Flogger23m

Thanks. Found the .dds files and opened them. Tested by simply making the metallic area look more like the other parts. Looks like it worked minus one issue pictured below: I am going to assume it may have something to do with how I saved the final .dds file: Any suggestions?

Thanks for the replies. That is likely something too complex for myself to do, but is there a tutorial for editing the roughmet files and anything else that may need to be done to the .lua file? And where can the roughmet files be found? And can I get by with Photoshop CS2 or would it require some additional software?

Trying to remove a metal stripe on the MIG-29's tailplane. I can find the thing to uncheck in the template, as it is called "Metal" however it still has a strong reflective property and essentially looks black even if removed. I have also deleted the occlusion for that specific area and the effect is still largely there. Is there any way to remove or further reduce the reflective property of it? Here is a picture of the area. Before the black stripe you'll see the metallic shiny area that I am trying to remove: What it looks like in Photoshop: Another angle: Any help appreciated!

My understanding is that it is essentially FC4, with some added aircraft. They didn't bother to make new aircraft but rather simplify some of the current ones. I don't mind this, but the selection of aircraft is a bit underwhelming. I would like an F-18 or similar modern aircraft but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Clearly, full fidelity modules are the direction ED is going. What I don't understand is if it will be a traditional module like FC3 or a standalone game. I would hope it is an integrated module. I'm interested in buying it mainly to standardize the controls with the MIG-21 and the FC3 aircraft I fly. I wish the Mirage 2000C would be included but again, I don't see that happening anytime soon. I only fly the MIG-21/Mirage 2000C maybe a few times each year and memorizing the different control layouts is something I simply don't have time for. That is one of the trade off of ultra high fidelity modules. They market is crowded and most people won't have time for more than one. Add in the extra development time & cost and you have to raise the cost. That becomes a hard sell. I'd love to try the F-14 as an example, but if I purchase the F-18 I won't be buying the F-14 anytime soon. Maybe 2-3 years down the line when it is 60% off or more.

Seems like it will be more than a module. Will it use the game interface, launcher & updater as DCS World? Some of the planes I fly obviously are not coming to MAC so I would be disappointed if I can't fly all planes in a single game install.

Haven't been following the updates much as of late and it looks like a recent update for the MIG-29S created an issue for some of my liveries. What needs to be changed to remove the "BCC" patch? Issue pictured below.

One thing to note. The difference in complexity between say, a MIG-21 F-13 in the FC level and at the DCS level is not as big as a modern multirole fighter. There are a lot more systems, MFD pages, modes & sensors to account for with modern planes. My point being this era of aircraft aren't ideal for FC3 level planes. Playing the F/A-18C during the current free weekend and really wish they would come out with an FC version of it. A lot of pages and functions to browse through, but unless I want to dedicate all of my flight sim time to that single module I'll never come even somewhat proficient towards it.

How exactly is it downloaded when it goes live? From the module manager or from the website?

Thanks that seemed to have worked.

Having an issue getting my bort numbers to show properly. Issue below in screen shot. This is what my description.lau has: livery = { {"su27_sorbcija", 0, "sorbcija", false}; {"su27_pylon", 0, "su27_pylon", false}; {"su33_tex01", 0 ,"Su33_tex01_haf_AG",false}; {"su33_tex01_BN31", 0 ,"Su33_tex01",false}; {"su33_tex01_BN31", 3 ,"Su-33_numbers",true}; {"su33_tex01_BN32", 0 ,"Su33_tex01",false}; {"su33_tex01_BN32", 3 ,"Su-33_numbers",true}; {"su33_tex02", 0 ,"Su33_tex02_haf_AG",false}; {"su33_tex03", 0 ,"Su33_tex03_haf_AG",false}; {"su33_tex04", 0 ,"Su33_tex04_haf_AG",false}; {"su33_tex05", 0 ,"Su33_tex05_haf_AG",false}; {"su33_tex06", 0 ,"Su33_tex06_haf_AG",false}; {"su33_tex06_BN31", 0 ,"Su33_tex06_haf_AG",false}; {"su33_tex06_BN31", 3 ,"empty.tga",true}; {"su33_tex06_BN32", 0 ,"Su33_tex06_haf_AG",false}; {"su33_tex06_BN32", 3 ,"empty.tga",true}; {"su33_tex07", 0 ,"Su33_tex07_haf_AG",false}; What do I need to add or remove to get rid of the checkered area?

If we have to wait longer for a medium fidelity then I'd happily wait longer to. Personally I don't have the time or desire for a lot of high fidelity aircraft, so if MAC is all that is available for my demographic going forward I'd get that and maybe the F-18 or F-16 (probably not both). Essentially, not much of a gain. Personally I'd be happy if a 3rd party joined and made similar aircraft like FC3/MAC, but with more interesting aircraft. Won't really take away from ED or any other current 3rd party. One can always dream! :D I'd pay for modern versions of those aircraft at FC3 level. Give me a Su-27SM2 and MIG-29SMT. Or better yet, Su-35 and MIG-35 / MIG-29K. Or Mirage 2000-5. I'd buy a package with all three. Not feasible to give them in a free update because of all the work required, but it can be "MAC 2" and I'd buy it.

Two questions. 1) For the MIG-21 I opened the following registry area: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Leatherneck Simulations\DCS:MIG-21Bis Do I delete the "DCS:MIG-21 BiS" folder or just the (Default) registry file? 2) Under: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\ I don't see an Eagle Dynamics or DCS folder for the rest of the modules. I do see them under: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Eagle Dynamics Do those modules only have registry files in that area or am I missing something?

Recently installed a new CPU (not motherboard). I realized I had forgotten to deactivate my DCS modules prior to doing the hardware swap. Is there anyway to deactivate the modules now, then re-activate before launching the game so it validates the new hardware? Or am I out of luck? Tried it with the A-10C. Ran the .exe for the DRM, tried to deactivate but it gave me an error saying that I need to activate or similar.

I don't mind the modules being the same as the full fidelity ones, as long as they are interesting. An F-18 or F-16 or something similar would be ideal. A trainer really isn't that interesting to anyone outside of the cockpit clicker crowd. And seeing that it, along with the MIG-15 and F-86 are already fairly simple as is I can't see the difference between the medium and high fidelity being that notable. Or variants of aircraft that can't be done in a full fidelity module due to lack of information but can be done close enough in FC/MAC. Example would be an Mirage 2000-5F or -5. Not a great lineup for MAC (outside of the planes already in FC3), but I suppose it is better than nothing.

Better than nothing, but I already have the MIG-21 and I am not too interested in the F-5. About the only interest I have in the L-39 is that I can probably fly that skin I made some years back for it: Didn't expect much more though. Would love to get an FC / "MAC" F-18 or F-16, or even modern variants of the full fidelity modules. M2000-5F or -5, Su-27SM2, ect. Depending on the price I may pick it up though.

Exactly. These aircraft wouldn't be an option for a full study sim module but would work fine for FC. If ED or the current 3rd party line up is uninterested, perhaps another 3rd party developer will come aboard and specialize in these modules. No reason you can't please a different audience, just like how WWII is being integrated into DCS. :) Okay, but what was the point of saying that? And why is that? You're contradicting yourself yet again in the same post. What are you even trying to say? For someone who hurls a lot of drug related insults to other members, you seem to be unable to make any relevant points. At this point I'm just going to assume your intention of your initial post was just to add some insults to others who may not agree with your opinion. At least make it coherent next time. :thumbup:

I'd be interested in an FC3 level variant. I don't imagine there is enough info to do a full fidelity module though.

Then why don't you clarify what you had wrote here: What exactly are you trying to say? You seem to be contradicting yourself, which you did yet again: So what is it? Perhaps before accusing other members of doing drugs you should proof read what you wrote. Because it makes little sense, if any sense.

PeaceSells, there is no reason to resort to insults because you cannot formulate a counter argument and/or dislike someone else's opinion. You made some fairly silly statements and asked a question to which I responded. :) This is your argument/question. An argument you made, not myself. Fairly silly is it not? Even if all the information is classified on a Eurofighter, you can likely make a realistic enough interpretation of it. Much like the F-15C in FC3. There is a lot more that differentiates the FC3 aircraft from one another aside from the 3D models. Likewise, the A-10C module is not a 100% recreation systems wise of the real thing. By your logic, that would not qualify as an "A-10C". That your logic, not mine. So now you are agreeing with me? What line of thought do you agree with, the above quote or the below quote? Because you've backpedaled and changed your entire argument. They're entirely contradictory: Is the FC3 F-15C not a F-15C because it is not a full fidelity flight sim? Is the Su-25T not an Su-25T because the RWR was classified and therefore functions the same as the Su-25A? You imply that if some information is classified or the module is not of full fidelity the only difference between the two are the 3D models: ... and then ask: To which I say of course it does! Even if every radio setting or radar mode is not fully modeled, it will certainly behave entirely different from the F-15C or A-10A. To say otherwise would be idiotic. So of course it will scratch that itch. It will perform very much like a Eurofighter, although with simplified avionics. You might want to re-read what you had wrote, because it made little sense. :D

You can create a realistic enough interpenetration of a Eurofighter more than likely. What you cannot do is get a full fidelity version. There is more to an aircraft than shape. You have weapons payload, fuel capacity, flight dynamics, cockpit visibility, speed & acceleration, ect. Are you implying the F-15C and A-10A in FC3 perform exactly the same, with the only notable difference being the external 3D model? :megalol: Then also consider the A-10C is not a proper replica of the real thing either. A few systems were skimped on (if I recall) due to them being classified. If true, in your eyes does it now perform the same as the FC3 MIG-29S with the only notable difference being the 3D model? Both examples are ludicrous, but it seems to be the stance you have taken. To answer your question, yes, an FC3 level Eurofighter would certainly scratch the itch. It would perform entirely differently compared to the other FC3 planes in the game bringing new flight dynamics, weapons payload, weapon types and a new cockpit to get used to. :) That comes down to mission design and your play style. If you're playing "air quake" that is the fault of the mission designer or yourself. In FC3 you can take off from an airfield, refuel, enter the combat area, and then RTB when all is done. That is far from "air quake". The only major difference is you won't be clicking around the cockpit during start up. Otherwise, the mission will be just as realistic. On the other hand, blowing up Russian T-72s around Las Vegas in an A-10C is about as "air quake" as you can get. The idea of Russians invading the western US and deploying MBTs that far inland is comical. Then we had paid DLC campaigns such as the following: Now what sounds like "air quake"? :) If you're playing a medium fidelity FC3 level plane as if it was "air quake", you only have yourself to blame. Agreed. I'd be interested in further variations of the FC3 aircraft. An Su-27SM2, Su-25SM, F-15C with AIM-9X capability and the more modern radar, and a modern MIG-29 variant. If entirely new aircraft are too difficult to invest in, I'd still be willing to pay for further variations of the current aircraft. Ideally I'd be interested in those as well as all new FC3 planes, like a Hornet, Super Hornet, F-16, ect. Full fidelity modules of lame duck, off variant aircraft are of little interest to me.

Missile performance is fairly off in DCS for most if not all air to air missiles. I believe ED are looking into it, but I wouldn't expect a change anytime soon.

Probably the only way to get a Eurofighter or similar as well that will take decades to be declassified enough to make a study sim. It has its place as do the WWII planes. Calling those who would enjoy such a module as "lazy" or "incompetent" is fairly petty.

I'd like to see a variety of FC3 level planes, but I'm mostly interested in modern aircraft: F-16C, A+, E F-18A/C or E Su-27SM2 or Su-35 MIG-35 Eurofighter Rafale Mirage 2000-5 or -9 JAS-39 I'm more interested in newer air frames. The only high fidelity aircraft I'd absolutely love to have at FC3 level is the F-18 and more or less confirmed F-16. Harrier would be great but until ground vehicle accuracy is fixed I have little interest in low speed attack aircraft. F-14 and F-4E sound great, but they're two seaters and micromanaging an AI backseater will be too cumbersome. And there are many of us who would rather see more FC3 type modules. I especially view the WWII and trainer aircraft to be complete wastes of time even if I like to fly around in the P-51 every now and then. I can always stoop down and say "fly IL-2" or "fly Falcon 4" but there is no need to be offended by someone else's opinion. There are limitations with full fidelity aircraft, such as inability to model interesting air frames such as a modern Mirage 2000-5 or -9, the long and risky development times and more. A third party studio can come along and build FC3 level modern fighters and I'd be very happy. We'd have everything from WWII, high fidelity, medium fidelity to helicopters and trainers in a single game. Higher fidelity aircraft also take a long time to develop, which hurts development of the core engine. You can have the most realistic systems and avionics but if AIM-120s still fall out of the sky within 7 miles and a BMP-2 can regularly blow MIG-29s out of the sky the realism is greatly compromised. I'd rather have ED focus on FC3 level aircraft so they can spare more programmers to focus on missile physics and ground vehicle accuracy and other things that really need fixing. Clearly ED is spread too thin as is right now. Contrary to popular belief , FC3 is still a flight sim and not a WWII MMO like War Thunder. ;) To suggest they are the same is quite frankly insulting to the amount of work ED has put into FC3. The options inside of DCS are great, but I've been playing the same few aircraft for over a decade now. I'd like something new. I cannot think of a single game similar to FC3 in terms of realism or mission editor. Can you please point me to it? For full fidelity switch flipping flight simulators there actually are other alternatives, such as Falcon or FSX. So using that is an arrangement point falls flat. The lack of patience comment is fairly insulting. A lot of people are more interested in a variety of different aircraft and/or don't have as much spare time as they'd like. Would you consider someone who opts for a simpler trainer or WWII plane module as someone who lacks patience and are therefore the wrong audience? Real life isn't balanced. The irony of asking for maximum realism yet balance is interesting to say the least. :) The parts in bold don't make any sense. If you actually learned the plane you wouldn't have forgotten to open the cover switch. The actual differences, once in the air, are minimal. One just requires you to use the very unrealistic mouse to click around the cockpit a few extra times, but that should all have been done before getting into combat. Some of us are more interested in the combat. We're looking for enough realism to learn use real world tactics, some realistic avionics, realistic flight models, payloads, ect. But not everyone wants to learn every single function the aircraft has. If you can point me to a flight sim similar to FC3 I'd be happy to know about it. But you can't, because there is none. :doh: I've used those aircraft for over a decade. Why not continue using the KA-50 and A-10C? Because you'd like to fly new aircraft? Same reason why many of us want more FC3 aircraft. The "simple" full fidelity modules tend to be older, uninteresting modules such as trainers or WWII planes. Again with this argument. What games are you referring to? A nice, fairly level headed response. I can certainly understand your reason for wanting full fidelity modules. However, FC3 certainly is a simulator and is massively immersive. It isn't the most realistic simulator by far, but it provides a great middle ground experience. Not everyone wants to pretend they're a fighter pilot, but would like some way to connect to their hobby of combat aviation. We don't want to simulate the hours of briefings, pre-flight checks, medical examinations and whatnot which would be required of a real fighter pilot. FC3 is a great way to do this. We can relatively quickly experience different air frames, experience their pros and cons, and switch between them easily while still retaining realistic combat parameters. I respect and understand your position and am thankful you could respond without resulting to insults. :) This post wasn't to offend anyone, and if I have I apologize. I am just pointing out the irony, poor arguments used, the common trend of "stop liking what I don't like" this has become common as well as the insults towards those who prefer other modules.

Downloaded both. Lots of performance issues and I recall reading something about removing config files from an older build. I had a beta install years back with a config file. So I renamed the entire DCS.openbeta folder in: C:\Users\USERNAME\Saved Games Now the problem is when I try and log into the game I can't. My user name and password are invalid, but they worked last night. It still works for my release version. Any suggestions? Edit: Finally worked.

Updater showed no updates when I ran it or loaded the beta. I am trying Skatezilla's utility and it seemed to have forced the beta to update, 8GB update downloading. Hopefully this is it.