virgo47

@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.

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

I watched the video and I mostly agree with the sentiment there. I wish there were more things finished. And I don't mean Afghanistan vs Iraq teams. A map delayed a month or two, whatever. I mean the modules that are in limbo for a long time that calling them abandonware is closer to reality than not, e.g. Yak-52. Just because it still works it is technically probably not an abandonware. In every other aspect, it is. NS430 propagating "radio" on its shop page. And most annoying are all those bugs that slowly accumulate in older modules, reported - and that's it. Minimal priority. I'd rather have ATC working a bit better, but because there is some new ATC on the horizon (I don't believe it will land in two years anyway), ATC is totally ignored in the Caucasus. This also breaks older missions for older modules. I believe older modules do deserve more than just being kept "bootable". They should work. I don't ask for improvements. Just for bug fixes. Instead, we get that Voice chat where SRS worked fine. Sure, great idea, hopefully will be feature complete and bug-free eventually. Starting new projects have ever more priority than fixing bugs. That can only end with way too many bugs in way too many modules.

Hello comrades! (In an I-16 fashion, no politics here...) I'm wandering what are the various lines and notches on the control indicators. For some planes (mostly jets) it's dead easy and boring. Here, it's more interesting: Some things are obvious - 1 is pitch&roll, 2 is rudder/yaw, 3&4 are toe-brakes. 5 is throttle (Thrust in axis) and 7 is RPM (Engine RPM Setting axis). But what are 6 and 8? As they don't move at all whatever axis I tried, I assume they some kind of position indication for the corresponding axis (but hardly an AB ). Does anybody know? These things should be always explained in docs, but they are not, from what I've seen.

Now I look at this addition to your post... Some people have no problem with curves, even on collective, e.g. to have more sensitivity in the mid-range - but this is not your case, neither the biggest problem here. Why is there all the saturation lowered? Try 100 for both saturations so you access the whole range of the collective. As for the throttle - as mentioned above, you definitely should let it settle on max before doing anything with the collective (minimum collective until then). That said, I still feel like there is something else fishy going on with your DCS. MAXsenna may be right with some mod or what.

There seems to be something very wrong, at least from that track - is this how it looks for you? Those visual jumps back and forth? (Time slow down in the first pass is done by me, just to see what is going on.) From the outside view, it seems like the whole helo is glitched. I tried it two times - and the third time (~1:50) I took control and there seems to be no problem with the helicopter or the mission: From the screenshot in one of the previous posts I don't see any axis conflict, neither I see a serious problem on the control indicator. I have no idea why it's glitching like this.

After a few vain attempts to take off in this plane, I started to search for what I'm doing wrong - and obviously found this thread. It really is a frustrating plane - doubly so without any feeling of what it's doing. While in many other taildraggers you can kinda balance around the right position, here the small corrections often come way too late and slamming on the pedals right and left for a short time often work better - at least at the beginning. At the end of a long evening I've managed to take off once (I needed the grass and parallel RWY for it though ). And even land alive. The slip/turn indicator helps as well - mostly the turn one, I'd say, as the slip one goes all around when I try to fix the turn one that deviates first (with the whole plane as well). But the plane is definitely crazy, even compared to other taildraggers such as P-47 or P-51. Those are we well behaved gentlemen compared to this one.

When I adjust the altimeter, this happens: Track file attacked. i16-funny-altimeter.trk

Yeah, that ED involvement is mysterious to me as well. And I trialled MiG-21 as well and saw its bugs first-hand. I bought some modules from 3rd party devs (not counting Belsimtek), but I don't plan to buy anything from Mag3 at this support level. But ED's modules also have some ridiculously old bugs in modules like L-39 or UH-1H. Some of them more annoying than others, but for whatever (priority/money) reasons they don't care about seemingly trivial things such as random selection of UH-1H radio knobs turning the other way on mouse wheel either. Reported, ignored. So it's not only 3rd party devs.