All Activity

Control panel shows a contiuous ribbon. Axis tune says otherwise. Maybe it's a Saitek thing. ..

IIRC BigNewy commented somewhere that this is on their tracker and should be fixed eventually as they are aware of the problem

Even with max resolution of my Quest 3 I can´t see all weapons. It woul´d be great if there was a slidebar.

I guess VR users also experience this problem with using HD or lower resolution Weapon-list-window with slider on the side or up/down arrows on the top/bottom of the "box" could be a solution. 1920*1080 2560*1440

Can you perhaps expand on your issue a bit? Like did you set the frequency for the FAC beforehand? What is "contacting ATC is hit or mis"? What exactly do you mean the comm menu does nothing? Which aircraft? Did you set the frequency for the units? Did you set the frequency for your own aircraft? Pressed correct PTT button? Within radio range? Line of sight to the unit? Do you have example missions and tracks to upload?

It would also help greatly to be able to grab control just to bail it out when the AI drives it into impossible situations.

I think you are missunderstanding this. Razbam did not leave DCS yet. And even if they will cut all lines in the future they can claim a reason for this, namely not beeing payd for their sales. So the question if Razbam is forced to give out the code by contract could well be part of the litigation and therefore ED should better not claim that they will have access to it in the future.

For air cover, an anti-aircraft missile brigade was included in the 40th Army, and one squadron of MiG-21 fighter and fighter-bomber aircraft flew to the airfields of the DRA. The fighters belonged to the 115th Guards IAP, based at the Kokaydi airfield in Turkmenistan, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel P. I. Nikolaev. Kokaydi was, as they say, right behind the mountain, just fifty kilometres from the border - in the Jarqoʻrgʻon District of the Surxondaryo Region, being one of the airfields closest to the border. MiG-21bis from the 115th Guards IAP. One of the squadrons of the regiment had the honorary name "Soviet Lithuania" since the war. Source: Камуфляж И Бортовые Эмблемы В Афганской Кампании, Авиатехники Советских Ввс, Виктор Марковский - Игорь Приходченко

I have highlighted it to the team again, especially for VR but we need some free dev time for the lighting tasks and we do not have that currently.

Still wondering if anyone has thoughts on this... because unless I'm missing something, ED did say they'd retain the files, and now we're finding out they don't. That's not a legal gray area, and unless I am missing something that seems like a broken promise to customers?

I'd like this grass distance to be increased too and I've been trying to find if there is a way (used to be before) but I can't find it either.

Any update on this? It's kind of a core feature for JF.

That is exactly what was supposed to happen after hawk - all "future" modules were supposed to be secured. But considering that ED is very silent about that we do not know if it ever happened. Maybe they could not agree to the terms of that "handing over" and in reality not even one new module is secure. Or maybe all new contracts include it. Take your pick

@PhantomHans Good point, u mean an alternate DCS reality where Grumman did not get murdered for political reason?

In that regard, I would have actually expected something like this to be contractually regulated from the outset. Something along the lines of a clause obligating the developer to hand over the source code to ED in the event that the developer ceases operations or discontinues support for future versions.

yes we have tested and it seems ok, but the testing team will continue to check it.

When placing a JTAC on the ground and adding FAC as a task, there isn't an option to contact them via the communications menu unless easy communications is on. Additionally, contacting ATC is hit or miss. I have tried every controller option but regardless, the JTAC menu (even the AWACS) comm menu does nothing.

Only had time to try one scenario, but it was working last night.

There are issues that have been reported but not answered so far. Who is in charge of it? Could someone at least provide some answer? Many thanks in advance.

Yeah, I don't understand the mystery in that. It could even be a marketing tool for the 3rd party: " No more Hawk controversy. Our module is secure as long as DCS World is alive - buy it with confidence" Unless most of them are not secure - then I "understand" ED's reluctance to talk about it

Yes, I can't get them to lock onto any aircraft, no matter the angle. But they still lock onto the sun just fine!

The AJS37's AIM-9B and AIM-9L air-to-air missiles cannot lock onto any aircraft (regardless of the attempted locking angle). (Though they can lock onto the sun )

I've not found any need for mine, got lucky with the fit this time around.

did you install the strap the wrong way around?

Are you holding consent to fire button? Goarge is more accurate after doing this, also some vehicles deploy smoke screen, this can mess with accuraacy too, as it should. AGM 114L is milimiter radar guided Hellfire, not sure there is backup SLH guidance, I doubt