All Activity

We have no idea what they did during that period.

One more CTD with Windows 11!! No program running in the background! dcs.log dcs.log-20250727-230214.zip dxdiag.txt

I'm replaying Reforger campaign and there is no carrier crew on any of the missions and I have to hook to catapult manually. Is there any chance that there is a fix for carrier crew missing.

You know how I started fixing my mental health? I realized that if I had a problem with everybody, then Im the problem. Some people just never ask themselves that question, and most certainly Ron should be doing some genuine reflection of himself. Legitimately burned his own business to the ground to spite ED because he was caught with his hands in the cookie jar. If Ron doesnt want to reflect on that then good riddance.

two requests that are bound to repeat themselves: - CFTs - A2G for some reason...

No, I get it. Bought them all on day 1, but to keep them current kind of makes you wonder if ED pays 3rd parties a percentage to keep them updated rather than a flat rate per module. Harrier should have been done years ago.

As Raven stated, set it to be a slider instead of axis in the tuning window. It'll take some getting used to since you don't really 'feel' anything like you would in an actual airplane. But, just be gentle and increase input as you get slower.

A few thoughts the mirage 2000, most of the documentation used is publicly available. Some misc documents related to the 2000-5 exist F-15, there are some F-15SA (Saudi EX) manuals around, a few hundred pages. Not sure what they would do for radar but most of the plane itself is well documented. Sea harrier. In addition to the manuals being publicly available (albeit not online) some papers from the UK national archives on Blue Vixen are available and quite detailed.

SP Cold, auto start Kola MAP F16 - AQ-33 / LTNING Pod After boresighting the Mavs in the air, both the previous and new TGP lock onto the ground target used for boresight (SP1). Even after TMS Aft and CZ, the TGP remains fixed on SP1 as I proceed from the IP (SP2) to the target area (SP3). I attempted CZ and TMS Aft again, but the TGP won't shift to SP1. This issue hasn’t occurred before—I’m fairly sure it worked correctly when the new TGP was first released. Not sure if it’s user error. I've included the TRK file for review. Please advise. Thanks. TGP Issue.trk TGP Issue.trk

I've retested and still have the issue. I've created a bug report with TRK file in F16 Bugs - Thanks.

So on 4 April 44, reps from Fw and BMW meet at AGO in Oschersleben, determining the neccessity of the changes to the airframe for GM1 installation to be implemented after contract assignment. Some minor internal fixture stuff, tank integration, the neccessity of two additional acces doors and a reworked oxygen-bottle setup (similar to the one "on the Ta 152"). They also agree on getting the required and missing data by 6 April 44 and they agree on getting notice by AGO about the go-ahead on serial production on 8 April 44. Incidentally, on 8 April 44, there's three losses of A-8s, which mark the first known losses (acc Rodeike): 2./JG 1 - WNr. 170 044 - Ofw Anton-Rudolf Pfiffer takes the chute near Salzwedel, which by chance is only 100km from Oschersleben where AGO is about to decide whether to go ahead (or not) with GM1 system implementation into their A-8 production 1./JG 11 - WNr. 170 034 - Uffz. Herbert Nast KIA above Lüneburger Heide (a bit farther north than Salzwedel) 2./JG26 - WNr. 170 009 - Lt. Karl-Heinz Willius KIA near Kamperzeedijk (sounds dutch to me) That's three Cottbus-built A-8s with access panels ("...those were in all A-8s...") that supposedly were only determined to be neccessary four days prior. Fiction. No, you claimed the R4 designation ceased with the re-naming to A-9 by the end of November iaw Baubeschreibung 284. Then you show a source about exactly that supposed R4 designation (A-8 with swapped TS motors), which allegedly started "into service" in December 44 - after the "renaming to A-9" in those circumstances was decided. ======================================== What we've established so far: - no GM1 use in operations on 190A aircraft (or F/G for that matter) - AGO was to build 200 airframes with full up GM1 equipment with the "Rüstsatz 4" designation (Fw 190A-8/R4), starting in April 44 - this never materialized for reasons not quite clear so far* - supposedly there were eleven R4 aircraft in 10./JG 11 by the end of 1944 which came out of several production lots from AGO WNrs, built beween August and October 1944 - Erhöhte Notleistung was introduced in July 44 on D motors, TU motors were built into new aircraft in June 44 with the same rating, TU motors slightly heavier - D and TU motors are interchangeable, TU motors had provisions (injector nozzles) for GM1 but lacked the piping and tank - the 115l tank behind the pilot was standard and could be removed and exchanged for a 140l MW50 tank (115l ws also possible) or a 85l GM1 tank, this never happend in operations - A-9 aircraft were earmarked for TS engines after the delay of the TH motors with production starting in "fall 1944" (Focke-Wulf Entwicklungsmitteilung 3 August 1944), TS engines can be installed on A-8s (e.g. in depot maintenance) - TS engines into production airframes in September 44 at Cottbus (possibly with Mimetall Erfurt in August, but unlikely) - Baubeschreibung 284 dated late November 44 mentions that production aircraft with TS motors are named A-9 (which was already clear in August), it does not state aircraft are to be renamed A-9 after the swap from a D or TU motor to a TS motor. - the R4 designation for TS engines in the 190A-8 cannot be proven (or disproven for that matter) - the existence of those "R4" aircraft could match with R4s (eleven!) at 10./JG 11, incidentally built by AGO...or not *Most likely the bombing attacks onto the factory from 11 April 44 which caused severe damage and other, following attacks in late May and in June were the reason why AGO wouldn't go ahead.

You are correct - this is close to what CB is. This would basically be a step between closed beta and open beta, to give those that don't have closed beta access opportunity and time to test and prepare for the official release (as I presume the closed beta testers currently have?). The reason I advocate for making it harder to access is to prevent a repeat of the past, where the open beta effectively became the main release. My suggestion still allows those who genuinely want to test to do so, since access would be shared directly by DM (e.g., advising of IP address of server). It would discourage server hosts from using the beta to attract players by being "first with the module," as these servers wouldn’t appear publicly—reducing the temptation to treat the beta as a production version and avoiding a repeat of what we saw previously with the Open Beta solution. So, those who would run / those intended for would be those who specifically want to do beta testing, and fix breaking changes before it's released to public. At present, there is no opportunity for those outside of closed beta to do this. Often, non-CB server operators and mission designers find out only at release what breaking changes there are. The amount of pressure this can put on people to have to provide fixes immediately can be significant. This would hopefully help to alleviate a lot of this. Of course an additional side benefit too would be that more bugs could potentially be flagged that slip by the CB team before it reaches production servers. (This is no dig at the CB team BTW - I genuinely appreciate and value what they do and the time they donate often to test each release before it gets to the rest of us - no doubt an often thankless task that is often overlooked by the community, and comments are mostly only made when something gets through - not for all the things that they have caught). Maybe I'm out of line, or this is a bad idea for reasons I haven't seen. I understand that an Open Beta solution could bring in challenges. (Such as module release announcements - as ED in the past had basically used the OB release, not public release date of a module as it's official release - maybe in those occasional instances a OB is skipped - and only used for all the other updates?). I know I don't have all the answers here. I'm just advocating for some sort of discussion on potential solutions where we can change to assist those who are finding the current method difficult and discouraging which I'm concerned could lead to further burnout for content creators and server hosts. In the end, this comes out of a passion for wanting to see DCS be the best it can be, and reduce the amount of last minute rush some server operators and content creators need to do.

Hi folks, Noob here just bought the F4U. No stranger to flight sims or mods but I can not for the life of me get Hawkeye60's WW2 Naval and WW2 Japanese Naval mods to load into my game. I downloaded OvGME, I "think" I'm putting them in the right directory file. But nothing is working. I know that in IL-2 there is a "master switch" of sorts to allows the game to use mods or not. Is that here in DCS too? Is there a video or a training guide you can throw a link to a new guy? I'm stuck. Thanks folks.

It didn't hold up sufficiently long for anything remotely like normal business to resume.

I have benefited greatly from your training missions on various aircraft, so it makes me VERY happy to have been able to give back to you!!

the true proble is, some people like me, switch the hud mode to A/G already on the ground, which is wrong, it should be switch on in the air, it would make erro, and it ultimately casue you unable designate

That was it! ... thanks a lot for the help, the DCS-BIOS uses the following script in /Hooks/ DCS-BIOS-LuaConsole-hook.lua After reading the post, I added these lines to my autoexec.cfg if not net then net = {} end net.allow_unsafe_api = { -- this defines the secure zones where net.dostring_in() should be called from "userhooks" } net.allow_dostring_in = { -- and this defines the scopes that you want to use from net.dostring_in() "mission" } ... and the issue got solved thanks a lot, I learned something new Best regards

And? What does that have to do with the FW-190A8 variant? Every FW-190A9 had a TS engine from the "production line" at BMW. FW-190A8's did not come with BMW801S engines at all. If you put an BMW801S engine on your FW-190A8, Focke Wulf says you call it an FW-190A9. It's a simple concept.

It looks AWESOME =Katze=, especially now that you have a carrier to base this beauty on!! Love the skins too. Thanks man!

Fixed. It will be available in a forthcoming update.

That and they need to do something for the people that bought these modules and are going to be holding a load of oogatz come 3.0. Whether it be in-store credit or what, I don't know, but they gotta do something. If they don't they risk burning customer good-will and support.

Thanks for the tip, didn't knew about this change .... will investigate, thanks a lot.

Hi all, I've really been enjoying this campain. Due to work committments it has been about 2 months between mission 9 and mission 10 for me. I was sure that I was doing my start-up exactly the same as I usually did, but today Jester would not align the INS. I figured out that I have to go into the Crew Contact menu and ask him to start alignment. What I remember from before is that I have to completely ignore jester and not respond to him, he will do everything automatically. I don't remember having to manually ask him to do the alignment before. Is this a recent change or is my memory that bad? Thanks Mumby

Что-то в МТ цели ловчее захватываются, чем просто Point. Жмешь, жмешь, то потухнет - то погаснет...

@Vasco Ferreira this seems like some stupid AI bug tnullhat I am not able to fix so far. It seems like Cajun is dragging a static object with him (it is visible on F10 map), but even if I remove the object or change his waypoint he still falls into the water.. the speed at WP2 is irrelevant because it is linked to fix arrival time and should work OK if he pushes from orbit as he should, which he never does because he doesn't survive that long. I have an idea for a workaround though...