miguelaco

Fixed HSI Course offset from heading by approx 5 degrees. EDITED: Wrong thread. Created new thread at: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1328905#post1328905 Sorry.

Bug still exists in 1.1.1.0. Thought it was corrected since it had a line in the changelog: The bug looks the same that in Mustang's screenshots, but I can provide new ones if you need/wish.

Have an issue with my accounts (probably registered with two different email addresses): miguelaco miguelaco1 I have purchased FC2 and DCS WH from the ED site, but after login with "miguelaco" I click on purchases and there's nothing there. With "miguelaco1" I can see my DCS: WH purchase. All my copies work perfect in multiplayer, but I cannot get my codes from the web. Am I doing something wrong? Can I have all my purchases associated to "miguelaco" account?

Ohhhhhh, yeah!

Sure you'll be able to record your own very soon :thumbup: (hopefully)

Is laser beam supposed to be visible with NVGs? For A-10C to see TGP LOS of another IR pointer is needed. Which leads me to the following: is it possible for a Warthog to act as night AFAC for a group of Sharks and designate targets using IR pointer? Shark pilots should be able to see the IR beam with NVGs, isn't it?

There is no patch yet. Expect it next week according to latest Wags statement.

This is a good one and inline with my requests a few posts above. I'd like to have clients in the same flight and ATC & AWACS & tanker AI take this into account when communicating.

Wonderful news!! Many thanks!

Look here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=79163&highlight=offset+page Also, I'm providing three sample images showing the problem when creating a new waypoint providing mh/dis of 180/90. In the third image you can see actual offset is 7 degrees off:

Many thanks. How about the offset page problem? I guess it's been solved in the same pack. Can we have a confirmation?

Any word on this. I still don't know if it's a bug or not, but just in case, I'd like to see it explained/acknowledged. Thx in advance.

You have the answer a few posts up:

Ok, thanks. Good to know it's acknowledged. Looking forward to see it solved in upcoming patches.

How about refueling comms issues in MP? I posted a track showing wrong tanker response in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1264385&postcount=28 Also, tanker calls "disconnect" when a client is done instead of "transfer complete" and fuel tops around 8000 lbs, which I think is a bug. Tanker is still a bit rough when entering/exiting turns, which makes very difficult to stay connected during transitions. Any word on these particular issues for 1.1.1.0?

And a BIG ONE I'd like to see solved: Track replay consistency

And a few more: Jettison of external tanks is not synchronized between clients TGP head movement is not synchronized between clients (low priority, MP performance optimization?) Very low AIM-9 effectiveness against choppers (tested with AI controlled Ka-50s but may be the same against others) AI Ka-50 is too accurate using gun against aerial targets (your A-10). Probably the same with other gun-equipped choppers.

I'll add two more on refueling: Tanker is still a bit rough when entering a turn during refueling Improve logic so we don't have to call "abort refueling" in MP after every aircraft of the same flight is done with the tanker (i'm afraid we need first multiple clients in same flight issue resolved)

I've seen that too in 1.1.0.8 when my buddies fired mavs, but not now in 1.1.0.9. Could it be an MP only issue?

It would be great to see these resolved: Comms issues with ATC: repeated messages Comms issues with tanker in MP: disconnect message for clients instead of refueling complete. Cannot top-off fuel tanks during refueling (tested only in MP) TGP North arrow indication bug (confirmed corrected for next patch) CDU OFFSET page WP creation bug GBU-31 LOD issue MK82AIR LDGP config not synchronized to clients in MP Multiple clients in same flight issue HOT default value show as 0 instead of WP elevation (cycle WP for a workaround) MWS not warning of friendly missiles (dunno if it's really a bug, but I recall seeing it confirmed somewhere in the forums)

You're both wrong. You should inform yourself before making those stupid assumptions. I'm not falcon mafia nor groupie. If you look at my previous messages you should see that I'm deeply involved into testing and flying this simulator. I'm part of a virtual squadron that flies both F4 and DCS: A-10C and I'm only active on A-10C wing because I like it more. It's just that my admiration for this sim doesn't prevent me to see good things on the other. And at least it's my opinion, if you like it or not. I'm not here to convince. You've made wrong assumptions about my preferences and put me automatically into stupid groups. My last post on this thread. I'll have more care in the future to not name Falcon in these forums.

Ok, I'll give up argumenting about that, it is very clear that F4 DC is worse than nothing.

I actually like the realism as much as you and there are many falconeers out there that will subscribe this. However, they enjoy the F4 style engine and they don't think it's worthless.

You are right with DC vs real time campaign engine. Replace DC with "real time campaign engine" in my previous posts and you'll see my point. While we have a realistic flying experience I don't care so much about realistic real time campaign engine. I'd priorize the entertainment perspective over realistic experience for now.

Sorry, I don't see how having a DC engine could make the software unrealistic. I think, like many others, that it would be fun. Nothing more, nothing less. You'll still have ME and mission generator if you don't want to see the bigger picture.