All Activity

I also can‘t understand why these two most famous carriers haven‘t been released for DCS.

@RichCotte Hi! Any chance you could make some liveries for Vietnam era as well? Would be awesome. Thanks for your work.

Thanks, I’m so glad you liked it. It’s my favorite mission of the campaign as well. This and mission 9, but 5 is more epic in terms of scale. Good luck with the rest of the missions!

Great post, and I agree it’s exaggerated as it is. To me it feels like the flutter should occur when side slipping, in which case the « improper alignment » would indeed kick in, the mast being at an AoA. Maybe link its behavior to the ball being centered or not, the speed being at a certain speed onward ? Would be a great cue as a visual piloting reference too.

It's coming, just been occupied with higher priority tasks. I'll probably have it out this weekend.

No, just been occupied with other tasks. A video is coming.

I have also flown the viper for a similar amount of time, and while it probably has been this way for a long time, i dont think its correct. Growing up in a "viper-city" i have always watched F-16s jump up after takeoff. If you saw my post a few replies up, you can see that when i do exactly as "the book" says, i end up far over the calculated takeoff speed, and the jet barely responds at all at rotate speed. So its not something im just coming up with, but its something i have been noticing for a long time but only now felt the urge to investigate.

My understanding of this is that it should behave very similarly to how the BF-109 and FW-190D with MW-50 work. As you increase throttle towards the top end, at some point you see a rapid distinct manifold pressure gain (In those aircraft, as well as the P-47 with manual water injection, you also have a distinct audio correlation). What I don't see or hear is any indication that anything is any different. It appears to be a smooth up and down with no MP "bump". Something else I question is the rate of change, at the appropriate altitudes, of switching the blower into different settings. It has quite a bit more delay than I would expect to boost manifold pressure. In general, I remain confused and will let thing settle out because I understand this is a work in progress, but I am unable to achieve historical sea-level performance, but I am able to achieve high altitude performance (20,000ft). *shrug*

By the book, yes. I read that in reality pilots preferred MAG.

On 2.9.18.12722 , behavior was changed to return values as per the change logs and forums post... This was then reversed on hotfix 2.9.18.12899. Returning nil seems like a consistent behavior to me, but that particular tidbit was not spelled out in the change log or in the forum post about this (granted, I did not read all the thread)

These freezes and stutters you guys are talking about, for Crystal Super, OG Crystal and Light - are you talking about in DCS? Or is it in every game you have testet?

Update : Did the same flight with the Chinook, as close to the same route as possible. Stutters ? yes Freezes ? no. So either the OH-58D is causing the freezes (for some reason) , or there something I my hardware config I changed today that actually helped. (Change the power schedule for USB devices to keep USb devices powered when not in use)

Locking onto the tanker is what they do IRL, too, you just need to silence the radar (EMCON switch is good for that) to avoid microwaving the boomer when you get close enough to start using visual references.

The Viper doesn't fly off the runway by itself, you have to "unstick" it from the ground. Yes, that's exactly the word Viper drivers use, and it does feel like that in DCS. The Viper "sticks" to the runway when its nosewheel is on the ground, and it's notoriously sluggish when slow, especially in landing gains (gear down or AAR door open). It doesn't feel like the nimble fighter that it is until you get some air under the wings.

Kaplama hırsızlardan dolayı kaldırılmıştır.

Personally, I have the pedal trim turned off, I removed the springs from my pedals (CH Pro Pedals). The microswitch is set to Automatic Off and I have assigned an on/off switch to the joystick.

Dear Eagle Dynamics, The DCS community demands that you provide some kind of legitimate, clear and easily understandable response to what the future looks like for Razbam mods that were purchased well before all this drama started and what the current state of that relationship is. The community also requires an explanation of the future plans for all Early Access mods and when they are to be deemed complete. ...I really don't know why we have to ask. Also, Is it wrong to expect that all official DCS mods be working and functional at least 99% post every update?

Let it be a gift to thieves.

I get it that it's probably working as intended but it would be nice to have an option to get a range...or an automatic option for him to check the range if he is on free fire maybe? I will try to get a track as soon as possible.

I fly F-16 for over 4 years and I think there is no any significal change (if any at all) regaridng take off and landing. I do always the same, and plane does always the same as well. Don't know where you guys come up with this "bug" now really. If you do it "by the book" there is no problem what so ever, and as I said, its the same for years.

1 : I already excluded any file or folder related to either pimax or DCS in windows defender (security) for a long time. 2 : I also always delete the FXO and metashader folder after each update 3 : Log === Log opened UTC 2025-07-30 14:36:06 2025-07-30 14:36:07.517 INFO EDCORE (Main): Platform Timer Resolution: 15.39ms 2025-07-30 14:36:08.086 INFO EDCORE (Main): Created boot pool: n:16 2025-07-30 14:36:08.086 INFO APP (Main): Command line: "C:\Games\DCS World\bin-mt\DCS.exe" 2025-07-30 14:36:08.086 INFO APP (Main): DCS/2.9.18.12722 (x86_64; MT; Windows NT 10.0.26100) 2025-07-30 14:36:08.086 INFO APP (Main): Application revision: 252722 2025-07-30 14:36:08.086 INFO APP (Main): Renderer revision: 26305 2025-07-30 14:36:08.086 INFO APP (Main): Terrain revision: 26363 2025-07-30 14:36:08.086 INFO APP (Main): Build number: 364 2025-07-30 14:36:08.086 INFO APP (Main): CPU cores: 16, threads: 16, System RAM: 65277 MB, Pagefile: 4096 MB 2025-07-30 14:36:08.086 INFO APP (Main): CPU info: system affinity mask: 1111111111111111 process affinity mask: 1111111111111111 CPU: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-12900K [1x L3 caches] CPU has uniform cache size 30 MB (per cache) CPU cores have different efficiency classes: [0-1] logical cores with efficiency class 1: {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} logical cores with efficiency class 0: {8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15} CPU cores have different performance classes: [0-2] logical cores with performance class 2: {4, 5} logical cores with performance class 1: {0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7} logical cores with performance class 0: {8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15} common cores: {2, 3, 6, 7} render cores: {4, 5, 0, 1} IO cores: {8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15} unavailable cores: {} pause10: 0.036165 us (std dev: 0.078792) pause10: 1138 cycles (std dev: 2531.9)

SRS version 2.2 added a native Linux command line server. I've recently pushed commit 2f81056, which uses the native SRS server in place of the Windows GUI server via Wine. That removes quite a bit of complexity. When upgrading and existing installation, you will have to manually update all instance configurations DCS.* from DCS_defaults.

I don't think you missed anything. I flew both routes. Nothing special happened. Just a regular flight to the airport. I don't have VR. During normal (real-world) flight procedures, you synchronize in MAG and then switch to GYRO. I fly in GYRO. I also check the magnetic declination setting in the copilot's cockpit.

precisely. I get that all software has a shelf life, to an extent. But ED seems to be somehow directly involved in either not ensuring there is some security of these modules in perpetuity and/or directly involved in RB ceasing support altogether due some sort of contractual dispute. EITHER WAY - ED should have done more to keep the integrity of these modules in tact. I'm sure RB isn't without fault here.. but again, ED is the one that benefits most from the sale of any of these items - they own the core sandbox and the enjoy the benefit of outside developers making it better. There is no doubt that HB moved the needle greatly with the F-14 and now the F-4 and that RB did the same with the F-15E and AV-8. And with the proverbial swipe of a pen (or key mash) the hundreds of dollars spent on their modules will likely wither away. This is a poor business model. For me, it will be very, very difficult to spend any more money here. I can only hope that something can change that for me personally.

Hm... if we can get the coordinates of all map objects, than we should be able to make ore own maps with these data ...