Schmidtfire

What is a bit confusing, at the moment, is that the HMS sight symbology is displayed where there is no possibility to get a lock. What I have found during testing: The IRST (OEPS-29) has good upwards elevation capability. Keep the target above the canopy rail and you should get a fast and easy lock. For targets directly Left or Right of the aircraft: the limit to achieve lock is around the canopy rail* *This limit is a bit confusing if you are familiar with F-16C and F/A-18C Targets over canopy = good locking ability Targets to the side of canopy = limited locking ability

Yes I tried with and without it. The solution I have found: Keep clicking weapon release button very rapidly to empty out all the contents. Seems to work ok but the timing between releases can sometimes be imprecise if not doing it perfectly.

How do we properly employ the KMGU-2 canister? When I try to use it, it only drops a small portion of the submunition. Is there an option to drop all the submunitions in one go?

Another thing we discovered during a multiplayer flight yesterday. 1. If you have Native Avionics language selected (RUS) and units to Metric. 2. Switch between meters to feet on the F10 map (button on top bar) and then Spawn into a new aircraft, the avionics in the aircraft automatically will be in Imperial. While it might be intended to work this way, it certainly caused a great deal of confusion when a member in the flight didn't realize that also the units in his aircraft had changed

Adding to this topic. We did a few tests on a small private multiplayer server. Caucasus near empty mission. Perhaps not 100% scientific test, but with very low latency the host paused the server and then the clients then pushed F2 and F10 to compare data. We also shared screenshots. What we found is that desync mostly is proportionate to range & speed between clients and objects. For example: Two aircrafts flying in close formation. Nearly perfect sync between clients. We then increased the distance between aircrafts, the desync of altitude and position grew. Over long distances the differences was very notable on each client. With long range weapons the data difference was extremely noticeable. Harpoon, AIM-54 Phoenix, SLAM etc. Ground decals (craters) was not exactly synced but close enough. Iron bombs also seemed pretty good (at least when clients is flying in the same area). My best guess is that we're always dealing with some form of desync. Close formation flying is very accurate in terms of data between clients but the rest is so-so. And I get it, it creates an illusion of that we're seeing the same thing and the most critical aspect is synced up. If this is a design choice (performance etc) I don't know. But this is easily tested and can be replicated over and over.

Solution: Implement Nike-Hercules so we can enjoy launch warnings over the Cold War Germany map

It was just a FRIENDLY request. Not a demand. Many of of us has bought the Mirage-F1 and are interested in it's development. That's all. Im sad that a very simple request is seen by some users as self-entitlement or attack on the development team. It's totally unnecessary to go against fellow Mirage-F1 fans like that and create drama when there is no need for it.

Overall the JF-17 is in a pretty good state, but it can be improved in some areas. There's almost always problems with the following: *TGP *802AKG+MIL *Any type of smart munitions and glide weapons I guess it's difficult for the developers to fix, but it's always an issue with one or more of the items above. Long term they need to figure out a way to fix it and make it robust enough that it stays fixed. On a secondary note, sound can be improved. Mainly voices and warnings where there's some sound of mouse-clicks of the recordings etc. It a minor issue but I've heard several friends complain about sound quality. Sound is a big part of DCS World aircraft and first impressions matter.

1983 is a bit early for MIG-29 over CW Germany. Unless you're aiming for a scenario where a couple of the very first Soviet aircraft is put into action. From what I can find the MIG-29 was declared fully operational around 1985 and East German Air Force received MIG-29 between 1988-1989.

This is a part of an open post from one the guys in Polychop (regarding lack of Gazelle updates, posted on the Polychop Simulation Discord, 2025-07-23) As previously stated, the devs are in a Crawl > Walk > Run phase learning module code by essentially reading it backwards and deciphering it. Learning two entirely different sets of code at the same time and trying to manipulate both does not fit this model of learning or progression. The 58 is the more recent module to be released, therefore it is going to receive the attention. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's how it goes. The 58 has more bugs that need addressing (yes we have a list for both modules and this is in fact the case) so they will be ironed out before tending to the Gaz. The 58 has been and continues to be the module with more consumer utilization by a considerable margin since it's release, therefore as previously stated, it is going to receive the attention (and again sorry if you don't like that but that's how it goes). Now, that DOES NOT MEAN THE GAZ IS DEAD and or will not receive work in the future. Nobody go running to Reddit referencing this post, claiming that it is dead and wont receive updates because that simply isn't the case. It will receive work in the future, just not right now, and no I can't tell you when no matter how creative you all get with rephrasing the question of "When Gaz Update." I hope it's okay to post it here on the ED forums. Not great news for Gazelle enjoyers, but it is what it is. Getting the new team up to speed with unfamiliar code is not an easy task. Duplicate that by two modules. It will take time, no way around that.

Maybe.... commercially it's a given hit, but the ball is really in Magnitude 3's corner now. I have a feeling that they are a bit sick and tired with the MiG-21 and wants to work on something new. Also, a true "2.0 edition" would probably mean to start over from scratch. The code is 10+ years old by this point. Perhaps wishful thinking, but a partnership with another 3rd party for a "2.0 edition" might get the ball rolling.

I'm hoping for a Mach 1+ attack helicopter.

I kind of understand it. The big commercial booths and Racing Simulators looks exciting. On top of that there was big Flight Sim cockpits with an asking price of almost 30.000$. From the looks of it, the ASC C-130J was also seated in an area that looked more like a LAN party and less of a booth. It's probably difficult to get much attention other than DCS enthusiasts who knew the C130J would be at the event.

It's not possible. However, you can add AGM-88 to the current F-4E by creating a custom weapons loadout (mod). If you don't know how to do it yourself there are downloads available. This is one example https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3338090/

Video with DCS: C-130J in action. Very brief however, seems like most content creators cover the big booths and Sim Racing. 1:26:55