All Activity

Someone only like put "Enigma" on all discussions? about a thieft video?

can anyone invite me to red flag discord

So BATC claim that they developed their "small" LLM themselves. Meaning it could be extremely efficient. If you take an existing open-source / open-weight LLM on the other hand and just modify it with LoRA, you'll have some overhead, meaning your model might be bigger than what you actually need. This was probably the correct call for a product that is available right now, but i think for BATC the R&D required could have been a bigger economical factor than the running cost.

Nah, I'm talking about NineLine's post of yesterday. Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

We have a new cycle starting this weekend! Come and join us and learn an airframe or topic of your choice! We offer pretty much every airframe and external topics like LSO, CATCC, Combined Arms (soon tm) and more!

Not allowed. Yet. When Steam finally loses down the line, we should be allowed to, at least in Europe. Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Thank you for the reply. My questions would be: It was said the Caucasus/Jets only initial pass was a starting place to dial in the "basics". Where are we on that progress many years later? Is ED still in the basics? What percentage of the way to launch are we? Will the dynamic campaign launch with support for all maps, modules, eras? Will SP + MP Support? Will there be robust support for logistics based operations? Is a significant overhaul of AI systems coming now that multicore has been implemented, where AI can dogfight intelligently and be bound by the actual full fidelity flight physical flight models of each aircraft? Enigma made statements, accurate or not, that Nick stated ED is "****" at the game aspect, and ED accepts that, and focuses on engineering full fidelity modules - that DCS exists to preserve high accuracy airframes, and gameplay is second. Does ED dispute this comment? If it was accurate years ago, how has this changed? In as little ambiguity as possible and with as much detail as possible, what tangible investments has/is ED making to prioritize game-centric aspects of DCS world equally as high as full fidelity module/terrain development? What percentage of the ED team is strictly dedicated to gameplay only developments, to create a core environment where DCS is not just the best at modeling accurately, but giving players a top tier game environment for putting them to use? Is this a strong focus at ED, to not just be best in class at full fidelity modelling, but best in class in gameplay? What is the roadmap to get there? I understand you personally will likely not have this information, and I also want to point out that I am not trying to be difficult or antagonize. As a customer who was spent more on DCS than any other piece of software in my life - and that is before counting hardware investment specifically for DCS - I would be grateful if ED would be willing to make very clear, detailed statements on their goals and trajectory as a company. My hope for DCS is that it would be a platform that does not dumb down its high fidelity realism, but rather harnesses it with top-tier game design. There is a huge empty niche to fill here, as other platforms often emphasize game over fidelity. DCS emphasizes, currently, fidelity over game. There are many people hungry for a non compromise platform that merges the best of both worlds. Frankly, the game aspect is easier than what DCS has already achieved. But easier does not mean easy, of course. I am hoping that ED will take seriously what many customers want (and already expect) to see: serious investment into not just the core engine (performance, AI, bugs, etc.) but the core gameplay experience. Can we have confidence that ED is investing seriously internally in a full time, dedicated team whose sole purpose is to develop the DCS "game" aspect? That would be my hope for a future development report. I do believe this is a fair ask, and if Nick's alleged statements truly do represent the position of ED, I think it's also fair to ask that ED just explicitly restates its mission statement in 2025 regarding both fidelity and gameplay in no uncertain terms. While I would be disappointed if ED was not very serious about developing the gameside of the platform to its full potential, ultimately, informed understanding of what DCS' intentions are and are not - from the horses mouth and not hearsay - is honorable. I'll look forward to the next development report, and remain hopeful and optimistic. I hope this post is received in the spirit it is intended - a passionate supporter who has spent a wee bit too much on a product that has always done what it sets out to do quite well... and who is merely looking for clarification on precisely what DCS/ED is setting out to do in 2026 & Beyond. Cheers.

Anton got new stock cockpit textures and slightly revised geometry in July last year. Maybe something got changed at the same time in a way these textures get loaded now, 'cause you're not the first person to report not being able to make cutomized textures work with special options.

Commands Expand mode on a trackfile under the cursor.

Okay when I arrive I'll do all that, also do I have to change the of my saved games folder? Also thanks I known you have a lot of messages to tend to, and if the F4E is as good as it's customer service it will be amazing:)

I‘m using a Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 and can also happily report that with the latest patch, we now have working force feedback trim! While I hade to swap axis with some aircraft modules, with the Corsair it worked correctly out of the box (or maybe I previously fiddled around with the axis and can‘t remember it anymore ). Anyway… You certainly can get it working via the „FF tune“ menu. Thanks to the developers for implementing the vital trim force feedback!

Wags talking on January 2025 ATC on your Q&A about the new ATC on develop (21:20) and a Player ATC (22:06). An yes, will require a develop update.

Somehow in all other planes curves/saturation settings work flawlessly on my FFB stick.

1991 год увы уже не показатель. А мне б хотелось спросить вы можете утвердительно ответить что в ваше в/ч регламенты СПО проводились согласно утвержденной документации ?

It's up to the mission maker to balance the missions. If you want redfor/bluefor balance with historical parity, the MiG-29 (and FC3 Su-27) will be pitted against aircraft available at the very end of the cold war (1985-1991). Its historical peers currently in the game are the F-14A/B, F-4E, F-5E, and Mirage F1CE/EE/BE. All of the other modern fighters are mid-1990's-2010's upgrades.

Hello,will Lutiy or PD-2 strike UAVs be added?

Remember forum rule 1.15

Ну а для тех кто всё же верит официальной документации рекомендую к прочтению... Многие вопросы "как оно в реале" отпадут... формат не самый удобный, но другой на сайт не лезет... МиГ-29 Практическая аэродинамика.djvu Бортовой комплекс самолётовождения, прицеливания и управления вооружением самолёта МиГ-29.djvu расчёт дальности полёта МИГ-29.djvu

Hmm, that’s odd, since it’s in VR (Quest 3) that I notice the large orbs. I saw the orbs a little over a mile away. If you zoom out more, does the light rendering pop back in, with excessive blooming/brightness? From what I’ve seen, the rendering of nav lights will change from OK, to annoying, to ridiculous looking UFOs within a short span of increased distance. The easiest way to see this is to simply look at a plane in external view and zoom out. In VR, it seems it’s all messed up regardless of the headset resolution or in-game PD setting I’m using. And if I had to guess, the rendering is applied exactly the same way for 2d, and would also result in light orbs that completely block out the airplane. It’s just that at high resolution on a flat screen, it might be less apparent because the small details on flat screens generally seem to require more “observing effort” to interpret what’s on the screen. VR is literally “in your face”, and the immersion seems to make the act of observing more natural and much easier. I think it’s this immersion that makes it hard to ignore the errors in scaling and brightness of small nav lights. VR resolution might play a small role in all this, but I don’t think it’s the primary thing causing the lights to look bad. They look bad because the brightness and size of blooming/orbing doesn’t correlate to distance.

Please do not share any information on controlled documents, if you have a legal, legitimate release from the government that controls these that allows them to be shared, then lead with that; otherwise the next time will be a 1.16 warning. This is not limited to the full document, its anything releated to any controlled document. Thanks.

I reply them.... has a ED official press release about them confirm the module? And yes, I know all story... and "claims".

Remember ED release the old RRG Studios content kickstarted rescue them and complete (P-47, Fw-190A-8, Spitfire Mk.IX), and ED make the others (P-51D, Fw-190D-9, Mosquito) Modules. ED continue with WW2 with the release of Marianas WW2 map, the incoming modules of F6F Hellcat, and the future A6M5 Zero and the PTO WW2 assets pack. Other 3rd parties as M3 (release the F4-U and some free PTO units to WW2), Octopus-G (release the I-16 type 24 and has making the La-7), continue making modules to WW2 . Actually the Dynamic Campaing has on progress by ED, but the first iteration has modern, and WW2 coming later (No dates to release yet). Ugra Media continue making expansions to Normandy WW2 2.0 and ED has not expanded the Channel Map (has no talked yet about the next WW2 map). Nick Grey has claimed about make BoB modules and more content on a future after PTO. But not bad if other 3rd parties move to build more WW2 modules and maps. Campaign creators as Reflected Simulations, SUNS Simulations, and others, has continue making campaigns to WW2.

Odd. Yeah, probably try without mods then. They have caused severe issues in the past for no apparent reason. A screenshot of your "tiny ingame manual" and your settings page (graphics and f4 special options) would help :)

Almost home thanks for taking the time to respond Zabuzard but no I am using a ancient acer monitor but runs at 1080p