All Activity

wondering the same @Calvin.Pimax as note you didnt reply to this comment from another use. Given the headset has only been out for just over a year (and i've hardly used mine - note it got delivered with one failed battery and the headset drops charge really quickly even with the hub etc plugged in) But I wondering now was the Crystal Original just a test headset to be honest at this stage and to raise revenue, given the very soon after release of the next two versions, its never mentioned in the updates and few weeks ago i tried to find the manual on the website and its not even there. Seems everything is geared around the light, which is what a third of the price nearly and the Super. Is there any loyalty for the people that bought in early (as in a year ago) with what is the outlook for this product (and support). Thanks.

@Dawgboy Thank you That would be the best way for me. I've got a message from the support team, they will contact me tomorrow, with a clear update and proposed plan. And that's how the Fan of the Super Sounds: The first file is from the old one, the second file is from the "new" one. Sound Super first HS.m4a Pimax Headset Bee Sound new HS.m4a

I can’t gaurentee an 8 year life but as I said my 1080ti is still going and it is overlocked and gets gamed on nearly every day…

Yes. It will be recognized as a regular joystick and the handle pull will give three inputs in DCS, meaning it will eject you instantly.

After a few years in other modules, I decided to revisit the Case 1. I remember how helpful these tracks were. Due to game updates, they no longer work correctly. If anyone wants to post some new tracks, I am sure they will be as beneficial to new people as they were to me.

@Cgjunk2 @Number481 got it, guys, I guess I just more sensitive hands lol But if the debug shows the spring center moving during the trim then I most definitely blame ED for the the 'slop' near the center of the stick... which technically may not even be that sloppy, it's just the FFB center spring dynamic range is very short, i.e. on the ground it's limp, and after the take off and past the 220-240km/h the center force reaches its max. In reality the stick center needs to get progressively harder to move the faster the plane flies, alas DCS doesn't provide for it. I think TelemFFB may come to the rescue here, I saw they started incorporating the new Rhino capability of the dynamic spring center, so the stick gets harder lol the faster you go, and thus would make the trim forces a bit more apparent.

Recently pushed Commit 17647ec, which adds the "scripting" Lua state to WebConsole.lua. This new Lua state appared with DCS 2.9.18.12722, but – obviously – came without any documentation. If anyone knows what its purpose might be, please let me know. I first assumed it might be a shortcut to net.dostring_in("mission", "a_do_script(" .. code .. ")"), but it appears to lead to an entirely different Lua state.

Thanks for this amazing mod ! Well done !

The buttons themselves are regular joystick inputs. It’s just the screen that requires BIOS.

This is like the dynamic campaign. Anyone who wants it to come out tomorrow, no matter how much they've been showing it to you for 3-4 years in the official videos, will end up frustrated by something whose true functionality we honestly don't know at this point. And I'm very serious. Those who continue to think this is going to be like some sort of tactical ground warfare simulator where infantry realistically enters and exits vehicles and helicopters will be very disappointed. So, let's take this as an ancillary issue, not as a primary imperative of realism for the modules. We've already seen things before: things won't turn out the way many of us would like, so let's lower the bar, because I'm very afraid the "new" infantry will do the same thing as in the past and nothing more.

Hi all. I'm interested if it is possible to make a mission where one of the planes will be flying trajectory as it is recorder in a track? I want to perform a aerobatic flight and then fly as second number with plane from the track? Is it achievable in any way? Or may be it is possible to control a bot with precise commands for example record from telemetry?

Hound 0.4.2 has beed released.

I guess it got lost in my messy post : null

Have just encountered this as well. So, can confirm, did not record a track yet, but glad somebody already reported it.

Quick update - I tried the same cold start procedure I always do but in a SP mission. No vibration was observed. So it seems it's an MP issue only for me right now. Please see attached track. take-off track test.trk

In other words: the whole safety clause reasoning was only there to placate the customers at the time and, since this is now all confidential, we as consumers have no clue whether or not this applies to any given product. That means we would be wise to assume it does not. One might go as far as saying the whole talk about how the VAEO thing won't ever happen again was simply a lie. In any case, thank you for giving a clearer answer on it.

Yeah, it's been there for years. Funny that mod makers took use of it. The UH-60L has it too. [emoji6] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Yes, i checked that already. Anyway thank you

Der Zoom ist nur Digital, d.h. das Bild wird nur vergößert und nicht näher herangezoomt. Die XR Funktion funktioniert nur im stabilisierten Modus ala Point, Area oder Inertial Track, sonst bleibt das Bild unscharf! Das kann man alles im englischen Handbuch der F-16 nachlesen, das Handbuch ist sehr gut gemacht, kann ich nur empfehlen.

Where is that evidence then? One of the theories from the anti-Razbam crowd is that Razbam was secretly making the Tucano for the FAE, but there is a lot of evidence that it was not at all secret and that ED was or must have been aware. Another theory that Razbam signed a contract without approval by ED is only supported by the leaked stuff and not any 'official' sources. And ED is telling us that we shouldn't believe this evidence. The third theory, if its even worth that name, is that Razbam did some naughty stuff in the past and because of that, we should just assume that Razbam is to blame in this conflict, and no actual evidence is required. Again, it's not about 'the team,' but that people keep making claims that there is lots of evidence, but when you ask them to produce it, they are never able to actually provide sufficient evidence. And no, a mere claim by one of the parties involved in the conflict is not sufficiently objective to decide that this is what must be true. I've never, ever said that Razbam is a great company. It is rather telling that you confabulate things that you think I've claimed.

Great suggestions @Devil 505, though I'd assume ED would want to integrate something like FPS into CA. Cheers!

It's not necessarily the money, but the lack of qualified specialists in both programming and aviation including physics, that need to learn an unfamiliar development environment first... and if they exist they maybe already in a contract with aviation industry, military or both, which may or may not result in a conflict of interest, that prevent side-gigs at another developer.

Looks like HB reinvented the wheel with their in-sim web browser. This is not the greatest UI I've seen, but maybe we should remind ED it's a thing. They could develop this into something more substantial.

Nope, IC does not care about files that are not in the core. Only adultered files. [emoji12] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

This sounds similar to what happens in VR when there’s a disconnect. I can see the image on my monitor, but must exit and relaunch the program to get it back in VR.