All Activity

Yeah most of the coders and programmers got sent to the front. Shame.

Thanks Eddie. I'll try deleting all of those "--" in the lua file. Cheers! Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Its four. The Mig-19 will be deprecated also

Like any tool, it needs to be used to its strengths and not its weaknesses. You also don't use a drill as a hammer and then complain that it is a useless tool. There are specialized AIs to generate 3D models from 2D images, like TRELLIS, which seem to do a decent job. I don't know whether they are good enough for modelling planes with. But just like human modellers, they base their model on images of the real thing. So it's not just a generic component or cockpit model, but it would be specific to a certain plane. In theory it would even be possible to make an even more tailored AI trained for modelling real life object in sims, training it on already created 3D models and the 2D images that those are based on. I once worked for a non-profit company that made the software for an entire industry, where everyone who used the software was required to invest in it, and then they were charged a fee for the software that covered the cost of maintaining/improving it (so no profit margin). In principle, the companies/individuals who make airplane models for flight sims, car models for driving sims, etc could adopt the same model, where instead of merely investing, they all hand over their 3D models and the 2D images that those are based on, to the non-profit. Then the non-profit could train an AI to be optimal for this kind of work. For example, the hallucination level could be set very low, and because it would just be trained on relevant images, it wouldn't even know how to generate irrelevant imagery.

I hope we get Roth helibase in n Phase 2 of the map. Would fit so fine for the BO-105 PAH1 we‘ll get. Would love to fly Roth Hornets BO‘s from there.

Thank you horns, I didnt look at it in that way, as we deal with ED so I kinda got tunnel vision in my view. Is it correct that the module maker is completely responsible for fixing any game breaking issues? If so given that i dont think we will ever get the full, unbiased story of what happened, do we have real power to get a refund from razbam? Also was it ever confirmed that ED held money from razbam, if so than wouldn't that mean in part ED still has our money

Yes, that's the line. Text colour makes no difference as far as I know. Those lines are VERY important, if they are not there, or are deactivated by putting the 2 -- in front, the item they refer to wont be seen by the Mod, so you could have no textures, or no liveries - if the shapes one is blocked with 2 -- then the mod wont work at all. It will often still appear in the ME, but it wont appear in the actual mission when you launch it. Normaly those lines should be in the entry.lua but some modders do it this way, and it usually still works. For a long time in the game you had to do it this way, then ED changed something and it didnt work any more - you then had to put them in the "mod name".lua after that, then somethuing changed again - its a bit of hit and miss with modding at times as to what still works and what doesnt. This what my entry.lua looks like for the S2, which is different to how the mod maker did it: I removed those 3 lines from the STrackerE.lua and put them into the entry.lua - I do this for every mod I use, trying to keep things to a set pattern incase of major game changes - I use a lot of mods and having to change a heap of them at the same time is a real pain. You can leave them in both files but they will be picked up in the dcs.logs as errors and that can make your dcs log VERY big - not a good idea when you are trying to fix a problem and have to look in the log to see what the problem is. dcs logs are a science in themselves, I struggle with them at times. local self_ID = "Tracker" declare_plugin(self_ID, { installed = true, -- if false that will be place holder , or advertising dirName = 'current_mod_path', version = "Beta", state = "installed", info = _("STrackerE"), }) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mount_vfs_model_path (current_mod_path.."/Shapes") mount_vfs_liveries_path (current_mod_path.."/Liveries") mount_vfs_texture_path (current_mod_path.."/Textures") --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dofile(current_mod_path..'/STrackerE.lua') plugin_done()

I'm not sure if it's actually wrong on the map, or my screwing up somewere : So if some one else would have some time to check, it would be very appriciated. I'm using history data, found on the internet, to (try) and figure out were units were stationed in Germany : the who and were etc. So I found some coordinates of bases around Fulda gap, yet they aren't on the map so I'm just putting a icon in that position. The thing is : The whole positioning feels off to me. For instance, if you check the coordinates for Sickels Army Airfield ( aka Fulda airfield) the coordinates of the "real" airfield and the airfield on the map, there's a 2,9+ Nm difference Ludendorff Kaserne is in the middle of nowhere , north of Fulda, over the East German border in , well East Germany. McPheeters Barracks in the middle of a village at the outskirt of Fulda.

What we can currently be sure of is that ED will continue to seek to keep these modules functional for the duration of 2.9.X, there is no current commitment beyond that. I can't tell you if ED will offer refunds, what I can say is that there is no responsibility on ED to make sure updates don't break third-party modules, it's on module devs to maintain compatibility, so no, it won't be ED who broke them if that happens after 2.9.X - you could ask Razbam how they plan to compensate users as they are the devs and are therefore responsible for compatibility, but I doubt you'll get the response you'd want. If a module does cease to be compatible with a future version of DCS, I believe ED will offer access to the last build that module functioned with - but that is something someone official would need to confirm.

У Ка-50 и Ка-50_3 в мультиплеере если один клиент наблюдает за другим с внешних видов анимация убирания/выпуска шасси идет рывками. Воспроизводится 100%. Один летит и убирает - другой смотрит за ним с внешних видов.

Have you pressed CZ? No? Do it, it is very important in the F-16. It will become your best friend.

form the 1st post.

+999999999999999 Every point brought up are things I absolutely support and most I'd say are downright essential. I'd also add completion of symbols from NATO APP-6 (we're currently missing hostile, neutral and unknown shapes entirely).

Hello, I purchased your F-4E module for DCS and have since been developing a profile of it for Helios. However, my work is currently hampered by the inability to export the radar and RWR of the pilot and WSO. Do you plan to add this capability in the near future? If you have any doubts about the need and its benefits, you can follow my work on the Captzeen Discord server, channel f-4e. In case this could motivate the next availability of exports. Thank you for your module and thank you in advance for considering my request. The day you allow exporting, can you give explicit names to the exports other than RIGHT_MFCD, .... this helps for automatic configurations for different planes.

Hey has anyone figured out how to take out high digit sams or current hill sams?

Yeah it is called INS drift. Read the manual.

+1 vote for these improvements.

Can someone, preferably ED confirm if the 3 ratbam modules (harrier, m-2000 & F-15) will continue to work/function as desired? As from what I have read on the first page it seems like they will but in a recent post from ED they say that they will work in DCS 2.9 and kinda implying they will start to break from 3.0, if they do begin to break will ED offer a refund for all the modules as it will technically be them that will have broken them due to updates?

AI is a baby that still needs to be spoonfed, I shudder at the perceived expectation it will grow into a well adjusted adult as it is being raised by irresponsible parents

https://www.mediafire.com/file/5mgo0h2eyrpt29p/F-16I_SUFA_V3.9.6.zip/file

Hey Oriole! I had a similar problem with my collective and i was able to fix it through this thread. But i have one of the first versions of his collective.

Woops, slight mixup, exchange with any recent 3rd party release

I don't know where that chap got that from. I would not recommend tampering with mt.lua. It is an internal file, which is subject to change and not meant to be set by users unless advised differently by support. I can not even tell if it is a thing at all anymore. Windows seems to agressively enter eco mode on AMD for whatever reason. You can try and launch your DCS.exe with --disable-features=UseEcoQoSForBackgroundProcess and see if that fixes it.

I´m a little confused, cause I expierenced quite the opposite. When I flew Rise of the Persion Lion there was a mission where you start from the carrier at pitch black night and fly towards the iranien coast into the sunrise. The lighting was quite stunning and the orange glow above the coastal mountains felt very immersive. Another thing I remember was some weeks ago were we stayed on our practice server quite long and got to perform an ILS approach at Nellis after refueling. The lighting went very smooth and I had to adjust the HUD brightness in little steps to addopt. So I don´t understand what you mean.

Yea, but it's inside the Headset. I've got the answer from PIMAX. They want to send me another replacement (in 3-5 weeks) and then extend the test period by or to 7 days. It's probably because of the language barrier that I don't quite understand what that means. Quote: To address this, we'd like to arrange another replacement for you. We will extend a 7-day return window, starting from the date the new replacement unit is delivered. This gives you ample time to test the unit thoroughly. To me, it reads more like the trial period will be shortened next time, even though the word “extended” is used. Very “artfully” worded. It's being shortened, but they use the word “extended.” Just my kind of humor. At least I'll get a 3-month warranty extension if I decide to keep the device after that. So far, I haven't been asked to pack up the old headset and send it back. At least, that's how it was last time. Last time, the “new” headset was only sent to me, or rather the replacement process was initiated, after PIMAX had confirmation that the old headset had been received. That alone took more than a week. I'm curious to see how long it will take this time. But I'd also like to take this opportunity to stick up for the support team that's helping me. The guys and girls are doing a great job.