All Activity

Hi Eduardo, I just checked the triggers. It exoects an active RPM and the mixture control to be more than 40% forward. In your video your mixture control was correct, but your engine did not fire. One could hear a starter sound, but nothing happening. Imho it is the starter switch cover. Could you do me a favour and try and operate the starter switch cover and starter switch with the mouse, instead of the keybind? I think that is the underlying issue here. Cheers Carsten

Hi! In general, especially missions 1 and 2 that require certain cockpit elements to be used, wait for them to be actually clicked/moved. If you do not do that, then naturally nothing will happen. You did not mention when this happened in M01, but for M02 you say nothing happened, after the instructor told you to check your controls. Therefore simple question - did you do as instructed? It says: "Check that control surfaces move freely, by pushing stick and rudder to their maximum deflection." Therefore the trigger expects you to move your stick full forward, aft, left, right and the pedals full left and right. Actually it checks a deflection of 30+% to catch user curves. When that is done, it will continue with "Check that the arresting hook is up." Do you use curves or reduced saturation on any of the control axis? If so, could you tell me which, please?

Will check this tomorrow, Thanks! Separate question, downloaded your AH-64 for my VR hanger. Location for that also main game folder?

Anyone? Where is polychop to comment? Are they not active here? no reply for 1.5 months…

No one should ever be sharing their opinion on the FM without listing their full hardware setup. If someone is on a CM3 with 200mm extension and someone else is on an X56 joystick, then people are not talking about the same thing. And we will all go in circles. If Mag3 wants to make an accessible version of the FM - and by accessible I mean tuned to cheaper, accessible short throw hardware - there should just be an option in special. but the default model should be tuned towards accurately modeling the characteristics, with the assumption of a long throw stick. my rig is torn apart so I still can’t test this, but if people continue to discuss please share your physical hardware and keep in mind the drastically different experience you will have. i am concerned the FM has been made to feel more accurate for people on standard short throw hardware, at the expense of fidelity for those with long extensions.

Nice. And the temps are good to. You've found the sweet spot. Don't touch anything else.

So many dead horses being flogged here. PMSL..........Pot .....kettle ....Black

RPM should be at 2300, IIRC. It's hard to read, but the placards on the instrument cluster give many of the proper settings for takeoff and landing.

I haz been monkeying with MSI Afterburner, using IL2 for testing. Long story short, using the performance settings in the video above I'm seeing over 100w less power required to run the exact same mission with the exact same performance (89-90fps, all smooth as silk, Super at 0.85 render).

I put them in \Aircraft and they show just fine in structures. P.S. thanks for all the amazing liveries crazyeddie! Do I need the old S2_Tracker folder as well? Tried the upgraded one under .../Mods/aircraft, and it still didn't show up in ME. Do I need to delete the "upgraded" out of the folder name? Cheers! Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Just a few randoms from the last few weeks of missions.

Take a look at my TINY GEORGE mod in the user files under AH-64D. ovgme ready

Yep

I put them in \Aircraft and they show just fine in structures. P.S. thanks for all the amazing liveries crazyeddie!

You can bind the 1 axis to all 4, split them across 2, or have 4 individual binds. The world is your oyster.

You know what I think is really frustrating about the forums and making videos is, as passionate as this community is about this sim, as soon as they see something they disagree with, they cherry pick the sh*t out of your comment or video without reading or listening to the entire thing. I did not ask for an FPS (First person shooter) nor did I state or insinuate the loadmaster was an FPS. I suggested creating a JTAC role for designating targets would be a great option, since we already have an AI version in game now. It is not a stretch to ask if a third party can make a first-person JTAC experience before ED makes their own. ED is CLEARLY selling this product and labeling it as first-person capable loadmaster role and a first for DCS. You say, "as far as we know, a third party doesn't have access to that type of code ect...." yet you have not listened to the interview from ASC with Enigma. They discuss this and how ED gave them the ability to create the cargo system, a new logistics system to include loading and unloading individual crates and their contents within those crates, the first-person experience and several other firsts for DCS and why. They explain how ED did not have the bandwidth to make these things for them because of the ongoing work with Eagle. F-35, and all the other stuff they have in work. If ASC wanted all the aforementioned in the C-130J, they must develop it themselves and have ED approve it. ASC went onto say they were happy ED released the new cargo management system at the bases with the release of the Chinook because had they not done that; ASC would have had to create/develop it for the C-130J. Sounds to me like ED is absolutely letting third parties assist with core development. If all we are getting is a floating camera we move around in the plane and NOT a true first-person experience, I would be very disappointed with ED their PR for this module to say the least. That would be extremely misleading as you stated above. I have asked ASC to clarify on their discord. The only concrete thing I can confirm is we can only walk as far as the wing tip, which tells me the loadmaster is definitely attached in some form or fashion to the aircraft. ASC stated this on discord. And last but not least, I am asking for functionality that ED could absolutely approve a third party to do and to a degree, sounds like what they have already done with the C-130J per the developers own words. You name me one person who would not take a functional JTAC team they could use and control in game in first person over anything in Combined Arms right now. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see CA as it should be, but ED has made it clear that ground stuff is on the back burner for a long time. You don't win war by fighting it by yourself. Clearly these devs are talented and have the ability to create "firsts" for DCS, so not really huge ask to see if they were interested in tackling another first for DCS. All I ask SD is you actually read the entire posts or listen to the entire video before commenting. If I am to long winded in my videos (I talk a lot), sweet, watch it in doses or ask me where I got the information before making assumptions. Your first post to me was LITERALLY posted in 4 other places outside my posts and video. It was talked about in the interview with ASC, multiple answers have been posted on their discord, ED posted it on the early release video, and it was listed in the pre-release notes when you purchase the aircraft. It's not productive to start a debate before you have all the facts. All I have stated above about the C-130J module is FACT per ED and the Developers own words and press release, minus the additions I was suggesting in my previous posts and my video. I would like to add that the main reason I made this video, was because in the interview ASC owner asked the community for further suggestions in case they may have missed something or could possibly incorporate features further down the line.

Hhhmmm, I downloaded the updated S2 Tracker and placed it in the correct path under .../Mods/tech, and it now does not show up in the ME to place as a static. The original does not show up either now. Love the liveries, well done. Cheers!

I noticed some really bad drag issues with the JF17 top end speed quite some time back and never really got around to testing it. Never really needed to test it, but I don't think this is as intended. I know that the RD-93 isn't the most powerful engine & these jets don't neccasirly need to be too far above mach anyway. Below are 4 screenshots showing the fuel, speed & loadout. My question is, Is this amount of drag intentional? If so, Why? It doesn't seem to make much sense that you lose 33% of your top end speed by adding the additional 2 missiles & their pylons. I've got some testing yet to do with other weapons and will post them as well when I get a little free time. In this screenshot, With 100% fuel, we are at 35k on Syria with the temp set to 20C, Max speed of Mach 1.55, Single rack SD10 and dual PL5s In this screenshot we are 51lbs of fuel, 35k feet on Syria with the temp set to 20C, Mach 1.57, Single rack SD10 and dual PL5 This difference is a little irrelevent to my concern, As we are approaching top end speed anyway, But just for testing I wanted to see. In this screenshot, FULL FUEL, 35k, Syria, 20C, Dual rack SD10, Dual PL5s, Speed of Mach 1.10 And the last screenshot, 51lbs of fuel, Syria, 35k, 20C, Dual Rack SD10s with dual PL5s and a speed of Mach 1.15

Moved

I figured out how to make the Mosquito AI attack the ships and many other things and ended up re-writing the whole lua script which rigged up all the guns properly (one was firing but the tracers came from middle of the ship). To get the AI Mosquito to attack, I added the value "Destroyer". (I would have thought "Armed Ships" would have been enough ... the fact it's not is likely a bug) I updated the ME icon reference to identify this as a Destroyer (DD). I corrected the ships dimensions and top speed. I used EDM to identify all the connection and animation points, corrected the resting angle of the rear cannons. I used core weapon definitions, everything is period except for the 150mm cannon, I substituted a 133mm cannon as was done on the Bismarck. Torpedoes still don't work. On thing I noticed is that all the 20mm AA guns are twin barreled if not quad, but in reality the Z39 had the quad 20mm but the rest were single. The Z39 was one of seven Type 1936A (Mob) destroyers. All seemed to have different configurations and none match the full complement of twin barrel 20mm AA. Anyhow, I took the liberty of changing the display name from "DMS Z39" to "DMS Type 1936A (Mob)" (although the use of DKM / KMS can be debated). The modified Lua is linked below DKM_Z39.lua

I totally missed that, thanks for pointing it out.

I mean, it's hard to present it when you don't want to see it, but go off, king.

Nah. At most you'd get a driver crash. That's how you know you went too far. If you don't overvolt you're not going to fry your card. These are mine. Default Very mild unvervolt.

Aha. Same guy, 5090.