PaulToo

The future will show if this and the choices taken almost a year ago were the right ones. Until that time my wallet will be closed for the ED store.

Resorting to name calling as expected. Maybe you should adhere to your own advise and lay of the conspiracy theories. Have a wonderful day

It's true that it is an IP dispute, in that ED alleges that Razbam misused ED's IP. That's what's stated in Nick Grey's statement on page 1. The F-15E code&artwork is Razbam's IP, not ED's. Very different things. Now, IP infringement can be anything from using a logo without prior approval to selling the IP and we don't know where on that scale the alleged infringement is. The hearsay is from a nothing burger to threatening the survival of DCS. Do you have inside into Razbam's business plans to state something like that? Also ED can't really fix bigger issues if they don't have the source code. The F-15's radar fix any script kiddy could have done, so that doesn't really count. Not to forget IP infringement issues. If the developer(Razbam) wrote, even before the fiasco, that these things are planned it seems reasonable to assume that they would have happen at some point. There are more places for information exchange than a forum run by one party of the dispute. Have a great day

The only way I see Razbam selling their IP would be with a substantial bonus over what is already owned. But as you said even that might be not enough. The 15 is a cash-cow and even in it's current state one of the best modules in game. Would be a shame for it to disappear over egos, greed, and hurt feelings. You wrong on both counts. Razbam planned to update/upgrade their older modules to the new standards. The MiG-19 with a new 3d model in and out. Harrier getting the fixes and updates with what was learned during the F-15s development. Not to forget the MiG-23, which would have set a new standard for "modern" redfor planes. ED never guaranteed that the feature complete modules will keep working. Just that they will try. They all still might go the way of the Hawk. To the 2nd point, ED needs to change a lot for a successful future. They should take a page out from the developer from the big civ sim. Very different approach there. People didn't forgot about the Hawk issues and that was one bad module plus a long time ago. Even 3rd party devs seem to have taken notice. Selling first at their own store or adding individual install analytics to their module. Looks like trust issues and who can blame them, learn from the past. I don't know if the first post in this threat is different for you to what I can see, but Razbam's statement just said that they stopped development due to issues with ED, nothing else. That was also after 8+months of no resolution for whatever reason. I can't fault them for that announcement. Nobody should be forced to work for free or see the fruits of their labor withhold. Plus if they didn't say anything and just stopped working everybody would call them all the names in the book. ED's statement on the other hand reads very unprofessional and seemed more intended to shape a narrative. Very weird statement. If the IP infringement was that bad that it threatens the survival of DCS(NL's own words), why does Razbam still have access to all the tools and was even encouraged to keep updating their modules for free? Why didn't ED, as the publisher, suspended the release or stop the sale of the F-15E if the issues were that dangerous? They knew at least 6+months before Razbam's announcement about the issues. What happened to all the withhold funds for Razbam's modules? Lots of unanswered questions for which we, as the customer, don't have a right to the answer. But they are still there. All that leaves a sour taste and really made a big dent into the enjoyment of DCS for me. Others in the communities I frequent have similar feelings. If a 3rd party has their own store I will buy there, for the ED store it has to be something I'm really interested in. Plus at the moment I don't see me buying any ED module, even if I was really looking forward to the Chinook. If that changes in the future depends not only on how this dispute is resolved, but also what ED will change for the future. As said before, they should look at the big civ sim developer for inspiration. ED is not only the platform owner, but also the publisher. The buck stops with them.

Just the s. http://www.alasrojas.com/Upload/Mirage_F1_Template.rar works for me. As nobody else seemed to have the issue, it's probably a configuration issue on my side. Thanks for the new template.

Thanks, I had to use http instead of https. For whatever reason I got the unable to connect error with https. Now back to adjusting my old liveries.

Is there a chance for a reupload? I always get an unable to connect error. Thanks

What exactly did Razbam do?

Passion Trust and Support guys. Trust and Support.

There is just one file different from the one-seater.

bearing = horizontal range = vertical

The 3 positions of the flaps I have bound to slat/flap lever full up, 1/2 flap, full flap. Works for me with a 3 position switch. Gear is only 2 positions, with the additional safety lever, bound U/C control lever -extend/retract for the gear, and U/C safety lever open/close for the safety latch. The latch doesn't really work, at least for me. Radar cursor is radar control stick bearing control and radar control stick range/velocity control. Both are axis.

Coolie left long (outbound) is for IFF, coolie right long is for NCTR. That's for the front cockpit. As others have stated NCTR only works for frontal aspect and at certain ranges. Both methods work for me.

In lines 32 to 36 the "" are not correct.

The G2 cable doesn't fit the G1, different connectors.

The mod works for me in the EE, CE, 2d, or VR with the newest update.

After removing the 4 models show in AdrianL's post from High Digit DCS.log showed sensor conflicts with the "S-300V 9S32 tr", "S-300VM 9S32ME tr", and "S-300PMU2 64H6E2 sr". I commented out the complete sensor definitions for the 3 Sam systems (S-300V, S-300VM, S-300PMU2) in the High Digit sensors.lua and DCS started up. What would be the proper way to remove the conflict without having issues with for example the IADS script or duplicate units?

Try --Liveries instead of Liveries-- in line 2.

After watching the tacview a few more times it almost looks like a predefined response to the deviation from the predicted flight path before the new intercept course is calculated. As soon as you pulled up the missile turns right to cross the previous predicted flight path. Would be interesting to see if the missile turns left if the predicted flight path is to the left of the missile. The accompanying altitude dip might be because you were descending with increasing neg VS before pulling up or it could be part of the predefined response. That's how I would interpret what happened in the tacview. I only tested at high altitudes, but there the missile usually started to fly straight and with some pos VS until it exploded after losing track.

Watched it 5 times and the Phoenix hit the F-16 in each. The missile looked like it was searching at some point. Do you have a tacview? I attached one from the replay. Tacview-20220602-161352-DCS-Aim54trackmiss.trk.zip.acmi

Thanks for the the answer. Not what I was hoping for. Strange decision to tie the acls to the comms menu, I wonder how sqdn with human Marshal/LSO deal with that headache. Hopefully were will be a workaround for airboss in the future or ED makes the hornet's acls compatible with it.

That's why I suggested Moose-Airboss. You can set it to run case 3 traps even if the weather is perfect. Airboss itself has voice overs and extra visual cues (F10 menu). There is also some real-time help/hints and grading to help understand what went wrong/right or is the next step. Only drawback, if you want to call it that, is that the comms are over the F10 menu and not the usual F5-ATC. The discussion with dangerzone was about if airboss can use acls if set to case 3 even in case 1 weather conditions. Just successfully tested that with the F-14 (thanks HB for fixing it) as I don't have the F-18. Attached is the mission I put together to test the aforementioned. The F-14 is all setup (Tacan/icls tuned), didn't found a way to do that in the editor with the F-18. Channel 1 for both aircraft is Marshal and channel 2 is LSO. Autolanding.miz

Good question. I would assume that it would work, if not it doesn't make any sense to have the options in the script. I don't have the Hornet, but I remember that I did let the F-14 autoland on the carrier in Case 1 conditions before it broke. If I have time today I try it out, also to see if the F-14s autopilot is really fixed. Setting up airboss is just a few lines of lua and for the test there don't need to be any bells and whistles in the mission.

You could use Moose and the Airboss script to do all that. https://flightcontrol-master.github.io/MOOSE_DOCS_DEVELOP/Documentation/Ops.Airboss.html

Works nicely. I just use the diffuse.hlsl from the shader mod (plus the mandatory _helper.hlsls & _HMD.hlsls).