Zimmerdylan

I appreciate the link. I downloaded it but it wouldn't really run. Just kept telling me that it stopped working whenever I tried to use it. I believe this is because it's around 12 years old and I'm running Windows 10, 64bit. But it prompted me to go look for another separate calibration tool. So it was helpful. Something very strange about all of this though and it may just be the latest version of DCS that's the cause of this. I see posts where people are having issue with assigning keys and bindings. I too am having a bit of that issue. And when I try to set parameters for my axis commands, that's when the issue of the sliders comes into play. However, when I go in game and do a visual of when I'm using my sliders in practical application in the AC, all of the assigned controls move freely and go exactly as they're suppose to. But when I go back to the settings page, they're still binding up. So now I am in the process of figuring out what's really going on. Again, I do not have this issue in any other sim that I fly. It's a real puzzle to me.

I just started back to DCS after a couple of months not flying. I thought I had lost my marbles when I could not keep any of the choppers on any kind of even plain while flying some of the time. One time I would fly and all would be great, the next time I would fly and the craft would be unmanageable. I finally got fed up with the issue and when I investigated, I found that my axis commands aren't acting as they should. It seems that in the controls editor, when I assign my throttle to either of the slider knobs on the X52 HOTAS, and rotate it to adjust the in game command, it does not go to the fullest extent of the required range. It sometimes only goes 2/3 of the way, and if I rotate it again, it may go only half way, and the next time I rotate, it will go all of the way. It's very inconsistent. It does this in both directions. If I just move the slider back and forth, every time it goes back and forth, it goes to a different degree no matter if I max it out or not. I have reinstalled the driver, I've deleted my DCS saved profiles and reset new ones, done a DCS repair, yet nothing fixes this issue. I tried the same thing in Xplane and the problem does not exist there. Nor does it show up in the Saitek software. This problem has never presented itself before. That I know of anyway. AHhhhhhh!!! Maybe it actually has!!!! Perhaps this is why I have complained so much about the P-51 not getting to 20,000 feet without major issues, and possibly why I have experienced underperformance in many AC. HOLY FRIGGIN COW!!!! If I can fix this....It may cure all of my DCS woes!!! Has anyone had this issue with the X52 and DCS before?? Any ideas??

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VapSXJvS-yo[/ame] I'm very sorry but I have to take a brake from this for a while. There is a list of issues with this update but I'll just go with this one for now. Last night I was 1 hour or more just getting into the game. Terrible lag (as you can see....my rig handles the game just fine), the game just opens crappy every other time, game opening in small screen, just crazy stuff. After a long and frustrating ordeal, I went to check the Hawk out as it was suppose to be updated. I started the mission with the engines off......Have a listen. The track IR is just terrible, but only for the Hawk (was in a dark room when this video was done so Track IR was working great). Not for any other module. But the video has a pretty strange conclusion. In the video, I am clearly in the NTTR map, when I go to leave......pay close attention to where I ended up. Whenever I post anything on the forums, If I'm typing for more than 2 minutes, I have to save everything I have typed, and copy it back into the box because I get booted from the forums. I have addressed this with ED before and they have never given me any idea of why. And it gets tiresome. My game still goes non full screen and goes out of sync when I go to full screen, still stops working on shutdown much of the time. I'm not being a jerk here but come on ED........I'm paying you guys to use this. It isn't working at all. I'll be back in 6 months or so. Maybe you will have it together by then. If not.....I'm just moving on to something else.

He is taking guitar lessons from me. James Taylor....stuff like that.

From what I know, the Pave Penny's primary functions have been replaced by the TGP. Either way, I don't use laser designation or any of that stuff really when I fly the A10. I am much more into the old school planes. Although the A10 is a lot of fun, quite frankly, after a while it just isn't as challenging TO ME as the simple systems of the WWII or even the Korean era AC. Pushing buttons and looking at screens gets a little too routine for me. I enjoy the A10 but not nearly as much as many of the other AC here.

Wow........

Hey guys: in DCS 1.2, I use to set up missions where I would go into a hot LZ and pick up troops. In the NTTR map, this doesn't happen. If I station any enemy vehicles, or troops within range of my ground troops that I'm suppose to pick up, they won't move at all, or in some cases when I give them the "embark" command, they run off to fight or hide. I am not sure which because they're so goofy about it most times. Even if I place them behind adequate cover of buildings or hills, they'll either stay put and not embark, or run off in crazy directions. The enemy doesn't even know that they are there. They will however, embark if I kill all of the bad guys and land. In 1.2, and 1.5, I would land while being fired at, pick up the troops, and take off being fired at and the guys wouldn't wimp out. They'd jump right on without hesitation. Is this a bug, or is it just something you guys have not addressed yet? Or is it the new norm? Thx!:no_sad:

I was wondering: At this point, I cannot create any mission at all that center on the Hoover Dam. I cannot place vehicles or troops anywhere on the bridges, or dam itself. I know that NTTR is in a very early stage of development and that there are lots of improvements slated for it. I know that the ME isn't anywhere near finished for it (hopefully). There are quite a few issues with it at this point. I'm only asking if the dam, buildings, and other objects are going to be made so that when you place objects, troops, or whatever on them, they'll actually set atop of them rather than inside of them. I know that this has been this way since the earliest days of DCS. Just wondering if it's going to stay this way.

I don't think that people would expect others to stoop down for them. Nor do I see anyone in hysterics over it. I believe that many people just don't feel confident enough to go up against others who may be at a much higher skill level than they are. Everyone has to learn rudimentary skills before they can go out and get shot down with any kind of confidence. My 6 year old son is the poster child for this point. He's learning baseball for little league. He's not slow or uncoordinated. He's just never played ball before and lacks the confidence to go out and play with other boys that he knows are in their 2nd season and are much better than he is. All of my words of support in the world won't change his human nature of not wanting to go out and be embarrassed. It just takes a lot of one on one time, frustration (on his part), and doing it at his current level. It's just that simple. It's the same as DCS for beginner fighter pilots. Not a big deal at all. The way that the AI are currently set up, I know advanced people who have a lot of trouble shooting them down. I can shoot some better than others depending on the plane. Adjusting the skill level of the AI only changes the distance at which he detects you. It does nothing to it's damage model, or it's aggressiveness. The AI are just a sad fact of life in DCS and I don't think that ED can do much about their crazy ways. In other sims that I have, the AI aircraft tend to eat a lot of memory and slow your game down quite a bit. DCS is no different. It is what it is and I understand the problem. The other side of this is that a lot of the guys that I have faced down on servers were not really very skilled fighters either. So there aren't as many ace pilots running around on the internet as most would think.

Yes, he has sat next to me and watched me fly the A10, Mustang, and F86. He is not inclined to fly it himself as he has told me. I completely understand his attitude abut it so I do not push it on him. I have actually discussed the realism with several A10 pilots and all of them are very impressed with it as a whole. There are some things that they find to be lacking in the A10 but part of those issues are kind of more to do with the way we (as simmers) have learned to fly them. Procedures and the like. None of them care for the engine sounds. One of the pilots said that the DCS A10 sounds a lot more like a 727 than an A10 when its in flight. My older pilot caused a lot of confusion when he explained the Pave Penny laser system that's on our version of the A10 but has been removed from the A10 since 2005 I believe. It's physically mounted to the DCS A10 and he was explaining to me that it seemed not be working. Some people on these forums jumped all over me about it (some people are entirely way too serious about DCS) but the error was just in the fact that he thought our version had it and it doesn't. The module itself is however still mounted to the plane. The HUD isn't exactly to the A10 in reality also. What the real difference is I do not really know. I do know that the pilots I have talked to (Rick more than the others) have told me that things like the round pipper for the cannons tend to take up real estate on the screen so it's not favored by many pilots. They opt for the cross hair pipper. And again....some people came down on me for stating this. But all I can say is that I know these guys are A10 pilots, one an instructor, they have no reason whatsoever to tell me any tall tails about it. They all have said the same thing about it. Having never sat in the seat of an A10, all I can do is take their word on it, and I do. There were some other things also but I don't remember all of them. Rick (my student) was overly impressed with the Mustang. He has actually flown them and he flies with a Mustang pilot at air shows. He was pretty impressed with the startup procedure and told me that my not holding the oil pump for 30 secs or so was the only thing that I should have actually done that I didn't do. He said that everything else is spot on. He wasn't impressed with the ground handling and the sound was a little weird to him but everything else was good with him. Rick left the AF a couple of weeks ago and is moving on to become a pilot for Delta Airlines. He owns his own plane (a Baron 58 ) and flies it pretty regularly. He flew A10's in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo. He is very familiar with the A and C versions obviously. I believe that he's flown a two seater also. Oh.....he really had no input on the F86 as he's never really been around one.

It's the intimidation factor and confidence. The AI may beat you all of the time but it doesn't judge you afterwards. I'm not saying that a majority of people will, I'm saying that it's human nature to believe that they will. It's truly intimidating to go against strangers in servers for many. I absolutely get that.

I opened a ticket with ED about it some time ago. They took all of my reports, specs, and so on. They later came back and told me that they had no clue as to why it was happening. They also said that it wasn't a common problem but I have overwhelmingly heard the contrary (nothing personal ED, it's just a fact). It's just a minor irritation and it's obviously not a problem with my system so I'm not all that concerned about it.

All I can say about any classified systems on the A10. Two pilots, one just retiring, and one a young captain told me that there just isn't anything classified operating on the A10. Rick is coming by this morning once again for another lesson, I will ask him one more time. But he was adimate to the point of laughing that this plane just isn't that advanced. And the younger guy just kind of looked at me funny as if he were wondering why I ever would have thought that to begin with. I'm pretty convinced that the plane is completely declassified. And again.....It's only a fact in my reality. But I have a pretty strong basis for believing it.

Hey guys!!! Had my A10 pilot (music) student show up this week. And we managed to chat a bit about the A10, so as usual I'll share what we talked about. Now.....Like I have said before, I am only conveying to all of you what he shares with me. I am not in any way an A10 expert, even after talking to him many times about the A10. If I share something that any of you do not agree with, you are free to ask me to get with him or even disagree. But please be polite about it. I share this stuff because it's interesting and I know many of you would absolutely like to know what an actual A10 pilot thinks. I do this for the community. The pilot in question is a Lt. Col. His name is Rick, and he just retired from DMAFB here in Tucson where he was an A10 instructor. The guy was 22 years flying the A10. OK....we talked about weapons systems a bit. I asked him about in flight preparations. Things like DSMS, profiles, etc. I asked when pilots actually set all of this stuff up. As per usual, his answers floored me. Weapons are preset (in almost all cases) before a pilot ever gets into the AC. It all goes back to that box behind the left shoulder in the cockpit. Pilots have a pre-programmed card that they insert into that box when they enter the AC. On the card are all of the settings that they'll need for the mission they are flying. Occasionally a pilot will have forgotten to program his card and in that case, the pilot says a few very nasty things to himself and sets it all up before he takes off. So while in flight, pilots do not really bother going from screen to screen setting up their weapons. All of the other mission parameters are likewise programmed on to that card. The plane already has all of that info, so it does not need to download anything. And as I said before, A10's rarely go out with a specific target (like a convoy or whatever). It is very much a ground support plane and it loiters at 20,000 ft above ground operations waiting for markers or coordinates, and much less often, laser designations. Rick told me that he can't remember ever going out on a mission with a specific target as the objective. OK...call me an idiot but I never really thought of this before. But.....The TGP doesn't ad any real range to the Maverick missile. The missile goes as far as is goes. The TGP just gives you the benefit of firing a bit earlier and identifying targets sooner to lock on to. I know that a lot of you A10 guys already know this but I had never thought about it like that. I suppose that I'm not the only egghead out there who didn't put 2 and two together. I don't fly the A10 as much as most of you do. I had heard through the grapevine here in the forums that the DCS A10 was as accurate to the A10 as you could get in a sim, and that the only things missing were the classified weapons and systems. I did manage to ask Rick about this. He just laughed. And he made a lot of sense in his answer to me. This plane has been flying for over 40 years. It's systems are old tech. It would cost way to much to upgrade it to any modern classified systems. The government won't put that kind of investment into a plane that is so specific to one kind of mission. There isn't anything classified about the A10. This fact was confirmed to me by a younger A10 pilot that I had run into at the air show. He pretty much said the same thing. A10's very rarely mark ground targets. The A10 is very much dependent on ground support to take out targets. From what Rick tells me, the plane pretty much stays well above ground threat level until they receive a smoke marker or coordinates from ground troops. So when there are 4, A10's loitering around a designated area or battle going on, on the ground, they are not up there looking for targets, they're waiting for orders, and all 4 of them get the orders at the same time. At that point, it's time to do some damage, get away, and come back again. They won't fly low enough to look around for stuff because the A10 isn't all that fast and they are an easy target. They just do what's given to them on the battlefield and stay out of the way. I have to wonder why ED doesn't incorporate that box into the DCS A10. It could be set up in the ME by the pilot.

AOA is soooo important. I am usually at around 100mph when I fly over the end of the runway. At that point I am pulling back and basically hovering in a 3 point position. From there, I just slow the AC down and it gently drops as it loses lift. You gotta let the plane set itself down. As soon as I hit the runway (cannot speak for others) I got the stick in my gut to keep it straight. I guess it's all about practice.

F111 comes to mind............

I actually hate Windowes10. When this system goes....It's MAC from now on. Hopefully ED will develop a MAC version of DCS by then. As far as DCS performance with Windows10. I don't see any difference.

So what you are saying here is that "yes", the new changes are more taxing and that people are going to have to start thinking about upgrades to their systems at this point? As far as NTTR, I have been told flat out by many people that they're not interested. I'm not reflecting on whether NTTR is a good idea or bad idea or that the price is too steep. I purchased it and do not base me decisions on what I buy from ED on the opinions of others. All I am saying is that if ED starts charging for all of these things, they'll find themselves in a strange quandary (IMO). I personally would not have minded waiting until 2.0 was complete and paying for the whole package with NTTR, and the old map. In my mind this would have left everything open. People could have opted for the complete upgrade with further updates or stayed with 1.5 and kept flying it without updates. This is what many Gaming software companies do, and people have no issues dealing with it. This way, you could stay with a version that supports your hardware yet still play with others on line who opted to keep the older version or whatever. Battlefield, COD, Xplane, and countless others do it this way. It only seems to me that ED would be splintering if they came out with these pay improvements. I know that you Sith are on the inside of all of this, but the rest of us are on the outside so we can only speculate what's down the road. And there are still many more people who do not come to the forums sharing their thoughts via TS and they too are wondering where this is all going. Does this mean that anyone is leaving DCS, or that they hate ED? Not at all, it only means that when people are left to their own devices, they'll speculate. You can't hold that against them, it's human nature.

I don't know if ED is feeling the pinch, but from my experiences in servers, a lot of people have opted out of the NTTR map because they feel it is too expensive and have no plans to purchase it. Although I own the map, I don't really fly it because there are too few servers, and they're all empty most of the time. I do not think I would be apt to pay for any upgrades to existing maps at this point. Although NTTR is still in alpha, there are so many issues that I personally have with it right now that I'm not really into doing anything with it at this point. Along these lines, I have a question about the recent updates and "upgrades" to 1.5. As of maybe two updates ago, my DCS 1.5 is performing very poorly. Laggy, low FPS, cockpit textures in all planes seem to be glittery (for lack of a better term) and its performing worse than ever. I have had issues with DCS giving me the old "DCS has stopped responding" whenever I closed the game down for a long time now, and it opens in non full screen half the time even though it is set to full screen. And when I use the keys to set it to full screen, the mouse is out of calibration as though I am still in non full screen. I opened tickets with DCS on both of these matters and they eventually told me that it was unusual and that they had no idea. But when I chat about it in TS on the servers, it is a common issue according to many people I fly with. Now, with these recent updates being performance killers, I'm flying even less. So if I could get a little 411 on whether the new improvements are actually going to force me to upgrade my system to keep playing or if this is just growing pains (so to speak).

Most of us do not down very many of the AI's. And many people just give up. And why not......it's a losing battle. Better to go find someone close to your level and work at it on line. All the AI can really teach you is how an AI fights, and that is nothing like a real human would fight.

And I might add that their damage model is pretty hard to grasp. You can shoot holes in both fuel tanks, have oil streaming from the AI plane, have smoke trailing out of it for miles and it will still fly like you never hit it. This issue isn't particularly a bug or ED's fault per se. It's just a result of having to dumb down the AI in the interest of making the simulator work better for the player. I assume that FPS, performance, and lag spikes are just a few reasons that it probably needs to be this way.

Welcome to the world of DCS AI aircraft. They'll do things that amaze and confuse you. It's just the way they are due to the simplified flight dynamics. It has been a source of grief for many a DCS flier from the earliest of times.

I have to say that I appreciate all of the response. I'm sorry if I come off as having an attitude. I really do not. I love flying DCS and am very happy with it 90% of the time. I appreciate that people can get the plane up to 30-40K ft. in the NTTR map. And indeed, the IA P51's that I set up I'm my missions can also reach 25-30K but not without struggling to get there. When I check on them in mission, they can get down to as little as 110 mph while climbing between 15-17K. If the AI that is designed to use the plane with max efficiency has this kind of trouble, then IMO, something isn't exactly right. It appears that there is some kind of "magic" (for lack of a better term) combination to get the plane up there. I have tried all different climb rates, prop and throttle settings, and even messed with the supercharger. The plane just drops to as little as 100 MPH and looks like it's tail is about to fall out of the sky. If I level off or start to point the nose down to gain some speed, the plane can barely recover enough speed to go any higher. I honestly wish that we could post tracks so I could figure out what's going wrong. I do know that many people I fly with on line have the same issues that I do with it. Has anyone tried to use Shadow Play? I would very much appreciate actually seeing people putting this plane through it's paces in ways that I just do not seem to be capable of doing. For training purposes, it would be a godsend to all of us if the AI had different skill levels. I know that you can set that in the MI or whatever but we all know that it's not exactly what I mean. The distance at which you detect your adversary is much different than the skill with which you attempt to dispatch them. It would be extremely helpful if DCS had a dumba$$ level IA, an intermediate level, and an " eat you you for lunch" model. This way people could train and adapt to the opponent's advances rather than being thrust into a no win situation from day one only to be shot down time after time after time after time. How realistic that would be to do (from an FPS or practical point of view).....I don't know. But it would be nice. One thing I have noticed as of late is that after watching videos on YouTube of guys shooting down the ME109 is that they always try and keep the 109 at a distance. They do not make the fight into a turning match and patiently keep the 109 working long outside maneuvers. On the other hand....there are very few of these videos out there as I see when I watch that many people are having the same stall and power problems that I am having. And again.....not so much in the 109. And lastly, I agree with one of the posters who argues that the P51 was not unwieldy and difficult to handle. I have seen that argument here before and could not disagree more. When people tell me how hard the P51 was suppose to be to handle, it goes directly contrary to every interview I have seen with it's pilots during wartime. There was a red tail pilot who said that the plane would whatever you asked of it with no problems. And the 3 pilots I chatted with last week told me the same exact things. and one of them was a WWII P52 veteran. So I am either flying this plane like a complete idiot (which is entirely possible) or my download is not the same as many of you guy's. I'm not really sure which it is at this point. none the less, I do appreciate this conversation and am glad that you guys haven't poured tar and feathers over me for bringing it up. It just seems that the P51 has become my only real source of frustration at this point.

Thank you for doing that. I wish others would do the same. The plane just stalls at around 15000 and won't go any higher. I know that people are frustrated with me for this post, but I have yet to see any videos of anyone climbing to 20,000 in the mustang in the NTTR map. I also feel that it is less effective as a whole on the NTTR map. And all three of the P51 pilots I chatted with said the same thing about the supercharger. Don't touch it, the plane does all of that. But if you try and climb in the NTTR map, the supercharger will sometimes kick in at 16,000, sometimes at 15,000. In any event, it does not help you get any higher when it does. It just jerks the plane around a bit.

Hey guys: At the risk of starting another pointless argument on the forums, I'm going to put this out there because I am so overly frustrated with this module at this point that I'm temped to just remove it from my computer. I know that ED argues that this AC is correct to it's specs and since I am not a P51 pilot, I have a weak leg to stand on. But please hear me out and if you can, help me to understand why this module behaves the way that it does, I would sincerely appreciate it. First of all, I am overly aggravated with it's poor performance against the Germen AC. I understand that the 109 was faster, lighter, bla bla bla. But the P51 (Even AI on AI) gets torn apart time after time in every test I put up. Even the tests that I am told to try by mods here. The tests always prove them dead wrong yet people's complaints or comments seem to fall on deaf ears. I would not make this statement if I had not tried these tests. Example: you take 4, P51's and 4, ME 109's. Put them at 25,000 ft. Put 4 or 5 large planes up with them. Tell the 109's to attack the bomber group. Don't give them any other orders, just kill the bombers. Put the P51's in an escort posture directly above and behind the bombers. Within 3 to 5 minutes, every 51 is completely whiped from the sky with the 109's taking minimal (if any in 4 out of 5 times) casualties. And not one of the bombers will be touched. There is something wrong with this model. And I (a marginal pilot at best) can easily down a P51 in a 109 in one on one. I cannot keep up with a 109 at all....ever in a P51. In the NTTR map, I can barely get the P51 up to 17,000 ft. The thing just does not have the power. I am fully aware of technique of getting there. And ask anyone, please post a video of you getting it there from the ground. I would truly like to see it. I talk to many others on line who fly the WW II planes and most of them have just given up on the P51. I fly the 109 most of the time because of the serious lack of ability of the P51. This last Sunday, I went to the DM air show here in Tucson Az. I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with 2 current P51 pilots, and a WWII vet who also flew P51's. And everything that all three of these gentlemen told me directly contradicts the DCS model of this plane. The guy who takes lessons from me is an A10 pilot who knows 2 of these guys and flies with them, he has sat with me while I have flown the P51 and from his time flying around P51's in air shows agrees that the plane is just substandard in it's performance. I might ad to this that he believes that DCS has created a great some and it is very detailed. And that many of the pilots are aware of DCS and have respect for what they are doing. However, he believes that the P51 just doesn't cut it in the performance department. So......I know I'll probably be somehow taken down a peg on this. I just don't care anymore. I know what ED says, I know what I read, and I know what 4 guys that I know are actual pilots, 2 of whom I watched climb into this plane and fly it, one who I know flew it against the ME109, and another who is a combat flight instructor told me. And even if it was not superior to the 109, it is not nearly as hard as it is in DCS to get this plane to 20,000 feet. Please keep in mind that these pilots fly out of AZ and Nevada where the conditions are identical to the NTTR map. I just cannot believe that all of these guys, and the things I have researched are wrong. Sorry ED but the P51 isn't right in my opinion. And I'm grounding her. Just my opinion...............................................