shagrat

After you created a markpoint (MPD OSB "MK0-10") you can not create an offset for it. To reproduce (tested in 2.8 MT): - SSS down twice to activate DMT in TV - slew DMT over any ground feature and designate - press the OSB labeled "MK0" on the EHSD to create a markpoint (M0) or press multiple times to create M1-xx (tested with M1 as well) - press and hold WINC or OSB option select until Quick Access menu is showing on the ODU - select ":MKPT", enter No. on scratchpad ("0" the markpoint you have created), press "ENT" and verify the EHSD shows "M0" between the arrows - press OSB "DATA" to edit the markpoint. ODU option 1 will show ":WYPT" - press OSB select 1 and it will switch from ":WYPT" to ":TGPT"(!) instead of the correct ":WO/S". It should be the same offset functionality, as is already implemented for waypoints. So if pressing OSB select 1 it should switch to ":WO/S" and show the "BRG", "ELEV", "RNG", "UTM" entries for the offset, not switch to ":TGPT" (as this is performed by selecting WYPT or WO/S and pressing DESG on the EHSD. I link a video (not mine) for details. Discussion leading to this bug report here: Markpoint offset discussion https://youtu.be/ErWQoFJzZ9A

Yes, that is correct AND as in the real aircraft. And if you think about it, where would you have use for an offset(!) of 100NM or more, instead of creating a proper waypoint? At 300kts it would take you about 20 minutes to fly from your "offset" to the waypoint. As for limiting an offset for an explosive weapon to 100m, does make a lot of sense, considering minimum safe distance for "danger close" drops is at least on paper more than 100m for any A/G weapon I can think of.

Can confirm, it's not implemented, correctly. ODU option switches between MKPT and TGPT instead of offset.

It's a while since I programmed way/markpoints in the AV-8B, but it should switch the ODU option from :WYPT to :WO/S, if you are in DATA mode. Select the markpoint (it's just a specifically named waypoint) on the right between the up/down arrows and box DATA. Now the ODU option 1 should display :WYPT. Press the option select button 1 and it should say :WO/S. If that's not showing, it is not correct/a bug/missing. Range for offset should be recognized during entry as meters (if you enter an integer higher than 100) and as NM if equal or below 100. Note NM can have decimals for fractions of a mile. Pressing the associated option select button for RNG should cycle the display entry between NM and meters, for verification/or conversion. I may find the time tomorrow to verify this and try myself, but that is how it should work.

Yeah, sorry. The wording is a bit misleading, in this case. Targetpoints in the mission computer are typically designations for weapons. I was more thinking in the direction of a "target" waypoint of a preplanned flightplan, where the point (target location) is a landmark you can easily recognize and then use the offset to designate the actual target. Creating a Target Point via TOO (T1, T2... Tn) creates target coordinates for weapons release. Typically waypoints and offset as a target designation will be preplanned. Think of a flight of four strikers that follow a route to a target. They approach a planned, easy recognizable waypoint like a landmark (e.g. a big tower) and now have to pop up and drop on 4 different DMPI (e.g. 4 different buildings in the area of the tower), each aircraft will have his individual offset for the target designation, but the tower as the waypoint. Each pilot switches to his offset and designates and gets attack cues for his target. Then all aircraft steer to the egress waypoint in their flightplan and get the hell outta Dodge. For a target of opportunity like that smoke marker, you want to use the Markpoints (OSB on the HSD bottom row labeled "MK1" ( MK and next free markpoint no.) A markpoint can have an offset, too, so you could mark the smoke, or a building, or a crossing, where allied forces are taking cover and enter a Bearing-Range as an offset point, to designate the actual target, if they radio "Enemy position 800 meters, bearing 170".

The major improvement is likely related to the immense increase in fps through the introduction of MultiThreading. Now, what has fps to do with the flight model? Nothing, but it impacts the visual feedback loop between corrective movement of the cyclic stick (joystick) in your hand and noticable reaction on the screen. Say we had 40 fps before and now stable 80 fps. For subconscious corrections you typically do with the cyclic to stabilize the helicopter it takes now half the time (actually time between frame changes, but let's simply say "time") to get a visual recognizable feedback on the screen. The movement seen on the screen is smoother and way more granular. 1/40th of a second vs. 1/80th of a second. As for us sim-pilots there is no feedback from our inner ears movement sensor, but only the very limited 70-90° visual feedback of the screen, without peripheral vision, this "feels" now like the inputs are more controllable/smooth and responsive. ...and of course the fact we now fly the Apache for quite some time and training and muscle memory getting better. From my personal experience now my confidence will increase, I get a bit too cocky until I mess up more regular, again and increase my experience in addition to a good muscle memory and instinct, which let's me omit precarious situations before I am required to test my confidence and muscle memory in the first place.

Actually they did... As per changelog (...)"Fixed: Attitude Hold "enable" conditions"(...)

Is this only on the exported screen or does the home plate drift outside the in-game MPCD? If it is something showing on the exported screen, but NOT the in-game cockpit, check the exports scripts for HELIOS and/or investigate with the HELIOS team, as at first glance it looks like there is no masking applied, to confine the homeplate symbol to the area of the MPCD screen.

This is a pretty cool idea. In the future, when George hopefully learns to search for targets on his own, this can be a kind of master mode, like the current "consent to fire ( button press )" and "free fire (George engages targets on his own)". In principle this would be a "monitor this spot" command.

Planned doesn't really help. This was the killer for Voice Chat in our group. No way to know, if you receive a transmission, if the transmission ended, etc. We need a simple Soundfile that plays when PTT is pressed and when it's released. Without this little auditory feedback it is almost unusable. I can wait for the radio effects and other fancy stuff, but this one is essential.

Zum Zeitpunkt meines Posts lag er entsprechend. Siehe auch dein erstes Beispiel den Preisverlauf. Der Preis im Handel ist auch absolut irrelevant, für die Preisvorstellung des Verkäufers, wie ich bereits erläutert hatte. In einem Monat gibt es die Karte vielleicht schon für unter 600 EUR oder als Beigabe zum Fischbrötchen... Zum Angebotszeitpunkt war der Preis absolut angemessen... Solange man sie nicht mit "ähnlichen" Karten vergleicht. Und warum man evtl. lieber genau DIESE kaufen möchte, statt einer "günstigeren" hatte ich ja auch bereits erklärt.

Was auch funktioniert ist: Engine 1 Starter switch, sobald es anläuft Throttle OFF > IDLE. Auf der Engine Page das ON in weiss beobachten, sobald das ON verschwindet (dauert einen Moment), Engine 2 Starter Switch und bei Anlaufen Throttle von OFF > IDLE. Jetzt sollten beide(!) Triebwerke anlaufen und man kann sie wie beschrieben nach absinken des Öl-Drucks auf unter 70 PSI, langsam auf FLY bringen... Bei mir stirbt Engine 2 nur dann beim Start, wenn ich zwischen den Engine Starts zu lange warte.

Guess, there's a reason the M230 on the AH-64 is named "Area Weapon System" and uses the 30 mm M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) ammo...

^this ...and someone that needs to be dragged and coaxed into "trying it" won't likely stay for long, no matter if there is one or five more free full fidelity aircraft.

Ich bin mir sicher auch im Osten hat man mit Flugkarten gearbeitet die Berge und ander Erhebungen/Hindernisse in "Höhe über dem Meeresspiegel" eingetragen haben. Ebenso sicher nehme ich an nutzt(e) man dafür QNH um im IFR zu wissen ob und wie hoch man über dem Hindernis ist, oder um zwei Flugzeuge in der Höhe zu dekonflikten. Wenn einem der ATC den aktuellen QFE mitteilt für eine Landung auf dem Platz, macht QFE durchaus Sinn. Aber zur Navigation über Land (längere Strecke) ist es, sagen wir mal nicht unbedingt optimal.

That's very likely because they expected something like World of Warplane and are hit with a ultra realism study sim. I am 99% sure, someone that is a potential DCS customer, for real, does research what he's getting into - not just the game, where to get it, what details are modeled, but also what hardware (controllers, HOTAS etc.) he likely needs to have or invest in to enjoy it. I've seen multiple friends I got into DCS (with modules like the Huey, Hornet, A-10C) and investing into a HOTAS and head tracking, still back out after a couple months, because it was "not enough quick action". They didn't need free trials or free modules and still figured it isn't for them, so why on earth should a bored steam player that stumbled upon a DCS ad on the steam store suddenly be interested in a full fidelity study sim, if he never cared about it before? And if he did, he sure is the type to inform himself and yes, click on links to more information.

So you have a good ROI calculation backing that statement? That is a considerable investment you need to make, so it better pays off.

There are to blocking points in that statement: ED needs to issue a contract and the team needs to apply for, secure and pay (!) a license agreement from the company owning the intellectual property to the T-45C, likely Boeing. That isn't really cheap either... Edit: and likely verify and proof they have written permission, agreements to every part of the model, from textures, to 3D-Models if they didn't create those from scratch by themselves. Or they need to redo these without violating property rights.

Actually, they don't, that's why there are Chuck's Guides lots of checklists and a multitude of YouTube channels that focus on DCS tutorials. But we made our points, I am sure if ED sees the need for new and innovative ways to approach customers, they will revisit the free-to-play option or in the meantime Valve may adapt the Steam Store to allow for time bombed limited trial installs.

Hmmm, so you want something it's ok, just because you don't like the Su-25T? If you can find a developer studio that is willing to invest ressources into the development of a "free modern Jet with sparse avionics, minimal weapon load, but a HUD" for advertising DCS and write the investment off as loss, your welcome. I doubt you will find one, as the investment is considerable.

Yeah, sounds like typical study sim customer that would have a blast with a DCS full fidelity module and the learning curve...

So how do none steam users get to know about the trials I wonder? Google "DCS" or "digital combat simulator" or click on a link on a website like for example the steam store page where it says "visit website" ? And just as a sidenote how is the TF-51D not a "true" demo aircraft. I am sure it is very deliberately chosen, because you cannot get your fix of quick Air-Quake and if you so desire need to decide on buying a full module. Same for the Su-25T as a "not too attractive" FC3 model. If someone on Steam is interested in DCS in the first place he will sure manage to click a link to the products web page to get more info about the product... And if not, well, he can still google DCS mods and install a T-45C or A-4E Skyhawk community mod totally for free...

Steam Users can simply install DCS World from www.digitalcombatsimulator.com like anyone else. There is nothing preventing them from installing, other than mindset. Similar to a free give away, that requires you to drive a 20 minute detour. Guess Steam Users would complain to their local Palmart, that the other shop has a free give away and the Palmart don't...

They simply need to install DCS World for free and trial any aircraft they are interested in and simply deinstall it afterwards.

Plus a lawsuit, if you got caught without a license, that can cost your job/business, because the price is considerable higher. Entertainment products are typically way less expensive, especially on a sale and customers are expected to make a decision to buy in less than half a year. The free aircraft were a means for customers to work out if their hardware can handle the game, the TF-51D as a way to check, if they get to grips with the concept of clickable cockpits and the Su-25T, as a showcase for FC3 planes (as a less complex alternative). With the 14-day-trials there is an easy way to test a specific ride, see if it runs fine on your rig, your controls setup capable of handling it and you are interested enough to buy it immediately, wait for the next sale, or if it's not for you, yet. Again, the question remains, what would be the target audience for even more free stuff? P.S.: we now even have another free map (Marianas) to test performance on a demanding map, with latest map technology.