falcon_120

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run the same mission on a different map, after loading the new map i realize all my ground targets are gone and have been replaced by different units.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.

I really need that JTIDS/Link 16, i'm sick of loosing BVR to those pesky F16/18 just because i lost my SA for a second and run into an Amraam MAR unaware. I want to show them again who is king

@NineLine this has nothing to do with specific documentation, its rather a physic based approach as your team is doing on the tire strut suspension. We just want systems that converge with the laws of physics and mathematics (and EM fields). You cannot have perfect angular accuracy with a limited number of antennas at relative close distance from each other, your team knows that. But i guess this is something not planned at the moment.

Well, that of course can be done. But now you're talking about a huge project. It took Razbam 5+years to develop the F15e to the current level, potentially ED could have that reduced a bit but still no less than 2/3 years i'd say (yeah i know they've said F15C and F35 starts this year and will be in 2026, and i dont think that will hold true specially for the F35). In any case, ED considering to make an F15e from scratch would follow the same process as any other module: 1-financial viability (how well it will sell), 2-documentation available and 3-technical capability. Now point 1 is a tricky one, because now ED knows exactly how well it will sell, since they are actually monitoring the sales of Razbam F15e, now a more relevant question would be, will it sell the same the second time? considering all the fans that got very upset for the ED/Razbam situation and more importantly, considering that many users; myself included, already have the F15e and are happy with it. I would not buy the module again except if: A-It comes already with what is missing in the current module (JHMCS,Link16,new weapons...) or B- if i perceive ED is in a bad spot and at the end of the day i want to support them as they are my biggest hobby and source of fun).

Fixes are always welcome. Not gonna lie, new features are thrilling but you can't have those all the time. Thanks!

Also it doesn't seem Razbam or its coders would be collaborative on that handover. Taking a project with thousand of lines of code and passing it to a different team and telling them "there you go, now you maintain and develop this code" its easier said than done and could be a nightmare. That considering ED pays enough for the IP and razbam accepts that offer... i dont see this happening to be honest, who knows Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I'm raising an eyebrow with the Aerges and heatblur example as being the same... nothing against Aerges at all (bought both c101 and F1) but aerges F1 radar simulation is arcadish at best AtM. Heatblur f4 radar is a thing of beauty Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I was also expecting a bit more on today's newsletter, specially if there is at last any ETA on the DC or of those modules showed in more detail (EFA/C130). Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

You can always go team Eurofighter/Meteor... just saying [emoji6] Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Im looking forward to the f35, in the same manner i would kill for a full fidelity su30 mki, mkk, j15, j10c, mig29k... whatever would add some options for team red. In the end im an aviation nerd that would love to see any modern and past fighter replicated to the best degree publicly available , even if that means leaving some room(only a bit) for guesstimation. I know im not the only one on that group and i guess that's what have driven ED decision to go ahead with the F35. What wouldn't like to fly this beauty? Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I'm so happy this plane is happening in FF. Thanks ED.