RafaPolit

That I believe is the wrong link for you Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2399880/DCS_Normandy_20/ Only for Normandy 1944 owners: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2314970/DCS_Normandy_2_Upgrade/ for both Normandy 1944 and The Channel owners: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2399900/DCS_Normandy_20_Upgrade/

I get a very large warning that I ALREADY HAVE THIS PRODUCT when trying to buy Normandy 2.0 Should I wait? Is it OK to go ahead? cc @NineLine

The amount of love and care (not to mention knowledge and effort) poured into this project is really amazing! Thanks so much for all these assets. Best regards, Rafa.

For me, it says "radar troopkill". Really no use at all

Are the landmarks bombable? I think that mixing politics with the simulation is a tricky thing. I remember hearing in one of the streams about the upcoming Sinai map that you are not going to be able to destroy sacred Israeli landmarks. I understand the motivation, but I honestly think the reason this is also a game is precisely so we can go off-script and do unexpected things. All the "other side's" landmark are destroyable... why not simply allow anything to have a damage model? I think it would be interesting to mount an offensive to "proof the Allies superiority" against the Axis and bomb the Eifel Tower. Or, conversely, if a Jug were able to reach London and bomb the Big Ben. I don't see the need to "protect" those assets due to their "political" nature.

I was coming to ask / report the same thing. It was a nice eye-candy for seeing what a plane is all about. Now you only see the image thumbnails. Maybe it's a versioning thing and old videos appear "less appealing" because they are showing an older DCS version / look? Maybe it's difficult to showcase updates to the module itself? Still, some sort of video would be very useful!

The instruction manual is fairly good. Also, for starting up, I use ctrl+shift+4 (or 6) to move right smack in the middle of the cockpit.

Agreed. Not sure what this would achieve, but I see no reason for having this permanently visible in F10. A sketch would be enough for mission planners. I see no reason why a pilot would need to know what areas are of high resolution during flight.

I actually developed a Node.js server that connects to DCS-BIOS and sends requests back. I can't "export" views, but I can replicate cockpit status for "known" states and I even have a working DED for the F-16. Maybe you can take a look and see if you can improve on the concept? Here's my attempt:

I agree with the concept, not with the implementation. - It's true they need to keep support for the Channel map and keep support for existing Channel missions... 100% true!. But... - They could "deprecate" the map and say: from now on, campaigns and new developments transfer to Normandy 2 map, please do not create new content for Channel as we are merging it with Normandy to provide a larger combined area - They could "allow" Ugra to recreate the Channel areas with High Fidelity in pro of merging both maps - Added bouns: They could provide a "toolkit" for migrating campaigns / missions from Channel to Normandy This, to me, would reflect a: "we want a combined global map eventually, this is the first step into merging maps". They even have control of one of them (so as to not damage other third party developers). The current route seems much more "business" oriented, on the "wrong" side of it. They still would make money, they probably already do a ton of money, so trying to "cheat" users into getting both maps by PREVENTING a high level of detail on the other map on the overlapping areas is very poor form IMHO. On the other hand, they could have "collaborated" with 3rd party developers tighter and help provide the look and lighting of the Channel into the new Normandy, as the Channel looks (again, in my opinion and my alone, these are not hard facts) better than Normandy as they stand right now. Also, this brings the third party developers arena into the foreground, as current model prevents a joint venture between all to favor the players, this model is one that favors isolated development to favor ease of implementation for ED and "lack of competition" for 3rd party developers. In my opinion, this entire venture has been approached with the wrong angle considering the players and mission creators.

I think this is completely beyond the objective of my small contribution. Mine is meant to be used like a "generic" external touch screen to interact with specific cockpit elements. Since there is already Helios which does most of what I have done and is a more mature thing, plus things like the tablet apps (albeit these are paid), this project of mine is probably a little "less" useful than originally expected. Still, for a single RPi touchscreen, it's really great and I use it every day. F-16s ICP, and F-18 UFC are the most useful of the pages for me. The MCDs and DDIs are a little less useful now that I have included the cougar MFDs to my setup. I'm not really planning on delving into anything map related for the time being. If anyone wants to contribute, this is an free open source software, so all contributions are welcome! Edit: oh, the Apache Pilot and Copilot Keyboard Units are also extremely useful!

Yes, but it only shows a few, it doesn't filter out the ones you already have, so the "related" could perfectly be all things you already own with no exposure for those you don't. I agree there are "ways around". Still, I honestly think this could probably be low hanging fruit that ED can incorporate into the web page without a lot crazy amount of effort.

I'm bumping this up. With the current sale, I wanted to buy some campaigns for my new-ish A-10CII. It should be so obvious to me to go into campaigns and filter by: "Campaigns designed for the X-00", "Campaigns taking place in the Normandy map", "Campaigns that take advantage of the Supercarrier". It requires little else as you already have most of the metadata in place! It will also (I almost guarantee this) increase sales of the campaigns, as you won't be overwhelmed with dozens of campaigns you are not interested in or don't have the airframes just to find the one you want.

None of the SSAA filters are working, nor the Motion Blur. They have asked us to turn those off for the time being. 4x MSAA on the other hand, did actually work for me.

Again, this is difficult to answer. As an "agile" developer, you ideally want to have developed things "correctly" or "properly" and put your software in the hands of the users. Unequivocally, they will surface the (hopefully few) bugs you have and you fix them and put the fix quickly in their hands so they can keep on testing. Obviously, if the software is "too buggy", this will create further frustration and distrust on your users. In this particular development, I'd say it's almost an "alpha": you even need to launch a different exe than the one that is launched with your "normal process", so I'd say this is an opt-in beta test where you know you are going to get even more rough roads than with using the "normal" beta, which is still the same: a place where you are going to face problems. So I'd say "No". They did the right thing and we are expecting this to be even rougher roads than usual beta problems. I have complaints of things more "obvious": how come they "forgot" to enable SSAA. Those are the type of bugs that are less "forgivable". As a tech-lead of a developer's team, that is the sort of thing that makes me pull my hairs off and get into a frenzy: "How the heck did we miss this!". Other types of neglects like: "Yeah, we forgot to test it on externally exported MFDs" are the kind of scenarios where I go: "pfff... Ok, let's fix this and, in the future, create automated tests for these cases that we are more prone to forget to test". That's how we do it.

I managed to fix the ghosting on the F-14, but not the artifacts, so it makes little sense to post it. If someone has managed to solve the artifacts, maybe we can combine efforts?

I don't see this issue on my A-10C2. Maybe there were some corrupted files during install? Did you try running the file check service?

Not really sure about this change: DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\A-10C_2\Cockpit\Scripts\MFCD\indicator\BAKE\page.lua The A-10C_2 is working OK with the export of MFDs and it has this value on TRUE.

Ruddle, what is "the bug thread"? Would you be so kind as to paste a link? Thanks.

I did some tests, and it seems that MT is not respecting the SSAA setting. If you use MSAA, it works. Maybe that's what is looking like "much worse" to you? Anyways, I created this bug report:

Not the exact same for me, but perhaps the same source of problem. I have here two captures of the F-16 ready on ramp mission: Non-MT: MT: They look very similar. However, if you look at the original-sized images, you can clearly see some important differences: - "Shadowy" areas render really differently. The sides of the tents or the left frame of the cockpit are much, MUCH darker - Indeed, numbers and textures are less "anti-aliased" (you can see it in the numbers and text - If you pay a close look at the grey-black separation just right to the RPM meter, you will see that the non-MT version is much smoother, while the MT one presents a much more pronounce "jaggedness" to the rendering solution. So, yeah, great to have more FPSs out of the system, but not in detriment of the quality of the process. Maybe this is more explicit of what I meant:

As a developer, this actually happens a lot, there is a key less-exposed feature that gets completely overlooked. What I am surprised with is that this means that no one on the main dev team, nor the big users (Wags for example) or the big houses like Heatblur, use externally exported MFDs. I would have imagined that, being a group of "really avid flyers", they would be more prone to having this "extras" than the average guy. Yet no one actually does. That surprised me in all honesty.

Yeah, the displays come alive even while the blue bar is still loading and have some active data, but depends on the plane. Some have only background images not yet fully formed.

Apparently @BIGNEWY has said on Discord that this is already reported. It seems weird that they ask us to use this channel to report bugs and then pay higher attention to other channels. If Discord is the better place for you to track bugs, please let us know in the release notes so we can create the reports on the places you are more likely to review. Thanks.

Or simply use the main window to calculate the kneeboard, instead of all the viewing area. Should not be that hard.