All Activity

На иностранных форумах думаешь не отъедает?

Hi: I have a number of aircraft mods which cannot be damaged. (And a number that can ) When I compare the working planes vs the not working ones, the .lua files, for the damage info seems to be there. At least to my eyes. It seems that there may be some small thing that needs to be changed/ added. A zero to a 1 etc. As you can tell I'm not a modder Can anyone suggest where I might look ? Thanks

It Depends on wich old version you're talking about, because after new terrain streaming, fog, volumetric lights and other things DCS has become more demanding. The last patch caused a performance regression, more noticeable in ME loading/saving times, and also more antifreeze warnings, from 2-3 to 8-12 on the same mission, but maybe it's only a scripting issue, because with simple missions there are no warnings. ...Edit: the core/thread pegged at 100% is a long standing issue.

I can see two possible answers. option 1- crank down infantry hit points so that all if not most, hits are insta-kills. Option 2- toss in a damage model and medivac. The ideal human damage model might be the following. First is a floating-point to calculate HP. Next have a variable called wound-size. - Wound size would calculate how many hit points a solider loses every second. A healthy solider will have a wound size of 0 then when ever a solider gets hit wound size would grow based on the severity of the hit. Lastly, and an incapacitation check- This check a randomly generated floating point to see if you get 1 which triggers incapacitation the system might do a role every mili-second, starting at 20% HP loss and increasing until you hit 40% damage, where the role is always 1. The unit would continue to bleed based on the wound size. Lastly especially good for helicopter pilots wounded ground troops will hit trigger a dust-off or some sort of medivac. The compromise would be to incapacitate a unit once it hits X amount of damage and don't mess about with the bleeding. Still give us the medivac mission

Agree 100% Btw, if you can read Dutch (which is sorta "drunk German"), this book is also worth looking into: null

Looks pretty off center over the port upper side intake to me...

Проблема с назначением осей и кнопок на джойстиках и педалях. В частности - зумм на слайдер РУДа X-52 PRO. При наведении курсора всплывает сообщение: "Для данного устройства нет доступных команд". У кого то есть\была такая проблема? И удалось ли победить?

Das Sommerloch etwas füllen Wegen komplett umstieg auf Virpil, ist abzugeben: https://www.kleinanzeigen.de/s-anzeige/thrustmaster-ava-offset-verlaengerung-f16-stick-throttle/3158356581-225-15243 TM AVA Base, TM F16 Stick, Offset Adapter, TM Throttle .... alles Neuwertig und die jeweils letzte Version. Sehr Gerne (eigentlich nur so) alles zusammen. Preisvorschläge nehme ich gerne an. Bitte in die Kleinanzeigen schreiben, wenn ihr Interesse habt. Ich Danke

I've never worn PVS-15s, mainly 7s and -14s, so it's a bit limited, but usually it is a bit clearer in regards to ambient light, so I would say that this is a bit odd though.

Before I updated the game everything was fine, I have always played with these setting on this system and changing settings to low makes no difference. I guess this is a multithreading issue as I'm seeing one core pegged out at 100%. null

I added MLRS rocket launchers and cluster munitions to the MP mission. During testing, I found that the dispersion - the impact area is unrealistically small. I was unable to find the specification for the M26 rocket with the M77 DPICM bomblets warhead. Just as the height of disintegration can be changed for clusters dropped from aircraft, it is certainly set in a real MLRS. Can the impact area of HE ammunition be increased to make it look more realistic? In its current state, the area is so small that it does not even make sense to use the MLRS.

We know that there is enough documentation/data to create FF MIG-23 and SU-17/22. As RAZBAM is effectively gone, can ED pick up the slack with missing FF REDFOR starting with the MIG-23 (after the MIG-29) and move onto the SU-17/22 if Octopus-G have given up on that module (speak to Octopus-G and obtain the model they were working on - it looked great in the videos they produced, before it went quiet). And let us know what FF REDFOR are 'possible' DCS is too BLUFOR heavy - balance is needed where able I hope for a FF SU-24 at some point in the future but that might be a stretch

And a few more..

Nice summary. This particular point had great significance far beyond the decision-making processes and political sensitivities of the time: This meant a far-reaching implication practically only made possible by the decision to go with the F-104: it enabled the West German aviation industry to return to world standards, since the F-104G could be built under license. FJS was planning to build a German defense industry so as to no longer be dependent on foreign deliveries in the long term. Until then, a lot of armaments had to be procured from abroad. For the Mirage III, which had been the favoured option for FJS for some time, the French (more precisely de Gaulle) had a clear opinion on licenses or nuclear weapons options. From a longer-term perspective, as cynical as it may sound in view of the many pilots who died in accidents, it almost didn't matter how good or bad the Starfighter was. In the long run, it was a win for the german aerospace industry far beyond the operational period of the "Witwenmacher". It paved the way for Airbus, Tornado and Eurofighter.

Practically zero as flyable modules. The likelyhood of these to appear as AI assets is infinitely higher. Starlifter would be awesome to see though, that's for sure.

Если что-то гипотетически могло быть разглашено в симуляторе, т.е. если нарушение гипотетически уже совершено, то каким чудным образом уход (в ридонли) с форума мог бы спасти от наказания?

What's the chance we'll get DCS-official static C-5/Galaxy and C-141/Starlifter, the latter with both short and stretch versions, please? It would be great and authentic if they also flew as AI; even having them there for ramp ambience would be a step in the right Cold War direction. Is this on the roadmap?

Yes, https://github.com/DCS-Skunkworks/DCSFlightpanels , it also needs DCS BIOS , https://github.com/DCS-Skunkworks/dcs-bios if you want to use DCS Bios mapping of the switches. Keyboard emulation will work without DCS Bios. If you start up DCS Flightpanels it should detect the panel. If it doesn’t, then there’s a driver issue.

I see. I thought it was a mission you made yourself. Can't really change it then. Well, to an extend. I doubt many Soviet pilots carried microfiche writing equipment with them. That is definitely a point. If ED was to take care of this at all (I doubt they will) a very walkable way would be to just suppress the markings for legs that are too short.

I hope the ships will have more advanced damage models than before?

I have a similar system (5600x/6700XT/32GB) and my FPS are all over the place and sometimes drop to 15fps while landing on a busy multiplayer airfield. I also had hopes to play it on medium/high settings on a 1080P monitor but i also cannot get it to play smoothly. My old 980 performed more or less the same as my 6700XT. Its very weird. I just tried the BF6 Beta at ultra settings and it plays smooth as butter i suspect that Adrenalin is the problem for DCS but that is just a feeling

Don't let some of comments around here fool you. Your observations are correct, though your conclusions may not be. However, it's only so because you come from a different time and different world. I was there too. You can see from the list of sims I played over the years on my profile. Your only "sin" here, is that you expect the AI's to play by the same or similar rules that you do. They unfortunately, DO NOT. I have fought AI's that had both of their wings missing, and they still managed to climb at steady 45 degrees nose high, 75 knots, all the way to 60000ft. They could have gone higher as well, however I COULD NOT FOLLOW them. Me, in my completely untouched, pristine plane. The AI's in DCS are like the Agents in the Matrix. They cheat. The system is ALWAYS giving them all the energy they need to continue flying. An AI in DCS will NEVER STALL. EVER. Under any circumstance. If to planes entered a double Immelmann in DCS, one at 170 knots, the other at 320 knots, who do you thing has better chances of completing it? If your answer was the one at 320, you would be wrong. If your answer was the one at 170, you would also be wrong. The correct answer is the one flown by the AI. Also, the AI in DCS ALWAYS has power/thrust to ratio greater then 1. If you initiate a climb at say 150 knots more then the AI that's on your six, the AI will follow you into that climb without any problems. More then that, it will actually catch up with you. You see, as your planes loses power as you climb, and thus you start losing airspeed and eventually stall, the AI wont. It's follow you into low orbit if it needs to. So ignore all the comments that advise you to use energy tactics, unless they mean single strife/slashing dives and then bugging out. It won't work. Some planes are more guilty of this then others (when controlled by the AI), but as a general rule, they all follow this principles. Planes like the MiG-15, MiG-21 and F-5 are particularly notorious of this. They will, out climb and out turn ANY plane in the game if you play by their rules. Fortunately for jet plane users, these planes often have at least some form of advantage that compensate for the AI behavior, be it weapon system, or raw performance. Those who fly WW2 planes, aren't that lucky. Bottom line, IF you want to compare plane performance, do it by using either AI's as controllers for both planes, or humans for both planes. Unfortunately, I own neither the Dora not the Kurfürst, so I can't evaluate the relatives strengths and weaknesses of these relative to the Corsair in DCS. However, when I compared them in the hands of the AI at veteran skill level (avoiding using Ace levels, they are the worst when it comes to breaking the rules of physics), I got this: As you can see, the Corsair soundly beats the Dora, and while not quite as good as the 109, it still pulls a roughly 50% win ratio. The 190d isn't all that hard really. The AI controlled Dora is very close to your own Corsair in performance, and you can generally out turn it in horizontal if you are patient enough. However, you can make things a lot easier for yourself, if you do some out of plane maneuvering. The Kurfürst is whole other can of worms though. I have no idea how to fight that when AI controlled. I have seen it go less then 74 knots and out turning me, I have seen it out accelerate me, and catch up with me, even when I started at 350 knots, and he started at 170. The examples I mentioned above, are actually from me experimenting with a veteran AI in the 109. It also out turns you at EVERY speed. I think we may have a case of an F-5, Mig-15 or MiG-21 in the warbirds here. But if you need some help in taking down Doras, here's one way that I do it: Hope some of this helps. Don't give up. A day may come, when the AI finally plays by our rules as well. When that day comes, I'll start playing WW2 campaigns. Alas..... But it is not this day....

I totally agree. Creating WWII missions with accurate and realistic AI units is a lot more fun than without. These 3D models don't create themselves and I'm more than happy to pay a little contribution!

Yes. After the last update, taxiing has been marginally improved but remains problematic. It should spin readily with differential breaking and a very small amount of power. Currently, you need nearly full throttle for making a 180 turn when stationary.