msalama

OK, great that you found the culprit. Clear skies mate :)

No, it isn't. Just get a grip and THINK what you're doing and what you should expect and you'll certainly get the hang of it. The best of luck mate!

What? As much as I love the Ishak for what it is, it cannot have been an influence here. It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Yeah, for a sustantial update. Has to mean new systems / functionality, or even a completely new subtype bundled in. But for a mere bugfix? Nah. No way.

Again, a low-priority problem if that.

Thanks SD, but I know about the Ishak being developed. The guy was erroneously talking about the IL-16 and I just wondered who's doing that. No-one, as it turns out... But thanks anyway, magnificent pics regardless :thumbup:

:unsure:

Roger that! Clear skies mate :thumbup:

Can you provide a link please? This is the first time I hear about this. And yes, as a groundpounder I'll buy it straightaway, because that plane packs a bloody punch :gun_smilie: EDIT: No, they are not. They're making an I-16 which isn't even remotely the same thing. But thanks anyway.

The draw distances were reduced about a year ago. You can try to increase the Config/graphics.lua 'dynamic' value in the parameter block for your view range (i.e. low, medium, high and so on) and see if that helps.

Except that they have. Not the things you might've wanted though, but there was a blurb about the A8/F8 just today, f.ex.

Weeeell well, what the h... yeah, I'm gonna buy all ASM/PFM DCS WW2 modules the day they're released. You can bank on that my friend :D

Can't reproduce. A jittery stick perhaps?

1# Not seeing any excessive porpoising myself. The lift of course changes when you retract your gear and flaps so you'll need to retrim, but that's about it. And you do understand that PIOs are actually caused by the pilot? 2# With all due respect, but your opinion is of little worth. You have no RL experience of warbirds and yet claim the FM is wrong. Where's your evidence?

Agree with you both, plus your post was otherwise spot on too. +1

Me neither, although it'd be interesting to know which particular RL model our Dora is based on - if any.

It's just starting up. Albeit very, very slowly.

OK, thanks, must've missed that.

Seems so unfortunately. Means that OK, no more early access buys from me anymore. Just wonder whether the stop in development is because the original customer couldn't pay and the whole thing just fell through then?

In short, would you like to supplement a link proving this is wrong please?

1) No comparisons between named competitors and DCS on this board AFAIK 2) Too thick a wing and too low a dihedral according to the competition, not necessarily RL - produce docs and data plz 3) Outtahere

Man, I'd sell my neighbor's left cojone and his wife's right kidney to see that bad babe in DCS. Would be the toppermost of the poppermost and I ain't kidding!

Yah, get that completely, but we the great unwashed are NOT doing that stuff for a living. So it's different innit ;)

Porpoising? I do see some while retracting the gear and the flaps, but that, IMO, is to be expected while they're in transit inwards; other than that however, there's nothing untoward happening as far as I can tell. And yes, to make the machines overtly stable would be dumbing them down, so am not supporting that either. Agree to disagree then, eh?

Nothing out of ordinary most likely, because the browser may well show wrong values while it fetches data from the server, so I don't think this is anything worth looking at TBH. Just do a refresh and you're sorted. EDIT: And I think I've seen this before the last couple of patches too, so it's nothing new either.