Leaderboard

Cowboy's tea with Aunt Tilly (a.k.a) the O-2A Skymaster (AI only) mod by prcCOWBOY v1.0.1204 ---------- Download link now available, see 1st post The O-2, known as the “Oscar Deuce” or “The Duck,” was a military version of the Cessna Model 337 Super Skymaster. It was distinguished by twin tail booms, tandem-mounted engines and a unique gear retraction sequence that evoked the nickname "The Duck." In late 1966, the USAF selected the O-2, to serve as a forward air controller (FAC) aircraft. This mod is dedicated to "Aunt Tilly's Boys" and all the other warriors who served as FAC in the Vietnam conflict. ------- included: early O-2A variant (with 67-21331 livery) -------- Notes: The plane will be alphabetically listed with the C's (Cowboy's Livery Pack O-2 Skymaster). As always, this is my artistic representation based on photos of the actual aircraft / my modeling skills, and not necessarily 100% accurate. known bugs: - This is an "early release" and may contain unfinished liveries and other flaws - Aft engine propellor blur is incorrect Changelog: v1.1.0123 (2023-01) - bug fixes, added texture and model details, new livery, gunsight, SUU-11a gunpod, and more v1.0.1204 - "early access" release ===== USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Installation: unzip the files and copy the entire contents of the 'Mods' folder in the zip file to your DCS user files folder, example: C:\Users\[YOURNAME]\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\ (You should end up with a "CLP_O2A" folder under Mods/aircraft, example: "C:\Users\[YOURNAME]\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Mods\aircraft\CLP_O2A\") ===== To UNINSTALL: simply delete the "CLP_O2A" folder from the above location (Do NOT delete the entire 'Mods' folder as this will remove any other mods you may have installed) tldr I considered opening a new thread for this but since it is an ISR plane albeit without fancy sensors I figured it fit here. This project started as a private tribute, but comments here have convinced me to release it. This is an "early access" release because I won't have much time to do any further development on it for the foreseeable near future; however, I think it is useable as is. I welcome any constructive feedback. In fact, please feedback. I haven't had much time to test, bug fix or clean up.

A. Definition of Multi- Combining Prefix | meaning more than one | So Logical + Rendering + Sound = 3 = Multi. So despite the negative waves, it's Multi-Threaded. I mean if people want to be negative about it, then they honestly have no knowledge of programming and allocated resources. Here's the part those users don't understand, you simply CANNOT give everything it's own thread, the CPU would spend more time Syncing these threads, than anything else, and the performance would actually decline. DCS as a Whole has 2 Main Bottle Necks: Sim-Calculations and DirectX11 API CPU Overhead, Which are very apparent in 2 Scenarios: A. Large Scripted Missions with a lot of sim-calculations B. Large Scenes w/ a lot of objects being rendered. Splitting the DCS Process into Logical and Render Removes Bottleneck A. All the sim-calculations on One thread, and the Render instructions on another separates the Bottlenecking item into it's own thread. Large Scripted Missions will not overload the thread with Sim-Calculations causing delay in render instructions, which will allow for better performance in larger scripted missions with a lot happening. So if we break this down into something everyone can understand, ROADS / LANES. We have right now 1 Lane. DCS-CORE (SIM / RENDER), w/ RENDER Technically going to an Off-Ramp to DX11API's Thread/Road Leading to the GPU. When You load a Large Scripted Mission, that 1 Lane Road becomes Saturated with DCS-SIM Traffic, and DCS-RENDER Traffic gets delayed getting to their Offramp to DX11's Thread/Road. Which causes delay in traffic reaching the GPU, which causes Low FPS. Splitting the DCS-CORE into DCS-SIM CALCULATION and DCS-RENDER, Makes the Road 2 Lanes. DCS-SIM CALCULATIONS and DCS-RENDER. So Traffic for both DCS-Sim Calculation and DCS-Render flows smoother, Even when DCS-Sim Calculation Traffic gets heavier, DCS-Render instructions will flow efficiently down the road to it's offramp to DX11API, and onto the GPU more efficiently. Effectively Removing Traffic bottleneck A. Now The Remaining Bottleneck is the DX11API Lane. With DX11, there is Heavy Overhead on draw calls, so every object/shape, texture, effect, is a draw call, and with every draw call per cycle, the DX11API generates Processing time overhead, thus lowing the speed at which commands are processed by the CPU and Sent to the GPU, lowering Utilization and FPS/Performance. This 1 Lane DX11API Road to the GPU, basically decreases it's speed limit as traffic increases, thus slowing down traffic flow to the GPU, Lowing GPU Utilization and FPS/Performance. The next step is replacing the DX11 Graphics API w/ Vulkan, this effectively eliminates bottleneck B. Moving to Vulkan Removes CPU Overhead with Draw Calls as well as DX11 API's Single Threaded Core and GPU Scheduling, and replaces it with a Multo-Threaded API that can process commands Asynchronously. Large Scenes with hundreds of objects and thousands of draw calls per frame, will no longer get bottlenecked by the DX11 API Overhead, and performance will allow for better performance in scenes with large object counts. Which Takes the 1 Lane Road of DX11API to the GPU and makes it a 4+ Lane Road of Vulkan. Vulkan removes the Speed limit decreasing as traffic increases, as well as letting each lane move at it's optimal speed limit depending on traffic type. Allowing DCS to Render Sim-Calculations in 1 Lane, Render Instructions in its own Lane, with the Render Traffic taking the Offramp to the Vulkan 4 Lane highway running at variable speed limits per lane. So the Final Layout would be: 1 Lane for DCS-Sim Calculations 1 Lane for DCS-Render Instructions, w/ Offramp to Vulkan 4+ Lanes Variable Speed Limit for Vulkan to the GPU. Considering the current Layout is: 1 Lane for DCS-CORE, w/ Offramp to DX11 API 1 Lane for DX11 API to GPU. Seeing as DCS-Sound is its own lightly used thread, we can say DCS-SOUND uses the shoulder of the Road, lol.

Приветствую! Не так давно, я обнаружил интересный польский сайт посвященный DCS WORLD и боевому самолёту, который мне действительно очень нравится и на котором я и летаю в виртуальном небе. Не зря же их так много в реальном мире. Мне очень пришлась по душе подача материала и поэтому я решил сделать перевод статей с этого сайта и оформить их как иллюстрированное руководство PDF для себя, товарищей и русскоязычного сообщества DCS на форуме ED. Процедуры запуска и т.д. не включены. По мере возможности буду ловить косяки и обновлять. Пока как есть, так и есть. Надеюсь и вы найдете полезным данное руководство! Удачи в небе DCS! Ссылка на PDF - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UXMmdA1EhuBA9b88nirMgS5BMo3Fv8dF/view?usp=sharing

Multithreading Development Report To date, DCS has performed most of the computational workload on a single thread (some audio components were moved to a separate thread). This was not a problem in most cases because the Graphics Processor Unit (GPU) did most of the work, and FPS was mostly limited by the performance of the GPU. As DCS evolved, GPUs have become much more powerful whilst the performance of a single CPU core remained practically unchanged. Instead, CPU manufacturers increased the number of cores rather than the clock speed of individual cores. As a consequence, DCS performance has become CPU-limited. In parallel, DCS World has become much more complex with increased reliance on CPU calculations that has exacerbated the problem. To improve efficiency of CPU resources usage, we have reworked the core of our engine. First, at the architectural level, it has been divided into two main threads: graphical and logical. This opens up new possibilities for further thread parallelization of calculations in both the logical and graphical parts of the engine independently. Second, to meet the requirements of scalable multithreading, and the needs of modern graphics APIs, the graphical engine part has been significantly enhanced. In addition, many subsystems have been updated, or written from scratch. Internal testing has begun, and we plan to release the updated DCS graphic engine (EDGE) next year. The initial release of Multithreading support will contain a fully reworked engine including preparation of the graphical frame and the separation of the graphical and logical parts onto two independent threads. It should also be noted that the most significant performance improvements will be regarding larger missions. This will be a welcomed change, especially in multiplayer where unit numbers are typically far higher. VR performance will also see a significant performance improvement in large missions. Stay tuned for upcoming releases. Source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/2b4826e39c84423db49b8789fe2409f3/

I am both delighted to see that you have worked well on the livery, but also annoyed to tell you that the external liveries between the UH and the MH will unfortunately not be compatible. The unwrapping cannot be the same given the modifications and even now the slightest modification breaks it. I still want to try to align the unwrapping of the fuselage as well as possible Overview of functions: (livery yet to do and uniforms of the Navy pilots...) Landing lights, search light, rescue spot Functional Winch with or without harness, harness, empty or with a character ( here just a test of common character ) Independent ESS with hellfire x2 or x4 and side racks with torpedoes or additional tank Configuration with or without the launcher of sonobuoys and launch of the sonobouoys with parachute Configuration in sonar mode (with controllable descent) or cargo mode

中文版的基本完成，有些小错小改仍在继续 英文版的翻译正在进行中 DCS JF-17 Flight Manual CN.pdf

RAZBAM Twitter

We really cant win, people demand news about stuff we give them news then they don't want news until its ready. There is no pleasing everyone, but we try. We will not give out dates until its closer, so we didnt. We wanted to share progress news so we did.

More like the Air Boss, cuz she tells me when I can fly but isint allowed to touch the equipment

Hi As a great fan of the Mirage F1 especially the Mirage F1 CT, I'm working on the Alkan Corail pods. Actually I have made the 3d model added 2 pylons on the F1. I have not much data or photos (only dimensions and3 photos from the web) but I will try to make my best. As said it's WIP, i need to adjust the position and the angle, because they are directly monted on the wings. Hope you enjoy.

After a little work and creating a texture, here is the result.

We do have a report open internally. thanks

This is fixed internally. The fix should be in the next OB update.

@Babzo AvgeekJoe postet one above @Urbi you missed CVN_74_BANO_01.tga, light_green.dds, light_red.dds and light_white.dds in you standard texture folder! So atm at night we get a missing texture without copy them from the texture folder to the standard (liveries) folder. If anyone needs the CVN_74_BANO_01.tga you´ll find it here: \DCS World OpenBeta\Bazar\World\textures --> NAVY_Textures.zip @currenthill thanks for your work!!!

^ Noone's going to bash or ban you, mate, but I think you're really overestimating the importance of weather simulation in this platform. People don't come to DCS for realistic weather, but primarily for combat and weapon / nav systems modelling. I'm willing to bet that majority of users here don't even turn any tubulence on in their missions, or even add any crosswind over their home air bases, 'cause that's not what they're here for. In DCS physical weather aspects have always been "nice to have" rather than "must have", most customers are OK with that and thus so are the developers. You want more advanced weather you go P3D/XP/MSFS, that's always how it's been and it's OK. Ironically, I say that as a guy, who uses both DCS and Il-2 pretty much as a cheap alternatives for MSFS, mostly for non-combat flying around and navigation. I know I'm in minority, though, so I don't bicker about things this platform is just not meant for. IF ED manages to improve this aspect after multithreading is implemented somewhere in 2024 (yes, I know what newsletter said, but I also know how mumbo-jumbo estimates work here ) then great. If not, so be it. I wouldn't say Il-2 is THAT much better in this regard anyway. Both sims have the same, simple wind direction and turbulence settings which throw the planes around a bit and that's that. DCS adds some extras like different wind speeds at altitudes plus dynamic weather (oh wait, I've heard it got somewhat broken in 2.8), but that's more for a navigation challenge - a different aspect altogether.

Another paper I had read said there is a minimum mass flow out the nozzle required to not gum it up. This is what set the lower bound of the "throttle-ability" of the Meteor. As to turning the motor off and on again, I don't know if I have seen anything about that and I certainly cannot simulate that in my model (yet) but what you mention about it being a chemical reaction sounds plausible. Thank you for sharing that. That does not negate what I have read about needing a minimum mass flow rate however, nor does it negate the temperature imposed maximum speed I have read, and these two things determine my models maximum cruising altitude. Given then total battery life is not much longer than motor burn time at minimum throttle in my model there is no real advantage to turning off the motor either. The Meteor brings a level of nuance not found in other AAMs for sure.

Some new small videos of the capabilities of the A/G and A/A radar: https://twitter.com/RAZBAM/status/1599411023093452800 https://twitter.com/RAZBAM/status/1599411273124323328

On my phone right now, but I'm sure it's the same on a pc. Scroll down on this page and see there:

Time error on target (predicted time error) "The predicted time error is calculated with the current airspeed, including current speed changes, to the next waypoint with an ingress speed set on it. Before a waypoint with an ingress speed set on it is overflown, the calculation uses the set speed on that waypoint between it and the target waypoint to calculate the time error over the target." This error uses the current speed in addition to what is set on the waypoints to calculate the time error at the target. The error is shown using the fin on the velocity vector. Note that this indication currently does not work correctly. Timetable deviation The timetable deviation is calculated only using speeds set in CK37. The distance economic speed (M0.55) is assumed to be used from takeoff to the earliest waypoint win an ingress speed set. After that ingress speed(s) are used to calculate the time each leg of the flight takes to get the time table deviation. This error is shown on the data panel using TID/UT. "Due to the two time error indications using different references, the predicted time error at the target may be 0 while the time table may show a deviation and vice versa." As for the Bx waypoint thing the only thing that would make sense in my mind is that the "previous waypoint" is the previously selected B/M waypoint. The only way to select a Bx point is to do so manually, so when that is then selected the previously selected waypoint would be a B/M point... I hope this made the difference between the two a little clearer, granted I'm sure my typing is a bit scuffed at places. Hopefully it's not too bad.

Update, guys. Deka has finished the draft of Chinese version manual (still in revision) and English version in translation now. 1). The style of writing is similar to the quick guide and 2). HMD is marked as possibly coming in the future (to be cautious with language and expression tradition, I can't say "coming soon" but they suggested that we could expect it at some point.).

Honestly, the "supporting evidence" claim is absurd many times. If ED setup a damage model to a weapon - it doesn't make it automatically a "correct-as-is". For example, compare the damage of an AGM-62, GBU-24 and a AGM-84 vs a Kuznetsov carrier - You need two AGM-62 to sink the ship (technically two bombs cause a 99% damage) Vs 6 GBU24 bombs vs ~8 harpoons... none of it make much sense. Almost arbitrary. The ground/naval units got a "life bar" instead of a damage model (that should include sub-systems) and the weapons damage is an educated guess (inconsistent BTW). Now, because it is a game and developing and improving systems takes time/resources - I can understand the some weapons won't have reasonable performance and it will be addressed "some day"... But it got nothing to do with the community not providing "supporting evidence" to a currently "correct-as-is" setting.

Stimmt. Allerdings sind meine Lüfter etwas kräftiger, weil sie Staudruck auf den Radiator geben können sollen. Da darf man für die 3 Radi-Lüfter gerne mal volle 3 Watt pro Lüfter rechnen. Und dann vergiss meine Wasserpumpe nicht. Das ist eine D5. Zwar per PWM geregelt, aber wenn sie auf 100% laufen würde, würde sie lt. Angabe 23W ziehen. Und ich schaue immer, dass ich alles voll ausfahren könnte. Denn sonst vergesse ich das irgendwann und dann wirds dunkel ^^ Andere machen dann noch eine LED Lightshow ins Case als wie wenn in Las Vegas Weihnachten gefeiert werden würde. Braucht bestimmt auch ein paar Extra Watt.

Yes, it seems to be problematic again... 2 things have to be done at the moment, the ellipse following the actual FCR LOS (which moves slower) and showing the X once it crosses the gimbal limits. Perhaps @BIGNEWYcan confirm if these 2 things are already on the to-do list.

You answer the parking sensor on your car, beep beep beep beeeeeeeeeep, with "fox-2".

To piggyback off my last post: The long range AIM-54 test was a 44kft 1.5M launch from 110nm on a 50kft 1.5M head on target. The missile reached 103,500ft and flew 72.5nm to the impact point. Last year news reports came out of an F-15 firing an AIM-120 resulting in a kill from the longest distance ever recorded. Even if we ignore the R-37 claims, this means the AIM-120D flew further than 72.5nm to impact. My sim shows the AIM-54 test profile would result in the kill occurring at 76.5nm, and my estimations of onboard power for the AIM-120D indicate the launch could have been from up to 139nm with up to a 96nm flight to impact. If the AIM-54 test was done with a Meteor I see a 75nm impact point. I see a max of 135nm and 92nm flight to impact. What if these planes were on a CAP station of .8M at 34,000ft? The AIM-120D could still barely make the 110nm launch with a 67.5nm flight to impact. The Meteor could make the 110nm shot with over 16 seconds of powered flight to spare with a 70.9nm flight to impact. THAT is the power of Meteor. It nearly matches a 1.5M 44kft launched AIM-54 from a CAP hold. No runup. No acceleration. No prep. Sorry the topic of this post was F-15E vs F/A-18C. Meteor has no place here. F-15E will be able to get 2 AIM-120C5s higher and faster than an F/A-18C will (assuming it has two), and it will have the stronger radar, so in self escort BVR the Eagle has an edge.

You can host a dedicated server from your full game install via launch commands. You are allowed to login twice on the same PC. Not that it matters since you can make a user account for free specifically for hosting dedicated servers anyway. I have a batch file in my install folder: bin\DCS.exe --server --norender -w DCS.DS_openbeta --server and --norender force it to run as a server. -w DCS.DS_openbeta defines the folder used in saved games. Its best to have this so it isn't trying to use the same folder twice.

Honestly, reading Nahen's stupidity is kind of entertaining..

see @Eight Balland @Backy 51's Rivet Joint here:

So just to double check, you've saved your bindings in SIM, so in that case did you check in your settings and make sure you have UNCHECKED "Game avionics" and "Game flight mode". Apologies if you already have checked this, but it's the other typical related thing that catches people out with this type of issue (and sometimes people have had them get randomly turned back on when they don't remember messing with them). If it's not that I don't have any more suggestions.

Hi, We are already working on a new pilot model, you will see it in a futue update. thanks

That is how life goes. However you do understand the confusion when post come out in late 2020 saying that multicore is in the "final stages of testing" and will hopefully be available Q3 2021. It's now Q4 2022 and we are getting a update about "If testing goes well"... Haven't you been testing it for the last 2 years? I'm genuinely curious and NOT trying to throw shade. Updating people on your work doesn't seem to be the issue as much as the updates being misleading... purposeful for not.

A quite late as I've been quite busy but here it is. Let me know if I missed anything The Unbound System 2:19 Start of interview with Kickstarter founders of "The Unbound System" 4:24 Tell us about product, what is the company's name? What is the product's name and what does it do? 7:02 What other options are there? 8:26 What about weight? Are there any issues with heavier equipment? 12:49 So tell us a little bit about your kickstarter... F-15E 15:18 Interview start 15:39 What can you tell us Ron that is the latest and greatest with the F-15E, what's ground breaking on the F-15E that you want to tell the folks? 20:58 My question I wanted to ask since we have FC3 with F-15C, nothing from that was taken so you did everything from scratch right? 21:48 And speaking about the level of detail... 27:43 So you said this is the most complex aircraft that you have ever built or is that in DCS at the present time? 28:06 What would you say is the radar capabilities are the most complex 29:56 Do you ever see yourselves putting any DTC into the F-15E eventually? 30:46 There is a lot of workload for the WSO, is it going to be multicrew capable from the start? 33:55 I've seen a lot of your videos on Twitter and the M-2000C radar is amazing so I'm looking forward to the F-15E's radar 34:56 What do you hope this module will add to DCS, and what type of scenarios and environments do you see people operating this aircraft in? 38:28 Just to recap....and then we got 3 helicopters, 2 jets that are coming and the MiG-23 is that one of the jets that's coming? 44:09 Is there a big thing in the F-15E that won't be on early access?

You're missing the premise. Since going from max loiter or max range cruise to a max velocity at launch in the shortest possible time is key, acceleration beats top speed. The 1960s just called and they want their tactics back.

And a new one from this week on PC discord.

OP asks a really valid question… … not because it’s out of place with the DCS community’s obsession with realism…. It’s a valid question because it shows the huge level of interest in the naval versions Let’s hope HB get the F-4 on deck ASAP after the “E”

Just to avoid any confusion about FPS. I Read something about the Main-Rotor is much too high poly Please keep in mind that that effect results in baking the High-Poly mesh on the Low Poly one. It may look like killing FPSs, but that's just a game on tricking the eyes. The Normal Maps are overriding the hard edges

If I'd asked if it was possible to manually enter a heading, would you have said "It's a 737, not a fighter plane?" I don't think my question was unreasonable, but I do think your answer was. Best regards

This is about a month old, but interesting info from RAZBAM's discord, and not yet posted here. A/A Radar detecting civilian traffic while operating in MPRF with a "LO GMTR" setting. (Pilot selected, smaller doppler notch filter I believe..?) null

Some ground crew just never understand . . . . It’s dedication I tells ya!

It's not about how hot the object is, it's about the rates of emission or reflection of infrared energy. Additionally, it also comes down to the ability of the specific FLIR sensor to distinguish and display the relative detections. If a FLIR sensor or its video output only has 5 levels of brightness between full white and full black, the temperature differences as they appear on a video display may not have the level of resolution that directly correlates with the actual differences in infrared emission/reflection rates. If a FLIR sensor and its video output have 20 levels of brightness between full white and full black, you will see a greater degree of difference across many objects; but again, that doesn't directly correlate with how physically hot or cold the object is. As an example from real-life usage, by messing with the level and gain of a FLIR sensor, I can make it so everything looks like Cookies & Cream ice cream, where everything appears to be almost completely black or completely white, with little in between (even when using a sensitive, high-resolution FLIR camera). When this happens, it can often be hard to see whether the FLIR is set to White-Hot or Black-Hot, and therefore the FLIR needs to be re-optimized. A FLIR sensor may need to be re-optimized several times over the course of a flight as thermal conditions in the environment change. I'm not describing how the F-16's TGP or AGM-65 seekers function specifically, because I have no first-hand use of the F-16 or Maverick missile, but I have extensive use with FLIR systems in other aircraft. What I'm trying to say is that there is a lot more to these systems in how they display thermal images of the environment besides just the apparent temperature of "hot" or "cold" objects. If I drive up the gain on a FLIR camera, where a running vehicle is already at it it's maximum brightness level in the video output, I can make it so a cooler object is at the same brightness level as a much hotter object, giving it an appearance of being at the same temperature. And while a lot of FLIR sensors have automatic gain control mechanisms in them, the sophistication and effectiveness of such functions vary, especially with older generation FLIR sensors. Even in DCS, I am often constantly adjusting the FLIR picture using manual level gain controls to get a better picture based on the video output. Only on the most sophisticated FLIR systems in recent years would you have automatic gain control logic that rivals the management of a human operator.

Very uncalled for, GG has been one of the major drivers of getting the F-15 changed at all and he did nothing to warrant being insulted. No one making good faith arguments should be subjected to that. the F-15A launched with A-7 equivalent attack capability. https://books.google.com/books?id=wLI9AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA4217&dq=f-15+ground+equivalent+a-7&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCpojDvdP7AhXOGFkFHVYtDwQQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=f-15 ground equivalent a-7&f=false the USAF retained that capability but all light gray Eagle training was focused on pure air to air while procurement only filled air superiority squadrons. This was the right move as we saw by the great success of Eagle Squadrons in the Gulf war and Balkans conflicts. By the time the USAF was in a position to buy eagles for the strike mission technology had based the original air to ground suit by and it was desirable to build the strike Eagle. As I understand it the USAF only planned to use the Eagle’s air to ground capability in a situation where they had limited assets in theater. Given how FC3 is simplified I don’t find this a major omission.

Very unlikely- as we plan to start work on the Navy Phantoms very quickly and this would simply end up being a distraction

All, For those who are not yet aware, @Hollywood_315 has placed the Vaicom source on github this morning and is therefore no longer supporting it. We are in the process of pulling together an ongoing development and community management team and will update as further details become available. Massive thanks to @Hollywood_315 for having produced such a great tool and supported it for so long. Sent from my SM-T835 using Tapatalk

Google... ! Glad you fixed it. One issue I had last nite at 1am... : Virtual CPU0 crashed, taking a VM machine down...hmmmm...somehow I saw that before...and fixed it before...it's a VMware thing mixed with some other strange crap, that I remembered. So I copied the nice VMware error log in chunks into Google but after 15min I still hadn't had that "This was it !, GOT it" no...took longer. So I rephrased my issue ( the number 1 skill you need is phrase your error correctly to get the good results !!!! ) and here it came, hidden half the page down. You will crash as soon as you start any 2nd VM if you have capped FPS in NV Cpanel ( only there ! ) Who would think a Virtual CPU error on a headless Linux Server is caused by your NV Cpanel capping fps !?!? Nuts but true.

Yes, Sir. It's taken care of

Yep, priority seems reversed. Currently, it will XMIT and therefore turn off the radar, even if you have a contact designated L&S, or even more frustratingly, a missile in the air. I thought radar priority was designed to prevent this from happening. Seems we have jammer priority implemented instead.

EightBall you are doing an INCREDIBLE JOB for the community! Your mods are awesome! And their quality is excellent!! Keep on doing such magnificent job brother!!! DCS should hire you, or pay you!!, or give you a ride in a yatch with a pair of girls in bikini on the deck!!! EightBall!!! **WE ALL LOVE YOU***

Ставлю на Virpil - всегда в наличии и быстрая поставка. После трастмастера небо и земля. VKB тоже неплохи, но вечно проблемы с наличием.

Awesome...looking forward to testing it!