All Activity

@OnReTech Still missing the ICAO markings...

@OnReTech is this a TDK limitation?

@OnReTech This was fixed partially 3 patches ago. The thing that is still a problem is that the F-16 hangars on the left side are still just roads in the game.

@OnReTech Any status on this?

@OnReTech I understand this may not be the highest priority, but after over a year, it is still a flat piece of concrete in game. Any news?

Right, if you quote the entire sentence then its okay. But I wouldnt just summarize it like the previous post. Anyways, fingers crossed the plans unfold as planned

@OnReTech While yes, it is done somewhat ok in the latest patch. It is still incorrect.

Су 25 обновленый вышел ?

It became more stable, indeed. Not ideal but flyable. Altitude hold works weird sometimes. I think those things are connected. New rotor model should fix yaw and altitude hold cases. I'm that "some user" too, by the way.

@OnReTech

@OnReTech

@OnReTech While in the latest patch you did somewhat fix this. The Hebrew (warning signs? Idk) are missing from them. They are also lacking a stopping line which is where the nose wheel of the F-16 should be during parking. These safety markings are to indicate where the engine intakes air, therefore when spawning in, the engine intake should be where the safety marking starts.

Some absolute killers in this patch like redfor weapons overhaul, The MiG, Caucasus improvements, a step to deal with encrypted liveries or ME searchbars, thx!

@OnReTech

Ok, I assumed it is based on this post: Edit: just to clarify my intentions: I know this means it is planed not guaranteed for a next patch, but it leaves open whether it is planed for the next ED patch or HB patch, which may come with a later ED patch.

Ich nutze auch einen Trackball von Logitech. Ich habe mir eine Halterung mit Klettverschluss fürs rechte Bein auf einem 3D Drucker gedruckt. Da spürst du am Bein, wo das Ding ist und kommst gar nicht in die Situation, dass du das Ding suchen müsstest

Frustrating?? Pfffttt, come on dude!! It's Q4. ED has sales targets to meet, planning the next Sale season, milking the cow (we, the players) on incomplete projects, etc. Our "little" problem is only a mere KPI that is only looked at once the bigger objectives have been met. So what if it takes them another 3-6 months to fix this "minor" issue. We've all been waiting for a fix for 11 months and counting. How much can a few more months hurt? Plus, the Fulcrum has just been released. You honestly expect them to drop everything they have on their hands and pay attention to the Thunder? Remain positive my brothers and sisters #Sarcasm

Я надеюсь они туда же добавят отображение числа 'м', потому что его из-за РУСа не видно в кабине. Небольшое аркадное отступление, но иначе никак

That's assuming you can even GET the documentation. However I would be all in favor of getting an APG-66 F-4, I have to think that an F-4F module featuring the classic West German cold war birds (a little bit unique to the standard F-4E) and the later ICE update would be a great combination package for the new cold war map. The F-4F's are even weirder in that, as far as I am aware, at some point they got AIM-7 Sparrow capability added, but never actually GOT the AIM-7 Sparrow since the West Germans never bought any (and neither did the united post cold war Germany either), at least according to the old Joe Baugher website. What I was originally getting at was wondering why there wasn't a low cost radar upgrade from the late 70s or early 80s. Basically a cheap, simple, light pulse doppler radar, trading off scan range and volume where required for a much clearer picture. With how many F-4s held on until 1990 in US service, plus all the NATO and allies, I feel like it's something that might have sold if the cost was kept in check. But if that wasn't something that could be done cheaply enough, obviously not going to be much of an interest to the USAF with their fancy new F-15.

Might not actually be doing anything wrong here, the INS is not really accurate enough for better accuracy than, "Well, I can see the target in the TCS at least." Although, just in case. The IP point is in fact in DDM single digit. So, yes, kind of 5 digits, but it's a decimal off of the minutes. The offset distance is expressed in thousandths of a NM. So could be something like 0.003 NM The altitude is an altitude delta from the altitude of the IP. So you need to enter not only the IP's altitude in the IP but also the difference in altitude to the actual target in the IP-TO-TGT. This also might have been one of the instances where you needed to use true heading for the bearing rather than Magnetic. I don't quite remember.

Понятно. Это, конечно, не очень удобно. Интересно, с чем связано. Обычно со старта эта фича есть, если я не ошибаюсь.

Пока не реализовано. Вроде в видео Вагс говорил

I will note that it seems like the AIM-7 seems to be in the progress of being ported to a new schema and some of the newly added code blocks don’t do anything with the current schema that it uses. I believe the additional height error values you’ve added don’t do anything and they already exist in other code blocks (seeker block is used and not sensor with the current schema).

Hello I was just wondering whether some of these panels will be added in future updates. One additional item which I did not mark is the emergency brake on the front panel. The emergency panels in particular are of interest to me. (Air start switches as an example)

Виджет органов управления в этом модуле имеет какую-то иную команду, отличную от RCtrl+Entr? Или это баг? В changelog'е об этом не было сказано.