Warmbrak

I have the same problem. Device Analyzer picks up other devices but not my Combined Thrustmaster device I actually need it for.

With the F-15E I get a lot of miss-selections to take control of the HUD with the current implementation. To take control of the HUD one has to: Press Castle; then Press Castle Forward Short (overriding the base function). This needs to be be done quickly in succession otherwise it does not work. I find that holding the Castle Press a bit longer before scrambling for the Castle Forward improves the chance to get it right, but half the time I end up invoking the base Castle Forward Short and switching between A/A & A/G Master modes instead. Seeing that there is no implementation for the Castle Forward Long command, can we please get a simplification to assign the Take Command HUD function to the Caste Forward Long press? If this is not an option and future Take Command Enable actions will be implemented, please increase the listen duration of the Castle Press command so that the Castle Forward override can be detected more reliably.

Running on 2.8.8.43489 Open Beta and I can confirm there are performance issues with the L compared to the M (and other helicopters such as the AH-64D). This is especially prevalent at night in the city environments. I set up a night mission in Cyprus and took the same scenic flight with the M and L version. M is buttery smooth, but the L version struggles with the lights and in some case the framerate drops from close to 100 down to single digits where it becomes impossible to fly. I don't get the stutters, but something in the L version definitely eating frames. I have also experienced strange 'demons' in the flight model where the airframe feels like it wants to tilt over to the right (low speeds, not retreating blade stall). In one case I landed it softly and wanted to take off again and it simply tilted on the right skid and the main rotor touched the ground - this never happened before. I have attached the basic mission - 3 slots are available, L, M & AH-64D for comparison, local time 23:00. F_SYR_Heli_Training1.miz

The livery was updated to V1.2 featuring larger roundels, as well as a new heavily worn scheme. Here is another South African scheme for the Hind based on the 80's Puma/Oryx livery. It comes in two flavors: Early 80's with old SAAF roundels Late 80's featuring modern SAAF roundels These can be downloaded in the file section: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3331029/

I just released update V1.2 for my three-tone livery that is available in the file section: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3330922/ The latest update includes a heavily weathered version of the skin and resizing of the decals. I have also been working on a 80's livery based on the Puma/Oryx that will come with two versions, old and new markings. This will be a separate download and has been uploaded for review; will hopefully be available soon.

Here is the livery: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3330922/

I am working on a Modern SAAF livery at the moment. null

Great news, thanks @peyvolt!

I added the probe to the excellent SAAF Mirage F1AZ skin versions and have the same issue with the untextured refuelling probe. Did you manage to find a solution?

Thanks for all the links; I do watch his channel but didn't look at all those videos. I fly open beta. To be fair what I am seeing may not be loops but they are definitely spiral climbs with a huge energy advantage that sees the AI outrunning and outperforming me all the time. Even if I don't try to climb with the AI and turn horisontal instead I still can't match it. Flying against humans in the past I can easily work out what I did wrong when it happened, but the AI seems to employ "aerial magic" sometimes. A year or so ago I tried the viper against an AI MiG-21 and got my butt kicked a few times - those were probably more akin to vertical loops now that I think about it. At recruit level difficulty I would expect AI to make mistakes and not have near perfect energy management. The AI flying into the ground after a few minutes is also not right - I would rather see the the AI try to disengage and RTB rather than crashing into the ocean, possibly due to fuel starvation. I don't expect AI to perform like humans but there are basic things that can be introduced to make them appear more realistic. I'll catch up on those videos, thanks again.

I took a break from DCS for a few months and picked up the excellent Mirage F1 from Aerges. Started doing radar work and air-to-air with the AI and it looks like the same issues persist today. AI (on recruit difficulty) has seemingly near perfect energy management skills up to the point where I am thinking "Wow, how did we go from similar energy states in a horisontal scissor to the MiG 21 suddenly doing a booming circle climb running circles around me?". Same with the F-4E; that fight basically ended up with the Phantom doing slashing attacks on me; as soon as I extended and built up energy it was on my again, I had to defend and once I win the scissor he would just extend in a climb, leaving me in the dust. I thought I would try the Viggen as it usually does not retain energy well after a few turns. Wrong. I could stay in the circle on its 4/8 position but it was impossible to gain any distance on him to attack with the cannon. These fights mostly ended with maneuver kills - AI finally flies into the ground. The MiG-21 once just stopped fighting and flew in a straight line all of a sudden, probably due to low fuel state. The one fighter I managed to beat a few times was the MiG-23 using boom & zoom tactics until I was able to get into a position to Fox 2 him. I know I am not great with air-to-air but I have flown a lot of online over the years and I can usually hold my own. The AI just still feels wrong. I remember the AI in LOMAC and Flanker being much more enjoyable back in the day. It is disappointing to see that over a year later the AI situation still hasn't changed much. I always wonder how this affects all the paid campaigns, or do they try to avoid air to air as much as possible or focus on BVR instead?

Folks on our multiplayer server are complaining about this exact issue today - came here looking for a fix. Pretty disappointed that this has not been dealt with, especially if this has been reported internally.

I can't remember if this has been there for a while, but I noticed this while testing the 2.7 Open Beta. When using the OFP2 rocket pod (I haven't tested other Russian rocket pods) on the Mi-8 and KA-50 (I haven't tested it on other aircraft), the lower poly LOD version of the POD is offset slightly lower than the high-quality one. This is most evident when using the aircraft flyby camera as demonstrated here: https://youtu.be/ib85EGXXZN8

I will double check alignment, but the coordinate was good. The navigation marker was located perfectly on the building, so a CCRP drop would have been effective. The TD when switching to AG mode was off by almost 30 miles. With the actual steerpoint being where intended I don't see it as an alignment/coordinate issue. I am tired of using precision weapons to be honest. In most squad missions I can pre-plan deliver JSOWs in the F-18 from more than 30 miles away and take out targets in multiple locations. I prefer an 80's mission setting where Hornets and Vipers still had to rely on CCIP and CCRP bombing modes, and CCRP bombing of hardened targets through cloud cover was the preferred method of bombing; the aircraft systems were designed for that. Obviously one could use the ground FCR to confirm target location and lock it up, but we don't have the luxury to do that in DCS yet. I understand how your comment was intended, no worries and I appreciate it. But saying no one would ever do that is not entirely correct.

This is not a steering line issue; the TD is off by 30 miles.