Draken35

Concur! F1M > English cockpit all day long... tbh, I was only using the mod because it has a lot less shimmering with MSAA in VR, not because the actual language

Well.. It did work for that first login in DCS after the F-4 reinstall... The moment I logged out and came back it, the crash reappeared! So, I went back to a clean install and started troubleshooting again, focusing in the options.lua. After many DCS restarts going back and forth checking the options, I noticed that the when the DCS Launcher is enabled in Misc. Options, the Phantom works as expected but if I disable the launcher, it produces the crash! I disabled the DCS launcher within two hours of it been released and have played the "old fashion way" since... IIRC, last time I flew the F-4 was in February of this year, so either something happened in the last couple of updates or this is a byproduct of me going from Win10 to Win11 around the same timeframe. For now, I have the launcher work around, but I cannot believe I'm the only one not using the launcher!

Yes Sir! That's the one

Well, don't know why it did not occurred to me before, but in my full install, including MODS, I uninstalled the F-4 from the module's manager and reinstalled it and it now WORKS.

When trying to spawn into a Phantom hot or cold, any map, SP or MP I get either a crash to desktop of DCS just hangs. Does not always generates the zip crash file in \logs. This is what I have done to troubleshoot: 1) Remove all mods 2) renamed Saved Games DCS folder to DCS.old. 3) Slow repair 4) Launch instant action cold start mission in the Caucasus map and test. WORKS! 5) Copy the Config\Input folder from SG\DCS.old to the clean one (to get my keybindings back) and test as #4 and it WORKS. 6) Copy the DCS.old Config\options.lua into the clean cone and test, same as #4 and it FAILS. So, seems that the crash is related to my old options.lua file, which I attached. Also attached are the latest log and crash files. Any ideas of what this can be? options.lua dcs.log dcs.20250427-170052.crash

Hit load.. I haven't added any other functionality to it and probably won't until the module is more developed (and I get the desire to fly it )

I think you assumed that I did not check my code before posting and that I meant the codes were changed recently (as in the last DCS update). Unfortunately, you were wrong in both accounts. Also, you made the mistake of comparing two different pieces of software (even if they try to accomplish the same thing) made by different developers, but thanks for trying to help. @greyeagle787 I updated the key codes and uploaded it to the user files . I'm not currently flying the hook so, please, give it a good test and let me know.

Seems that the CDU key codes were changed again... So, it is broken for the time being

The "wall" cannot be destroyed by explosions or the Scenery Destruction Zone trigger set at 100%. It can be removed with the Scenery Remove Objects Zone trigger. Please set it to be destroyable.

For what I read in another thread on the topic, it might be that the F1 is not reading the cockpit data from the files in the saved games livery folder... I guess we will have to wait for Aerges if that is indeed the case.

Feel free to share it if you have it.

@Japo32 sorry for the ping, but just in case you are unaware that the F1 English cockpit mod is broken and are able to do anything about it.

My reference to the NATOPS was a couple of days ago regarding the topic of the thread, which you, perhaps, missed ... And the screenshot was just the AI summary of a google search and it matches what I've read in multiple biographies of naval aviators, if you think that is worst that nothing, well, fine. As I said before believe what you want. null

It is a very long list of aviation books in Kindle. But you call me when you have a source for your claim first... At least I tried to backup my to claims here with SOME information (reference to the NATOPS and a simple google search) ... You haven't ... But, believe what you want.

The "typical" career of USN Naval aircraft are 6 to 9 months deployed and then 18-24 months at their home (land) base... The attached image matches with all the biographies of naval aviators I've read. Hardly a "vast" majority. Regardless, IIRC, for the legacy Hornets , there was a non-flared weight limit (39,000 lbs ? ) as well.

The same manual mentioned above explicitly mentions that it is automatically engaged during landing in low mode with weight on the nose wheel.

Support for the Ka-50's PVI-800 added. I posted it in the User files and will update this post with the link once the file is approved, extension attached meanwhile. from the read me: -- Ka-50 Blackshark PVI-800 ONLY WSS applies to Nav-Target points ONLY There is no validation on the quantity / number of points per type. The load sequence is reset to 1 for Nav-Target points every time the Load Wpnt button is pressed. WDes: @|#| ... will load/replace the next Nav Target point in the load sequence @|T| ... will load/replace the next Nav Target point in the load sequence @|N| ... will load/replace the next Nav point in the load sequence @|A| ... will load/replace the next Airfield point in the load sequence @|F| ... will load/replace the next Fix point in the load sequence @|#| ... WHEN # IS A NUMBER from 1 to 9 will load/replace Nav Target point number (#) @|T#| ... WHEN # IS A NUMBER from 1 to 9 will load/replace Nav Target point number (#) @|N#| ... WHEN # IS A NUMBER from 1 to 9 will load/replace Nav point number (#) @|A#| ... WHEN # IS A NUMBER from 1 to 9 will load/replace Airfield point number (#) @|F#| ... WHEN # IS A NUMBER from 1 to 9 will load/replace Fix point number (#) Download here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3344152/

First of all, thank you for this feature! It might seem like a premature release and not that useful currently, but I see it like an opportunity for the community to help guide its development, specially since we don't have the Open Beta anymore. I did not pay much attention to it because of the current limitations, but, yesterday, at the end of a 2 hours MP session in a sandbox that contains manually placed and dynamically generated ground units, we were talking about the save feature and I decide to save the mission and take a look just out of curiosity... Well, I just did and I am (pleasantly) surprised that the dynamically generated units (using Moose in this case) were saved! Now, the sad part is that they did not keep the name used when generated but a generic "vehicle1-##". I think, that if the dynamically spawned units were to be saved with their proper names it would be a big win for the scripting community. (Names are important since they contain prefixes that are used in the scripts to setup thinks like IADS and EWR networks)

This is what I'm using for the Viper with the Rhino.. Not exactly force sensing but works well for me: (I'm running a WW adapter - which is about 100mm give or take - with a ww F-16 grip

yes, it can be done with TelemFF. Just export the settings with configurator and load them in the configuration file option in Telem

totally offtopic... we do need the "laugh" reaction to the topics back

Agree, there shouldn't be hackers creating viruses or altruistic Ethiopian "princes" who want to share their wealth but, sadly, they do exists. But it is! Every single new update or patch is, in fact, new software from an AV perspective. Consider as well that, between DCS updates, there are several millions of new malware pieces identified . At the moment, and in the foreseeable future, there are only 2 options when these false positives appear (and they will): 1) Add an exclusion the the AV. 2) Wait until the AV vendor whitelist the files summited by ED/3rd party. Of course, this will take time... Can you imagine how long it takes to process all those whitelist request? Which one to choose, is up to each of us and so is how to mitigate the risks associated to option 1)

Hold on... So, now you are saying that Heatblur intentionally added a malware to their code? "There is a suspicion", you (obviously) and who else? Based on what? Concrete facts please.

If you bother to read the other (or one of the other threads about this topic, I lost count already), you will learn that the files were already submitted to be whitelisted. Meanwhile, you can disable the module or add the exclusion. Your choice. Please, make sure to wave whatever law you mentioned to the bad actors that make the viruses, since I'm sure you didn't give them permissions to your PC either... Who knows? Perhaps that will make them stop pestering us...

Why did it pass QA? Perhaps, because when it was tested, there was no virus that matched it signature? See the screenshot I pasted above.