Leaderboard

Hello Pepin1234, the weapons can easily be configured with the main ship Tarantul.Lua file. I wasn't aware there was an issue with it. I will correct it. Thanks for the feedback. In the future please PM me and I will correct it right away. Thanks. Hey Guys so I will be creating the Sovremenny Class Destroyer (Project 965) in the near future. Thank you all for your feedback with regard to which vessel you're more interested in seeing in DCS. Currently, I am finishing up the Albion Class LPD with support vessels. Stay tuned!

from Razbam's discord, stick of the MiG-23

So what may be causing this issue is that when you designate with the TDC the track is switching from point to area (incorrectly). Which may be interrupting the CDES process and causing it to stop updating. Either way its not really working correctly. And as just a bit of SA for how to engage moving targets. CDES really isn't supposed to be a moving target engagement mode. It can be used as such, but its real purpose was for continually updating the target range and coordinates for stationary targets until the instant of release. Prior to CDES being implemented creating a designation with the targeting pod and the laser firing could only ever make what is called a "one shot" designation, IE the coordinates and elevation are saved the moment you create the designation. The issue with that is that with a drifting INS and error in the system, any appreciable time frame (greater than a few seconds) after creating the designation results in the designation starting to drift away from the actual target location. The way aircrew would get around this was by constantly designating on final every few seconds to keep updating the relative position of the target. This also was not ideal since the jet was not really meched to deal with the designation being constantly recreated over and over again in this manner, the release symbology could start jumping or not being able to handle the sudden jumps in input, so they implemented CDES where the jet just keeps smoothly updating the target relative location and elevation and can handle it in a good manner and aircrew don't have to create designations over and over again while on final. So CDES isn't really a moving target mode, even though it can be used as such. There were a bunch of issues with it IRL that lead to it eventually getting removed in the very next suite of software for the F-15E, but a bunch of other tools were also added (actual moving target track modes and automatically calculating ballistic designation lead for a moving target in track for example). If you want to engage moving targets with LGB's in this suite of strike eagle, what you really have to do (or at least what aircrew using this suite did) is pull lead manually with your targeting pod and make a designation out in front of the target based on its speed. Its not that hard, takes a bit of practice but can be quite effective. Your other option "currently" would be to use a GBU-24 in a point and shoot mode. To do this, select DIRECT on the ARMT page, be below 15,000 feet MSL, have your targeting pod on the desired target, laser firing, dive steeper than 15 degrees to get the reticle in the HUD on the desired target, release the bomb and lase it in to impact. The GBU-24 will if released steeper than 15 degrees and below 15,000 feet MSL both pull pro-nav lead, and glide at the angle you released it at into the target, not taking a ballistic path (no need to pull ballistic lead). In any case the current CDES behavior is somewhat broken and should get fixed, but please don't think that this system is really optimized for moving targets. The F-15E in this timeframe really did not have a lot of tools for hitting movers that became fairly standard a few years later.

Hello everyone We have created the jf-17 simulator I hope everyone can give more suggestions Email: diycockpits@gmail.com WhatsApp：+86 13341585391 https://www.diycockpit.com/product/wefly-thunder-jf-17-instrument-panel/

Thanks. It's true that some of these 3d models are exceptionally expensive and almost prohibitive. This is why I hope to scrape together some cash between me and some of my friends to help bankroll your development efforts. God-willing, I could make a donation at the end of the month. Glad to be of help.

Project 20831 Steregushchiy Class Corvette version 1.1.0 released! Changelog Version 1.1.0 Added pennant number liveries (thanks @HighMaintenanceB) Fixed A-190 traverse limits Fixed AK-630M traverse limits Removed Kh-35U reloads

The devs made the sounds like they are BASED on SME inputs actually. So it was done based on 'been there, done that' inputs and not 'we think' from the devs. Just to clarify those points.

Thanks, Oban. Sachen is in Inventory along with the Braunschweig Class, Brandenburg Class, and Type 125 Baden Wurttemberg Class. I would say Germany is covered.

I'll take "What happens when I overspeed the flaps" for 200 Alex/Mayim.

There are still improvements that are being worked on. The roadmaps are a way of letting players see some of the highlighted features that are in active development, instead of constantly pinging the community managers like BigNewy or NineLine to ask what the devs are working on. The roadmaps do not encompass all development, nor are they exclusionary one-off events. Just because a feature is added, doesn't mean it won't receive additional bug-fixes or refinements as the product matures. There were some substantial changes that were being made to the flight model and SCAS systems in the spring, so it was a way of letting users know there was something coming, and then letting them know that an update was delivered. This is important for those players that may not regularly play DCS, like if they came back after a month or so and wanted to review what has changed since they last looked at the roadmap or last played the DCS AH-64D.

Плохого ничего не хочу сказать, но прогресс на лицо. С момента первой публикации в теме 5 лет пролетело. Но РУС симпатичный.

My workaround at the moment (at least for my ships) is to set the attribute (not category) of a larger ship. For example a destroyer or a cruiser. This will make the AI fire a lot more of its antiship missiles at the same time.

I actually have this one on the list. I was researching it a couple of weeks ago, but at that time I didn't find a suitable model. But it's of course still on the list.

Details later this week.

Railways are done! Again, many thanks to @okopanja and his worthy tool, SharkPlanner.

Thank you! Yes, versioning is a great idea. But for now all of my industrial assets are present only in one version each. And they are available by separate download links. I hope there will be free time for updating textures in future, so we will see something like v 1.1 There is short reminder of existing mods (industrial assets): 1. Nuclear power plant IRANIAN design. DOWNLOAD 2. Thermal power station (old grey common world design) DOWNLOAD 3. Nuclear research facility DOWNLOAD 4. Nuclear power plant (common western and asian design) DOWNLOAD 5. Thermal power plant (Soviet, Eastern Europe and Russian design) DOWNLOAD

Hi! It is in the slow completion phase of construction. 75% done

Could whomever did the original civilian aircraft mod please contact me? I'd like to make improvements/expansions but want to preserve as much of the original as possible, especially relevant 3D models. I'd also like to contribute several thousands of $$$US to expanding the stable of aircraft with high-poly models and I want there to be a centralized/coordinated effort to this.

OMG, that was the problem! thanks @Minsky (still learning...)

And this is how it looks in the Hip: Same bug, making it near-impossible to fly the Hip. I'm coming in for a landing on a ship in this one. It should be visible in the left lower window. Can you tell me which ship I'm approaching?

Above image: turning final in the Tiger for landing. Can you tell which airport? How about telling me which map I'm on? This is killing bug in the Tiger and other planes that ED is well aware of (IIRC for a couple of years now), and that is tied to the opacity bug in the glass shader. I was able to work around that bug with a small fix to the glass shader. With the shaders now being part of the integrity check, it's up to ED to correct this, because we can no longer use our own fixes. IMHO the Tiger is no longer a viable aircraft to fly, which is sad, but my current recommendation to anyone who thinks about purchasing it. Let us hope that some day ED get around to applying the fix (which isn't that terribly difficult, considering the fact that it took me all of 5 minutes to do). This is only related to the 'visibility of other aircraft' issue in that the same integrity check also disables those shaders that kick in for far away aircraft. In this case, it feels that ED threw out the kid with the bathwater. IIRC, @NineLine was kind enough to mention that this issue was passed on to the Team. That's a couple of months ago now, so here's hoping that we find ourselves with a flyable Tiger (or Mi-8 or Huey) some time soon.

Make sure that tpod is actually installed:

As far as I know, after a lot of testing, you can't really tell ships exactly what to do. Their AI seem harder to convince than for example aircraft.

https://i.postimg.cc/gcChbV7b/Digital-Combat-Simulator-Black-Shark-Screenshot-2023-07-17-20-45-00-27.png

As promised, I'm starting my new accurate map project: Syria! The result will be usable in Tacview, CombatFlite, DCS Web Editor, as a kneeboard mod, as a webmap or as a simple GeoTIFF file. I'll try to detail the process all along the project, step by step. If you dont know about my previous project, check it here.

Ahoi everyone! (^o^)/ Ever since the update that added the VSR to the F-16 and F-18, it has created this problem. Since, at the time. I noticed that it had already been reported, I just assumed that it is still being worked on. But recently I noticed that this effect is way worse on some aircraft over others, and just wanted to report that. I don't have a list off all the aircrafts that this effect is worse than others and I tested all of this with bots not with players. The video ahead is some off the tests I did, and the results are: F-15E and F-18: Have a lot of problems with this F-14B: Still has them but seems like it is a little better or that flying foward may help although I wasn't even able to lock the F-15E when he was doing this. F-16, Su-33, Su-25T: Seem fine, however they still have a slight chance to slide off target and that was captured on video with the Su-25T. Dead F-15E: For some reason killing a plane makes it easier to lock on to and it gets to the same point as the F-16, Su-33, Su-25T. Now it's the proper time to use the guns! This is all that I wanted to share and hopefully it can help. Thank you for your time, And have a nice day! \(^o^)

Just received my Pimax Crystal with glass lens, coming from a G2 3 years, out of the box no DCS settings changed....OMG OMG, clarity and colors and FPS are amazing, the cockpit details I'm now seeing are just incredible in the AH64, F15SE and F16 so far. FYI my PC specs are up there 4090, 13th gen, 64gig, highly optimised PC to get the best out of the G2, this has translated to a very good out of the box experience with the Pimax Crystal From software installation to flying 20 mins max. Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk

Yes, in past there where light-pink, white, yellow and light-brown and even camo style textures of this building. The purpose of this facility is to rapidly distribute the ammo

Coolie left long (outbound) is for IFF, coolie right long is for NCTR. That's for the front cockpit. As others have stated NCTR only works for frontal aspect and at certain ranges. Both methods work for me.

null

null

Hi, is there any way to save PROG screen ? or set a default one ? maybe by editing some lua file like for countermesure? I like this feature, but can have a default one should be very nice ^^ Thanks

My 2c. I'm trialling a friends crystal while he is away. It is awesome. I'm coming from a vive, then 5k+ (tried a G2 also), and now a vive pro 2 (which is hobbled on 40x0 gpus). The vive console software is horrible (frequent random view stutter/hitching), and steamVR hinders performance. Ditching that for openXR is awesome. My 4090 can stretch its legs now. Pros: Visuals are as impressive as you've heard. Clear across almost all the FOV. FOV is about same width as VP2, but clearly more vertically. The panels are higher res, but it is the lens that steal the show. So clear. HLAlyx is seriously impressive. So sharp, so much detail in everything. Virtual Desktop showing my monitors, is like looking at 1440p monitor for real. Very clear. DCS runs a bit strangely. I have settings a little lower to hold 90fps. But when it dips below, even slightly, the view stutters when turning the plane. Not sure what is happening there. Lower fps shouldn't stutter like that. I think DCS will need smart smoothing (not working atm) to lock it at 45. Then we can raise details. Still, it's very good even now. Don't need labels anymore for aircraft. Cockpits are clear and easily read without zooming in or leaning forward (finally). MSFS runs really well. 67fps (feels pretty good, smooth enough) with highish settings native res. Very pretty game in the crystal. OpenXR doesn't have dynamic eye rendering yet, but it isn't far away from what I hear. That will also be an amazing addition. I can also use OpenXR Neck Safer now. Just having it installed would stop my VP2 from running DCS for some reason. Another great benefit of using openXR now. Cons: The headset is heavy. Not too bad to wear, but definitely some weight to it. Inertia when looking around. Not great for fast pace frantic games, but fine for sims. Batteries last just fine atm. Sound is good, having speakers off the ear is nice. The microphone is non functional atm. Smart smoothing is "coming". Also, the price... ouch. Can't run some games like Apollo11 VR. Not sure why, don't have time to fight with it. Flight sims are my priority atm. I have to return it on Saturday, but I'm convinced and ordered one for myself. A worthy upgrade from VP2/G2 class headsets for sure. Running 12700KF/64GB DDR4 3600/4090.

That’s certainly what I have been using successfully for the last couple of years.

Not sure if its meant to work like this, but in the current build, you dont have to designate anywhere if CDES is boxed, CDES is Constant designation, so it is always redesignating. In the practice mission i made, all 4 moving targets, i just box CDES, with PTRK, and tap auto aqq. press once, if it doesnt grab first try, dont press again (i think this is how it changes back to area track), just move near the target with tdc slew, and make sure your polaritys correct (obviously the bigger the contrast between target an background will hold better track). EDIT, just made a new mission n track to show u what i mean F15GBUPTRK.trk

(This is based on my current, possibly incorrect, understanding on how these features work in DCS) The current implementation of radar cross sections(RCS for short) in DCS is a single static value for each aircraft. For example, the RCS of the in-game F-16 is 4.0, Su-27 is 5.5, and an A-10 is 10.0. This current system has its drawbacks, namely that this value is completely static and doesnt change based on aircraft aspect or external stores. For example, the F-16 and MiG21 have a fairly small frontal profile, resulting in a lower frontal RCS, but this is not the case for side/top/bottom aspect angles, where the RCS would obviously be different to frontal aspect. The current system in DCS does not reflect this at all. The current system doesnt express all the nuance there is in terms of how visible your aircraft will be on radar depending on your aspect. More importantly, the current RCS implementation also doesnt take into account external stores on your aircraft. This means that (for example) a clean F-16 will have exactly the same RCS as one loaded up with six mk82s, two wing tanks and four amraams. This obviously doesnt make any sense, and it results in far lower radar detection ranges than you should really be getting in reality. The IR signature implementation is also relatively simple. Planes have two values for IR signature, one for military power, and one for reheat. This in practise means theres actually no difference in IR signature between being at MIL power and idle power, remember this next time you slam your throttle to idle when defending an IR missile! In short Make the Radar cross section of a target change depending on target aspect and external stores. Make the IR signature values change depending on throttle setting and stages of reheat, replacing the current two-value system.

After a long time of trying the solutions mentioned in the first post and others, it was finally the SSD on which DCS was installed. I got the idea that this was the source of the error when I copied mod files for another game to a folder on this SSD. I use this drive exclusively for DCS and for mod files. Here, the copying speed slowed down to a standstill from time to time, and after more attempts, caused the drive to become inaccessible. I installed a new hard drive and was able to copy DCS to it with some difficulty. After a subsequent slow repair, re-setting the page file and adding my old profiles, DCS is running stable again, no freezes, microstutters or BSOD.... Two thoughts on this: 1.Before the last patch DCS was running very stable and performant, apart from the known slow loading, and I also had no problems with the mods copied to disk.... it is illogical for me that the harddisk showed such a serious defect after the update. 2. A member of our squadron had the same phenomenon, and also here a move to another harddisk brought remedy for his crashes... and since his system is barely half a year old, I do not assume a hardware defect.

This discussion gets messy very fast unless we specify which variant of S-300. There are three "branches" of S-300 development. The S-300V for the Army, the S-300P for the Air Defense Forces, and the S-300F for the Navy. Each has sub variants and the distinctions aren't super important to cover between the sub variants in this discussion so we'll stick to the three major branches. For the S-300V's, it's entirely plausible a Tor system, Tunguska, or Pantsir could be used but these S-300 systems (S-300V/VM/V4 (SA-12, SA-23, SA-23B)) are not presently in the game outside of mods. Even if they were, it's unlikely these systems would be close enough to the front line to need their own point defense on the site. That's not how IADS generally work! For the S-300P, the only plausible point defense is the Pantsir... it's REALLY important to point out that in looking at real life S-300P sites and S-400 sites, I've seen Pantsir ONCE at a site in the Moscow air defense ring. That includes mapping the entirety the Soviet era SAM site locations, many of these positions are still in active use today, albeit with different systems than before. Case in point, the S-400 locations in Kaliningrad are located on a former S-200 (SA-5) site. No Pantsir seen at that base. Beyond the Pantsir, there really isn't any other system the PVO (air defense forces) would have. The PVO's area of responsibility was defending Strategic Level assets like airfields and factories from ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as bombers and other aircraft... in theory, if HARM or Maverick got to them, the army air defense forces AND the air force failed at their job. The S-300F had access to the AK-630 CIWS systems on board the various cruisers which carried it. As a concept, "point defense" against incoming missiles is a relatively new concept. A lot of people talk about Tor (SA-15) as being the original point defense option but even original versions of Tor were focused on 1980's era ballistic and cruise missiles. Talking about Tomahawk style radar cross sections, not HARM, Maverick, GMLRS, etc. While I have no direct evidence to support the concept, what I can say is anecdotally based upon information gleaned from current conflicts, the ability to intercept a HARM/Maverick/GMLRS sized rocket still remains a really large challenge for even Pantsir, never mind an S-300 as we see in game which dates to the mid 80's. As a whole, the S-300 system (all three branches) has limited "point defense" capability. The original designs called for defense against ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. That'd be like Pershing I and II sized or Tomahawk sized missiles. A Tomahawk is nearly TWICE the diameter of a HARM, for instance. I'd be shocked if these systems could engage anything like HARM with any reliability. So in truth, for OUR S-300PS, the realistic answer is none. At least if you are limiting yourself to systems presently in game and not as mods. With all of that in mind, this is a video game (simulator, if you will) with unlimited possibilities on how a scenario can be played. If adding a Tor to an S-300PS fits your fancy, then have at it! No one knows what the Soviet Union, or Russia would do with PVO air defense units in a conflict on their soil, so you can roleplay it that the Army lent them a bunch of point defense systems!

Voted "other", since the aircraft I’d like to see is the Ju-87-G

I understand that this may not be a priority for now but in the future, might you consider bringing us an Iowa-class battleship in her 1980s configuration? Replacing her 20mm and 40mm anti-aircraft guns and some of her 127mm guns were 32x RGM-109 Tomahawk launch tubes and 16x RGM-84 Harpoon launchers, as well as four Phalanx CIWS emplacements and five FIM-92 Stinger firing positions. I also understand that detailed 3d models of the Iowa-class battleship in this configuration are exceptionally expensive and those fairly massive 16-inch guns would be a challenge in DCS, but I hope to get some of my friends and I to scrape together some money. Someday...

Thanks a lot for sharing this with the community, as I do understand the huge extent of work involved in creating it. I'm not currently flying the Hornet, but will for sure play this Campaign whenever I return to it ... wish for more Campaigns with other Modules, like the Mirage F1 and the JF-17, as we have so many already for the Hornet, F-14 and A-10C

I wasn't going to say anything, not because I disagree with the argument, but because my reply might be too nerdy Probably close to 20 years ago I remember in the forums of an old Viper sim a similar argument. People were saying the buttons didn't make realistic sounds and people wanted actual recordings of the buttons in the sim. I naturally agreed. But one day I was at an airshow and they had an F-16 just sitting out by itself with the canopy up. They were letting people SIT IN IT!!! Where were all the people waiting in line? Where were all the kids that wanted to sit in a cockpit full of buttons? (Where were the MPs making sure kids don't fall off the ladder climbing into the cockpit?) There were thousands of people at this airshow and an open F-16 cockpit is vacant?!?? So I climbed in and went through the start up procedure. The HOTAS was pulled out but everything else was there. And I was amazed as I started flipping switches and pressing buttons at how closely the tactile experience of pressing the button was to the sound effect of pressing the button in that other Viper sim. The buttons on the UFC probably didn't even make an audible sound, but the way it felt to press them was exactly how I imagined it felt when clicking them in the simulator with the "poor" sound effects. So are they BAD sound effects because they don't REALLY represent the actual audible experience or were they GOOD sound effects because they accurately represent how it FEELS to press the buttons? Also, a pilot may not be able to clearly HEAR the afterburner, or the wind during high alpha maneuvers, but he can FEEL when the afterburner is on or when the wings start buffeting in the wind. Does sound have a part to play here? So that's just a thought on the philosophy of sound in video games. Now consider this analogy wherein we can all be SMEs: In the year 3000 a car nerd wants to jump in a car simulator and drive a Stingray down Route 66. The Stingray's engine sound is famous. But the road noise is loud! So he puts on tires from 2020 even though they aren't contemporaneous with the Stingray (to us, anyway. A guy in the year 3000 might think they are). Oh yeah, Route 66 is in the desert! So he naturally turns on the AC. Oh no! It's too loud for him to clearly hear the awesome engine sound!! (Even in cars with loud engines an AC on max will drown out the engine sound). He either has to turn down the temp of the desert (so he doesn't need the AC) or he turns down the volume of the AC so he can clearly hear the engine. If you're an SME contracted to Stingray Simulator 3000, how would you advise them? I guess it all comes down what you're trying to simulate. Some people like jet engines and they're going to want to hear them. Some people relate to fighter pilots and they're going to want to simulate the pilot experience. When I read that other modules didn't simulate the ECS sound that kinda bothered me. Imagine some jerk that knows nothing about airplanes gets a backseat ride in an F-15. When confronted with unfamiliar screens, flashing lights, buttons, switches, knobs..... the first thing that's going to stick with him is the SOUND. And then jumps into DCS... He'll say it's obvious to him that this module is NOT what it feels like to sit in an actual F-15E cockpit at all! The cockpit sound, the thing that made the greatest impression on him the first time he sat in an actual cockpit, isn't even in the game?!?? All the attention to detail that goes into making the sim that this random guy has no chance of understanding, and probably not even a chance of perceiving, is lost on him... yet he could honestly say the inaccuracy of the module is obvious to him. The solution imo (and I think previously mentioned) would be to have a global volume setting for the ECS and to bring all modules up to a similar ambient cockpit sound standard. It would fit right in with the "hear like in helmet" and the amplify afterburner sound options.

To be precise the issue came back when stage 1 of the radar rework was released. I have contributed with tracks and videos in several threads and PMs. The fixed internally tag looks promising. Thanks for addressing it.

Like I mentioned above it was at first just a drop in replacement but over time it received new functionality when coupled with other upgrades.

Good point! Looks like I'll be busy for the next few years lol

Looking awesome.... May I say that you should start using version numbers for your downloads so we know we have the latest..... They make great targets...

If you're talking about the resolution of the black moving map issue, ED devs fixed it, not me. There was an issue with transparency. Emptiness used to look black instead of transparent, preventing us to see other layers hidden underneath the black image.

Hi guys, I was on holiday so didn't have access to the documentation which I needed to answer this properly. But basically, everyone answering that using wikipedia data to back your claims is a bad idea is right. That data is either suppositions or specific fuel/speed/altitude situations that cannot be blindly applied to all cases. For example the landing speed. Our F1 module is capable of landing at 140 kt, but only when very very lightly loaded (almost empty of fuel). If you are trying to land it full, it won't be possible to do so at such low speeds. It is the same for the real aircraft, according to the performance data we have. This is what wikipedia is refering to when it says the landing speed is 140 kt. It means the minimum landing speed is about 140 kt, not that the aircraft can land at that speed always. Regarding maximum Mach: the limiting factor is the maximum impact temperature of 135 ºC (as others have stated), this corresponds to about Mach 2.1 for the altitudes with the coldest temperatures (so above 35000-40000 ft). Obviously for altitudes below that, it's impossible to reach such high Mach numbers. This matches the performance data we have. About the operational ceiling: I don't know where wikipedia gets its numbers from but what we know is at what altitudes the aircraft is capable of maintaining a climbrate of 500 ft/min and our module complies with them with a high degree of precission, and that corresponds to altitudes much lower than those 66k ft. @IvanK is a Mirage III pilot and has provided some interesting insight. Again, as has been mentioned before, endurance can reach 2:15 hours with the described payload easily as long as the aircraft is flown with the right profile: Mach of around 0.6-0.65 and altitude of 20-25k ft. Obviously the value stated in wikipedia corresponds to the aircraft being flown in maximum endurance conditions, it doesn't mean that no matter what you do, you'll have 2:15 hours of flight time with that payload. In general, we appreciate the feedback of our customers and it has been crucial for the development of the module (both bug fixing and feature addition) over the past year but I think this thread is not serving that purpose anymore. At this point, it has taken away many hours of module development in testing claims and checking documentation. You are free to continue discussing but we won't intervene anymore unless evidence from reliable sources (or contact info to said sources) is provided.

Genau dafür wurden Early Access und OpenBeta erfunden: Damit solche Probleme von den Spielern gefunden und an den Entwickler gemeldet werden, um sie zu beheben und spätestens in der Release-Version weit hinter sich gelassen zu haben. Sorry, aber wer ein nagelneues Early Access Modul noch in der OpenBeta drei Wochen nach Erstveröffentlichung fliegt und sich dann drüber ärgert, dass es nicht rund läuft, für den habe ich echt null Verständnis. Lass das einfach sein, kauf dir die Module wenn sie aus dem Early Access raus sind und andere die Bugs für dich gefunden und gemeldet und Stunden über Stunden in die Kommunikation mit den Devs und das Eingrenzen der Fehler investiert haben. Du weist ganz genau, worauf du dich mit Early Access und OpenBeta einlässt. Nichts davon ist irgendwie geheim oder versteckt. Die beiden Begriffe beschreiben ganz genau, was wir geliefert bekommen. Und das einzig sinnvolle, wenn du in solche Probleme läufst, ist es, den Entwicklern beim Eingrenzen zu helfen und mit ihnen über die Probleme zu kommunizieren. Du kannst ja offenbar nach der Recherche recht genau beschreiben, was wann wie passiert und das auch reproduzieren - das ist super, gerade die Reproduzierbarkeit ist eine riesige Hilfe beim Fehlerbeheben.

+1 support for this feature. Having to set this up in every single mission is becoming frustrating. A simple default one I modify and save to my call sign name will do. We really need DTC implemented. ED please lift this weight off our shoulders. Ryzen 5 5600: RTX 3070: 32g Ram: Virpil Cm3 Throttle :Thrustmaster warthog flight stick: Thrustmaster TFRP rudder:Samsung Odyssey plus Vr headset :