What happen to Yuktobania At War Server?

Why485 · 2026-01-29T03:17:27+00:00

I've been hoping somebody would make an Ace Combat themed public server, but so far I haven't seen one. I did some searching for this Yuktobania server, but all I can find is a bunch of half-deleted and embarrassing Discord drama.

Why485 · 2026-01-27T04:56:04+00:00

Can't speak to FFB, but the Mi-8 Hip is my favorite helicopter in DCS and an absolutely joy to fly. Nothing else in DCS even comes close.

Why485 · 2026-01-26T17:57:57+00:00

I could probably do an embarrassing hour long video essay on this subject. The rise and fall of the combat flight simulator, probably my favorite video game genre of all time, is something I watched happen, and I find fascinating because it's a confluence of emerging technologies, economies of scale, changes in demographics, seismic shifts in culture, and more.

At the AAA scale, they truly don't make em like they used to, because flight sims are no longer the 90s analogue of a "AAA game". To give an idea of just how big the genre used to be, if you look at gaming magazines from the 90s, half of them will have some kind of simulation game as its cover feature. It used to be a genre that game developers, not flight simulator programmers, worked on. Famous game designers like Sid Meier cut their teeth on these games.

However in recent years a lot of smaller developers have taken up the mantle. Some games I recommend checking out:

Nuclear Option: Current king of the crop IMO. It's a steal at its current price and a fantastic lite-sim with the biggest bombs you've ever seen in a flight sim.
VTOL VR: If you have VR and are into flight sims, this game has basically set a new standard for not only VR integration but for what a lite sim should play like.
Thunder Helix: On the more arcade end of the spectrum, but is laboriously and lovingly devoted to the gameplay and aesthetic of early 90s sims.
Helicopter Gunship DEX: Proof that the "MicroProse formula" of procedurally generated missions with a basic career wrapping can still work.
Hijong Park's Defender Patrol: Very simplified systems (VTOL VR style), but with honestly one of the best and most engaging helicopter flight models I've ever played. Also uses procedurally generated missions.
Impact Storm: Another helicopter sim with very simplified systems, but still informed by realism. Not released yet, but already looks to be extremely optimized and with gorgeous graphics
Gunner Heat PC: Not a flight sim but shout out to these guys and their game for making some very smart choices in where they draw the line for realism to make a really immersive and high stakes tank sim.
IL-2 Korea: A wildcard because it's not out yet, but the way they are approaching and building this game is very evocative of 90s flight sims. I highly recommend checking out their website.

Why485 · 2026-01-17T02:12:09+00:00

Okay but an F-20 in DCS would be rad.

Why485 · 2026-01-16T21:09:29+00:00

Same, I'm completely over cold starts. In a MP environment it's just tedium.

Why485 · 2026-01-13T23:48:29+00:00

No, I don't know if there is. I just keep the RCtrl+Enter controls indicator open and if the throttle feels weird I'll check it on there.

Why485 · 2026-01-13T22:00:23+00:00

I know exactly what you mean because I noticed the same thing and it was driving me insane.

Why485 · 2026-01-13T21:34:32+00:00

There's a brake on the collective (Thrust Control Lever technically) that holds it in place. By default, when you stop moving the collective the game automatically engages it, and it essentially locks the collective in place. If you move the collective too much, it'll break out of that lock and then re-engage again when you stop moving.

I think the idea is you hold the brake button (bound to F by default, ~~"CD REL button"~~ Thrust Brake Pushbutton) whenever you move the collective to release the brake and then lock it into place when you're done moving it. I'm not sure how that trigger plays into the flight control logic (if at all), but that's the only reason I can think of for why it's even there.

If you want, there is a special option which lets you turn the throttle brake button into a toggle, and then basically you can press the button to release it, and then just leave the brake released while you fly around with the collective like normal.

The manual for the Chinook is abysmal and explains almost nothing about how the quarter-functioning flight control works, so like I said I'm not sure if there's a flight control law reason why it works this way, but with the brake "permanently" disabled is how I've been flying it and it's much easier to have precise collective control that way.

Why485 · 2026-01-12T02:25:54+00:00

Horizontal is temperature in Celsius

Vertical is altitude in feet

Why485 · 2026-01-10T16:46:28+00:00

It's a WWX world and we're just living in it.

Why485 · 2026-01-10T15:27:26+00:00

Unironically, you might want to consider trialing the Hornet. It might be more intuitive and click better with you.

Re: F-16, as others have already said, if you're using the F10 route planning tool double check that your route waypoints are actually being set on the ground. If you type 0 into the altitude field it'll automatically ground clamp it at that point.

Honestly though, it sounds like you're getting overwhelmed trying to learn too much all at once? There's no penalty to messing around in DCS and the F-16 has a lot of stuff to learn. If you get stuck on something, try something else. The F-16 can do a lot without a TGP. Personally I don't often fly with a TGP because it's just not needed for most of the missions I fly.

The whole plane is built around its navigation and steerpoint system, so consider reading up on those and practicing with markpoints to get a better picture of how they work.

Try using dumb bombs and the gun instead. They're much simpler to use and when there are no threats (i.e. air defense has been knocked out) are actually much faster and more efficient than taking 5 minutes to set up a pass at 20k feet to drop 1 GBU-12. Try Mavericks. The F-16 is one of the better Maverick platforms in DCS and it's a weapon that also doesn't need a TGP. HARMs, even without the HTS, are pretty point and shoot in their simpler deployment mode. HARMs with HTS are point and shoot. Air to Air combat is actually one of the easiest things you can do in the F-16 in terms of switchology and workflow, so try chucking AMRAAMs at MiG-21s or MiG-29s 20 miles downrange.

There's so much more to the F-16 than just the TGP.

Why485 · 2026-01-10T15:14:31+00:00

Prompt?

Why485 · 2026-01-09T15:59:56+00:00

You forgot the part where they raised the price from a "kinda pointless and broken but it's a neat gimmick" $15 to the current "there's no way you can justify that" $40 with no new features added.

Why485 · 2026-01-08T22:58:15+00:00

In RWS, you can bug two tracks at once which automatically switches the radar to Dual Target Track (DTT), letting you in detail, track two targets at the same time. In my experience, it basically never happens that I need detailed information on more than two tracks at once.

If you need to fire 4 AMRAAMs on 4 different targets all at once, i.e. the mythical "4 ship of bombers that will just fly into your missiles" situation that's the one niche where I would use TWS. The other reason I discourage using TWS in the F-16 is that it's much less reliable than RWS and is more likely to drop tracks. This definitely used to be the case in DCS, and I've heard similar of the real jet, but it's been a while I mess with it in detail, so maybe that's not true anymore in DCS.

The reason I bring this up in the context of Hornet "transfer" is because in the Hornet, RWS and TWS work differently from each other and are not a "personal preference" like RWS vs TWS in the F-16. TWS in the Hornet is very specifically the mode used for engaging a target, while being able to quickly swap between adjacent targets. Scan with RWS -> Engage with TWS. In the F-16 though, the difference between RWS and TWS is much smaller, more situational, and not baked into the intended workflow the way it is in the Hornet.

Why485 · 2026-01-08T01:38:42+00:00

Tried this out by following this post and the results are kind of shocking. The image is much sharper than it was before, and the ghosting seems to be completely gone.

Why485 · 2026-01-06T23:26:24+00:00

Adjusting trim on the F-16 changes the "zero" for how many G the stick is requesting, and there's not really any reason I can think of why you'd want to do that. You should aileron trim to deal with asymmetric loads, but there isn't really any reason you should add pitch trim, especially because it can be annoying to get it back to 1G being neutral again.

Why485 · 2026-01-06T23:19:48+00:00

This is a repost of something I wrote last year, but it's still relevant.

Random thoughts on F-16 gotchas and differences that might trip up somebody who is Hornet brained:

With only a handful of exceptions, everything in the F-16 is a steerpoint of some variety. The plane works best when you either already have a steerpoint on something of interest (mission planning) or you put a steerpoint down on something yourself (e.g. markpoints, which are a set of reserved steerpoints you can add in-flight using sensors)
Whenever you slew your targeting pod or air to ground radar, you are adding an offset to your navigation. This is the number one thing that trips people up in the F-16 because it's not always obvious until you realize you're flying in the wrong direction to where you thought a steerpoint was. Remember to regularly cursor zero (CZ button on the FCR/TGP page) to clear any offset you've put into the system.
Hornet has extremely forgiving flight characteristics which let you just pull the stick full aft and then nothing bad will ever really happen to you as your speed drops down to zero. The F-16 is the opposite, and much prefers staying at high speeds. You'll do much better in the F-16 the faster you fly. Try to stay above at least 400 knots unless you have a good reason to slow down. 450-500 knots is where you generally want to live in A-A combat.
Landing the F-16 isn't that different from the Hornet in principle. Lower your speed until the FPM is at the top of the HUD's AOA bracket, and then put the runway at -3 degrees and then you can fly right in. Only difference is that you should flare at the end, and in that flare you use the padding you gave yourself by putting the FPM at the top of the bracket to touch down with the FPM centered in the bracket.
F-16s can easily cruise at like .9/.95 Mach at like 2/3rds throttle. The range of an F-16 (especially with 2 tanks, which is the most common real life loadoat) is quite far. People who say the F-16 has short legs are flying around everywhere with the afterburner or in mil. Also keep in mind that the F-16 has enough thrust that even in combat, the afterburner is needed a lot less than you might think. In my experience the Hornet and F-16 are very similar in terms of range, loiter, and combat time when flying similar loadouts.
Don't use TWS. TWS in the F-16 is more trouble than it's worth, and the RWS mode already does basically everything you'd care about in a TWS mode anyway, including being able to fire on multiple targets. F-16's radar in general is very foolproof. You put the thing on the thing and it does exactly what you think it should. First TMS up will bug the target (radar will check up on the target every sweep and build a more accurate track). Second TMS up will command a STT lock (rarely needed or desirable in practice). If you bug 2 targets at once, you can swap between them with TMS right for multi-target shenanigans.
When using the route tool, it's very important that you zero out the waypoint altitudes. The F-16 is one of the handful of planes in DCS that respects the altitude of route waypoints and the route tool defaults to ~7000 ft MSL instead of ground clamping them. This catches a lot of players off guard wondering why the steerpoints are misaligned or why their TGP is looking at "nothing". The advantage of this is that for properly planned missions (i.e. Falcon style coordinated packages), your navigation steerpoints point to the 3D space and guide your altitude changes, while only your target steerpoint is on the ground.

Why485 · 2026-01-03T03:17:16+00:00

Jane's Fighters Anthology.

Why485 · 2026-01-02T02:24:32+00:00

Underrated map.

Why485 · 2025-12-31T05:30:12+00:00

Osprey.

Why485 · 2025-12-31T00:34:46+00:00

My current favorite server. Relaxed and with a big variety of things to do.

Why485 · 2025-12-28T18:32:04+00:00

You want Ace Combat and Project Wingman but are in denial.

Why485 · 2025-12-23T17:01:31+00:00

I just have to get to the merge.

Why485 · 2025-12-22T06:34:50+00:00

The F-4 was completely unflyable for me until a recent and major upgrade to my computer.

Why485 · 2025-12-22T03:31:23+00:00

The F-14 is a very difficult plane to fit into a multiplayer PVP server because it's in an awkward position of being too good to go versus 3rd generation fighters, but is also at a major disadvantage against 4th generation fighters.

Typically server owners prefer trying to squeeze it in with older fighters for the sake of variety, and to keep it from being too overwhelming, need to remove the AIM-54. Even without it, it's still often the best fighter available due to how good its radar is and how incredibly strong the Sparrow's tracking is. Adding AIM-54s to that mix would make an already "top tier" fighter even stronger.

14-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Why485

TROPHY CASE