Yeti42

Wow, big update, the old flight model was rather "wooden". This update will obviously change things, may even tempt me back to give it another go

Rather than a brand new map, I'd rather see some way of linking the Persian Gulf with Syria

I loved the reapers for a while, they've lost me now though with all the Could... and How... stuff, totally unrealistic. It seems to create more hits though, unfortunately to be expected when monetarization is involved.... can't blame him.

After 10 - 60 minutes the rudder becomes unresponsive, pedals in cockpit do not move, rudder does not move. Rudder hardware is Thrustmaster TPR rudder. Track file too big to attach, log attached. dcs.log

Other aircraft modules have this kind of INU shortcut, I can't see why the KA-50 can't also have one. I'm all for realism but this is a simulator after all, please let us just fly the thing without having to worry about INU drift.

I really don't understand why anybody would say no to DLSS... DLSS is available on all RTX nvidia cards which have become the norm nowadays obviously excluding AMD. The performance uplift can be substantial as demonstrated by MSFS 2020's latest release. It's the biggest increase in performance I've seen in any game without having to drop thousands on a new graphics card.

20+ years of IT experience has taught me that the Friday release ban relates to not wanting a production outage or major issue over the weekend and not having people available to fix it... That isn't the case with DCS, people can always roll back, it's a beta, get it out there when you think you're done, waiting over the weekend isn't going to achieve anything...

I'd much rather have a tested good quality release later than a buggy release earlier... said everyone... always

Thanks, that explains it, the HUD is indicating CAS

I noticed while doing a nav exercise that ATC hold doesn't hold speed over a long period of time, the speed gradually decreases, by the end of a 30 minute leg I've lost 5 knots. This is a bit of a pain for TOT calculations and navigation. Is this a bug or is it intended? I can't see how it could be anything but a bug. Method: 1. Set ATC at 420 kts 2. Engage BALT and CPL AP modes 3. Jet holds 420 4. Change pitch in order to force increase or decrease in speed > return to level flight (ATC remains engaged, not flashing) Expected result: ATC alters throttle to resume 420 Kts Actual result: ATC fails to target 420 kts, throttle does not move, ATC remains at the lowest speed reached during the pitch maneuver ATC_test.miz.zip

From Reddit, Field changed to target elevation, it's the same thing... basically you need to "Do math" " If you know the target elevation, add the elevation MSL/1000 to the QFE value, to give you the proper elevation setting for your altimeter. Thus, at Nellis, if ATC told you 27.88 QFE.... take the target elevation of 1869, divide by 1000, and add it to the QFE. Giving you 27.88 + 1.87 = 29.75" Hg.Then take your current altimeter reading and subtract your known target elevation to get AGL. EDIT: No one in civilian aviation uses QFE anymore, the problem is at elevation levels above 2000' you often can't set you altimeter to what would be the QFE. it's all QNH which is sea level pressure accounting for regional pressure differences. I think some military's still use QFE when they can.

Same thing happens to me, even when I use the F1 view to start autostart and then switch to F2 or any other external view.

Hi all, Has anyone created a video tutorial explicitly addressing Storing a Point from CPG LOS (TADS or HMD)? The manual has a flow for this but ether I'm an idiot or something is amiss, this is a whole lot more complex than doing essentially the same thing in the A10C and probably one of the most used functionalities for Ad Hoc targeting.

Someone on a Facebook group asked if it was possible to land an F18 on a small strip on Pagan Island, as they tried and failed. Had to try and here are the results LOL

I do exactly the same

Same, ether blank displays or normal view, only see the buttons

Yes, I thought I was in it, on account of me posting this on the >input and output>winwing forum... Applied new patch and problem is resolved.

Yep, bindings aren't a problem but you need to run the app I think in order to get the gear and pylon selection lights to mirror DCS in the F18.

In order to set bindings you need to login with the App, for whatever reason I can't login, I get the "Signing in, please wait" message but nothing happens, I've tried: 1) changing the login details on the Winwing website 2) disabling my windows 10 firewall I'm thinking this could be a router firewall problem where I need a port redirect, unfortunately I can't switch the firewall completely off on my router, only redirect and i don't know what ports the app is using.... any ideas?

Hi all, apologies if this has already been discussed. I happened across a YouTube video by @Growling Sidewinder yesterday who was demonstrating and discussing the F16's rate turn performance when compared to the F18 and F14. The general conclusion of the video is that the F16 is underperforming in a 2 circle rate fight when compared to the F14 and F18 (or obviously the later 2 aircraft are overperforming) I can see how the F18 and F14 could/should outperform the Viper in terms of radius turns but not in a rate turn. Has anyone carried out a controlled test using something like Tacview? GS's video is here:

Hi Mistang, no you're not the only one here who is/was an engineer, an aeronautical engineer to be precise. So obviously it's very difficult to accurately model fatigue failures in a simulation, a very simplified model has to be used and it's never going to be anywhere near realistic. As you correctly pointed out stress fractures occur over a period of time based on the forces the airframe has been exposed to, that's why real aircraft log many data points such as G loading and landing/take off data. In simulations such as DCS, the only real option is to model tensile strength. Preflight checks very rarely discover cracks and fatigue failures on airframes, only very large failures in obvious areas would be spotted. Preflight checks are supposed to check for obvious damage, wear and consumables such as oil levels, tire wear, broken latches, lose panels etc. Fatigue is usually only discovered in 2nd or 3rd line servicing.

I understand your sentiments about the GR's... However, I have noticed an improvement in their video's lately, they are aiming at new or "novice" members and I actually think they are doing a good job.

I've been around too long to be surprised when a developer with a track record of a less than great overhyped module like the Gazelle fails to deliver on another project. The Gazelle was one of the poorest modules in DCS only eclipsed by the now defunct VEAO Hawk. I really hope I'm wrong, but a developer who throws their toys out of the cot because of "negativity" (in other words any criticism) and refuses to give updates is hardly acting in a mature way. If you develop software, criticism is par for the course, it's what drives you to do better and improve...

I'm what you call a casual player who has been around for quite a few years but can't cope with the commitment of joining a sqn. I'm after a like minded individual or individuals who can fly online every now and again in order to hone their skills and benefit from mutual experience. BFM training, A2G, anything goes but it has to be: 1) Fun, 2) semi serious 3)fun Preferably in the same time zone (CET) and available evenings. I've been in sqn's in the past but it usually got too political and required too much of my time. Anybody interested, PM me Cheerio

Setting AVX to zero and clocking at 4.8 Ghz will not tell me much.... It's the same really as overclocking to 5.1 with an AVX offset of 3. The workload/temp on the CPU is increased when AVX extensions are used which can introduce stability issues, core DCS does not appear to use AVX as 5.1 Ghz was no problem when running anything but the updater, the actual crash occurs when an unpack thread was started. This process has been optimized fairly recently and I suspect they/you are using AVX. BTW, after further tweaking and voltage adjustment and reverting to an older BIOS version, I'm now able to run a stable overclock at 5.1 Ghz with no AVX offset whilst using the updater. The reason I've asked this question is to highlight the possible issue with overclocked systems (which there are many in DCS)