All Activity

Has anyone had issues running this mod since the latest update? I was able to launch the mod, but wasn't able to enter the cockpit or fly. I wasn't sure if there was a compatibility issue with the latest DCS update or maybe something else is going on?

There is no question, for me especially, that DCS is painfully lacking in the Dynamic Campaign/immersion arena. But it will come. I'm just pointing out that it is a taller order (within the extremely diverse DCS ecosystem) than a lot of folks give it credit. BMS had almost nothing to do by comparison... but it did that feature extremely well, no doubt about it.

Don’t forget these values in most cases are given for ratio 69:1 bar or 1000:14,5 in psi. Chamber pressure vs ambient pressure, with full expansion of gases, and without losses in divergent zone of nozzle Same as Russian motors and propellants, only in ratio 40:1 which is Russian standard

Just a note for people with Varjo Aero regarding Quad view and foveated rendering. Please remember that the settings that are described on Varjo web Tips on OpenXR are still valid for DCS. See: https://varjo.com/vr-lab/make-the-best-out-of-your-varjo-experience-update-on-varjo-quad-view-eye-tracked-foveation-and-varjo-base-settings/

Then this tip is not for you. There are a lot of other people seeking better performance. I also thought that was obvious.

@twistking Very well said. I'd add that with the best intentions, real-world tactics designed to keep pilots alive and to prevent the loss of expensive toys just doesn't translate well to a 'game' with no real disincentive for death or loss of asset. Perhaps if each online player had one 'life' per week (or even month) it would encourage more realistic tactics and execution of missions, rather than just Leeroy*-ing into the furball every time. If people want realism, then dead should mean dead.

Specific impulse wise HTPB is probably in the range of 242-248. There are patents from the late 90's early 2000's which change up the blend to get it higher but these would not be relevant for the 120B/C. 1498409585215997771-06238499 US6238499B1 - Solid rocket propellant - Google Patents

This is huge news. The potential for PVP setups online is going to be epic with the F-15C and EF coming online. Cant wait.

That part, yes. But since I dont't experience stutters, freezez and such now... what do I gain?

No more max out of CPU. I thought that was obvious.

Point 1, I don't have anything to report on where it is at in development, but I do understand it to be incredibly complex and you can see aspects changing the core already if you look hard enough. I will ask about a dev report, as it's been a minute. Point 2, The AI is constantly being worked on and improved. The DC AI will most likely have aspects unique to how DCs work. Of course, our AI guys and DC Team talk and work together all the time Point 3. I won't talk about the personal and private conversation between two people; I wasn't there, I do not know the context. That said, I have not seen anything to suggest we don't care about the game aspect of DCS, and in fact, I see improvements to this all the time. Look at DCS back in the A-10C and Ka-50 only days and where we are now, I think, while not always as fast as everyone wants, we are making improvements, and it required hiring people more about gaming and less about simulation. For example, hires for the DC.

I see what you did there!

Those must be modules without native FFB support then, such as the F-18. Otherwise I doubt that very much: many problems have been reported by people with FFB hardware that were fixed by resetting axis curves/saturation.

Я этим не занимался . Если эта документация была , значит все проводилось в соответствии с ней . Но была она или нет , я без понятия .

Lovely! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

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!