Frag

I read Vietnam A LOT!!!! And I mean a LOT! Everyone wants it. I personally think, seriously, that a well done Vietnam map would be the most sold map ever in DCS. TONS of players are from the US and the Vietnam war is the most well know war in the world after WWII.

Am I the only one who would sell his soul to the devil for the AH-1 Cobra or SuperCobra ? An american attack chopper would be SO nice to have in DCS! There is a big hole right there! I know that the Apache material is still highly classified ... but guys ... a cobra would be the DREAM. This platform is older, less classified and I am pretty sure it would be VERY popular in the community! Who would jump on that opportunity!?

I initially bought the L-39 which is an amazing platform to learn on. This was an AWESOME trainer plane for DCS and I now know every pixel, switches and strategies of that aircraft. It was a JOY to fly from A to Z. After few months, I outgrew it and was ready for something new. My second plane was the F5 and I deeply LOVE that thing as well. Simple to fly and very effective when you get good with it ...and this ... without tons of sensors and electronic gadget. That plane feels real and sturdy.

Since we are at it guys, do you know if those training campaigns are still working in the 2.5 world? At 5$ I would buy 2 ...but would just want to make sure that I would not get stuck with something non compatible with 2.5. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/campaigns/a-10c_ttq_campaign/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/campaigns/advanced_aircraft_training_qualification_campaign/

Hi guys, just a quick check with you before doing a move. I am a click away from buying the A10-C, but I am a bit reluctant since I recently bought the KA-50 to finally realize that the textures are outdated and the VIKHR missile system is bugged with the lighting ...with no answer at all from ED if that aircraft will one day be updated. So now, considering that the A-10C is as old, will there be stuff not working ... or the plane is fine? Should I rather go with a more recent plane (like the Viggen or the Harrier). Thanks!

That kind of bug really grinds my gear. I am all ok for ED to develop new stuff, but if they do not intend to support their current module, they should move those out of sale. I recently bought the Black Shark ... this is a module that is more expensive that MANY full blown steam game. To finally realize that the textures does not work well in 2.5 and that the VIKHR missile lock system is completely screwed up.

Hey Merker, I strongly suggest that you ask the moderator to close that thread and start a new one with the release. Forum members will probably not go thru 130 pages to find your download link. You could start a new thread, reserve the 2-3 first post ... then have your mod announcement as the first post, which will be easier for everyone to find.

Yes they are speed brake ... they are activated by default when you start from a cold start. You need to to switch them off! You are flying highly restricted right now ;) I think the Key is B to toggle them on/off. I know, I use to commonly forget about those!!!

Yep this is what I reported in my first post shortly after Merker's official announcement of the release. Brake seems not strong enough ... It's only a detail, I am pretty sure they will be able to fix this quite easily :) But I am still wondering what is that sound looping from the Coldstart ... sound like an APU but since there are no power connected yet ... Anyone has an idea?

Bingo. I have to say that I have been seriously turned off by many training missions getting broken. The only reason I stick around is because I am an old sim enthusiast and a developer myself. But I have to say that for a new player, getting stuck on training mission bugs is a customer killer. That kind of things has a direct impact on the company revenue when newcomer give up. Personally I opened many bugs in the support forum that were never simply acknowledged. So as a customer you do not even know if they are aware of the bug or not. In the case of that mission, it is a 15 minutes fix for the dev, but it was never made for an X reason. DCS is a solid game, but unfortunately the communication channel between the developers and the players is really outdated and need a serious revamp.

Hey Merker, amazing work here. You just made my evening :) I took a short break from flying it to come back here to congratulate you guys. I have two small question so far. 1. When starting from a cold start we are hearing some kind of APU or something already running as soon as the mission starts. Is it by design or a bug? Briefly would just like to know what it is. 2. When landing, I am never sure if my wheel brake are activated or not. Is there any light/switches that move in the cockpit to confirm me that they are on. I was not able to figure out that one out. That thing can fly, I was quite impressed by its rolling capability. Was it THAT maneuverable!? If yes it was quite an airplane!!!!

I am in love with the MIG-29, I SO wish that an high fidelity version of that plane would be available!

I would kill for a FLYABLE C-130 ... like the third party one in FSX!

Priceless, you should frame that and put it on your wall!

Hi guys, I am checking out in Moose how to get the bank value of the player aircraft ... So I can get the group and the unit like that ... local gpPlayer = GROUP:FindByName("player") local uPlayer = UNIT:FindByName("player") I can also find the speed like this: local speed = uPlayer:GetVelocityKMH() But how can I get its roll(bank) value? I saw that in the documentation: POSITIONABLE:GetRoll() Returns the roll angle of a unit. Defined in: POSITIONABLE Return value: But I have no clue how to do this and I did not find any traces of GetRoll in the moose code. It's probably trivial for you guys but can't figure this one out...

Even tough our CPUs and graphic card are getting stronger those days, there is always a cost to everything that you need to calculate to keep a constant framerate. This is all about what the game engine does. Let's take an engine like Crytek with a fully destructible environment where even the leaves react to physic. I don't know if you guys played Far Cry 5, but get into a firefight in a wooden area and see how every bullet has an effect on its environment. It is completely CRAZY. BUT what happen is that you are fighting in a very small area of the map, so all the CPU / GPU concentrate their effort right there. In the case of DCS, we are mostly always seeing kilometers around ...so having that calculation processing would be impossible with the current hardware available (but watch this in like 10 years from now ;) ) DCS has pretty good framerate and looks, but they have no choice to choose to leave out things like dynamic lightning, fully destructible environment and advance physic on the ground. They do this to keep the game running smoothly, while having a very detailed flight physic in place. So it is all about choice... it will come one day for sure, when the hardware will permit it. With the modern game engine, the physic and the visual effect are easy to do ...really ...but all chosen features have a cost and there is a CPU/GPU budget.

Yep, this is finally what I did. On the track hat (same from track ir). I decided to just keep track of pitch and yaw. I disabled: Roll, X axis (left/right), Y axis (Up/down), Z axis (forward/backward). So now my head always stays well centered in the cockpit, being able to look up/down and left/right. AND, like you, I have set the function "ZOOM VIEW" to one axis of my Cougar Hotas. So, in my example, if I want to look at the electrical panel in details, I simply turn my head a bit to point to it and I turn my knob to zoom on it. Also work on all gauges and when I want to focus on target outside for a better view. I LOVE it this way. It is perfect for me. Trying to have all 6 axis fully working was a huge lost of time and a circus fest as far as tracking goes. I did realize that those 4 other axis are not necessary at all. Now with my simplified setup, everything is SOOOOO smooth.

Anyone was able to do this with the L-39 ? I like trackhat so far but reading switches label is a pain. Before trackhat I was using zoom with the mouse wheel... but now with track hat all switches are so far away that it is always a pain to try to read those.

Hi guys, I have trackhat (which is like TrackIr) and I have no problem using it in DCS. However, I would like to be able to move my head (forward-backward) to be able to read the electrical panel on our top right side. I found this thread, https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=187155&page=2 that should unlock us an let us moving forward more but it seems that I was not able to get it to load. Whatever I do my head stop after moving few inches forward. Any of you did this config change with the L-39? Briefly anyone can read the switch labels on the electrical panels?

I personally think that the L-39 is a the perfect aircraft to start with within 2.5. This is actually what I did ... - The avionics is very simple. - The aircraft is really forgiving. - No radar and extensive technology packages. - Still cool to be able to blow stuff with it (it is commonly used as a light attack aircraft by many countries). - This is a trainer aircraft in real life as well ... - This aircraft is REALLY REALLY well done in DCS, mostly no bug. - This is a high fidelity aircraft, so all switches need to be be operated (adding to immersion), but since the plane is easy to fly it makes it more appealing. Mostly all buyers really LOVED that plane and I personally think that it is one of the most underrated aircraft of the game. It's good in this sim to start slow and climb the stairs. I would recommend to start there... ${1}

Nice news! Go figure why, there are all kinds of really nice plane in DCS, but always feel like going back to fly the L-39. That nice package feels so authentic...

WOW ... this thing should me made a sticky. It is vital information when using head tracking. I was really disappointed of not being able to see any switches while moving forward in my seat. I understand the idea of being realistic, but this feature is rather more of an annoying limitation if we cannot see the label switches. I think that by default DCS should let head tracking software user zooming in on the switches by moving forward/backward. NICE WORK HERE! I will try it out tonight for sure.

oups ...nevermind ...figured it out

Ho anyone have the formula for the F-5 and the L-39? Ironically, I recently had to land in a grass field with my F-5 that ran out of fuel. Would really like this since it is quite tough to evaluate without it.

Ho could it been that this is coded by the third party handling the plane code itself?! Because I am quite sure that this is not available for the F-5 striker!