All Activity

Just as radar trackfiles are not MSI trackfiles. I believe you are thinking about this wrong. MSI trackfiles can be built by both radar trackfiles AND FLIR trackfiles. While FLIR trackfiles aren't MSI trackfiles, neither are radar trackfiles. They BOTH build MSI trackfiles and MSI trackfiles can always be interacted with.

Adding this because I haven't seen it mentioned in the source code debate, apologies if it has and I missed it. As with all my posts, this is just my understanding: When ED first announced that they would change agreements to require the source code for third-party modules, my understanding was that that requirement was tied to the overall third-party agreement, not the agreement that is signed for a module; if that is true then the third-parties who were already developing for DCS when VEAO went under, Razbam being one, are not obliged to provide the source code for any modules they create in the future, as well as any modules they had created before. If anyone has anything official that contradicts that please post it, the last thing I want to do is inflame the debate with incorrect information.

Da ich mein Quest 3 verkauft habe, bin ich mir nicht zu 100 % sicher, aber es wird auf der linken Seite angezeigt, dass du eine Latenz von 45 ms hast, richtig? Und die Latenz ist wie festgenagelt. Keinerlei Varianz. Wenn dem so ist, wirst natürlich immer ein Stottern haben. Warum ist die BIT-Rate bei dir os niedrig? 200 Mbps scheint mir viel zu niedrig zu sein. Ultra Einstellungen und nur 200 Mbps und dann niedrige Latenzen? Ich glaube nicht, dass das so etwas wird. Da müssten 500 Mbps her. Wie ich schon schrieb, ist es lange her, dass ich die Quest mal aufhatte, aber ich bin mir sicher, dass 200 Mbps viel zu niedrig für ULTRA-Settings ist, wenn es um Latenzen geht. Mal einen anderen Codec ausprobiert? 10 Bit ist ein gewaltiger Sprung gegenüber den 8 Bit der anderen Codecs.

Кресло Миража 2000, вопросы в личку. Доставка из-за рубежа.

FLIR trackfiles are pretty explicity not MSI trackfiles if you read the sources. You can desigate them to slave other sources to them to create MSI trackfiles. They are not MSI trackfiles onto themselves. It applies just the same to AOT's.

Next Steam sale is in 61 days. And DCS stuff is always on sale during Steam sales.

Let's delete our posts so the thread keeps on topic.

CEP of HARM, when radar stop emmiting is also wrong, preety good chance to hit other target inside baterry, instead of village few miles away... It's not some super secret weapon, plenty of RL data about HARM performance in such circumstences.

Razbam seems to claim that even before this issue arose, ED was not always adhering to their (financial) obligations. Also, all the information we have suggests that the obligation to hand over the source code only exists for newer contracts (and thus for newer modules), not the old contracts for the old modules. And this information includes a statement by VEAO (before the ED/Razbam fallout) who claimed that a large part of the reason they left was that they would be forced to hand over code and other materials for new modules. But even more importantly, it includes even ED's own statements after the VEAO departure, where they only said that they would require the source code for new modules. No. You are making things up. This is not what either party is claiming, nor is it what any of the leaked stuff is claiming. There is no basis for what you say. ED stopped payments and cut off access to DCS due to the Super Tucano thing. Nothing to do with not providing the source code for DCS modules. As far as we know, there is no court case. Except for losing out on a quite a bit of money that they think that they are owed. That is clearly a big issue to them. You ignore that a lot of people have expressed negative sentiment towards Razbam, and of course there is a lot of overlap between customers of DCS and other flight sims. So it is very strange that you think that Razbam doesn't face any negative consequences (other than a major financial hit, which you don't seem to consider to be relevant for some bizarre reason). All those feelings and frustrations seem based on a completely incorrect assessment of the situation.

There should be links to the aircraft manuals in the ED Launcher.

The current implementation of the "enable water injection" key command does not affect MAP. At 1,000 feet and full throttle, MAP remains at 57", regardless of whether the key command is activated.

Ach, das Thema ist gefühlt so alt wie DCS selbst. Man vergisst nach all den Jahren auch vieles wieder, weil ja auch extrem viel rumgeschraubt wird. Wenns dann mal läuft, freut man sich, fliegt und rührt am liebsten nix mehr an. Ich hab mich immer durch diverse Guides gearbeitet und irgendwas (meist ne kleinigkeit) brachte dann die Verbesserung. Hier z.B. grad aktuell: Es gibt noch zig andere Threads hier in den tiefen des Forums und alle mit immer wieder den gleichen tips. Blöd hald, dass die wichtigsten "üblichen Verdächtigen" settings geschätzt so ca. ~30 Punkte sind. Viel Erfolg!

Maybe what you work on can benefit from new features, but that's not the case with every computer system. In fact, it's a good question whether those features are really needed, or just really wanted. I'm pretty sure not all are in the former category. Quite a few were fine with one of those indestructible old Nokias. I don't think you considered the question, how many of smartphone users actually need them? Some have now discovered that they, in fact, don't. Marketing can make you want anything with enough, well, marketing. I was without a smartphone for a very long time, and when I got one, it was because I really did need some functionality that only a smartphone could provide. Although, I needed it because of an externally imposed fiat by people who assumed everyone had a smartphone. My house has steel doors with heavy duty locks, thick outer walls (mostly for heat insulation) and windows with reinforced glass. It's not a bunker, but it's far from easily breached. In fact, it's not possible for the kind of thief that targets private housing to get in before the security company's contractual response time. That's exactly what I'm talking about, too. The only way for a typical thief to make it inside would have been to scam his way in or steal a key. The way the house is designed provides inherent security. There are no exploits, no crawling in through an air vent or decoding the radio waves to open the door remotely (you can get in the garage that way, but the jalopy in there isn't actually worth stealing ). Likewise, buying any sort of stolen information gets you no closer to the keys. Then it's not a cyberattack, it's a scam. I wasn't talking about those. Scamming individuals is another thing entirely, and is much older than computers. Of course I understand what I'm asking for. In fact, I think all this software should have been written that way in first place. That's obviously not the case. All commonly used modern software has those issues (especially anything based around Unix). Almost all modern software is moving too fast. Most modern software breaks too many things because of that. In fact, those issues actually start with hardware. Why should I need to restart my PC regularly when there had been VAXen that had an uptime of years, and mainframes on which you could install a patch to the running OS without turning off the system? The fact that the IBM PC was a crummy (but very modular) office machine running a hacked together CPM clone probably has something to do with it. It was never designed as something your life revolves around. Again, I don't care what people want. I care about what people need. Again, the marketing department is there to make people want all the crap you're making and then ask for more. And then, the programmers wonder why people act entitled when requesting new features. In fact, a lot of people could do with a cleaner separation of wants and needs (but it's hard when every marketing department in the world is dedicated to muddling this line).

MSI is strictly an A/A system, so that does not play a part in this at all. The system that generates all the fancy symbology and powers the TOO mode is the HARM Command Launch Computer (CLC). Like the RWR, it lacks any form of inaccuracy and is bang on perfect all the time. Hopefully someday we can have a physics-based approach like the RWR in the upcoming MiG-29A. Maybe someday they'll take another look at it, maybe when HARM becomes a contributer in A/A with MSI.

im still buggering with this - and buggered by it. hmu

The HID Manager will look for ALL of your devices with the same PID/VID. Serial Number is how you setup the custom name for each device. There is really nothing you need to do, its already meant to be used with multiple devices

I also hope they listen to the very large amount of community feedback and add alot more Airbases and POIs to the planned list. They did respond to feedback very fast regarding Afghanistan, but not so for Iraq so far... very disappointing in my opinion, I own both Afghanistan and Iraq and I think that Iraq has a lot more potential for DCS as a whole, but does not get treated as such. Lets hope they have been cooking in the background. Latest Videos from Wags (F-16C ATP introduction) showed atleast the already confirmed Mosul Airbase to be WIP/finished. Still, southern Iraq(country) having only 4 airbases confirmed is very lackluster.

I never had freezes, but flying at (very) low altitude there are quite a few areas with immense stuttering, yes. What altitude were you flying at?

I just did the first (real) mission, and it's off to a great start already. I loved the dialogue (Petrovich calling out he spotted a cloud made me laugh out loud )!

What makes you think we can't L+S trackfiles just because they're angle only? If an MSI trackfile is created by FLIR or even HARM, sure it may end up being angle only for one reason or another, but there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to L+S it. Even in current DCS, an angle-only trackfile from the radar can be L+S'd. You are L+Sing an MSI trackfile that is angle only, in this case one which happens to have radar contribution. For FLIR, it should behave be the same if modelled properly, being just as L+Sable just without a radar contribution circle and with an F instead. The ONLY kind of trackfile you should not be able to directly L+S are CIT only trackfiles, and DCS does not even model those yet (currently only tracks already built by the radar show up with IFF responses when interrogated, which is another inaccuracy compared to even the F-16 in DCS). We need to stop this weird narrative that you can L+S some things and not some other things. Everything MSI can be designated as L+S, that is the point. The only thing you can't L+S are completely uncorrelated IFF responses (CIT-only trackfiles) which don't built a full MSI trackfile in the first place.

Finally I completed this mission after I think 5th or 6th try :). However I had to change loadout to 6xmavericks. I guess only US F-4 had it? ;/ 6xMk20 hmm how did you drop them? i tried low level drop but got shot down from manpads. Havent tried dive toss, maybe this would do the trick, but hit at least 50% of moving convoy, I am not so sure. Especially that the wingman is still not very helpful. However he is reacting to one command - "engage air defences".

The complexity of modern software is so immense that your dream of perfect software is just a childish fantasy. For example, your belief in the 'silver bullet' of formal verification of software merely shows that you don't actually understand how that works, and especially, what the limitations are. For all but very small algorithms or systems, these need a major human contribution to tell the system what properties the software should have and not have, and that part is itself very prone to error. So if programmers would try to do what you want, the errors would still be there. A lack of flexibility is actually a major security risk, since there are a lot of systems out there running software with known vulnerabilities, but where the programmers can't upgrade it with a reasonable effort or at all. As I said before, at least in my neck of the (non-gaming) programmer woods, reducing the risk of exploitation is actually a major reason to migrate to new solutions. Even your silly fantasy of having all software being formally proven correct is not actually possible without rewriting the software completely with formal verification being used from the start, since it is a billion times less realistic to graft that onto existing software than to use it for completely new software (and that is itself rather unrealistic for most cases). So if you actually understood what you are asking for, you would understand that you are actually asking for a radical rewrite of nearly all software. But you clearly don't understand what you are asking for. So in this comparison, the software you want is a version of DCS where you can't control the plane? Because being able to control the plane requires there to be a hole in the system so your controller inputs go into the game. And you apparently also want a version of DCS that doesn't show anything to the user (on a flat screen or VR), because outputting video requires another hole. The issue is that in this fantasy of yours, there is not even a point in making that metal pot, because it doesn't do what people want. What people want is a colander with the holes in the right place, not a solid metal pot.

Before I got my rudder pedals with toe breaks, I used a slider (axis) on my HOTAS for breaking. Didn't like breaking with keys.

Please create a new bug report with appropriate tracks, etc. Thanks.

GROSSLY exaggerated? Are there any sources for that claim? Because looking at accident rates and certain other stats, i feel like there is a lot of truth to the "Ensign Eliminator" label given to the F4U-1D... Only the F4U-4 managed to tone things down, the 1D's reputation is apparently quite fitting according to what i'm reading... Plus, wouldn't the relatively high wing loading make for a lot more vicious stall behavior compared to well balanced fighters like the P-51, Spitfire etc?