buceador

As per title!

Thank you for your input, I think there is some confusion here, I have no problem using the UHF/VHF radios in the Viper, changing frequencies to contact ATC or tankers and have been doing so for the last 5 years. I can always communicate with my wingman on VHF 127.00 or UHF 225 but I have noticed that if I use other set frequencies the wingman does not respond, anyway it is not a big problem I was simply curious as to why the wingman did not respond despite following proper procedures.

Ok, I just want to be able to give commands to my AI wingman, I can ONY do this if I set my frequency to 127.00, all other frequencies result in silence, I simply want to understand why.

If I set MY frequency to 127.00 he hears me, that's the anomaly If I set MY frequency to 'whatever frequency' his is automatically set to the same frequency, to be clear, I am talking about an AI wingman.

If I set the mission to a 2 ship F-16 I can only seem to communicate with my wingman on 127.00 frequency, if I set it to anything else I get silence. To be clear, this has ALWAYS been the case for me but I decided to ask the community why, I'm sure there will be a simple explanation... F-16 radio freq test.miz F-16 radio freq test.trk

Ok, I eventually found the link https://dcs-web-editor.vercel.app/user Incredibly convoluted route, is that deliberate?

Ok, I have signed up but I see no actual link to the web editor? If I click on the 'Download App' I get a Patreon App QR code to scan? I am confused

And how do you do a free trial?

I have just bought the Apache in the sale, first helo and proving challenging after fixed wing! In Wags video the FLOLS overlay is in the top right corner, I have this enabled in Supercarrier SPECIAL but it doesn't show in the Apache?

There are a lot of differing perspectives being voiced here. One of ED's mantras is 'manage expectations' and this is, to some extent, a catch-all defence. Personally I think that ED is outstanding at creating super high fidelity modules but I feel that the 'game' is almost tacked on to the modules rather than the other way around, the same goes for the DC, instead of having an organic game driven by a dynamic campaign wherein you choose your FF modules to interact with this dynamic environment, we actually have a lot of beautiful, shiny toys that we (sometimes) struggle to find a use for and yes, this is purely my opinion. re. the DC, I simply hope it is released in my lifetime

Ease of production...

IRL you walk around the plane and do a visual examination EVERY time you fly, it's a way of avoiding death, in DCS it's a little less dangerous if you skip this step! You could use your argument for auto start yet many, many users like to go through the manual start-up procedure.

Great news for those awaiting the Fulcrum, I had hoped for a Viper visor update (as per the Fulcrum) but as has been mentioned many, many times, patches rarely meet the varied needs of the individual users.

This!

I have responded to this post earlier, but just to add that I experienced the same overwhelming frustration when I first came to DCS, I would pull off a fantastic dogfight win only to discover, to my dismay, that the track 'replay' differed wildly from reality. Yes, one of the myriad of track breaking variables is the module in use. ED has said many, many times that the track replay system was never intended as a 'proper' replay system as in MSFS / X-Plane (et al) and until they have the development time to address the anomalies we simply have to live with the altered reality that is track replay.

Big job given the age of the base code but something to look forward to

This is an important point, all my YouTube videos use the DCS track as a base and I noticed a long time ago that certain modules behave better than others in a track recording. as a broad brush, A2A combat is less certain than A2G, the more units in play the more margin for error, speeding up the track seems to create more errors, better hardware i.e. CPU / GPU / memory all had a positive effect on my track replays but as everyone has said, if you end up in front of a grand jury judge do not rely on your DCS track as evidence to save you!

As a test I removed the F:\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\F-86\Cockpit\Textures\F-86F-35-CPT-TEXTURES.zip file leaving the location ( F:\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\F-86\Cockpit\Textures\ ) empty, ie no texture files at all, I ran a mission with the F-86 and the cockpit was the normal (DCS) cockpit so clearly it is getting the texture from somewhere else? All input is gratefully received! Edit: Problem solved! DCS must cache information, creating a new mission with the F-86 the cockpit displays with all textures missing, copying the new black texture mod zip file back into the appropriate directory works as advertised!

I have moved the DCS original .zip file out of the root, as to DCS finding the textures somewhere else, nobody else has flagged this as a problem so I will continue to try and track down the cause. Many thanks for suggestions.

I understand and did all that but to no avail...

Except he was talking about using a mod manager and that the files would be overwritten each time DCS updated?

What a labour of love! Can this repaint be applied to the FC version of the sabre? UPDATE: I downloaded the trial version of the Sabre to check out your work, I am familiar with the DCS file structure so I made a backup of the original .zip file and placed your version in the correct folder, in my case F:\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\F-86\Cockpit\Textures\F-86F-35-CPT-TEXTURES.zip (75.1 MB) However when I run it the cockpit remains the same? Any ideas?

Hi @Rudel_chw I am aware that English is not your first language. I do not intend to patronise, what follows is for clarity. I said: 'While I respect your statement one could argue that maps are a choice whereas as 'redundant' liveries are not.' The use of 'one' in this sentence refers to the speaker as a general person or in a detached manner, so as not to be confused as the person writing. Also, the speech marks around 'redundant' signify this is a quote from another contributor and not necessarily my opinion. So when you say: 'Liveries may be redundant to you, but please do not speak for everyone else:' You will understand that I am certainly not 'speaking for everyone else' nor stating that I necessarily think liveries are redundant. Thanks. I was not making a direct comparison between Microsoft's bloatware and ED's core liveries, I was suggesting that in both cases the proffered 'solution' was to buy more storage (rather that address the potential problem of increasing data size)

While I respect your statement one could argue that maps are a choice whereas as 'redundant' liveries are not.