bogusheadbox

I can confirm same. You know, sometimes it just gets hard to pluck the enthusiasm when its always an uphill struggle

Hi there, I am having a problem with my landing gear and arrestor hook which deploy randomly without associated key presses. Both come down together. What I have done. Removed all mods. Checked controls binding for double binding. Removed all keyboard commands for hook and gear (now only bound to hotas switch) though it may be voice attack (I have no voice command for gear and hook) but I disabled that anyway. I cannot replicate it on will. It just happens randomly without perceivable cause. I can play for over an hour and it wont happen. Sometimes it happens just after spawn. Its not frequent but a real pain when everything drops and parts go flying off your airframe from overspeed. I mainly use F-14 and F-18 where it happens on both frames. I don't see it happening on ka-50. I am at a loss as to where to look next to troubleshoot. Any help appreciated.

F111 without a doubt. Show me a war in the Dcs time frame (apart from ww2) that didn't involve an f111

Bump https://images.app.goo.gl/vqrRkQqDH8ipipNRA

+1 here also sad panda

F111 ?

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG gimme GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME Love it, want it, need it. DCS needs it.....

Yes, definitely want, need, beg for it!

Also getting a memory leak with 16gig of ram. I have played around with it and its only happened since 1.5.7 (latest update). What I have found so far that single player missions flown from the mission editor does not cause increase is used ram. However multiplayer games will use up all ram. Just using task manager I can compare my computer with others and the game will start off about 8 or so gig of ram. It will slowly increase towards total usage of 16 gig until the computer asks to shut down DCS. Shortly after the message the game will crash if I don't close down DCS> No other games nor normal use of the computer cause increase in memory. I have uninstalled and reinstalled dcs fresh and the same result. Strange it only happens in multiplayer for me. Win7

Thanks all. That was indeed the problem. DCS didn't like the G27 being connected even though it wasn't used. Disconnecting it has now given me back proper trim Thanks again.

Thanks for the reply. i have a g27 racing wheel and pedals connected to my computer, but i don't use those for flight simming. could that be causing a peoblem? I use x52 and saitek pro flight rudders for dcs (but G27 wheel remains connected)

Hi smudge, thanks for reply. checked my settings and force feedback is off by default. (unless there is another option for it somewhere i haven't seen). I tried turning force feed back on, quickstart game, then off again. Unfortunately same result. scratching my head on this one.

Problem, I can see coolie trim hat on the in game stick move, I can see my trim marker in the (Rctrl+Enter) screen move. But it has zero effect on the aircraft. Aircraft systems are fully powered and tested on ground and air quick start. The trim diamond on the (Rctrl+Enter) screen seems to move differently to my friends. I.e. I can trim full back and full right and the aircraft will fly wings level dependent on thrust setting and moving the trim in any direction to full deflection results in zero input on the aircraft whilst the in game coolie hat animation on the stick is representing my desired inputs I have mapped the trim via programming software and also tried mapping directly to dcs on the trim. I have mapped to different hat swtiches on my stick as well. Not sure how to rectify this and no one I know has the same problem. I have used the command prompt to check my game files as well. I have tried rebinding to different key strokes and using keyboard only. Still same result. Any help appreciated.

So as I understand it, the BetAB-500 is a runway/concrete/bunker buster. Has it got a bug in it or how many do you need to puncture through an ammunition depot. I have used 2 on same target and no joy ? If this bomb is not a dedicated "bunker Buster" for the frogfoot can you please advise which to use (bomb wise) Thoughts on a postcard please. Also is the drag for bombs and CCIP in the su25-t going to be fixed (provided its broken) soon as it seems you need a very steep dive for shallow curve bombs.

Really, honestly. Cmon, the 25t is supposed to be the free "suck them in" plane. As in load up DCS world, we will give you 25t and see what we have done. Well its a tad hard when things are broken. What incentive for the general consumer is there to purchase when the free aircraft is and has been broken for ages. Its kinda ridiculous. The ECM works. Surely its not hard to have a light come on ........

Bumpity bump. We need the lights and counting button presses is an idiotic response. C'mon ED, sort it out

Hmm isn't there a fact somewhere that most failures on aircraft happen just after they have been to maintenance. :music_whistling:

@ GG , I think the point about research i was trying to make was missed. Nevermind, I have vented long enough.

And thank you for the reply again. That research you have mentioned ED are concerned about. Surely that research would have encoumpased the discussion that this almost 100 page thread entails. Also about research you would have to wonder as i have previously posted about the values ED originially put on development costs versus realistic sales. Those numbers were obviously wrong as ED changed tack several times on what was originally proposed DCS to be. I understand fully development costs and the need to recouperate them in a strategy that promotes overall growth of the company.... but... Overall its a moot point as the original sales price and sales figures and development costs were what they were (and surely must be without retort not what was originally forcasted within the halls of the bean counters and marketing.) Therefore this research you made reference to could be wrong as it clearly was in the past. But it is what it is, and without me saying that i am dissapointed inthe direction this is now heading, how will ED know that a long term supporter feels bent over.

Apart from the disagreement. Thank you for your reply but from my background i do not see it as logical (though of course i could be wrong) The problem is as follows (and as someone else kindly mentioned) I would purchase every flyable released to support DCS. I simply won't do that now if i need to keep other flyables current with contiunal payments. Ok, maybe in the long run this won't change the overall expenditure from me (i will purchase no flyables and only upgrade what i want), but that will limit the sudectiveness of the sim especially in the way it was propposed to us all that time ago. Not to mention the way ED went about letting us know of the "pay to integrate scheme"... Well its quite clear that not only is it me that has a bad taste in their mouths.

GG, its not very often i disagree with you but i have to on this occasion. For Black shark we spent (if i can remember that far back) 40 dollars on the sim alone. So lets add in my HOTAS Lets add in my PEDALS Lets add in my TRACK IR Lets add in those that want multi screen displays Lets ass in the cost of the sytem that some people purchase just to play this game Etc..... Increasing the core product by 20$ per sale would not affect sales at all if you ask me. On the other hand, asking people to pay for each compatability when we were all expecting not to will

Fair enough comment. So some points. 1) Where is the modular aspect of this sim. It seems they are all standalone products which can talk to each other, instead of being bolt ons to a core simulation. Wouldn't it be better to nail a base core engine down first with bells and whistles (like they did say they were going to do a long time ago) then leave standard for a period of time for all flyables to bolt onto then upgrade again the base package with a new host of bits and charge for these periodical upgrades instead of charging us for each flyable upgrade everytime a nedw flyable is released? 2) how frequent are the upgrades to the "base packages" that will require significant upgrades from all previous iterations to which DCS will require remuneration. 3) Realistically, how many flyables does ED envisage the customer to purchase. Now that we will have to pay to update each one. 4) How fractured will the online community be. Fair enough i understand you wanting the great additions like JTAC in a10, but where are the fixes to the the problems in BS that have been long mentioned ago? Are they comming in another pay for patch ?

Well to be quite honest, ED should just announce this as an MMO, charge us a monthly fee and be done with it. At least that way we can all be online with the same game version. F:censored:'ing rediculous Of course they won't. There is absolutely no incentive no for me to purchase every released flyable as i will have to pay to keep them all up to date.

Well its quite clear the bean counters at ED seriously FUBAR'd on the development cost per cycle and expected revenue per item. For me what should have happened, is a larger retail price per packet (based on realistic / conservative marketing figures) which incorporates aggregated costs for the deveolpment cycles and kept patching as free. That way the online community is kept as a whole (which promotes the product) and would serve as better backdrop for future sales. But noooooo..... What do i know? <well i do know its not the DCS product they marketed to us many years ago>

Well i have voiced my opinion and following Vipers kind request i wll not vioce anymore. But i will let these guys do it for me. :mad::furious::censored::badmood::eek: