Jump to content

Nasder

Members
  • Posts

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nasder

  • Birthday 04/21/1983

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    Flight Simulator X.
    Steel Beasts Pro PE.
  • Location
    Umea, Sweden
  • Website
    http://www.nasder.com
  1. Same here, never had a problem before using the DCS store. Plenty of time before the discount goes away. Thankfully.
  2. I tried everything I could think of, I ended up reinstalling VAICOM, double and triple checked the lua file locations. Problem remained. Now I'm in the progress of reinstalling everything completely, DCS, VoiceAttack and VAICOM to see if that helps. ------- UPDATE Reinstalling everything sorted it out. There must have been some file left somewhere that messed everything up. I did replace VAICOM and all the lua files before the reinstall, so I have no idea what file it might have been. But it's all good!
  3. Been away from the F-14 for a few months, decided to give it ago today with the SC. This problem appears to still be there with version 2.5.19 of VAICOM.
  4. Just noticed this too. I can rename other units without problem but Static Objects stick to Ammo and Ammo #NNN
  5. Thanks! I'll try that out today. During my testing I never undesignated the waypoint target proir to making FLIR SOI, so undesignating boresighted my FLIR. Thanks again for the tip! Update: The moment I hit NWS/undesignate, even without FLIR as SOI. The FLIR moves away. But designating a target without having a target waypoint still works fine, so I'll just use the old fashioned way of doing it until the issue is resolved.
  6. For unknown reasons, my DCS decided to stop using the DCS.openbeta folder in saved games and switch to just DCS after 2.5.6, fine, works for me. But VAICOM keeps using the open beta save game folder to place some files in. I've manually copied over the files myself, but it's not something I want to keep doing. How can I change this save game location in VAICOM? I only seem to find a place to switch the actual DCS install location.
  7. Prior to 2.5.6 I had no problems using JDAMs but something has changed and I don't know if it's me doing something wrong or if it's a bug. So I have a target close to waypoint 1 (Tunb Kochak Airfield), not directly at it but close by. I let the JDAM spend the time needed to be ready. Set mode to TOO EFUZ to Instant Go into JDAM display, press MSN button. Switch to the FLIR, Select waypoint 1 and press WPDSG FLIR points automatically at the location (Hooray, new feature?) I slew it to the target and press TDC. The coordinates in the MSN screen update and the FLIR is now pointing nowhere, I see ocean and other things fly by. Checking the HSI, I see no dynamic dropzones and my HUD say I am 7-9 minutes from being able to drop. I point in the direction where the time to drop slows down and it's away from my target by around 58NM. Target is at Tunb Kochak airfield in PG Map, the coordinates for the drop is close to Khasab. Nowhere close to where I pointed my TPOD. JDAM Y U NO WRK.trk
  8. Same here, this has been driving me mad. Thought it was something in my config (I lost my old one during the 2.5.6 update). I can place a M1A2 tank next to a roadblock and the roadblock vanishes after just a few hundred meters. Good thing it's not just a thing on my end, bad thing is that it's just not a thing on my end.
  9. Are you running Voice Attack? If I run that, I get the same issue, as long as I don't launch voice attack, my game loads fine. If I start voice attack, it stops at 10% again until I run a repair.
  10. Happened to me too. Was able to play one scenario and then quit the game to restart it and now it's stuck at 10% again until I alt-tab and quit the game either by task manager or right-click > close window on the game icon
  11. Had this problem too. Repair sorted it out for me.
  12. Do you have a waypoint designated as target? If so, try undesignating it.
  13. I understand both sides of this. I've bought SC already so I'm set. I understand that some mission makers don't want to pay that amount of money to simply provide a better carrier for others to enjoy. I also know and understand that you don't need to use a carrier to test the mission, unless you're able to do some scripting linked to player planes interacting with the carrier. But I think that's very rare if even possible. However, I also understand that if someone is able to place it in the editor and join servers where it's active. You will need some sort of ability to interact with it. It's (virtually) physically there. So you should be able to "touch" it, not only with weapons. And that's where the entire thing becomes tricky in my eyes. Where and how do you draw the line? I personally think a work around would be people who do not own the SC to use it as the current Stennis is used. It works but is basic. However, I don't think this is an easy task to accomplish in a good manner unless it was designed to do that from the very start. Or should it be there but not be able to interact with, making it so that mission designers might end up placing a SC carrier along with the classic Stennis side by side. But then, if it's there but not interactive. Will they crash on touchdown on it, or simply fly through it? I haven't flown the F-14 much yet, so I am not sure if this is possible. But what if the pilot takes of from a SC, then a RIO who do not own the SC join later. Will the pilot be able to land on the SC or not? It's not an easy thing to decide on or implement. I'd love ED to make a solution that works, not only so that people can join a MP server that has the SC. Not only that, but to allow people to add it in the editor. But if it's placed in the editor, the mission needs to be able to be tested. Again, we're at a weird line that needs to be drawn. Will the mission designer not be able to start the mission if all player/client planes are on the SC? Or will the designer simply be stuck in place of the plane on said carrier? Me, personally. I'm ok with the second part, he can test the mission and see if it works properly, but he can not use a plane that is on the SC. There are plenty of good mission designers out there who will not buy the SC and plenty that will (or have not already) buy the SC. I don't think it will hurt the community as much as some will make it sound. It will take a hit, but it won't break. I think that if ED is unable or unwilling to offer a good support for the SC for the mission editor. The ideas I can think is to retro-fit the carrier. It's not ideal but it works. Designer creates mission with default carrier, mate adds the SC. They realize mission is flawed, Designer can still fix the mission using the old carrier (hopefully the designer saved a copy). And a mate retro-fit the new SC to the mission again. Extra steps, but it works, as long as the mate does not alter the mission besides the carrier. Another idea if ED is unable or unwilling. If a wing have a mission designer that does a lot of mission that includes carrier-ops but do not want or can afford to buy the SC for this. Maybe the wing should consider supporting the designer with a copy. I understand that not all can afford this, or want to. These are simply suggestion if we end up in a spot where designers are unable to place the SC in the editor. The best solution would be that they are able to place them and join MP servers with them on without the need to go through extra steps or buy the SC. Let's hope ED is able to find a solution that pleases as many as possible, but I hope that we understand that it's not an easy thing to do.
  14. No, in the Controls for the F-18, it's called Throttle Designator Controller - Depress. It's the same key you press to lock on to targets on the radar, and hold down to slew the maverick.
×
×
  • Create New...