Art-J

They wrote on FB that they have access to a native speaker who they pass all the markings through. I guess the guy isn't native enough or he didn't really bother to do his job properly ;).

It won't because USB IDs for your controllers will be different on new computer and thus it won't recognize old IDs contained in filenames from your copied backup. You can, however, just import old profiles one by one, in controls options window ("load profile" button or whatever it's called?). Will take you a few minutes total, certainly faster than re-binding from scratch. Been there done that when switching to new PC myself.

Couldn't reproduce in Instant cold start mission at Caucasus, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on point of view ). Oh well, next time you encounter the issue on that map, try to save a replay then.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Do you meant how to install custom liveries downloaded from User Files section of ED website? These should also go into Saved Games/DCS, but you need to manually create a new folder there, this time called "Liveries". That's where sub-folder with individual aircraft need to be created as well, and the skins have to be extracted into these. Any skinmakers worth a damn will (should?) provide readme file or instructions related to correct aircraft folder name, because spelling here is crucial. I don't own F-15E so can't help with this one.

@Sydy I'd remove that email address if I were you. Although mods are doing their best to keep this forum clean, I've noticed spambots do pop-up occasionally here and some of them will search for visible emails.

Never used either of these mods, so I don't know where the helmet pack should be extracted, but your folder tree for the Hercules mod appears to be correct. I've just downloaded it - screen below shows what you should see in Instant action menu now, with Caucasus missions as an example. If you can't see them, I suspect you either might have some mod trash/leftovers still kept in your main DCS folder (perform a repair & cleanup then), or one of the other mods, probably outdated, causes problems. The only way to tell is to remove all mods from Saved Games and test them again one by one. Trial and error method.

Rgr that. OK, that's the exact mission I'll try then.

You can poke them about in on their Facebook profile, they're more active over there. Although I've noticed it's already been brought up in latest comments. Still, they ask about specific examples of misspelling.

Can't watch the track because I don't own Syria map. Ability to control collective and cyclic from the 3rd seat has been removed from the game a couple of patches ago, but they should work fine when you switch to seat 1 or 2. I always start from 3rd seat too. On the other hand, last September patches brought various control bugs and issues to Mi-8, so maybe you've discovered something new. Will try to replicate later.

In simplified terms - Mi-8 has hydro boosted controls. In real life cold start scenario you can move them a little if you're strong enough, but in game they won't move until hydro pressure is sufficient after engine startup. Just start the engine and they'll move allright.

Errr.... Well, that's confusing because you're contradicting yourself in these two lines . To keep it simple: a) dcs.exe located in Bin folder launches with only version number shown in bottom right corner of menu screen and it is an ST build. b) dce.exe located in Bin-MT folder launches with "MT preview" note and version number shown together in bottom right corner of menu screen and it is an MT build.

No they don't (at least as far as standalone Open Beta is concerned). Just checked it in latest OB by launching directly off dcs.exe in Bin folder. The "MT preview" note on menu screen settles it, so you'e good. But wait, are you saying that you're getting flickering flaps in MT as well?

Given the post-war manual for -D cleared it for even up to 105 on oil, I'm curious how far we can push "ours" with revised cooling model. Anyone closed the oil shutter and tried what happens above 90?

Don't forget to add DCS logs and gfx settings. It might be gfx card / driver related.

Well, given the fact that there are a grand total of 2 (two) people in community seeing and reoprting it so far, yourself included, then yes, I'd say it is complicated to reproduce. A track, dxdiag and your gfx settings might help answer why you're experiencing it while the others aren't.

The Leatherneck approach at the time had one advantage. Most of MiG players have always wanted to have RSBN available even on airbases and maps that shouldn't have them from realism point of view. So unlike L-39 implementation, which is more accurate but compatible with only 4 airbases on Caucasus, the "fake" RSBN for MiG can be placed anywhere on any map, even Nevada . Since L-39 was released years after the -21, one could argue that the former should follow channel numbers of the latter. On the other hand, though one could also argue that ED's can do their own thing without looking at 3rd parties and their imlpementation is better simply because as being more accurate and realistic.

After some test flying, I decided to go back to v 1.0. Partially, because of a bit more worn out look of it that I prefer (which I'd argue is more accurate judging from period photos), but also beacuse the darker, cleaner style of v 2.0, combined with how lighting and shading works in DCS, makes the cockpit look quite cartoonish in 2.0 (almost like in Il-2 GB). High contrast textures don't work well in DCS and it's visible on instrument screws, which in 2.0 look as if they were made of white plastic rather than aluminium. Darker background also exacerbates reflection problem (caused by roughmet?) that shows on both horizontal panels, looking as if they were painted with gloss paint (RLM66 should be flat I think?). I'm talking about dynamic reflection shown on the screenshot below. It's all subjective, of course and that's why I'd suggest keeping both versions up. Guys who like older look will use 1.0, while those who like newer one will go for 2.0. Cheers!

That's how one can end a year with a bang . Can't wait to try it. Happy New Year!

It's a general DCS thing. If "Easy comms" is disabled in gameplay options, you can use comms command (default "\") only on the ground and with canopy open, because it kind-of "simulates" pilot shouting rather than using his radio. In order to communicate in air, you need to use "Push to Talk" command ("Alt+\" by default). Assuming you previosly turned on your radio in the first place and set channel/frequency correctly.

OK, but post your logs, dxdiag and DCS settings then. Showing screenshot only won't get us anywhere, because other players are not seeing it.

You're not missing anything apart from that they just haven't been implemented in DCS . There's only secondary reference data indicating that two JGs got their K-4s shipped with gun pods (including JG26 mentioned in the manual), but not direct evidence that they were ever used in combat sorties. There's also no evidence that wiring and switches for rockets were implemented in real K-4s apart from limited number of early production machines (that "our" instrument panel was probably modelled after?). It seems that ED might have considered adding them when they were writing the manual in 2014 and finishing 3D model started even earlier in Kickstarter-project era, but they dropped the idea eventually. Given the historical factors above, however, I'd say it was a right decision. If we ever get a Gustav 109, though, then sure, these will be a "must have", well documented and historically correct weapon options.

@SteveBevacqua It's been reported. Seems to affect older gfx cards and / or when playing in single threaded mode.

It will be written in bottom right corner of main menu screen, next to version number. If you see "Multithreading preview" then it's MT.

Watch and listen again. Greg knows his stuff, but the only contention he's is making is that DCS P-47 and P-51 players online tend to remove external pylons to bring these planes just a tad closer to performance figures for 115/150 fuel. It doesn't change the fact (which he also mentiones in that very video) that both fighters are limited to max MAP settings for 100/130 fuel, which are 64" and 67" wet respectively. Same applies to both British planes which run at max 18 PSI boost only. And since Anton can be flown without its fuelage rack as well, this aspect of game is "fair". As a result none of the current DCS warbirds, Allied or German, represents late '44 extra octane and/or extra boost modifications. Thunderbolt is a bit of an outlier here as it can use ram-air effect to overboost to 72+ but only after a sufficently long dive and only at sea level, which limits usability of doing so. Even though I wouldn't mind getting an Anton with higher boost option for late '44, wouldn't it mean Allied side should be treated the same (70-75" for US planes, +25 PSI for British)? If so, we would be back to square one. Any speed bonus for Anton would be negated to some extent by speed bonus for Allies.

Repair, cleanup and reinstall procedures don't touch folders in Saved Games, so if there's anything "bad" left over there, it will still corrupt the game no matter how many times youy're trying to reinstall it. As for controls backup, just make a copy your whole Confing/Input folder from Saved Games/DCS. One minute and you're done.