Despayre

And like all good discussions, we've finally ended on a note we can agree on. OMG... If you cannot figure out how to show something is different from what you expected, then how the hell can you be sure that something IS different than expected. Film it with your phone camera and narrate if you have to... what are you, 12? There's no way you can get that plane off the ground and still literally be too stupid to show where something unexpected happened, or at least be able to describe it so others can duplicate it. Because it was a stupid suggestion, not because of your "conspiracy" nonsense.

Also, you know he's gonna claim it's rigged somehow anyway, he's gonna see something he claims is a cut, or a deliberate claim of one thing while doing another... nothing is gonna convince this guy he's wrong, and I think in the end, what he's really asking is, if we could all just fly a little worse, so then he can play too... and that's not unreasonable, is it?

X is width Y is height If you don't have a width problem, don't change X.

You're apparently not afraid to say ridiculous things either, like the above sentence for example. Newflash, you're still wrong, and you could easily prove your case with a track, which you won't do, and we all know why... and so do you " I'm continuing my paranoid schizophrenic narrative suggesting dcs server falsifies tacview data to cover up a cheating in bfm servers" Run it on your own server dipstick. Oh wait, pls tell me you think the HB ppl have convinced the ED ppl to bake all the "supposed track-spoofing" into the DCS main code, right? right? lolol, please say yes, come on it's Christmas, I could use this present...

I didn't ask for anyone else's tracks. Are you saying you can't be trusted to give us a track, cuz you're going to spoof it? If not, give us the track, and enough with the stupid conspiracy theories...

So of course you have a track (I mean, I'm sure you have many tracks showing all these "problems", cuz no one would be stupid enough to claim these things without actually having a shred of evidence... would they? But just 1 track will do) to share proving we're all ganging up on you, and you're not just pulling this out of your imagination without any proof right? Please post it, prove us all wrong. No more whining required, just post it. Specifically the track where you prove gravity doesn't exist for the F-14B would be nice (but, #SpoilerAlert I'm not gonna hold my breath).

This was a lie the last time you said it in this thread, and it's a lie this time too. But please, continue to exist in your own reality where nothing is ever your fault, according to you not even gravity works*, and someone else is always to blame... * "... you can be nose down pointed directly at the ground and get absolutely nothing..." Quote from the victim of our evil plot's previous thread comments.

There's only 1 person in this thread that can't see that.

Whiner. Did you stop to wonder why you're 2 pages in, and not a single person has pointed to any cause for your problems, other than your ability to fly the plane? Think about that, it's rhetorical. Also, pretty ridiculous that you ignore a direct statement from those that actually work on the flight model, telling you that your claims are flat-out wrong. But I get it, it's hard to argue your case when you have no evidence of an external problem whatsoever but still can't quite bring yourself to believe that maybe it's just you.

Utter bull<profanity>. As evidence of your false claim, I give you this recent comment from directly from HB regarding the Phoenix, which CLEARLY states you're wrong, they do NOT "dramatically changes flight models of simulated aircraft and missiles like it's call of duty modern warfare on console bc people cried on forums", and if you think that's true anyway, well, that's just more proof you're living in a different world than the rest of us.

No, it's essentially the same as saying "Stop whining". You have the same aircraft with the same parameters as everyone else. It is *possible* you're having problems because you're running on a PC that cannot handle the demands of the game, but assuming the problem you're having is somehow game-related, and not due to any external factors, it's the pilot. Otherwise, there wouldn't be lots of videos on Youtube showing exactly what you claim is impossible to do.

That feels a whole lot more like a video driver issue to me. (Doesn't mean it is, but after 30 yrs in the IT world, ya get "a feel" for where to start looking a lot of the time. Sorry I can't help much more than that, but I'm still ahead of Discord )

The only way I can think you could do that, is if you change your viewport, so that your cockpit X,Y doesn't equal 0,0. Move your X over, the number of pixels your MFD requires, but you're going to lose that entire viewing area from top to bottom (with a width of W=X), I don't think you can blank out just a square, it would have to be a top to bottom column. But then, I realize, that is definitely not the look you were going for, but, that's the only way I can see that it would work in that setup. (I'm sure if someone else has a better idea, they'll be along shortly to let ya know ).

Pretty sure I read somewhere that all the missiles are moving to a new API that's controlled by ED. So while HB can input all the parameters it wants to get all that nice tweaky-goodness, those missiles are still gonna get rinsed through ED's missile API, ergo, ED has the final say. At least, that's my understanding of the current situation.

I use both, never had any issue.

Is that because you need countermeasures from radar-guided missiles way more often than from heat seekers? I've notice most ppl seem to think chaff is more useful than flares, but I'm not sure why that is...

Since day 1, my Tomcat has always exploded when I try to land on the boat (for various reasons, like someone stupidly making the back of the boat way too high!)... that's not normal?

Most of those are pretty self-explanatory, and if you hover over the check-box it gives you a little mini-explanation too. Perhaps if the OP was a little more specific? (and yet, I gave it all a shot anyway, lol) But briefly, going down the columns... Gyro drift is real... requires INS resets occasionally, don't like that realism, turn it off here. Log engine data... no idea why I want that... uber-nerds only. Auto fuel detot... I believe combines the external tanks automatically on the total displayed on the dash, without having to do it manually (like they do in RL) R. freq repeater... in RL, you cannot see the channel of the... green?... radio, only the red one (or vice versa) on the dash, this changes that so you can, quite useful, but not realistic. Real VTB cone, other that being self-explanatory, I have not played with this, maybe someone else can elaborate Distinctive RWR feels pretty self-explanatory Randomize radar channel... I think this helps prevent cross-over with other M2000's radar if you're flying with a group Radar map objects... I believe that's like ships and trucks etc... requires more processing power (no idea how much more) show PCN missing digit, refers to the fact that the INS doesn't show the final LAT/LONG digit, but when you enter it, you'll get a msg onscreen showing the digits, incl the missing one Radio PTT short... feels self-explanatory, never used it, I think it has something to do with SRS/VOIP, but I'm not sure, and don't have any issues using SRS External tank refill fix... no idea... and the rest seem pretty straightforward, other than maybe the elastic limit options, and I'll let someone who can explain that better take a shot at those, but essentially they allow you to oversteer the plane beyond its recommended limits, briefly.

Even with solid sources, like every other FM, it will be constantly argued by some who think they know better (usually because they saw a single Youtube video, or just feel they're better at math for some reason), as is evidenced by at least one thread for pretty much every plane forum...

Do you mean button mapping, or the actual cockpit button? (I tested the button map to my HOTAS on the A, and it works fine). The actual button is under a rail on the right side, cannot be easily reached in game (or even seen, and also doesn't appear to be be modeled), better off to just use your binding. Also, Jester's got nothing else to do anyway.

Ignore the experts and people that have actually flown the planes... and arrive and your own conclusions and then assert them as equally factual... sure, what could go wrong? On an unrelated note, I have a flat earth to sell you...

Not a useful post, but I just wanna mention how friggin' cool that little touch is, and yet another reason to enjoy the Mirage!

Noticed it was moved too... and I have to say, that makes way more sense then allowing pause settings on a per module level, this is a game feature, not a flight model feature (although it would have been nice to mention this somewhere instead of having to go find it...).

Just a direct link for those that need it... https://www.vaicompro.com/

Because it doesn't make sense to force changes for the majority, for a few who want something else. Especially when an existing solution is already available for those few that have issues with the size. You can delete those skins yourself. There is no problem here, and no one is "forcing" anyone to share any views on how cheap storage factually is.