All Activity

Currently the default option is everything is on the MFD when it should be the other way around. So instead of a option to Hide a unit there should be a option to "Show" on MFD. Unless you suggest that intel is that great so we know exactly where everything is on the battlefield. (this is satire) But anyways, I could be wrong but I think most mission makers would like the objects to be hidden by default and make things a lot easier. Why: So mission makers don't have to go through every unit and static objects to hide them from populating on a MFD or COORD page. Instead the key focus targets or main threats are the ones populating on the MFD with using a Show on MFD option. First example: AH-64. The apache automatically adds every single unit and static object(Friendly & enemy) to it's COORD pages and there's only 9 pages and it populates very quick. And if there is a mission maker or campaign maker using static objects to build a base, those 9 coord pages are now completely filled. Do we really need to know that there's 9 pages worth of static objects walls making a base? And if you're in the cockpit and have to remove those populated units, its a one by one process. Do you see where I'm going with this? So if we're playing a mission or campaign that someone else made and all 9 pages are full from auto populating, but we need to add a waypoint with a control measure, lets say a friendly unit. Now the user needs to go into the coord page, do the process to delete one of those automatically populated points, pause the game, read the message history for the grid again because they're to busy deleting a point that shouldn't be there by default. This example is very real in DCS and would be prevented if the default behavior was set to hidden on MFD. Last example: F-16. The HSD page only shows units that have a radar. If a mission maker is adding radar guided AAA or SAMs they're automatically populating on the HSD. So by default the MFD/HSD is spaghetti soup full of threat rings. If there's a vulcan 100 miles away and nowhere close to the route or objective area, it's populating on the HSD. And if the mission maker doesn't want those units to be seen they have to go through them in the editor and hide every single one.

That's pretty cool!

GTFO is open to all fixed wing and rotary aircraft across eras! image.jpgnull

Could you tell me any of the procedure differences?

Yeah it's super annoying

Can you please attach your DCS log file.

I noted this bug lately, and reviewed all tacview reply, found AI aircrafts(no matter which type, no matter class, no matter blue or red) almost no-react . I check above 10 replys, only spot 1 case, the AI chaff after Fox-3 on it. While replys before this update, every AI can react Fox-3. So this must be the update trigger this bug. EDteam please react quickly, since it easy to replicate.

For what it's worth on this dead horse....you can only run "combat power" (app 2700 @52) for 15 minutes, even with oil cooler flaps wide open. So if you are running it hard, it's gonna quit pretty quickly.

I'll second this one. I would very much like the ignored users never to appear anywhere, or to see that an ignored user posted, or to see their profile pic in the main forum menu.

Заберу за 5, если все работает, не болтается и автоматом определяется как компьютер так и дкс

Ahhh see I was thinking during the cold war. Like a late 1970s or early 1980s update just to get pulse doppler retrofitted. Even if the set couldn't do TWS, had a shorter range, or smaller scan volume, pulse doppler seems like it would be so much more capable particularly in the low level ground attack role the F-4 found itself in. Make it more able to defend itself. By 1991 it doesn't make sense to me to upgrade it unless you just can't afford anything else. But yes I guess money isn't unlimited.

Ahh lemme check... Yhea, I really don't care what you think.

This! This is what should have been the FF module. Not the A as in Ancient...

@Hiob Thanks for the insight. Adding the oil cooler about 50% open seems to help. If you follow the training mission for carrier landing in game, you're instructed to "close the cowl flaps". Gotta give that training instruction an "F". Having the cowl flaps full or partially open seems to be the only way to make through without seizing the engine.

Just change the program in DTC. The manual is out of date regardless now

Где поискать, не подскажешь? Или название, что за мод.

Latest update from the ED folk on the bug report in their Discord was that they were able to replicate, and now appear to have fixed as can no longer replicate in their testing version. Based on this feedback it looks like we might get this fix in the upcoming patch (hopefully this week).

Latest update from the ED folk on the bug report in their Discord was that they were able to replicate, and now appear to have fixed as can no longer replicate in their testing version. Based on this feedback it looks like we might get this fix in the upcoming patch (hopefully this week).

Would be a good addition to add for conflicts in the indo-pacific region, Nothing radical capability-wise here, but it would certainly be a start for aussie assets in the game!

Just a quick note to say how impressed I was with the relative ease of setting up Skyeye on a home machine. It was less than 30 mins work, mostly because I couldn't remember how to change my server's Tacview settings. I'm still shocked that it hasn't been adopted by more mp servers. When it's processing a transmission, I notice the CPU usage spikes up to 100%. Does that mean Skyeye is spreading the load effectively over all cores? Assuming I stick to local processing on a PC, would it benefit from a threadripper or other CPU that's big on core count? Does anyone else have other ideas on optimizing response time other than using the quicker language model? Thanks again for all the work. It's another example of the strong community support that brings life to DCS. Oh, I just remembered my other question. Is Skyeye impaired at all by that radio effects simulation of SRS? Surely decreased sound quality of a simulated radio transmission is making Skyeye work harder to understand what's said.

No, I don't have an iPhone. And comparing DCS to some random smartphone sim tells us nothing of consequence. And you haven't answered my question: what do you consider to be incorrect regarding the arresting wires. Incorrect, that is, in comparison to how the real-world arrestor cables behave, which is the only thing that matters.

In IL2, I've had occasional occurrences of the unit going black screen. At first I thought I was accidentally fingering the power button but it wasn't that. It's happened both in-game and while on the PP home screen.

Any updates?

ED fixes weapons, not the 3rd party devs. It is frustrating when they say 'Reported', lock the thread, and then ignore it for months and months though.