy Stuff The current flare implementation appears to represent pyrotechnic flares, similar to the US's M206 flare. These flares were developed after the introduction of the first IR missiles. These early missiles were optimized to track hot metal components of aircraft, like engines and tailpipes. Correspondingly, these flares burn at temperatures mimicking those components, but with much higher intensity. This would cause the missiles to track the flares over the aircraft, as they are set up to track the highest intensity target. These are the flares that everyone associates with "flares". They are a giant ball of light with a thick white smoke plume behind them. To counter these pyrotechnic flares, IR missile designers started to design their missiles with counter-countermeasures. There are multiple ways to do this, but I'm going to focus on the Russian implementation, as most modern modules are US aircraft. Starting with the Igla (SA-18), the Russians began to incorporate more than one detector in the seeker, with each seeker operating in a different band of the IR spectrum. This was done to both improve tracking capability and counter IR flares. I won't go into too much detail as the intricacies can't be modeled in DCS anyway. To summarize, the system uses the two detectors to compare the IR signal of the aircraft and a potential decoy to determine which is the aircraft. Since the only flare at the time was the hot pyrotechnic flare, that's what the systems were designed to defeat. To counter this technique, multiple methods were developed to defeat it. One was the development of new flares, called pyrophoric flares. These flares burn differently from the pyrotechnic flares and give off a different IR signature, notably in the IR band of the engine plume that these newer missiles use to track aircraft. They also have a distinctly different visual signature, looking more like a glitter bomb in an IR camera and almost no visual signature. It also has a different trajectory. One example of these is the M211 flare of the US. The Proposal I would like to see these pyrophoric flares incorporated into DCS. The current implementation of a simple percent chance to decoy on a flare can be kept, with a simple modification. Each missile will now have two percent chance values, based on the flare type being presented. An older generation missile will have a high chance of decoying on the pyrotechnic flares designed to defeat them, with a lower decoy chance on the pyrophoric flares that don't burn as intensely. The inverse would be valid for the more advanced missiles that have different flares tailored to defeat them. You could expand this even further to other flare types, such as kinematic flares or even IR jammers. This doesn't require an in-depth rework of the IR missiles, but significantly improves the authenticity of the threat environment and adds another gameplay element for players. Pilots will need to consider the type of threat in the area (older IR vs newer IR) and decide how to counter those threats best. It's no longer just spamming flares because they are all the same, and all missiles react the same. Consideration will need to be given to what flares are being brought, how many of each type, and what pattern will be deployed with each dispense. The Hard Part There would need to be some interface to allow pilots to load up customized configurations of flares. The data cartridge makes this easier, and perhaps the multi-rocket type implementation in the Apache can be leveraged as a framework. At the very least, pilots need to be able to select the number of each flare type to be loaded. A full implementation would allow pilots to change the loadout per flare dispenser. In the same way, pilots would need more control over how the flares are dispensed from the aircraft. I'm not sure if the current onboard systems of any aircraft are capable of this without a data cartridge implementation. Was that a lot? Yep. Check my post history if you enjoyed for more. I'm not gonna plead, the developer will do what they think they can in the areas they believe need improvement. Hopefully, they will decide this is one of those areas. Some sources: SA-18 Overview Thesis Discussing IR Missile Design JPEO Flare Overview Flare Discussion

It used to be that if you weren't quite trimmed right and drifted too far from the initial hover set point, that eventually all the AP channels would trip off & the auto hover would fail. Have you drifted too far between trims, or did the above fix it?

Notepad++