All Activity

That gremlin is back!

I get 57" and about 302 kts at sea level at the weight of 12088 lbs. As far as I can tell, there's no water injection implemented yet.

Honestly, thank you.

I really dont know what you're on about other than one side is talking while the other side is keeping quiet...its the age old gate keeper question: one of us tells the truth all the time, the other lies about everything. In order to find the correct door, you need to ask the right questions, and only one of them are going to tell you the truth because one of them has an official statement and sticking to it and not telling the full truth, while the other side hasnt really shown very much integrity in regards to both their customers and their employer. Just know that deep down that you should expect Razbam not to make a come-back to DCS; if they do, they do. If not, you wont be let down.

1. Noted 2. Not a bug. 3. Noted 4. Noted 5. DCS limitation, currently has open ticket on ED's tracker. 6. Please provide a track.

Thanks, I will give that a go today.

Its easy to figure out; those modules in development prior to 2017 are in jeopardy; UH1H, F5E, Mi-8, F-86, Mig15, Mig-21...probably only 2 or 3 of them are at risk, and even then not likely since the vast majority of them are Belsimtek and ED. OctopusG and Mag3...but thats only 2 aircraft that are under an early contract.

The fact that you can literally go and ask one side any question you want and get a detailed response that is both straight to the point and coherent with the full picture they provide. On the other side you got pretty much nothing and constant signs of both vagueness and avoidance. Yet somehow I'm meant to believe that the first side is actively engaging in an anti consumer behaviour just because "you wouldn't get it and there's a hidden contractual thing that makes them unprofessional" that apparently only applies to one side that can't even get their statements together. I'm really starting to wonder if it's just a smoke and mirrors tactic especially when we're talking about companies that not that not so long ago used to made deals through a WhatsApp chat. How am I as a consumer that is going to lose their EA dream aircraft ment to somehow believe that every single thing which was laid out by RBs side, containing of some of the best in scene talent that has been left out to dry and financially and mentally pushed out of the scene, giving me in depth info about the entire BTS process and how it's now completely over, is a total lie without any proof claiming otherwise but some flash words.

Nope, they did not promised us anything. It's just your wishful thinking. They just said that from now on, the future contracts would require the game files available to ED. Apparently RB contracts were not "future". So maybe, just maybe, this situation will not happen to some of the other modules. But I agree, it would be nice to know which ones

This I know. You can see in the video that in such situations, after dynamic placeholder hot alignment is completed and the INS is also aligned, the HUD still shows deviation during takeoff.

How can i make the HUD and the HMD look like this again (two colors of green)? I actually really liked the color difference. And for example make the text in the MFD's Yellow like the picture above from Archangel44 for all screens (normal windows, PODS and Weapons)?

Hi BN! Thanks for the quick reply, indeed my weapon was Marvrick in vis mode and i didn't checked. this sloved the major issue i have encountered. Thank you Alternatively, i might have managed to break the AA FCR in this situation. I have updated the track file for this occation. Otherwise this is solved. Many thanks! Yes you are right, identical issue

dude...just open a support ticket and ask for one. Youll get store credit instead of a refund, but its 100% better than nothing.

That doesn't strike me as the kind of problem a re-install would have anything to do with, I would look elsewhere first. Going from memory, assuming your canopy is open, I switch to ICS, then it's option 8, option 2, option 1, I believe, from the Comms menu (8,5,1 for Ground Air Supply).

У меня точно такая же хрень... не могу понять в чём проблема... нужно попробывать отключить...

It's either the C-130 Mod or the Armed black hawk: Explanation: The reason the C-130 causes DCS to have a stroke when CJS Module is installed, is because the ordinance table is built using the new database names ie ("Weapons.Missile.AIM_120C") etc etc. and when the C-130 Mod tries to build it's ammo crates using a wstype that's a mixed string (integer and table name), DCS has already processed the CJS Ordinance table and shifted the database to the Type.SubType.Unit format, and therefore the wstype string containing both integers and table name is no longer valid, plus the weapon is already defined, as the CJS Mod Tells DCS to Process the Aircraft Weapons Pack first. For the C-130 Mod, the Problem line in the loadout lua file is 180 Ammo_Pallet_Contents({user_name = _("Ammo GBU-31V3B*6 [12949lb]"), clsid = "Herc_Ammo_GBU_31_V3B_bombs", contents = "{GBU-31V3B}", count = 6, mass = 981, wstype = {4, 5, 36, GBU_31_V_3B}})--GBU-31V3B The DCS Core function calls for a wsType of either 4 Stage numbers or the new format of 3 stage definitions, This line calls for 3 stage numbers then a table name, which DCS see's the table name as invalid due to a weapon already being declared using weapons.bombs.TABLE_NAME. So the Fix is to update the weapon wstype in the pallet's wstype, you can update it to use the new weapon wsType format: Ammo_Pallet_Contents({user_name = _("Ammo GBU-31V3B*6 [12949lb]"), clsid = "Herc_Ammo_GBU_31_V3B_bombs", contents = "{GBU-31V3B}", count = 6, mass = 981, wstype = "weapons.bombs.GBU_31_V_3B"})--GBU-31V3B

Somewhat relatedly it would be good to have means of triggering a reloading sequence.

I executed the start procedure exactly as described in the EA Guide, and it worked. Except I never saw the "Engine primed" message, maybe I was not looking where I should.

So, the clear thing we all get to understand is that, after all the Hawk mess, ED promised us that something like that will never happen again, and it is going to happen again unless a "positive outcome". So, ED plainly lied to all of us. GG ED.

Looks like AGR mode is being commanded. Like you are in a CCIP or Gun Strafe mode.

Sorry I thought you meant you were getting nails in auto and it was dispensing. To confirm, you're saying with no nails, in auto, you dispense? I'm unable to repro in free flight miz. free-flight-auto-no-dispense.trk

Sometimes when staring at the F10 map in flight, I return to the cockpit and find my aircraft in an unusual attitude, especially in warbirds even when I think I had them trimmed well. I think a small artificial horizon in the corner of the F10 map would go a long way, kind of like what a TGP has in the corner as well. Thanks!

Anisotropic Filtering: You have it set in both game and Nvidia driver pick one do not use both.

I want a refund for F15E. Probably won't get it because their egos are too big. Won't ever buy RAZBAM ony any other flight platforms.

So, with no threats it is supposed to start blowing off chaff and flare until it runs out? That doesn't seem to make any sense and it's not how it has functioned in the past. Maybe the old version was in error but this new set-up seems even stranger than before hand.