plott1964

Great idea! What hawkeye mods are required for this server?

I'm curious (and nosey)... When a bug is reported, how does ED handle them? I would assume the standard process is: Bug Reporting and Documentation Prioritization and Triage Root Cause Analysis Testing and Validation Continuous Improvement and Feedback Loop But, my question is more specifically in reference to processes 2 and 3. How are these processes done? How are bugs prioritized? How much RCA is performed and to what detail?

there is a script out there and helps out a lot: https://github.com/Chromium18/AIEN

Feature F-4U Corsair P-47 Thunderbolt Role Carrier-based fighter Fighter and fighter-bomber Wingspan 40 ft 0 in (12.19 m) 40 ft 0 in (12.19 m) Length 33 ft 4 in (10.16 m) 36 ft 1 in (10.99 m) Top Speed Approximately 446 mph (718 km/h) Approximately 433 mph (697 km/h) Service Ceiling About 40,000 ft (12,192 m) About 40,000 ft (12,192 m) Armament 6 x .50 caliber M2 Browning MGs, bombs, and rockets 8 x .50 caliber M2 Browning MGs, bombs, and rockets Flight Characteristics Excellent speed and maneuverability, especially at low altitudes Ruggedness and ability to absorb damage, effective at high altitudes My thoughts: ED should communicate to Magnitude 3 that the P-47 seems to work just fine and share some code for Pete's sake.

I don't call them "problems". I call them "features".

...share the mission when you do?

Look for "load_immediately = true," in this thread - read, follow, learn.

I believe I fixed it based on the info you provided and by limiting the max FPS to 60. So far so good. Thanks!

It doesn't matter. That just means it's post pre-release LOL ....bugs and all.

@BIGNEWY.... Can you respond to this? Many of us have had to hang up the VR headset. I have read all the forums (very time consuming) very little has improved after utilizing all the advise. Has anyone done anything regarding this specific issue?

Awesome Mr_sukebe! Thanks.

So, if you find that VRAM usage is too high, what can you do about it?

Has anyone noticed an issue with the throttle not working correctly since the last (back in April) DCS (2.9.15.9599) update?

There is a section in every mission file that states what modules are required. The data in the section can be deleted and the mission will run for everyone. I believe default ED mods (like the A-10C or Flanker) will be substituted. The line of code looks like this: ["requiredModules"] = { THE UNOFFICIAL MOD GOES HERE },

look for "dirty birds" and "into the jungle" servers

I will also add to the suggestion that I do not propose such an opportunity (for the mod developer) to be a type of collaboration situation. "Hey ED fix your code to make my mod work." would not be the type of interaction afforded a Mod Maker Beta Testing Group member. The only basic interaction opportunity provided should be one of a "fly on the wall" type of testing. Again, the goal would be (as stated by @Joey45) "help with damage control after patches".

In the F-4E Phantom, a level, coordinated turn is primarily achieved using aileron and differential stabilator input. Rudder is generally unnecessary at high speeds but is needed at low speeds or high AoA to prevent sideslip. Back pressure on the stick maintains altitude. Overuse of rudder at high speeds can induce Dutch roll. The aircraft’s design minimizes adverse yaw, making turns mostly bank-and-pull maneuvers with selective rudder use when required. Try using slight rudder pressure in the desired direction in coordination with slight stick movement in the opposite direction to prevent dipping.

The VSN F-4 has been fixed (find the update on Discord). But, it is not used on the official ITJ mission/server anyway. All other mods are working as Devil505 states. Thanks!

As discussed here: ...I think it would be a great idea for ED offer the possibility of a Closed "unofficial" Mod Maker Beta Testing Group that would allow a mod maker to test out their mods just prior to ED's update. I am not suggesting that ED stop the posting of an update to ensure a mod maker is ready, just to provide them with a leg up in the development process so they can either fix or be made aware of bugs causing their mods to not work correctly. I would propose a special user account (closed) that ED vets to make sure the mod maker is legitimate and has a history with ED or making mods. ED would make an announcement to the special user group a week or so before the actual deployment to allow a little time for adjustments. There are several mod makers who would benefit from some a situation and the community would be better served.

You are misinterpreting the intent. Introducing the ability for modders to test their mods earlier helps us (who fly them) and the modders without affecting ED time cycles. It would give the modders a leg up, which is all they really need. ED always has complete control of all of this anyway.

Well that was a great idea ED! Let's expand on that and continue to support those crazy "unofficial" modders and all the work they do for free.

"Apologies, I just disagree heavily with you guys for blaming ED." Understood, but ED did make the changes and their stance is generally "we can't control unofficial mods". I think that is in error, because you and I pretty much just came up with a viable solution. Let's see if it goes anywhere. I will most definitely stand up for ED when they deserve it (why else would I support them with my money). But I will also call them out when I think they can do better. I think that's fair.

"Yup, going on six years for me now." interesting - right?

No. I just reverted back to the previous version until I or the modders can get my favorites to work again. I should have waited a week or so like I always do prior to updating. Doing so helps me have fewer headaches. Mind you, the A-4 has worked pretty much flawlessly for over 2 years. Pretty sure the same is true of the VSN F-4 (even with people complaining about it).

@sean laser thanks for staying out of the arguments and posting helpful solutions!