unknown

This is a reported LOD bug with the trees since at least january 2020, not just since the latest patch(s). https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260918

Summer sale https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4393509&postcount=258

You really have bad timing, it's on sale right now for $39.99 on the ED store.

Soo....another sale??? It looks like that you don't buy ED modules in EA anymore to save some bucks, they will be at 50% discount in the sales every couple months...i'm looking at you FA-18, F-16. If it's helping you ED it's ok i guess. PS: I didn't get the Newsletter via Mail today(yet), just saw the posting: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4393509&postcount=258

Hallo, i'm one of these (mostly) SP/OB DCS pilots. I'm flying since LOMAC in SP but i looked into MP sometimes(MP less than 10 hours) - hundreds of hours(SP) in the MI-8 alone. :prop: We don't have to assume/guess, some official numbers for you from Kate Perederko: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4288253&postcount=243 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4287694&postcount=115 in that case 2.5.5=60% was stable version vs 2.5.6=35% open beta vs legacy versions 1.2/1.5=5% If you watch the ED forums you could think OB and MP is the vast majority of DCS players but it isn't.

Valid question from boedha68 imho. I don't own the new channel map and i will not buy it(i own the normandy map) but what you could read after EA release it's not very performant in VR. Quote newsletter: Considering the poor performance of the channel map(VR) - ED themself building that map - and the highlighted part of the newsletter....i don't think the Syria map will be very performant (VR) for a long time. :sad: But i hope i'm wrong on that part because i'm very interested in that map. And i don't undestand why that AV-8b is in that newsletter too! :dunno:

More like extremly old/outdated. http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_037e.html

But they also said they develop the A-6E(AI) as if it would be a full module because they want to make it a full module(license awaiting or something like that). It also fits their F-14 and carrier timeframe(remembering something like the all Grumman wing). The A-6E doesn't have to meet the criteria of "brain melting/mind blowing..." because thats for the ED module. But thinking about your ED and HB working together wish/theory -> :thumbup: That would be really mind blowing.

I was flying with the Gazelle today and encountered some strange behaviour. I was in a manually hover(slight drift) and searching my next target with the Viviane sight until my boom with the tail rotor was shot(cut) off. I started to rotate/spiral and thought i would crash but instead i could still control my climb/sink rate with the collective while spinning very stable. I ditched the Gazelle on the water but could get her back in the air and landed on the grass. I recorded a video of it(warning i was flying in VR) because i don't think the track will replay correct - i was starting the mission in an F-18, did my mission, landed on the SC, started....before i switched to the Gazelle- over 40MB track file. Latest DCS Open Beta 2.5.6.50321 Edit: This was in SP.

More performance is always better but for comparison(only starting fps because i don't know where you were flying/track would be cool for comparison): PG: starting with 90+ Normandy: starting with 60+ OT here but the "sophisticated rotary flight model" of Polychop's Gazelle is that "sophisticated" that they plan to redo it after the release of the Kiowa...:music_whistling: And the damage model of the rotor....you could land beside a building, lean your Gazelle to the side so that your rotor touched the wall of the building and nothing would happen, only a particle effect would be rendered everytime a rotor blade hits the wall(but i don't know if they fixed that after all the years) /OT

Thanks, it's working for me now. :beer:

Thanks for clarification, i agree with most of your statement but not with all, thats life and fine. If i compare that with other 3rd party devs or even ED it's quite some accomplishment considering it's their first full blown DCS module :thumbup: Their artist was in hospital for some time(months), he/she(?) is updating the interior/exterior step by step now. But the truth is, the JF-17 has a rather "boring" cockpit to begin with Quick google search: Oh and sorry for the whole OT thing. :blush: :beer:

We both mean the same but i wasn't clear enough in my text, i meant the F16 compared to the FA-18/JF-17.

Thats true but i have the range information on the HSD to work with instead of the thread rings, thats fine for me. But granted that doesn't help the missile much. So for the EDIT: "F-16 compared to the" FA-18 the advantage is your point 1 and 2 and for the JF-17 it's "only" point 2. Thank you both :beer:

What exactly is the F-16 gaining with the HTS pod over the FA-18? With my limited understanding the HTS is providing range(?) information to improve effectiveness? Just asking because with the SPJ-Pod for the JF-17 we have that function already, but it looks like the Harm provides some more functionality to be more effective in doing SEAD(choosing emitter). Just curious :beer:

Just saw the video on YT, these are wrapped in foil instead of painted.

Ah thanks, didn't had that post on my radar anymore. :thumbup:

Yes, they "only" make modules. And they have to deal with broken modules because of changes to the core ED made and doesn't communicate to their 3rd party devs(in advance). Also ED gets it cut from every sold 3rd party module, i have 30% in my head but don't quote me on that. So it's in their own interrest of having many 3rd party devs with "the luxuary" of "only" selling modules. But what exactly has all this to do with your post i quoted? I only quoted you because you started your post with "Actually Dekka RBM mapping mode is based off ED ground radar API. Its not an in house solution." Which was never claimed by the post you quoted, thats all. False statement/misinterpretation, whatever. And your comment: Is this because of the original statement by Harlikwin of ? ED choosed to release 2 EA modules ontop of their core workload and they choosed to do the SC module ontop of that. If 3rd party devs raise the bar in quality/state of content with their modules because they can concentrate on one module it is because ED choosed to go a diferent way(yes keeping the lights on...i know). Thats fine with me but doesn't change the fact that some 3rd party devs are ahead in quality and quantity(features). No hard feelings here, i was just confused by your post/ i didn't understand your point. Maybe it's a language barrier thing. :beer:

F-16 Manual page 20.

Do you have a source/link for that? I don't follow Discord or any other site, hence the question. All i know(officially) is Wags last Mini Update: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4266853&postcount=40

Where did he claimed that? Is clearly aiming at HB. Anyone denied that? But that doesn't change the fact:

Just upload a short track showing your problem, i'm NOT saying you are stupid but maybe the trackfile will show a step you are missing or are misinterpreting because you are used to a slightly differnet procedure from another module or you found a bug or what ever, only a track file will show. Again, i don't want to assume anything but there was a user in the F-18 sub forum complaining and lament about the Harm and god and the world saying the Harm is broken/not working and in the end the only "problem" was he missed one step(make it SOI). It can be just a little thing causing the trouble, but it's hard to try to help you if everything (info) we have is "missile lose lock the moment i launch him" and the experience of other users is different. :beer:

You are right about that, a license is always preferable if it includes some more documentation for the dev team, benefits us all. But on this forum you hear "no license = no module" everytime, looking at Razbam i always think "why" if i read that statement. They already did that. Not talking about the quality of the 3rd party dev and what they make/made out of a module with/without a license here. :music_whistling:

Also upload the trackfile!!! Tacview is nice for debriefing/tactic stuff but it will not show us what you saw/did before and while shooting the missile(did it even lock...), it's much more helpfull then a tacview file. They are working ok for me, SP, not flying much/often MP.

How important is that licensing anyway? If i remember correct Razbam had no license for the Mirage 2000C and that's the reason it's called M-2000C in DCS and on the Shop. I can remember someone from Razbam saying something like "we know it's a Mirage, Daussault knows it's a Mirage but we can't call it Mirage...".