All Activity

Any ETA on a new stable release?

Заплачь ещё, читать сначала научись и понимать при этом суть прочитанного, только альтернативно одарённые воспринимают мир по одним картинкам, не понимая сопроводительного текста и таки ДА, в авиации всё делается по УТВЕРЖДЁННОЙ документации, тех, кто этого не понимает и тем более сознательно нарушает ни чего хорошего не ожидает ...только где авиация и где ты "менеджер недоучка", ни хрена не знаешь, только умничать пытаешься и хамить.... а ЗШ-7 на твоей аватарке...

I support. This was always first on the list.

Also ich konnte erst jetzt wieder die Seite aufrufen.

A fix for this has been tested internally, hopefully we will have a tweak in a patch soon. thank you

Еще они не выйдут при превышении скорости или при подвешеном ПТБ.

On the navigation panel in the cockpit of MiG-29A, we have three Beacon presets to press, but hmm, I'm looking... where do I enter them? The Radio tab (settings in Mission Editor) doesn't have that option. Any idea?

Yes. Take example from Su-25T manual - all units are metric and all cockpit references are for original russian version.

Hi This used to work in a previous version but it no longer works on Dedicated Servers. The helipads do spawn but it does not create Dynamic Spawn slots on the server as it does not appear on the list. This is crucial for our dynamic mission with 200+ helipads that need to be randomized and placing them in the ME is not the best solution. Thank you. local template = { units = {}, y = pos.y, x = pos.x, name = Name, hidden = false, visible = true, } for i, helipadPos in ipairs(HelipadPositions) do local padName = Name if i > 1 then padName = string.format("%s-%d", Name, i) end local unitTemplate = { unitId = nil, ["name"] = padName, ["category"] = "Heliports", ["shape_name"] = ShapeName, ["type"] = Type, ["heliport_callsign_id"] = CallSign or 1, ["heliport_frequency"] = Frequency or 127.5, ["heliport_modulation"] = Modulation or 0, ["y"] = helipadPos.y, ["x"] = helipadPos.x, ["heading"] = helipadPos.heading or 0, } if DynamicSpawns then unitTemplate.dynamicSpawn = true if AllowHotStart then unitTemplate.allowHotStart = true end end if DynamicCargo then unitTemplate.dynamicCargo = true end template.units[i] = unitTemplate end local helipadGroup = coalition.addGroup(Country, -1, template)

Good to know, thx!

Yes...the Super is a great headset, so far. TBH, I fly Falcon BMS, due to the dynamic campaign and new terrain, as my main combat sim. So, I'll continue to tweak DCS as I have time...priorities! I've also had some good luck with MSFS2020 so far. The Super's immersion, given the FOV, is wonderful. I am using NeckSafer, too. Slowly getting all of it tweaked.

Yes, but in knots. It should be metric if the cockpit is set to metric.

@BIGNEWYCan confirm as well, this is not working anymore. This is crucial for our mission when creating 200+ helipads to avoid ME work and randomize the locations.

I have incredible performance and visual quality with Quadviews. And I see you have the same CPU and GPU as me, and even more system RAM. I wonder how our experiences with Quad views are so different? I can not live without it It might cause issues at night time, but I have yet to do any real testing with that. Hope you enjoy your Super. Try other things than just DCS too, it's an amazing headset

Same here - pre-designate, CCIP, CCRP all falling short. Bombs miss.trk

Con quell' hardware , secondo me, assolutamente no.

Sort of on the same line of topic... Any plans to migrate the "better" clouds from the static system over to the Dynamic system so that we can have the intersecting weather systems with actual clouds that look more like clouds and less like cottonballs?

From Dassault's own website: https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/group/2025-paris-air-show/illustrated-news/the-store-dassault-aviation-new-simulation-section-to-explore/

Is there an updated version?

What puts me off of public MP is the lack of hardcore servers that enforce realistic gameplay, through realistic mission settings (e.g. no units and aircraft visible on the F10 map, including your own aircraft) and custom server rules (e.g. no takeoff from taxiways, no refueling/rearming on the runway). Maybe there are such servers, but I'm not aware of any atm (there definitely have been in the past, e.g. @Alpenwolf's server). It would help a lot if the DCS server browser would offer gameplay filters, so you can filter for servers which offer gameplay settings that suit you. And yes, I'm aware that organized squadrons offer that kind of gameplay, but I just don't like the restrictions that come with it. I much prefer public MP, where I can fly whenever I want, don't need to enter into any comittments.

You have quite an odd GPU, how recent is its driver?

This is the reason I want to see more Cold War modules, and I am happy about seeing World War II get expanded. The closest thing you have to balance with dissimilar air combat is to design a mission around contemporary aircraft with similar systems. There are limits on what we can do with RedFor due to the lack of available documentation. However even though we are limited to historic options, these eras need to be fleshed out. This is the reason I want the MiG-27, whatever Fitter and Su-24 we can get added to DCS. If there is any chance of getting decent REDFOR SEAD it would be these planes. I'd love to see Heatblur do the Su-24 because of Jester AI. I don't care who does the Fitter, and 27. I know the Fitter is supposed to be in the Pipeline. NO argument there. The problem is getting the proper documentation. There are only two ways I could see this being done without violating Russian security laws. The first would be a mod such as the codename Flanker project https://www.facebook.com/FlankerEX/ the second is to be happy with AI. Now unless you can come up with a third way which doesn't involve completely some miracle to improve global international relations (Which I'd love to do anyhow) I'd love to hear it as that would be on topic.

I awaiting the official news about them.... (yes, has many rumors about them and Dasault)....

Ah yes, sorry i understand what you mean now. I though this was fairly obvious. Creating curves on an FFB system is highly compromised in many ways and yes, the trim envelope can be reduced for this reason. However what I was trying to say in my first post is that there is still no issue or conflict with using DCS control curves and using a force feedback system. You just have to deal with the compromises. And having a slightly reduced trim envelope in many aircraft is a non-issue. Hence I used curves in the MiG-29 since my stick extension is about 1/3 of the control stick in the real aircraft. And yes, the reason the AFCS failed is as a result of the stick trimming but running out of available trim deflection on the real stick during the bit test, hence not meeting the requirements of the module's AFCS stick trim deflection in the game. I'm just telling everyone who is using a FFB stick, in layman's terms - having too much curve on the control axis may be the reason for the AFCs bit test fail, like it was in my case.

I'm pretty sure that the Yak-40 and An-26 are the most used aircrafts in my missions not counting player/client controlled AC