shagrat

Ah, so you talked to whom at ED, that told you that? Or are you simply making assumptions? Better statementT would be "To me it seems like..." instead of absolutes that are pulled from thin air? To me it seems, they were hoping to go Early Access in December, when they said "we hope", but encountered some issues tied into the Flight model, Autopilot, AI stuff, that would make it not very enjoyable. So after the F-16 EA, that got them a whole lot of negative Feedback, they made the reasonable decision, to fix it to a point, where we can enjoy it, albeit with a baseline of functionality. Though of course I would have hoped(!) for an EA release in early December, so I can enjoy it over the holidays, like everyone else, but I can accept the fact, it isn't ready, yet. So I will wait and enjoy other modules, while the make the Apache Longbow ready... Just my personal 2 cents.

...or with any router, switch or MPLS-line in-between... Because, if it was the master server it should have affected everyone that connects to the master server, SP as well as MP from any country. And btw I am pretty sure it is not just "one single master server", but a Multi-Region cloud based virtual cluster with the normal availability measures in place, because it would not work reliable in the first place, if all the guys from Australia, Chile or the US needed to reach a single server in a Moscow Data-Center... Just saying.

It's basically what the error message tells you: the connection(!) timed out, as in anywhere between your PC and the server, or on the way between the server and your PC the Internet did not forward the packages in a timely manner and the application has waited quite a while, but the connection did not recover... The thing is "connection" is way more than just your internet access, or your provider's network. It can have a lot of different reasons why. Though the world made good progress in upgrading the infrastructure overall, sometimes there still are days it struggles, e.g. black Friday/week/cyber Monday and a gazillion shoppers flooding the network. An analogy would be blaming your car, or your carport, for the traffic jam your stuck in.

Ja, stimmt. Die Mirage. Ich war beim Harrier. Wobei "Den Trigger nochmal zuweisen" tatsächlich super aufwändig ist. Wenn ich mich Recht erinnere, war es nicht der Community-Druck, der Razbam dazu bewegt hat die Harrier auf die moderne Ausstattung upzudaten und TPOD Gen. 4, GBU-45, APKWS etc. zusätzlich zu machen, sondern die Tatsache, dass es mittlerweile Doku, und Zugriff auf SMEs gibt... Sie hätten auch die "alte" Version, ohne den zusätzlichen Aufwand fertigmachen können und gut ist. Klar hat Razbam Anfangs ziemlich lange gebraucht und diverse Anläufe gebraucht ihre Entwicklungsprozesse für DCS auf Reihe zu kriegen, aber man vergisst gerne, dass zwischendurch die Platform DCS zweimal heftige Veränderungen erfahren hat (2.0 und 2.5, dann 2.7 nochmal Teile der Engine) und auch die kleinen Änderungen durch ED bedeuten, dass alle 3rd Party ihre Module erneut anfassen, updaten und erneut testen und fixen müssen, auch was z.T. bereits fertig war. Ich finde es gut, dass trotzdem nicht "nur das Nötigste" gemacht wird und jedes neue Feature in der Engine genutzt wird sich zu verbessern. Das gilt selbstverständlich für alle Teams, nicht nur für RB. Aber nach dem schwierigen Start mit der Mirage und der AV-8B, hat sich Razbam ziemlich gut eingespielt und ich mag das Ergebnis halt. Also, erlaube ich mir sie dafür auch zu loben, so wie ich früher die Bugs aufgezeigt und auch kritisiert habe, was schief gelaufen ist.

Lass mich raten? Im Steam Shop gesehen? Das wurde schon mehrfach gesagt, dass Steam es nicht zulässt "in Q4" oder "im Januar" etc. einzutragen. Es muss wohl zwingend ein "Datum" in die Maske eingetragen werden und ED hat schon häufiger darauf hingewiesen, dass dieses "Datum" eine grobe Schätzung ist und kein definitives Release Date. P.S. ...ich hatte auch gehofft, sie packen es Anfang Dezember und ich kann die Feiertage schon loslegen, aber so flieg ich wohl noch etwas mehr Harrier oder mal ernsthaft die Mi-24.

Du meinst "neue Features und Waffensysteme, die neue Bedienungen hinzufügen?". Die einzige Änderung bestehender Belegungen an die ich mich in letzter Zeit erinnern kann, war der "fix" für die Beleuchtung und OSB-Buttons der MPCDs, das war tatsächlich nervig, weil man es neu belegen musste. Der Litening Pod Gen. 4, hat einige Änderungen in der Bedienung gebracht, allerdings hat der das auch IRL getan und der "alte TPOD" wurde tatsächlich auch in der echten AV-8B anders bedient, als der neuere Litening Gen. 4, den Razbam zusammen mit den APKWS, GBU-54 und LMAV E2 jetzt zusätzlich gemacht hat, um die Harrier up-to-date zu bringen. Das war kein "Fehler" im Development, sondern ein ziemlich umfangreiches Upgrade, ohne zusätzliche Kosten. Ich bin Razbam da sehr dankbar für.

Jupp.

Basically it would be a good idea to use "JointCoalition.BLUE" and "Joint coalition.RED" as "Countries", by default. This way, you can create opponents that have access to the same equipment and all liveries. The countries like USA/Russia/Insurgents usually limits the assets available, but often makes it unnecessarily hard to, if you need a bit of variety, or specific assets, say ISIL fighters with access to a T-72 or a captured Iraqi Humvees etc.

What is interesting is the Callsign + No. with 34 and(!) dash 1/2 for the aircraft. I mostly read it as the first number after the Callsign as the flight and the second already identifying the position. So "Apache 34" 'should' be Apache 3 flights second elements wingman? Are there situations where you have 27 or even 34 flights with the callsign Apache scheduled or is that 27/ 34 from the aircraft ID and the individual calllsign of the aircraft?

Yep, but air force usually organizes flights under the same callsign and "No." so a "Mako 3" flight consists of "Mako 3-1 and Mako3-2 (-3, -4)" and "Mako 4" would be another F-16 flight. It seems that numbering logic for the callsign does not translate 100% to the Army Air Corps? I noticed the British WAH-64 squadrons start counting with 0 so you happen to have "Dragon 0-1" and "Dragon 0-2" as callsigns, but then it's not the Army anyway, but apart from that they follow the Callsign FlightNo.-Position scheme.

Nowadays you can add the client slots to flight (group), so if there is no copy protection or trigger/script events that use the unit/player, but triggers are evaluated per the group and zones for "all in zone" not too tight, it is not too hard. With the Dual cockpit multiplayer we really could use an upgrade to the DLC protection that would basically check,if you have a license before joining such a mission on a server/hosted game from a buddy. I love the idea of flying some of the campaigns with a buddy... or a flight of human controlled client aircraft.

You can't with a DLC campaign, as the copy protection prevents that. The included campaigns and missions are different.

That's how it's done in the Air Force... As someone mentioned above, the Army Air Corps is a bit different. I found the "Dragon 34 dash -1" bit very interesting, as I've never heard, read this before.

Do you think he is aware of the way a TEDAC is controled? He may need a Head tracker/VR to effectively point the gun. And I personally think the front seat is even more complex than flying. The trial option is definitely the way to go, I guess.

And interestingly is still fielded with basically the same weapon systems and in-between it wasn't actually shelved and waiting, more to the contrary.

It may sound weird, but there is this thing with the military, where they tell people what they can or can not(!) share with the public... My guess is, he simply isn't able to tell you more, not because he doesn't know, but because he might get in trouble.

For me the root cause was the wrong/old software version. See my other post: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/219917-virpil-mt-50-cm2-4-way-hats-always-trigger-push-function-in-parallel/#elControls_4091131_menu

After a little search I found the 2012 revision. Found the mention of that function. It is from an earlier revision (change 5) which incidentally is the same change that is referenced for the HMCS pages and bit etc. So I am pretty sure this should be part of the A-10C II Upgrade in DCS, as it was at least implemented with the same change that introduced the HMCS and not later. Thanks, Snoopy for the hint where to look.

Makes sense. Would explain, why I never found anything in the old docs. Anyway, if it is in the new A-10C II IRL, it would be cool to have it in the Sim, as well. Is it in the Dash-1 ? I think I've seen newer ones from 201x on the web. And it's hardly a classified feature, I guess.

That's one of the most relevant use cases for markpoints for me. Identify the high threat targets or mission relevant targets with targeting pod, mark them, preferably in high to low sequence and prepare weapons. Set up for attack run, JDAM on the first 2-4 targets, then MAVs or an LGB or buddy lase... Up to 5-6 targets in one attack run, but only if you get the timing right, or they are stationary.

Ok, if this is the case, I am a bit irritated that in the last 14 years that did not find its way into the A-10C II upgrade. I mean, they did implement all the subpages for the BIT and version checks, down to the GPS subpages... what really is attention to detail, but has little practical application in a typical DCS mission. As for the "usefulness", if you accidentally made a wrong markpoint and need a continuous sequence to quickly switch targets in an attack it is a thing, as you would need to start over or remember the "wrong" markpoint and skip that in the sequence.

The BCK (backspace) button on the CDU works the same way as on your PC keyboard, it deletes the character left of the cursor on the scratchpad entry for the field you are currently editing, not the point... Are you sure about the delete feature? Because I never found a reference to it. I would have expected that if this was possible in the real plane, at least one of the SMEs or the pilots would have let ED known in the last 14 years.

And he was pointing out, that as it isn't a feature in the real plane it will likely not be something to hold your breath for...

I agree with most of it, but the point I was trying to get across is, people are individuals and what one find boring is thrilling and rewarding to another. Just by trying to predict preference and interest of your players in creating a Mission for "the player(s)" cannot work. What you do, as a mission designer is, building a scenario that you find "fun", "thrilling" and "worth your time". This then attracts like-minded players, but also likely appall other players who have different preferences... The thing about fun is, that it is a very personal and often surprising emotion triggered by the most unusual experience. From my experience I had a lot of fun with DCS doing things, that would you have asked me if I would enjoy that, I would have my doubts. For example I flew a resupply mission in the C-130 Hercules mod with a friend of mine. And I mean the full monty, planning the course, going through the checklist, taxiing, start and leaving control zone, climbing to altitude, watching the clouds and doing course corrections for 40 min switching aircraft control twice, descending and doing a field strip landing in disputed territory (the only part with the remote chance of some action), unloaded our cargo, took off again and had that one moment of adrenaline when the AAA from the contested town flew our way and we punched flares in fear of a potential MANPAD and got the hell outta Dodge, with full power and a combat turn. Then climbed to safe altitude, made our way home and landed, after a good two hours. I wasn't expecting the flight to take that long, messed up the wind calculation, underestimated preparation and startup time etc., but instead it was an evening well spent and enjoyed. The AAA surprise and perceived MANPAD threat was genuine thrilling. Bottom line: the mission you create will always attract people that enjoy the mission you made. Some will try it once and never touch it again, others will love it and always come back to it. There is fun to be found in a lot of different ways. The same goes for the combined arms integration. You can have fun with JTAC slots, jump into a helicopter and try CSAR (the guy on the ground could simply directing A-10s or other Jets on advancing enemy search parties or use external views to enjoy the show... Some people vmay enjoy that.

Ja, klappt reibungslos. Hab damals ne 20-cm Verlängerung bei ihm bestellt, dauert halt ein paar Tage, aber kommt gut verpackt an. Da sind eher die örtlichen Paketboten ein Risiko. Wie Yurgon schon meinte, Sahaj ist schon jahrelang Anbieter für Verlängerungen und Spezial Federn für den Warthog. Wenn es schlechte Erfahrungen gäbe, würde es mindestens im englischen Forenteil diskutiert werden. Bis jetzt gab es aber kaum Gemecker. Einzig daß man die Verlängerung nicht zu sehr anziehen sollte, weil sich wohl ein, zwei Kollegen dann beim Losschrauben nach Jahren den Gimbal vom.Warthog beschädigt haben, weil sie nicht gekontert haben.