Quetzalkoatl

The most important thing is that we're not getting something we already have in FC3. FC3 has 9.12, we're getting 9.12A which is slightly downgraded variant when it comes to avionics. And from what I know, countries outside the USSR that acquired it never had access to the R-27ER and ET. This naturally raises the question of whether they will be included in DCS, or if it will be limited to the R-27R and T variants, even though it probably could carry extented range variants.

Also, as I see others mentioning viewAngleVertical, it really seems to be the reason why it didn't work. It was absent in settings untill recent patch. And it doesn't look like RAlt+Num0 (save cockpit angles) can influence it. But changing viewAngleVertical to appropriate value 35.983398 worked... which I calculated for my 60.000000 degrees horizontal FOV for 16:9 screen with some basic math.

This method doesn't work for thing we have problem with. It doesn't set the desired FOV value for options [13] / [14] in SnapViews.lua - which are default view for head tracker users and VR users (the one that allows us to look freely in the cockpit) Values for default view that I've manually set in SnapViews.lua (60.0 degrees) are still ignored by DCS and it remains 78.8 degrees after pressing key binded to ZoomNormal.

Yes, it got fixed in 2.9.1.48335.

I checked if it could be that simple. I changed FOV value to 41.2 deg, so if DCS always adds 18.8 it would go back to 60.0. The result was 56.3 deg - which means that this time DCS added 15.1 deg. Whatever it is, it doesn't add constant value.

Can confirm the issue. I have custom FOV set to 60 deg. for all aircraft but after today's patch DCS sets it to 78.8 deg. Have to admit that it's quite annoying

Golden hint for new players: In case you want to exit F10 map, press F1 to get back inside the cockpit.

I'm sure it's not on my side. I am using GTX 1070, no any mods that would alter in-game graphics. I made a comparison video that shows the difference between liveries with and without mipmaping, I hope it would make it more clear what I am trying to point out.

Hey, that's not how mipmaping works. You won't see the difference when viewing from close up. Mipmaping makes livery to have several "layers", each one has 2 times smaller linear dimensions than previous one - and they are being swapped by DCS when viewing same livery from various distances. When livery file is missing a mipmaping then from farther distance it appears that some parts of it (usually details like lines, digit edges, small points) start flickering during camera movement. When watching your track file I can still see it very well. It's also possible to view it in model viewer. The fix is very simple, I can do it myself with use of free paint.NET... all it needs to be done is to resave files that have the size of 16 385 KB with setting BC1 (linear, DXT1) + generate mipmaps. After that livery no longer has those issues and its size matches other files (10 923 KB) that appear to be made correct way. It most likely will look different on professional software that devs are using.

I noticed that some files in default liveries are missing mipmapping which causes small spots and thin lines to flicker during view movement. You can see in this photo that nose section has those small white dots (and those are flickering), rear section doesn't have this issue as it has mipmaping. (Probably a video would show it better - for seeing the details please open this screenshot to the full size, dots I'm talking about aren't visible without it) Here are all livery folders with files that I suspect to be missing mipmaping (marked with see-through red) - they seem to have higher size than files with mipmaping. The fix is very simple, all that needs to be done is resave files - just now with mipmaping.

You completely missed the point of what I am requesting.

I'd like to suggest these to be added under Ka-50 III "Special" options tab: Cockpit Voice language: Russian/English ABRIS language: Russian/English After that there would be a possibility to fly with e.g. Russian cockpit, Russian Rita and with ABRIS in English.

Today's update fixed the issue. Thank you ED

There's another bug which coexists with one described in this forum section. Not modelled parts of the map appear black in spring and autumn months, but they look fine during summer/winter England, western map border May 31st And the same location but 1st day of June Here are screenshots from the same mission. Possibly those two bugs have common reason, or one is linked to another.

As F-4E is planned to be released in late 2022, I was wondering if it's still possible that two remaining variants of Tomcat (F-14A-135-GR (Early) & F-14A-95-GR (IRIAF)) would come before Phantom or I should expect them after F-4E release

I noticed this as well, and not only in F-14A but also in B variant.

I'm wondering if it's the same F-4E that Belsimtek worked on before merge with ED Because that would explain partnership with ED in making F-4 and why it's announced to release this year.

Back in May 2021 I bought The Channel. After checking out all airfields I noticed that there's something wrong with Dunkirk-Mardyck grass strip. Grass part of the runway seems to be extremely bumpy - it acts pretty much like casual ground which is not prepared for aircraft usage. It is possible to taxi on it, but as soon as you reach ~120 km/h, problems with stability start to be noticeable. ~140 km/h is the moment where large jumps to the side start happening - that in the end leads to a crash. Landing looks very similar but because it happens at higher speeds the results are a bit more drastic. I chose Fw 190D-9 for this bug report because in my opinion it's one of the most stable on the ground out of all WWII modules. There are two track files - one from take off attempt and second shows landing. TheChannel_Dunkirk-Mardyck_GrassStripBug_TakeOff.trk TheChannel_Dunkirk-Mardyck_GrassStripBug_Landing.trk

I have this bug too, not seeing any reference points in ME is problematic for someone trying to decorate the carrier I guess it would be good if this post got moved to Super Carrier Bugs and Problems section, so ED has easier time finding and fixing it.

Yeah, it would be great if it this option was added... possibly in a hotfix? It is possible to trick the system with AI menu where camera transpose mode is present there, then change seat to weapon operator and go back to pilot to make petrovich cursor disappear - unfortunately it works only in single player as in multi changing seats is impossible.

Hey everyone, I had this idea in my head for some time and decided to write it here with hope that one day ED is willing to implement it. As you could have guessed after reading the title, I'd want it to be possible to set custom bort number to static aircraft as well as give them specific payload. It definitely would be important improvement for mission makers who'd want surrounding scenery to be as close to real life as possible. Things with bort number i managed to achieve by spawning AI aircraft on the parking spots, because those have them editable. Then I set fuel to 0% so they wouldn't try to take off. Basic cons of this solution is that pilots are inside of these aircraft and I am limited to use only parking spots instead of whole airfield ramp. And here's the part of this effect that I'd love to achieve with static planes too: All of these AI controlled planes are with their real numbers - in a way that they match real counter part that is visible on archive photos. Sadly it is currently impossible to set it like that when using static aircraft because it gives random number to each static plane. Thank you for reading.

Would be good if 6 pylons on BS3 were optional. For those who feel the need to have proper Ka-50 without any fictional stuff - 4 pylon wings should be there too... And please don't tell me to fly BS2 if I want only 4 pylons - because afaik it's not getting new 3D external model which is one of the most important stuff of this whole upgrade. When we look at previous BS3 pictures we can see that 4 pylon wings were already done, hopefully they did not end in a bin and still can be implemented. Pylon number could be changed via ground crew commands (e.g. like in JF-17 refueling probe) and mission editor.

Hey, generally I have to say that this is one of the best top quality mods ever made for DCS. I absolutely love how it looks, and how it files... oh well - I actually found something that seems to be an issue: It looks like engine performance related to altitude isn't modelled correctly and it does not lose thrust while gaining altitude. Which results it going extremely fast. If not hypoxia then I guess it could reach even Mach 3. Here is another image - dive after passing out from hypoxia: Hope you'll find a solution for this... and again thank you VNAO team for this piece of art!

F-16 external fuel tanks textures are not showing up on a plane. It's the most visible in case of tiger meet camouflage that should have tiger stripe pattern on the center fuel tank. Both skins have default american textures on their external fuel tanks which are a bit darker than they would be in case of working polish textures. Tiger meet camouflage with fuel tanks textures in red frame: Standard camouflage: Tiger meet with fuel tanks textures in current DCS open beta (central fuel tank missing tiger pattern) Standard Also worth mentioning that both skins have no consitency in exhaust nozzle colour: Standard shares nozzle colour with US agressor skin, Tiger meet has its own darker. Here's .trk file that lasts 1 minute where those planes loaded with fuel tanks are "posing" to my screenshots: F-16C_PolishAirForce_Livery_Bug.trk

It doesn't look like system wants to recover from it - in 2nd track i took control at 13:36 of the mission, left engine idle. Plane didn't recover from the stall and crashed. Tried the metod with MPO switch in another trial, also took control at 13:36 and managed to recover... at least that works. I have no info how it should work in real plane - it just looked strange in something as advanced as F-16C block 50. In best case scenario this thread will have [NOT A BUG] next to the title.