falcon_120

I dont know, i happen to like my blurry HMD symbology more than the previous dim iteration, it was so hard to see during daytime, now i can totally see it.

After setting a Ground attack mission with several ground targets and some air defenses and deciding i would run the same mission on a different map, after loading the new map i realize all my ground targets are gone and have been replaced by different units. Replicated in a BVR mission, after changing map the enemy fighters went from JF17 to SU27, i had to select again JF17 and loadout setup before.

JF17 ground mission with 8 units in Cold War Germany, stuck at 0% and game crash.

Thanks for the video it clearly showcase the problem starting at 4:05. This is specially problematic when you use the HACQ mode as once the contact is locked (designated as the L&S) the AIM9x seeker logic start to make funky things. Its been more than once that in the seek of the battle you waste a AIM9x as you dont get the tone and the reason is this strange bug where the seeker is actually seeing the target randomly after some seconds or not at all, once you use the cage/uncage button is moving between states in such a manner is a bit unpredictable

Really relevant, most MP servers are moving to dynamic spawning which is effectively preventing the use of DTC in some of my favorite servers.

When setting specific threshold and AUTO program (1, 2 & 3) for a thread, it seems different selection are not remembered. Example: Threat SU30. 1.Selecting threshold "Search" to action "None" 2. Selection threshold for Track-> appears previous selection (in this case "None")-> Set to AUTO1 3.Going back to "Search" now the threshold appears as AUTO1 and not the previously selected "None" Is it possible to set 3 different programs for the different threshold? (Search/Track/Launch)? Not sure if its working properly but its confusing as hell.

Ok, i managed to make it work. It seems bypass does indeed refers to the panic button. Just a minor bug @BIGNEWY, it seems the bypass option ignores the Chaff quantity. Setting bypass to 1 flare, 15 repetiton, each 1.5 seconds. Releases a flare AND A CHAFF, on the correct repetition and interval (15, 1.5seconds). Can't i have no chaff released? or is indeed a bug?

Hello, i'm having problems to make this option work in a instant action free flight mission. Couple of questions. First, is this bypass option referring to the panic button of the hornet? If not, shouldn't we have a bypass option for CMD FwD and one for CMD Aft? Until now bypass option always released one chaff with CMD Fwd and 2 flares with CMD Aft (or the other way around always mix them). I'm editing the DTC so in bypass mode it releases 8 flares 0.1 second apart, then i save the DTC and once in the plane a load it through the MUMI page, however it seems it does not make any difference, i'm still seeing 1 chaff/2 flares when in bypass mode instead. I will attack a track if that helps, but have any one tried successfully the bypass option of the F18? EDIT: I realize now that i'm testing in air start missions, is this a problem? should i be parked in the runway?

Same, one of my favorite jets in DCS.

Thanks @BIGNEWY, those are very good news, it means to me work is already underway and on testing so I'm a happy man, whatever long it will take based on the testing. Regards,

As the title says, ED have in some occasions referred to revisiting the MSI implementation based on latest public information, IIRC Wags himself mentioned this in the latest February QA. Well... is there any capacity for it this Year? Is it something for maybe 2026? Regards,

Let's be practical and don't hold SW companies to crazy high standards like public servants. RAZBAM does make great modules (they did crappy implementation at first but now have found its way with the status of Harrier/M2000C/F15E). If they resolve their situation with ED and retake on the F15e and other projects, I will definitely buy their modules again. Maybe i'm naive but i want to give then the opportunity for redemption like they will not air internal disputes like this again and will be truly professional in the future. Also being totally practical, even if they are not perfect, like ED is not by any stretch of the imagination perfect, we are not in a crowded market with tons of companies doing similar products. I take what it is, i enjoy it while i can and i'm grateful that the options even exist...

What to say, seems like a glimpse of hope of a resolution. I'll stay tuned for news

Not a foolish idea to "level the playfield" for those gamers looking for "balance" in MP servers. You get my vote. Regards,

I dont see the big fuss with this. You can follow a physic based approach with current simulation capabilities to make a RCS footprint of a plane and assign some estimation based on public information. So if a F16 frontal RCS is something 3.2m^2 an F35C will have in DCS something like 0.05 m^2, and you extend this to other angles and profiles. In practical terms you might see a F35 (in DCS) with no external loadout and close base door at something like 8 to 18ish nm depending on the radar (eg.APG70 will see it further out than a APG68v5 and so on). That is good enough for us simmers to have fun and try to shot down that sucker before it runs out of missile and go home to rearm and repeat [emoji846] I also expect planes with modern IRST (eg. Typhoon) to see the F35 on clear days further away than with the onboard radar (probably >30nm depending on factors like use of AB, speed, etc...). In the end, all AF in the world are field IRST tracker on 4th/4.5th gen fighters to reduce the gap with LO fighters, and there is a good reason for that.