RafaPolit

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.

@NineLine Maybe this will "summon" you to the thread so you can put this on the devs laps? Thanks. Rafa.

Image is "ghosting" on externally exported MFDs with the MT preview version: As you can see, the exported MFDs start "ghosting" without refreshing the panel contents. Every pixel gets "stuck" and not refershed.

I have tried this mission now for about 15 times (no kidding) and can say I have only "really" flown ONCE! It is a masterpiece!!!! Thanks a lot! But here are my issues: - 14 of the 15 times, after startup, I go into the catapult (whichever catapult) and the process will go out perfectly up to the last man which gives you the right hand side-to-side motions to go. I go into full non-afterburner power, salute (as I have always done and worked always perfectly), but no one changes position, no one kneels, I just stay there hooked to the catapult and no way of launching. What am I doing wrong? - I too had the tanker problem. Here's what happened to me. I went in to tank first, had a couple of disconnections so it took me "a bit", but not really a "very bad plugger". The thing is, I had a disconnection at the very end, Jester tells me we are full, but the Tanker's "menu items" are gone. I can no longer claim "abort refuel", and, of course, wingman always calls "negative", because there are no more tankers in flight according to the menus (although I am literally flying next to the tanker) . - I'm trying to re-fly it, but I cannot get the catapult to launch me, no matter what! Any advice? (Oh, and I would indeed make the changed suggestion to first send your wingman in to refuel and then try it yourself. Chances are your fuel is higher and it's OK if you move forward with less than a full tank, but if fuel capacity is an issue, then maybe instruct to take "half" and leave the rest to your wingman?) PS. You can see EXACTLY the issue about the tanker I described on this Youtube video: On minute 1h28m30 secs, the menu item to access the tanker dissappears. EDIT: So, I have the answer to my catapult problem! I feel a little stupid, but during night you don't salute to catapult, you need to toggle the master lights switch on-off. I had no idea. Sorry. It has nothing to do with the mission.

I have always thought that about the grass thing as well, but I understand the problem: in order to have low grass actually look like grass, you need millions of polygons to achieve that. For taller grass, it's much less. Even in the huge studios this is an issue: have you seen the hair on the 3d characters of every pixar / disney movie? Each hair is about the width of 100 regular hairs, and they try to keep it as long as the character would accept it. Clothing is another area where this affects things: most fabric is thick as leather! So, while I agree with your general comment, I understand the problematic behind it. Not sure what a fix would look like.

And an increase from $9.99 to $14.99 is 50% more. Check your MAR-LX1A calculator... it's failing you.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself: it's not the amount that bothers me, it's the fact that they announced a value and then they change it upwards (obviously never downwards). So, if you are purchasing a house and the price goes from $100.000 to $150.000 after they listed the house, would you get upset? It is the same margin of difference here. Literally, 50% more from what was offered. Yes, it's not $50.000 difference, it's $5, still, it's 50% more of what was offered to the owners of both maps. So, for me it's not the actual value, it's the concept and margin that upsets me. If it doesn't upset you, great. It does upset me.

Those are the things that, after all the praise and kudos one has given, brings us back to upsetness and critique. Think twice before deciding on pricing, and once you have committed to writing, stick with it. You failed and you wanted $5 more from every user, too bad, stick with your already-published pricing! Let's hope this is an oversight and they still plan on having that, because if not it will be the "steam F-15 pre-sale" debacle all over again.

Thanks for the answer. I'll have a look. I was hoping it was more of a "what I pick" solution rather than "what the HMD decides to show". Because my solution to the tanker or keeping an eye on a low enemy helicopter will not work with this approach. Thanks again, I'll report back once I have had a chance to test it.

Good afternoon friends. I am wondering how to mimic a functionality on the F-16 that I don't know how to do on the F/A-18. Maybe what I am missing is the terminology for it, for I hope you guys can help. In the F-16, I can SOI the HSI and TMS Forward on my Wingman and that would display his position on my HMD, even if he is beyond visual range. I will see it like an octagon to differentiate if from the other types of "lock". This works not only for wingmen, but also for enemies. The great advantage of this is that I can rely on AWACs info to keep tags on situational location of a specific thing I want to track. I use this for wingman, for tankers, for enemies I want to keep a "secondary eye" on. So far, I have failed miserably at reproducing this behavior in the Hornet. On the SA I can hover over a contact and see their angels, but I cannot "lock" them to render a "circle" or "octagon" or "square" in the Helmet display. Thanks for any insight or any alternatives to achieve a similar thing, best regards, Rafa.

@BIGNEWY I just reported that the pre-order is not allowing to pay with miles, nor is it adding to my existing miles if I pay without them. It has been noted that ED has mentioned that pre-orders actually should add to miles. Can this be fixed? Thanks.

I have to give KUDOS to the process of listening to the user base and reacting to that. We, as developers, are usually faced with this dilemma: stick to the original plan (which is the only wat to meet deadlines and budgets) or adapt to the user requirements. More often than not, this is a juggling process where you need to balance things a bit. The level of user-based-improvements on these posts really do show a profound interest in giving the users the best experience, and not just get out the map as soon as possible to capitalize on the eagerness of people buying. Thanks for this. It is refreshing and the effort is well noted, albeit these type of forums tend to bring out more complaints than praise. I know I have given some complaints about certain decisions, but the effort behind this is noted and appreciated. Rafa.

Good afternoon, The F-15 pre-order is not allowing to use miles to pay for it, nor is it reporting as adding my purchase to my existing miles. I was told on the Razbam forums that you have actually commented on this and that pre-orders SHOULD provide miles, so please fix this before I commit my purchase. Thanks.

For me the pre-order discount is a big part of the equation.

I think that pre-orders are a good way to inject cash flow into a project before the project is ready for release. Being a developer, it's a very complex scenario to require funding for several developers and systems and hardware and have to pay for that from your pocket for 2 or 3 years until the product is mature enough to be sustainable. Crowd-funding, pre-release sales, grants, external investments... all these mechanisms help mitigate that. Some come with strings attached, others require you to present a project to the community and hope they trust in your ability to deliver, and, therefore, be able to pay up front without getting anything usable for several months. It's a leap of faith from the users, and there is no security you won't simply lose that money. But, on the other hand, the developers don't need to make a profit to investors. So, it's a good option for me. Since it's asking a lot of faith from the users, it comes with a very good discounted price, which is also a good incentive to just risk it (from the buyers perspective). So I think pre-orders are win-win situations, as long as they don't actually make more damage than they do good. Obviously, if you can produce the funds until the system is ready, by all means avoid pre-sales and just market when ready, you have to deal with a lot less frustration and anxiety from the customer base.

No, because then they wouldn’t have already announced a date (ED I mean). They had already “approved” the process, that means they thought it was already there. Still, this brings up a matter of transparency: if they would put out a more transparent communication, we wouldn’t be speculating about it.

I believe there are several key factors at play here. Obviously no one will die due to a missed pre-release date. Obviously no one took vacations out to buy the module, since it’s not coming out immediately. This is all true. I am a software developer and I have probably missed more deadlines than the ones I have met, just because of the amount of unforeseen variables that come into play. This is 100% true, but it, obviously, changes with the amount of, precisely, variables in the process. So, if you have to develop a fully functional plane, with complex flight models and damage models and realistically simulated radars, etc., release date can miss by several months, for sure. We would all understand that. On the other hand, If you have to add a button to a webpage, then a three minute variable timeframe is already too long. What’s really involved in a pre-release? A price, a text describing the module (of which every single module reads similarly and there’s already a “format”), and a video (which they have mostly already produced, several times). There may be a few other variables, and if ED didn’t already have a platform for selling things, I would agree this is orders of magnitude more complex. It’s not the case. That’s why everyone “kind of” understood the pushback from the 3rd to the 15th. But, another delay on what already seems enough time to produce these very specific assets and which involve a lot less complexities than actual module development, does ring like a “how could you have miss-timed a preorder, where mostly everything you need is already in place”. There could be other unforeseen factors, but at this point in the maturity of the software, there shouldn’t. So this rises legitimate concerns on the company as to their ability to deliver what is promised. Given that we have many other modules (or even games!) to chose from, this is not trivial. I agree that they “wouldn’t have delayed unless absolutely necessary” as has been pointed out here, but the fact that they had to do it, twice, on a reasonably “simple” process, is of concern to some of us.