All Activity

We have already explained, at this time we can not share the information due to confidentiality agreements on contracts. If that changes in the future we will let you know.

I hate to disagree, but it is 100% relevant to this thread. Which 3rd parrties/modules are under zero obligation to surrender the source code upon leaving the job? That is most definitively something people should take into account when choosing modules to purchase.

Indeed, as Raven pointed out, I have no control over the AI's behavior. In my campaigns, wingmen operate independently. Understand that it’s a separate aircraft to which I assign orders to follow the leader and carry out missions. You can prevent an AI aircraft from taking off by placing an obstacle in its taxi path. This is harder to do with helicopters. Sometimes it works, but other times, for unknown reasons, they take off vertically from their parking spot. In the case of the Soviet-Afghan War Dawn campaign, if you’re supposed to take off from the beginning of the runway, your wingman should, in principle, follow you. However, I’ve already noticed that it sometimes takes off directly from its parking spot instead. If you’re supposed to take off from Charlie, I’ve created two wingmen: one that taxis and another that takes off to follow you. There’s no other way, because by default, AI always takes off from the start of the runway. That’s why I included the warning: "Don’t worry about your wingman—he’s doing his job!" During test, I had very few issues with AI.

Even though it's now 2025, I’m still encountering this issue. Do I still absolutely have to modify the official aircraft files (like those for the F‑16C) in order to mount a custom missile? I really don’t want to alter the stock code.

Attempt to reconstruct this case, very low launcing velocity, fair altitude and very high distance to target. If it's true, number in circle present seconds till impact, so 100 seconds which is very long travel. I have no clue where is target on altitude and how fast it is so let's consider it to be same. Several options: 1) levelled flight 1G overload plus 3G reserve 2) initial lofting maneuver and ballistic trajectory but keeping 3G reserve Both of these cases are pointless, not even close to reach target 3) initial lofting maneuver, then ballistic trajectory without any overload and/or reserve and at the end gliding with 1G overload with included 3G reserve Only this thrid case can bring rocket that far and also to have at least some velocity at the end Approximately 67 seconds of passive flying object, with locked fins in zero position, with no lift force whatsoever. I have no clue could it be case, it is completly differnet approach compared to other Russian rockets, I mean on absence of this overload reserve. But only this way I manged to drag rocket that far

I dont really understand what the issue is here. What are you meaning when the missile does reach its target?

Yes, but helicopter needs to be aligned with your scope. In other words, read the manual.

There you have the answer.... I haven't listened to the Enigma interview, because in the past that man attacked ED and said things that he should have thought a little before saying them... That's why, as they say in my country "it's not my thing". I smell that you yourself have answered the second question... there was already some work done on the core by ED on the loadmaster, ASC has improved it a lot. Very bad business... if, as you say, it's "connected" to the plane, I'm afraid it's simply a camera, not an independent entity. Remember, currently, a downed pilot is an independent entity and has no limitations on where he can go or move. And I'm suspecting what it might be, a derivative of the orbital external camera. The easy way, in AI, is for ED to create an infantry-type entity and give it that "role", and as far as we know, these are currently properties assigned to certain vehicles and I'm not sure if that feature can be added by a 3rd party, because due to mods, I don't think it can be done either. In itself, it shouldn't just be an FPS, it should be an improved version of what we currently have from Combined Arms' JTAC functionality. If the code for a JTAC isn't locked by contract (remember that CA was based on a military contract for the creation of a JTAC trainer for the UK Army), ASC could very possibly improve it, and I'd bet my life if they could do that. The problem remains the same; I'm afraid there's some "building block" missing that ED has to implement first, because like it or not, I'm willing to bet that no 3rd party has access to the main core; ED simply creates the minimum step for them to be able to create (even if it's just declaring a function or procedure). That's something I've always required from ED with Vehicles and Ships, the ability to add "cockpits" and make them controllable in first person to make even a mod (we've been waiting 17 years).

This topic is in progress. There is another thread somewhere here with details on it and the WIP state including instructions to get it working in that WIP state. Cheers /topic/349847-exporting-screens/#entry5668772

Thanks razo+r, I suspected as much.

I have to bump this, as it is August 2025 and the issue (that was once solved) is still there. @BIGNEWY @NineLine can you please highlight this once again to the devs?

Hi Lone Hawk, we’re getting beyond my pay grade (that being zero, lol) but I’ll answer to the best of my knowledge: I think the best way I can express where responsibility lies is to say the onus is on module developers to keep modules working with the engine. So unless there is a problem being experienced game-wide, problems with Razbam’s modules will be Razbam’s problems. As far as I know, any responsibility Razbam has to its customers remains as long as the company exists. I doubt we could force refunds out of them, but I would hope if they were to leave DCS they might see the sense in allowing ED to maintain their modules. If anything has been confirmed about money being withheld, it will be in the first post. If you would like to explore refund options for any modules that you bought through the ED Store I suggest you contact support, people who bought the F-15E through the ED Store have the option of returning the module for ED Miles - basically store credit. I don’t believe other modules are generally being refunded, but if there is any way to get one it’s through Support. Edit: Again, I am not ED staff, just another forum user.

Да она даже на промо-видео еще не вышедшего МиГ-29 рывками идет)

Well, I found the problem. Me, the "ID 10 T" problem, had the Historical Filter on. [emoji1787]. Everything is working as intended. Thanks for the help and explanations. Cheers! Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Of course how one would need to bolter a 10,000' land based runway and go around again in a plane designed to land on a posts stamp, requires a whole laundry list of "Specific moments where crap went wrong"

Post hidden. Please remember our rules at the top of the forum. thank you

Thanks Eddie. I'll try deleting all of those "--" in the lua file. Cheers! Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Its four. The Mig-19 will be deprecated also

Like any tool, it needs to be used to its strengths and not its weaknesses. You also don't use a drill as a hammer and then complain that it is a useless tool. There are specialized AIs to generate 3D models from 2D images, like TRELLIS, which seem to do a decent job. I don't know whether they are good enough for modelling planes with. But just like human modellers, they base their model on images of the real thing. So it's not just a generic component or cockpit model, but it would be specific to a certain plane. In theory it would even be possible to make an even more tailored AI trained for modelling real life object in sims, training it on already created 3D models and the 2D images that those are based on. I once worked for a non-profit company that made the software for an entire industry, where everyone who used the software was required to invest in it, and then they were charged a fee for the software that covered the cost of maintaining/improving it (so no profit margin). In principle, the companies/individuals who make airplane models for flight sims, car models for driving sims, etc could adopt the same model, where instead of merely investing, they all hand over their 3D models and the 2D images that those are based on, to the non-profit. Then the non-profit could train an AI to be optimal for this kind of work. For example, the hallucination level could be set very low, and because it would just be trained on relevant images, it wouldn't even know how to generate irrelevant imagery.

I hope we get Roth helibase in n Phase 2 of the map. Would fit so fine for the BO-105 PAH1 we‘ll get. Would love to fly Roth Hornets BO‘s from there.

Thank you horns, I didnt look at it in that way, as we deal with ED so I kinda got tunnel vision in my view. Is it correct that the module maker is completely responsible for fixing any game breaking issues? If so given that i dont think we will ever get the full, unbiased story of what happened, do we have real power to get a refund from razbam? Also was it ever confirmed that ED held money from razbam, if so than wouldn't that mean in part ED still has our money

Yes, that's the line. Text colour makes no difference as far as I know. Those lines are VERY important, if they are not there, or are deactivated by putting the 2 -- in front, the item they refer to wont be seen by the Mod, so you could have no textures, or no liveries - if the shapes one is blocked with 2 -- then the mod wont work at all. It will often still appear in the ME, but it wont appear in the actual mission when you launch it. Normaly those lines should be in the entry.lua but some modders do it this way, and it usually still works. For a long time in the game you had to do it this way, then ED changed something and it didnt work any more - you then had to put them in the "mod name".lua after that, then somethuing changed again - its a bit of hit and miss with modding at times as to what still works and what doesnt. This what my entry.lua looks like for the S2, which is different to how the mod maker did it: I removed those 3 lines from the STrackerE.lua and put them into the entry.lua - I do this for every mod I use, trying to keep things to a set pattern incase of major game changes - I use a lot of mods and having to change a heap of them at the same time is a real pain. You can leave them in both files but they will be picked up in the dcs.logs as errors and that can make your dcs log VERY big - not a good idea when you are trying to fix a problem and have to look in the log to see what the problem is. dcs logs are a science in themselves, I struggle with them at times. local self_ID = "Tracker" declare_plugin(self_ID, { installed = true, -- if false that will be place holder , or advertising dirName = 'current_mod_path', version = "Beta", state = "installed", info = _("STrackerE"), }) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mount_vfs_model_path (current_mod_path.."/Shapes") mount_vfs_liveries_path (current_mod_path.."/Liveries") mount_vfs_texture_path (current_mod_path.."/Textures") --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dofile(current_mod_path..'/STrackerE.lua') plugin_done()

I'm not sure if it's actually wrong on the map, or my screwing up somewere : So if some one else would have some time to check, it would be very appriciated. I'm using history data, found on the internet, to (try) and figure out were units were stationed in Germany : the who and were etc. So I found some coordinates of bases around Fulda gap, yet they aren't on the map so I'm just putting a icon in that position. The thing is : The whole positioning feels off to me. For instance, if you check the coordinates for Sickels Army Airfield ( aka Fulda airfield) the coordinates of the "real" airfield and the airfield on the map, there's a 2,9+ Nm difference Ludendorff Kaserne is in the middle of nowhere , north of Fulda, over the East German border in , well East Germany. McPheeters Barracks in the middle of a village at the outskirt of Fulda.

What we can currently be sure of is that ED will continue to seek to keep these modules functional for the duration of 2.9.X, there is no current commitment beyond that. I can't tell you if ED will offer refunds, what I can say is that there is no responsibility on ED to make sure updates don't break third-party modules, it's on module devs to maintain compatibility, so no, it won't be ED who broke them if that happens after 2.9.X - you could ask Razbam how they plan to compensate users as they are the devs and are therefore responsible for compatibility, but I doubt you'll get the response you'd want. If a module does cease to be compatible with a future version of DCS, I believe ED will offer access to the last build that module functioned with - but that is something someone official would need to confirm.

У Ка-50 и Ка-50_3 в мультиплеере если один клиент наблюдает за другим с внешних видов анимация убирания/выпуска шасси идет рывками. Воспроизводится 100%. Один летит и убирает - другой смотрит за ним с внешних видов.