Leaderboard

2.8 is planned for tomorrow if final checks are good. As for its contents you know from the newsletter we have some weather improvements coming, I would suggest waiting for the full changelog for other details thanks

Hey all, I put together a little tutorial on how to land the Tomcat on the boat following real life CASE I procedures:

From HeatBlur's FB page: null

No its the 26th tomorrow.

Throwing twice the amount of programmers at a task, doesn't half the time needed, but doubles it. Speaking from experience. Sometimes we have customers that are willing to pay double to shorten the developement time, but the answer is always the same: "It doesn't scale like that...."

This issue is as old as the module which released many years ago. The details are all linked below. My question here asks "Why has there been no final answer from the Devs on the ammunition in the Sabre after all these years and has this issue been forgotten?" Nineline, Bignewy, you've forwarded the topic up to the devs already. That's done and I thank you. May I ask you to now ask the devs the above question? For those unfamilar, there are a number threads about this topic, and I'm including three;

The fix should be in the next update.

На самом деле я больше анти советчик )))) А так как я со дня первого знакомства с проектом мечтаю о кликабельной Су-27 можете понять.

AVIRON Kfir Module FAQ on Discord https://discord.com/channels/541782213449089024/1006693985844219984/1032036587711762572

Dear all, sorry for the lack of updates. I just now have begun redoing this campaign with some of the fixes and issues addressed that I wanted addressed, there are a few more I am looking to get done as well, but I hope to be able to motor through the campaign and get it more to where I wanted it originally. I also, at the time of creation wanted a series of campaigns on all maps, I want to do some free content as well as the standard paid DLC campaigns, I want to add in some training aspects as well. I will try and keep people notified of my progress, as well I have noted feedback from other threads and will keep it in mind. Thanks all.

I'm pretty sure, Vulkan/Multi-Core would justify a V3.0....

I hope you can make it for tomorrow. Really excited for this update, especially VR improvements and dogfight AI. No more endless loops!

Thanks @BIGNEWY, very appreciated

2.7 больше не будет, 2.8 будет по готовности

I think no additional "tax" should be imposed. Clearly: majority does not intend to spend money on 3090/4090 in order to play this game. If ED wants to have the future, it should focus on optimizations that will make the mid-range PCs work well with DCS. Its time to stop thinking the customers will pay for software requiring users to follow Moore's Law cutting edge.

That depends on what exactly needs to be done. Having more eyes looking at the problem is helpful when the solution is unknown. If the solution is known, and the work involved boils down to physically writing down, testing, and correcting (possibly through several cycles) a few thousand lines of code, then adding manpower will not help most of the time. Programming changed a lot since the 90s, there's much more specialization, and there's much less breaking new ground and much more finding solutions someone already devised, then applying them to your own problem. I'm pretty sure that ED is not stuck on anything that requires huge creativity to overcome, but rather on common drudgery involved in actually coding the improvements. As far as carrying a pole goes, adding more people only helps until you run out of pole. Then, the more people you have, the harder it gets, what with all the tripping over one another's feet (and even if they know how to properly march in lockstep, you can only cram in so many of them). Just like with devs, there's an optimum number of carriers, and any people over that are better off tagging along behind it than trying to help.

The only fear I feel is that each time there is a big improvement in the graphics (either on the clouds or on the ground) the fps in VR becomes a pain, so I cross my fingers that once I deceived In short, I must remain positive and confident, in the meantime, thank you ED for this work

I found that turning vsync to "fast" in NVidia control panel helped a lot with stutters looking to the sides.

Caucus Free Flight/F18 with same graphics settings on each card in VR and a G2... 2080ti OC GPU frame time- 22ms 4090 FE running at 70% power target - 10ms I'll take it. Totally CPU bound now...

again, I will reiterate my offer. If winwing doesnt want to reward you, id be glad to. Sim app Pro made my game stutter like crazy in the past, so that i didnt use it for keeping my devices synced with DCS. Now I can and its great. I'd be glad to help you purchase something if you want to

This will probably be patch 2.8 We will get the M399, F15, Corsair,Marianas WW2, new clouds, new dogfight AI. Multicore support. Also my second fantasy book will be called; And other things you can only dream of.

Странно, учитывая что этот самолет стоит на вооружении всех сторон, + еще у кучи других стран имеется. В виртуальных баталиях он был был намного актуален, чем некоторые не самые распространенные ла.

My idea would be to have Flight Deck Officer's signalling when trapping a wire, which could be pretty handy, especially at night (when doing CASE III's). The LSO does already signal this via 'Bolter, bolter, bolter' if someone would not able to catch any arresting wires, but this would also improve the realism of the supercarrier and the deck crew members. In addition to that, they could also signalize to raise our hook whenever the wire goes back to arresting position & to taxi off the landing area. Here's an example of some recoveries (CASE III):

Но другая сами знаете какая страна, тоже имеет миг-29 на вооружении, и даже каких то призраков))

Started printing some of the vertical side panels.

Razbam redid the audio of the Harrier not that long ago. Not sure what you folks are on but the Harrier does NOT sound pretty..... But what we have currently from Razbam sounds FAR more accurate than that video recording DCD shoved into MSFS. In-cockpit you have to ignore the obvious GoPro rattles.

In short, don't break the ROE Your orders were to intercept and monitor, so get on their wings and snap photos, or flip the bird... The thing is, a player can not follow the briefing or rules in a 100 different ways, and there is just no way to set up a mission to accommodate for each. It's not a dynamic campaign. Even like this it has over a hundred triggers per mission, setting up for each possible scenario would make it over a 1000 per mission - special voice overs for each scenario, etc... just not possible. If you want a more dynamic outcome, that's what you need dynamic campaigns for, but I assure you, they won't be offering so many voice overs and other immersive details for this very reason. It's either this or that.

The F-20 was essentially production ready, which differentiates it from planes like the XB-70, which still had much more engineering work to be done. That said, I would not mind having the X-plane series in DCS. Taking on the role of a test pilot would be as fun as flying a combat campaign in my opinion.

I've just updated the Mod to V1.4:null - Better Main Rotor blurring - Added protable Fuel tank - Added fuel tank skins for both SH-3G skins - Added Window wippers - Changed static folded units to flying aircraft to remove bug => Now you can insert the folded models from the Static Models - Helicopters page as well, this should solve the rotation-bug.

On behalf of the "Dora was bnz" only thing, everyone talks about. Consider several facts. Firstly, the FW was designed as fighter first, the groundpounding was attached later. Does anyone really believe she had no turningcapabillities? Like we see in DCS? In the D9 you have to have like 600+ kph for it to not snap over the left wing as soon as you pull more than 1/5 of the stick. (And other prominet sims feature that too) There was that kind of escapemanouver where you would pull hard if attacked to jinx out of the way like this, but it was achieved by instantly pulling very hard upwards, not by trying to fly a somewhat tight turn. What is the point in building a fighterplane that can not even outturn some bombers like this? No one would ever build a fighter like this. Even more so a fighter praised by even its opponents for its lethality. I keep reading that german pilots only attacked if they were in a favourable position and while they certainly aimed for that we all (as airwarfareenthusiasts) should know better about the reality of the war. Especially at 43 onwards there would have been no german planes in the air at all, no matter what front you look at. The fact that there were and even that some pilots did pretty well shows how good their aircraft still were. Even as the trainingtime dwindled down to only a few hours before the first combat sortie, some managed to do their job and prevail. (Allthough admittedly most of them died before their tenth sortie) Do you honestly think a young, halfassedly trained pilot had the nerve to bnz with allied fighters on its six? We all started as newbies, we all were at that place and i know next to all of us gave in to our insticts and turned at that very moment. Ppl back then were not different from us today in how they behave under stress and the danger of losing their life. (Most decisions taken while fearing death are not wise anyway) There is just no way FWs behaved that badly like it is depicted in modern sims, sorry i am not buying that. Oh and beeing from the country which build and operated these planes has the benefits of reading firsthandaccounts of surviving pilots in their motherlanguage. And while you could argue that it was no D9, i once read about a guy flying in an TA152 C2 or 3 (very few took to the air, even less had contact with the enemie) and he stated, that he was fighting a Typhoon during the last days of the war, at chimneyheight and while he was pulling his stick rather gently, the tiffi had already wingedgevaportrails and eventually snapped over, crashing to the ground. Designwise the Ta is more or less an updated D9 with another engine. So they should not behave that much differently. So my point is, that the FW190 was probably a far better plane than we know it, or else the fighterproduction had remained on the Me109 entirely and no pilot at all would have flown it. Oh and the accounts of allied testpilots are also not to be taken as gospel, as they usually failed to perform axis fighters the way the repective pilots were trained to. No matter if it is about german, italian, or japanese planes.

You think the plane looks dated. You should see me.

I've upgraded the RBS 57 (NLAW) infantry soldier. He's now also mobile. And of course transportable by helicopter.

Well, I could point out that I never used the words "exclusive", "exclusively" or others of similar meaning (that's the lawyer talking...), but I'm man, so, according to women, single-threaded is what I am!

I think I need to explain my original point a different way. When flight model changes were pushed to Open Beta last month, it included changes of how the main and tail rotors were calculated. This affected the behavior of the aircraft such that pedal positions within the yaw axis resulted in different behavior than what was previously experienced, causing the slight right roll on the ground when the rudder pedal input axis was centered. It was stated by several players that the pedals were adjusted so that the input was offset to the left, with the "zero tail rotor thrust" point now being right of center. While the apparent behavior did indeed seem to indicate that the control input positions were adjusted, this was not the case. The tail rotor bias to the left was always there, but as the flight model was adjusted, the behavior of the rotor systems changed. The tail rotor's anti-torque effect at a given pedal position observed in the Controls Indicator was different, which resulted in some players (through no fault of their own) mistakenly thinking that the pedals themselves had changed or that the rudder input axis was bugged. Whereas the flight model "under the hood" is what changed, not the controls themselves, nor the Controls Indicator axis positions. So what I'm saying is that if someone is basing their assessment of how the FMC is functioning on what they observe within the Controls Indicator, their impression of what is happening may not fully account for what happens within the flight model of the helicopter as refinements are made during Early Access. Changes may be made that result in different observations of the Controls Indicator compared to what occurs currently, which is why I said not to take what is happening in that window as fact for how the aircraft performs or behaves. If the DCS AH-64D were to gain/lose stability or maneuverability, it may not come from changes in the FMC inputs (as indicated by the green SAS indicators), it may be from changes to the flight model itself. My intent wasn't to imply that anyone should just "get good", but rather to temper expectations of what to use as a tool for learning how to fly the aircraft. In the real AH-64D, there is no indicator that shows in real-time what the FMC is doing. Through training, academics, and practical experience, the logic within the box can be learned and correlated to what is happening in the cockpit, provided there are good mentors around that know what is actually happening (senior pilots, especially maintenance test pilots).

Exactly this. And there are no reasons to why this can't be easily done, unless there is only one person that knows how to do this and that person is unavailable. This doesn't bode well for the future. No, we should continue to keep posting about this, because it doesn't make sense, and it would actually be in both ED's and 3rd parties' interest to have the specific sections during EA to drive potential sales. I module with lots of user content could be more attractive. Fixes like Myse's. Liveries, even if they break, but why would they? Controller setups, check lists, the list goes on. That some users do not see this or share the same opinion is beyond me.

Gunfreak was talking about fantasy, it is why he said about dreams

All it would take is a few percent downscaling to stop them banging into doors.

А не легче было бы и лучше для ВСЕХ чтоб разрабы переехали с этой сами знаете какой страны на более безопасное и приятное место. А то я чувствую не доживу до модуля Су-27 или даже 25.

Hi Flappie , it is 4 vehicles that have been getting stuck , the M1 Abrams and the Bradley and the 2 Trucks get stuck in all of those places. The town is Shiraz . Oh and I just went into my mission file and got all the images (24) converted to 8 bit Indexed using Gimp . That reduced the overall file size of Chop-U to almost half its size , only 17 Mb now . Switched the Su bombers to a 30 and a 33 to see how well they bomb Cheers , and thanks for looking into this , once this problem goes away the tank battles can get pretty funky ...

Yep, you are correct. I've made an error in the configuration. The AN/APQ 65, as you mention, has a fixed azimuth. I've already fixed the issue for the next release.

Next OB patch tomorrow…

High (HI) - High PRF provides extended range detection of forward aspect targets at only slightly less range than VS. Medium (MED) - Medium PRF provides detection of all aspect targets at intermediate ranges and provides improved range resolution over HI. Interleaved (INT) - Interleaved PRF combines HI and MED in the same scan volume and incorporates advantages of both modes at a slower update rate between detections. While MED is preferred for flanking and cold targets the detection range is lower than INT and HI PRF.

Have no fear! The real Vulcan is almost here!

BTF = Basic Flight Training AAT = Advanced Aircraft Training TTQ = Tactical Training Qualification У каждой в комплекте миссии для обоих версий.

It's been a long time...

With the new weather now being variable at airfields and the possibility that you could be landing in different conditions to which you took off from, I think an ATIS function should be screaming out be added. Either a sub option under the current airfield frequency menu or a separate frequency channel for ATIS. Having more frequencies would be more work however this would also be the more realistic way of adding in ATIS. Make sure to randomise voice actors too...