johnv2pt0

Thanks for the update ~

Amen brother. +1

Thanks very much! I'll look for that manual

And when returning tower gives them updated wx on initial contact? Please don't take offense, but I'm looking for concrete answers...no assumptions or thoughts please.

Hi, can any of you nautical types explain how getting weather information before a flight on an aircraft carrier works? Specifically, do you just get your wx as you step to the jet or is there also some sort of ATIS that you can tune to? If there is an ATIS or standard radio call, do you have any example links you can share to help us mission builders? Thanks ~

TLDR so forgive me if someone has already said this. A big advantage of the E is being able to target anything you want...like if you want to put it through a window or target a specific spot on a bridge or whatever you can think of. I think the range of the maverick is something like 15-20 miles maybe from altitude so you should get some more range from the E since the limfac will be the laser distance as apposed to the seeker getting a lock. Along the same vein, max distance JTAC lased targets really helps keep you out of the enemy WEZ.

This is razbam...they still haven't implemented brightness control on the M-2000 HUD. Something that is a particular sore spot for me... ;P ...so no. And I wouldn't expect it anytime soon unfortunately. BUT! The good news is you can adjust the brightness of the cautions / warnings panel... :doh:

Disappointing news. This could have been stated from the get go...as soon as it was mentioned instead of letting the community believe they'd see something new. Do not blame the consumers for building up a "hype train" as the only experience we've had with "Flaming CLiffs" was completely different modules. There is NO WAY anyone would have understood it would be rehashed full fidelity modules. ...and please stop using this idiotic hype train argument in general people. Having an expectation doesn't necessarily mean you're overly excited about it. Also please stop with the logical fallacy that communication is either all or nothing. People aren't upset with more information they're upset with bad information. More information means worse than nothing if it's not true. Also disappointing because this undoubtedly means that the long existing problems that we've all been told would be quickly addressed after "the great merge" are now going to be put on the back burner. I'm sure we'll be told this isn't the case but we all know that resources are finite. If this is being done for cash flow business reasons I completely understand and see no harm in it. I would have liked to see the public relations aspect of it handled much differently though.

There's so much wrong with your post, from assumptions to logical falacies, that I hardly know where to begin and as such don't think I will engage with them. I think it's necessary to respond quickly though as the white knights abound. If you want to petition ED for female voices, models, etc. I'll back you up all the way. Nobody is trying to oppress you here and it would be great to have the variety. You do realize though that the female contingent of online flight simulation is incredibly small in comparison to the men don't you? And you understand that would inevitably lead to certain design choices as there's limited time and resources to create everything in a simulation that's 18+ years old now? To my knowledge nobody is trying to oppress or exclude you. If you want to fly with me as my wing or my lead I'd love it ( assuming we'd get along ). In pretty much every campaign that's been or being developed there are female parts, from ATC to pilots. I think your premise that you're being excluded is just wrong. If you choose to continue to have problems with the community at large, you could always start an all female squadron, or develop all female acted missions/campaigns, or do some other clever thing that I can't think of. If you want me to change my language so your feelings don't get hurt...no. You don't get to dictate my language (something that has been a prelude to every social engineering atrocity in human history) and if you're really that upset about a completely innocuous colloquialism like gentlemen, I'd recommend toughening up a bit because it would serve you well in the world. I hope you understand that nothing I've said here is said with malice. These are simply my thoughts and you can take from them what you will ~

+1

Yeah, look at all those scratches! ...erhem....and how easily you can see through them! You guys are getting wrapped up around the axel on if the number of scratches is accurate. That's not what matters. What matters is the overall effect of those graphics on the user. If you can't see through the canopy, for whatever reason, then the effect that is causing that needs to be toned down. Like we have already mentioned looking at a flat monitor a fixed distance from your face is very different from how your eyes, position in the cockpit, glass, and objects outside of your aircraft all interact together IRL. Even in the worst conditions IRL you can mitigate the obscuration to some degree and that's just not the case in DCS. Whatever the graphical engine decides to give you is what you're stuck with.

Scratches and crazing are common, but never to the extent DCS does it. I know you said this too so I'm just reiterating. Also, IRL you're ability to see through things is easier because of depth perception, shadows, etc. This is not true when looking at a flat screen a fixed distance from your look-balls. This and baked in obscuring reflection textures that are especially egregious in the FC3 jets are a serious problem and one I've been asking fixed for a long time. Nobody cares. Also, RAZBAM's pension for not letting you dim the HUD is a serious problem. All these interfaces between man and machine are hugely important IRL. Nobody cares. It makes me think there are not enough real world users in the ranks of all the development teams. Or maybe they're falling into the graphics technology trap of "if we can do, we will do it" and never thinking "should we do it?" IDK, lots of speculation on my part, but this kind of stuff is extremely frustrating for me.

Thanks ~ :thumbup:

This works without the scheduler, but with it in I get a stack overflow. Any ideas? error msg references this line: timer.scheduleFunction(altCheck(), {}, timer.getTime() + 20)

Thanks Grimes! I think this will really help me understand some things better.

Can anyone help me with this? I made a simple script to check a client's agl and output a message to them. Set on a continuous action trigger. It seems to work well, however I'd like to adapt it to check a table of units instead of just looking for a specific one. As a bonus, I'd love to figure out how to schedule it in the script so that it only sends the message once every 20 seconds or so. I should be able to make that happen via triggers, but having it neatly wrapped up in the script would be nice. --MSG TO CLIENT IF ALTITUDE > 1000' AGL local _SHARK1 = Unit.getByName("SHARK 1") ALT = _SHARK1:getPoint().y GROUND = land.getHeight({ x = _SHARK1:getPoint().x, y = _SHARK1:getPoint().z }) if (ALT - GROUND) > 304.8 then trigger.action.outTextForCoalition( 2, "" .. _SHARK1:getPlayerName() .." , YOU'RE ALTITUDE IS TOO GREAT. PLEASE REMAIN BELOW 1000' AGL FOR DECONFLICTION.", 10 ) end env.info(ALT) env.info(GROUND) Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Just a sanity check for me on something that's bugged me for a while lol. Is there a way to check if the Hawk missile is in a zone? It seems to be missing from the list...

Can anyone explain or provide a link explaining how to use this paint kit? It's been many moons since I did any skinning and when I did I used a combination of blending and overlays using newly created layers. In particular I don't understand what the "liveries go here" format is trying to tell me. When I create new layers or try to manipulate what's there I am unsuccessful. Sorry if it's a silly question. Thanks ~

Exported screens (to Liliput usb monitors) display in green scale when the screens inside the cockpit are rendered, but when they are only exported to the separate monitors, they are rendered in grey scale. Has this been reported or talked about?

Zeus, What about the HUD rheostat?

Nope. No adjustment.

Cool thx, good to know the placement might be a bit more sensitive than the traditional raised farp. Thanks again for the mod and for taking the time to look at this. Very nicely done ~

Sorry, it's on 1.58 and on a FARP. Checked in MP as host as well. Thanks ~ FARP Mod test.miz

Looks great! I'm having a problem though. Harriers placed on top of the mat explode immediately.

RAZBAM, why is it that on both of your aircraft you cannot change the intensity of the HUD? As a layman, this seems to me like it would be one of the easiest items to implement and yet even the mirage still burns out my retinas while flying it. It's great that I can dim the warning lights (sarcasm), but I'd prefer the ability to see targets when running in or preserve at least a smidge of my night vision while penetrating the weather on the ILS searching for those magical lights on the airfield. It is one of the most important tools that melds man and machine and a good amount of the time it's actually a hindrance. Please RAZBAM...save my squad mates from my incessant complaints...give me a working rheostat...do it for Harambe. (Seriously though, if there is a reason I'd love to know...like I said...layman.)