Nasder

They could be awesome as making things, but be lousy at making manuals. It would be more costeffective to outsource the manual than to hire someone to the company to work on manuals if you don't make that many manuals.

The controls seem to screw up, very rarely but it happens, not just for the harrier. I had a similar problem with the Kiowa. Some designations just stopped working, no matter what I did it wouldn't work. I think I ended up resetting the controls completely, not just for the troubling ones but all of it. But it resolved itself.

Try finding it within the E-shop section. While it doesn't appear to have a details button in the product section, it is in the E-shop.

I don't mind the delay of the module, the better shape it's in upon it's EA release the better. But I wish they told us the news on this forum before or at least close to the same time, it's just the proper thing to do according to me. It's not new though, happened before and it will happen again. I feel for people who are really looking forward to this module, was hyped up a week ago just to be told "next week!". Next week comes, they're all hyped up again, patch day, no information about it being delayed on the forums. Patch dropped, no Chinook... Ouch! Short story shorter, communication is good and an official forum is a great place to do it. From my viewpoint, any statement that is not directly from an official source is to be taken lightly. "But Nasder, this is a screenshot from an official X at Y, so it is official!" I don't know that, I saw a cropped image of someone not related to ED claiming to screenshot a statement from someone somewhere. There is no way I can verify how legit it really is. But if someone on this forum that was related to ED made a post about it being delayed, I'd call that reliable, but that's just be being critical about my sources.

Never said anything about such things. Only said that Razbam need to pay their workers. Nothing about if they did or not.

I never said they should work for free. Razbam need to pay their workers. Razbam as a company should secure an income (an income can come from more than once place) to pay their workers and keep the company running. How, what and such they can do in order to keep at it is up to the management of Razbam to decide and manage. We can not say that any involved party did or did not hold their side of the contract, we know nothing about what the contract say. We got he said, she said which are just rumors and nothing else. In my eyes a company should keep doing their side of a contract even if the other party may not have not held their side. Keep at it until it's settled by the legal teams, if not to keep their professionalism looking good and customer-base happy then at least to make sure they don't make anything worse while the dispute is in progress. This is based on a company that has decent economy and is able to get an income to keep it going. They then could keep their end even at a loss, which they would most likely get back if they win the dispute. But that's just my opinion on how I think good companies should handle situations like this. Leaving the customer-base in the dust is never a good move, even if they say that they might come back and pick them up later, maybe... In my eyes, Razbam will never look as good as they once did.

As a paying customer, the only thing I care about is simple. Razbam gave us customers the short end of the stick. By cutting support for modules we've paid for the module(s) might stop working (even further) with any future patch of DCS. They should have done everything possible to fix new module-breaking bugs (F-15E radar for example) at bare minimum during the dispute. I am sure they have their reasons to do what they did with support. But I don't really care about why, I care more about that they did it. If they at some point provide a reason I might think "That's a fair reason, still shouldn't do that to us customers." Why this happened and any underlying issues are no real concern to me, as a paying customer I just want the modules I paid for to work properly with the current, and future, versions of DCS. Am I being entitled by wanting the product I paid for to work as intended?

As of writing, no. 79.99 on heatblur store and ED. Steam, not sure what dollar price, but 60EUR, so it's around that ballpark. But they have the pre-order sale after release due to steam not allowing something, so to not screw steam users they've given them the lower price for a while.

I think this information contain entire DCS (from minimal to a wide collection of DLC). My entire DCS installation is 451GB.

Checking the information of the Sinai map within my DCS installation folder. (this one > DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains) my Sinai folder is 55GB. There's probably some more in other folders, so I'd say that 55,2GB is a good estimate.

My F-16 starts rolling on cold spawn on Ramon Air Base 01 and 02. 02 also have a lip that looks like it's 30-40cm tall which my rolling F-16 bounces on. No Rolling on 03, but that lip is still there although fading off.

I just started working on a template for an airbase, Ramon Airbase in this case. I created an AI flight to see where what planes would fit which parking space and how it would taxi. This is when I noticed that the AI taxi on runways far too much. I am not sure if this is something that is linked to the map itself or just AI logic. I've experienced this on other maps, but where there's no taxiway to the runway they're taking off from. But I attached an image of how the AI taxi (following the white line) the red lines are where the second plane stops (not exact but indicates a hold) until the first airplane exits the runway its on. The second red line (RW 07L/25R) is where the plane holds until the first plane takes of from 25R. The blue line is the proper taxiway It crosses 07R continue onto 07L and occupies the runway. Then it exits the runway to loop around to enter 25R for takeoff. Instead of 2 planes taking off within seconds there are over 4 minutes between the two planes. So if you have a group of 4, that's 12 minutes from the first plane being airborn to the 4'th plane starting the takeoff.

Same here, never had a problem before using the DCS store. Plenty of time before the discount goes away. Thankfully.

Servers are so hammered I am unable to buy it :(

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!

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.

Just noticed this too. I can rename other units without problem but Static Objects stick to Ammo and Ammo #NNN

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Had this problem too. Repair sorted it out for me.

Do you have a waypoint designated as target? If so, try undesignating it.