virgo47

Reported by a few players, acknowledged, and fix should be on the way.

OK, then I'd join the ranks of annoyed people. I liked many of those and I like changing the skins in my custom missions just for fun. There should be at least the original set available, I believe.

I agree with this sentiment. It would be much easier to release the module with some disclaimer/known issues/todo commitments. It was not in the release notes, luckily it was clarified in the forums and I'm looking forward to the previous set of skins - which should be available eventually not to make this a downgrade in some aspect. I understand the new model requires new template and old custom skins are gone, that makes sense. But again, it would be easier if it was stated in the release notes. But everybody's learning all the time, perhaps next remaster will be handled better by ED. I'd not expect, or even require, people on forums to understand this implicitly. Why should they/we? Fortunately, no big deal in this case. The skins are coming.

Total support for this. I don't mind the third-person view - it would be great to have a special CA option for sure, but I can live with that. But currently, it's impossible to use head-tracking and shoot in CA. It's such a glaring omission... bug, of course. It's like nobody ever tested it with trackir, which suggests a different team that perhaps doesn't play DCS as normal players at all. I'm not saying it's like that, but the result is the same.

I reported the hatches and sent NineLine a track file. But thanks for confirming it's not just me. In my case it doesn't work for neither Player nor Client.

@BIGNEWY How about service hatches in the new F-5? I see the shortcut there, I tried it hot and cold, but it doesn't seem to do anything. But I've seen them open in the Remaster video (12s). Is it coming later or am I doing something wrong? It's a little thing, but it would be a pleasure, of course. I guess that's why it's in the video.

You have to see it first to see HOW transparent and strange it is now.

Have you logged in on the web site?

I don't think it's right. Now it looks like the metal rod is sticking out of it. The material properties are not right. Also, what are those hard lines doing there when you look at it? It seems like the material properties are so bad, that the renderer messes it even more. But yeah... it was an instant buy for me as well. Now, fingers crossed, this will not be a problem for the next years or so. Plus limited skins, etc. The problem is, it's much easier to see what went wrong with the upgrade, what we lost, etc.. than what we gained.

This one looks good. Unlike in my post, where I wasn't sure whether the metal rod is sticking out or what. Is that from this version, just with different graphics settings or from a different source? Man, I hope they can fix material properties easily, having this "low priority" lever for 10 more years would be a bit of a shame, wouldn't it?

Thanks for the picture. It is partially transparent, but that new look doesn't match this picture at all. It's not even clear what part of that handle is inside and what is outside - unless one knows it. For comparison, FC2024 version is a bit little transparent perhaps, but much less distrubing:

The new gear lever is much more transparent then previously, it looks a bit strange - is it realisitic or a bug?

Wrong thread title, btw... it's not F-15E.

It was an instant buy for me, but the lack of skins, especially previously available skins, not even talking about custom ones, is a bit shocking omission. I hope it will be remediated.

ATC is quite terrible because you have to track which aerodromes are broken and which are still fine. There's an aerodrome where nav to initial says totally contradictory things: And another one where you're sent the wrong way in an Su-25T mission: Many experiments show that 0 wind acts like high wind, and wind from >0 to ~5 m/s acts differently. No logic at all. I'm not sure about other maps as I play the Caucasus predominantly - especially for various experiments - but it's so easy to find confusing and buggy ATC stuff that one has to keep their own database of aerodromes to avoid for some mission setups. Not to mention that confusing clearance denial we all ignore by now (but imagine being a newcomer player, the impression is really bad) or often a trivial sequence of comms with ATC that results in blank options for that airport (no option to takeoff nor land, nothing). It's not OK by any stretch of the imagination. It just is and somewhat works for a very limited set of circumstances.

I wish this dialog had a Cancel button: I hope it is trivial. The reasons are: Sometimes this problem is transient (e.g. forgotten VPN, network glitch) - and I'd like to try again immediately. Perhaps even Retry button would be handy - but there still should be a way to abort. I don't want to start at all without server, e.g. because I planned to go multiplayer. Why bother to wait for the whole process (with one more similar dialog later) if I'd rather try later. Currently I have to suffer the whole start process to Exit the game/try again.

Are there any updates for this in 2024? We've got not only circular but also a 4-point zone - this makes the programmatic check much harder. And there are conditions in ME triggers - but I can't see anything in vanilla DCS Lua scripting. I know I can do this with MOOSE, but do I have to use a library for this?

I like the latest patches exactly because of this. Even if they don't necessarily fix bugs for me, I like it because in the end we all benefit from better and more stable core.

Yeah, I've seen that thread, but there wasn't my error verbatim in posts, but yes - it's the same thing in the attached log! But the last advice was not relevant for me - because I really have as simple totally fresh setup as possible.

Ah... so there are buttons that are kinda dangerous... My problem was I was trying to develop a mission so I needed to upload a newer and newer version. You can't delete an unused mission - the file is still locked - so I added more missions instead. But eventually, the UI reported different mission as already running in the list than the one that was shown in the upper half and I couldn't switch it no matter what. So for reliable testing, the best course of action is to restart the server occasionally. Better be sure what is happening than being confused. Normally I just run the mission from the ME, but here I was hunting for an event that didn't work on MP dedicated server. But I figured it out and the dedicated server served its purpose.

This is my first hour with the dedicated server - I just needed to check one mission on the Caucasus, so I installed only that. I was quite impressed how well it all started, I like the console, etc. However, just the first attempt to stop one mission and load another one ended with the following error: ERROR ASYNCNET server_start failed: game already started Server UI clearly indicates the server is offline. I thought the DCS game itself collides with the dedicated server - but no, that is not the case. I always need to close the server window (that splashscreen) and restart it. Then it works. But obviously, that takes much more time. What can be the reason behind the server thinking it is running when it is indicated not to?

Although I (thought I) knew what I'd get into, I bought many of these older modules, just because I liked the plane. I tried them before and went for it. I look at this from a few perspectives and I quite agree with your assessment. Older, old-standard module should probably go down with the price somewhat. A minor counterpoint is, that there are sales, often 50% for most of the older modules, but yes, from the pure apples-to-apples perspective, they are less value however you look at it. I don't expect ED to update the standard of the module. It would be nice, but that would be a really big burden. Sometimes they revamp their iconic modules (Black Shark, A-10C), you pay the upgrade price, that's OK. What bothers me personally most are bugs. Bugs accumulate over time - and it seems that if the module flies and can shoot at least one of its guns, it's OK with ED. Sometimes we celebrate bug fixes like flaps finally working properly in a Mustang after years, it feels like Stockholm syndrome, really. And tons of trivial bugs related to controls which are just "features" now. I'm over-sensitive to bugs, so it seems.

Because we know nothing officially, either it was about such an incredible amount of money that it was worth the risk for either side... or it's just a muscle contest that obviously favours ED, but weakens everybody. How is RB starved of money good for the whole community is beyond me. How is the whole DCS ecosystem better without RB, ditto. And I have no idea why this takes forever (at least it seems so). Or it's a completely different story - and hopefully, I'll be still alive when it's settled. It takes so long it feels like a lack of good will on one or both sides. And when legal guys/gals are involved, it's a waste of money for all of us (although not necessarily for one side). That said, I'm generally patient. But not oblivious to the context of this quite prolonged dispute.

Yak-52 changes! No toggle fixes, but hopes are getting higher.

Yes, of course, it predates the dispute. I apologize if that "never" was meant only for that period. I'd not buy anything with sale anyway with that situation, so I thought he meant it generally.