All Activity

So it is three buttons for two functions. And as the flaps are blown up by airloads, they could have just left out the entire box and tie them to the gear-handle

I kind of agree.. BUT that shader has too many equations for my brain, the goal here was to have a stable animation from far way. The fireball aspect I think it's correct in size but I had a difficult time decoupling the flames and the smoke, the fire should consume in seconds and then just smoke and barely any flames visible. Almost all crashes have the fuel consumed in a giant fireball in a couple of seconds like this, I will try to see if I understand how to tune that!

That's a bit unfair - You've never read that it's implemented, and only ever seen it in that one video where it has "EXPERIMENTAL" written across the screen every second it's in view - I would read that without ambiguity as its' experimental and not a standard feature... When you next hear Wags saying "what's that Eurofighter doing there", that doesn't mean the Eurofighter is already in game....

Or the aero manual.

The G manual says - maneuvering LEFs come down whenever necessary (AoA greater 8.7° and M less than 0.8 {+/-} and retracting when above said Mach or below 7° AoA) - LEF come down with flaps selected down - LEF come down with gear selected down (gear down overrides flap up) There's no mention of different LEF schedules and it just mentions one UP and two DOWN buttons. "Pushing either DOWN button extends all flaps. Pushing the UP button retracts flaps and LEF, provided gear is up."

such an easy fix. I can’t understand why the dev’s can’t make it happen.

It was just a FRIENDLY request. Not a demand. Many of of us has bought the Mirage-F1 and are interested in it's development. That's all. Im sad that a very simple request is seen by some users as self-entitlement or attack on the development team. It's totally unnecessary to go against fellow Mirage-F1 fans like that and create drama when there is no need for it.

HI all, As we know, the new FF MIG29 has dropped! However I can't get the WW MFD to display the HDD? Are we waiting for a WW update or is this an ED thing? TIA, Jim

+1

Bump.

I know this has been going back and forth for a while, So this is an attempt at due-diligence to collate what we need as Skinner's to continue working on ED products going forward with the new Encrypted Models. First the Good: Having that refresh button in the Encyclopedia does help. We can gripe and moan but its better than the option we have had of kludging through the Mission Editor for the encrypted Heavy Metal/F-5 skins. But to the point of how what else we need to make this a comparable tool. The Pie in the Sky answer is "Oh just let MV2 open .EDCE files!" which, I will fully concede I have no idea if thats possible. There could be a very valid code reason this cannot happen and I will just accept this. So the next best course of action is "Heres the tools we as skinners need" * A Description Generator: This alone has been the biggest piece of heartburn for many of us working around .EDCE aircraft. We're trying to piece together what the Lua's look like, to Middling luck. (I'll tag in my B-52 Posts here as evidence later). We don't need a full ARG list, just the important ones (How to enable/disable borts, accouterments like the F-5 has, etc) Having that button ported over to the Encyclopedia would be night and day for proper skinning. * Roughmet Visualization: I will be as bold to speak for other, more experienced, skinners that the addition of proper roughmets makes a night and day difference in working on Aircraft skins. Whether it be getting the proper metallic look on a bare metal MiG-21 or the gritty-ness of RAM coating, This is a crucial factor we need going forward in the Encyclopedia Skinning tools. * Normal Map Visualization: Same with Roughmets, this can be a major boon to accurately modeling specific aircraft. Texac's F-16 work is a perfect case on why Normal's can bring a skin to the next level visually. nullExamples of two of my skins with the standard vs the higher detailed Normals provided by Texac. All three of these are current functionalities we have in ModelViewer2 that are sorely missed in the Encyclopedia. Finally: This is one that Currently almost exists in MV2 that has made a difference in the past, and thats UV Generation. Some Templates have had, inadequate UV files, and having this functionality (through the Blender plug-in) has been another game changer in working on models in game, especially AI models where we don't have a dedicated Template to work with to start. I know many like Myself have 'homebrewed' our own files, EasyPeac3 is a great example what they were capable of doing for AI Models such as the E-3 and E-2 with such method. Ultimately, as a Software Engineer myself I understand theres limitations that us as the Customers are wholly unaware of. And I hope the team at Eagle Dynamics can look at this post as more of a 'Guide Marker' on what we really need, instead of trying to parse 1000 angry voices on the forums. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and I invite others to contribute features that I may have forgotten.

F-15C vs Fulcrum IRL were asymetric fights most of the time, with one side having all AWACS/ECM support and numerical advenatage, if you recreate those parameters in DCS and switch planes, Fulcrum will be performing similar to RL Eagle, you can notice this on PvP servers. Also remember about RL dffrence in flight hours betwean "West and "East" pilots.

You'd have to dial DCS's FFB down to "0" in the controler menu(FF Tune) then it will work*. At least that did it for me.(I have the Moza AB9 Base with the Warthog stick from TM) *I did that with "Shake" and "Trimmer Force", maybe you'd only need one of the two to be switched off.

Neat vid by the Grim reapers. One technique point. With pre designate method I dont think there is any need to drag the CCIP circle over the target before designating. Better to simply fly the _|_ (Pitch reference symbol) over the target designate then position the aiming symbol exactly over the target. The Aiming symbol will appear close to the _|_ anyway. This will result in less polling around to get the CCIP reticle on target. With Over the Shoulder TOSS the weapon release according to the manual will occur at between 90 and 120 degrees pitch

Is there a way to easily move the location of the External Cargo Indicator? I use 3 monitors and TrackIR and glancing at the far right corner while trying to hover is pretty hard. The only method I have found of moving it is via editing the lua file. If there isn't an easier way, could we add that to the wish list? Thanks!

Same here, the original version still works best when used with XRNeckSafer and other addons..

Have tried this a few times now and it seems pretty consistent. In mission editor I can hit targets nearly dead on accurate using CCIP with bombs and the CCIP is visibly responsive as expected. However, when I try the same thing in a multiplayer server, the CCIP symbology seems a lot less responsive and the bombs are way off from where the marker is. Pre-designation doesn't seem to make a big difference. Guns and rockets seem to work as expected in both.

That's right. Need to choose Ground Attack, Pinpoint Strike, Runway or Ship Attack task.

Yeah fair enough, but the point generally holds, like even in 85 it was still fighting, F4's, starfighters, F5's etc as the average NATO jet. And handful of of 16A's that were doing strike stuff mostly. Again, I'd love it if we had the 23MLA in DCS but well that fell apart... Cuz that would be the good 80's scenario, bulk of the warpac jets some flavor of 23, with a sprinkiling of mig29's. And NATO the bulk, older jets with a sprinkling of "teen" jets. It was 90% done by Razbam, before "the troubles", it woulda been ready last year supposedly. But hey we got the 29 so lets focus on that, and making the most of it. I think it will evolve into a decent enough module given a bit of time. I'm personally curious about ED is gonna do GCI... Maybe AI GCI, that would be cool.

I was the pilot.

To each his own, and to be perfectly honest, it's neither historically accurate nor advantageous to cold start a fast jet. The ground crew does it IRL. None of the mil pilots who fly DCS cold start their jets as far as I can tell because they didn't cold start their jets in the military. I never flew for the military, but I did fly light aircraft for a bit, and I had to both preflight, and cold start my (rented) 172 every time I flew it. For me a flight starts with a parked cold and dark aircraft, and ends with a parked cold and dark aircraft, preferably in the same spot. Mi-8 I believe is the hardest start sequence of any of the Helos, and is pretty high up there for any of the aircraft. It's the only thing I can think of where you need to jump to three different positions to cold start it in VR. Everything is in awkward positions. If you have it mapped to keyboard I'm guessing it's not the hardest, but in VR that thing is a beast and I love it (my neck on the other hand hates it.) You should consider cold starting each jet every once in a blue moon at least IMO. If you don't you aren't getting to enjoy the wonderful sound track that accompanies the unique start up sequence for each of these aircraft. It's the fidelity of the details that makes them such special models, and even the electric jets have their own idiosyncratic behaviors. Do fast alignments of course, but yeah, start them up every once in a while at least. Unless you just find it boring, in which case skip it. We do this for fun after all.

try this: rename the extension to .jpg

hello. you may have some other issues that can be fixed since this topic died 18 months ago. i suggest starting a new topic and attach your dcs.log. posting a reply disparaging the developers and ranting will get you noticed for the wrong reason.

Same for me. About one out of five mission starts. Seems to be a damaged wing as trim doesn't help and hard g's makes it even worse. I haven't been able to replicate it yet. Just seems to be very random.

nullThis looks right doesn't it?