arraamis

1.2.7.23803.355-305 The config was created and configured on my desktop and I'm trying to use it also on my laptop where I do most of my mission testing. Thanks

I run two setups ... desktop and laptop (test) I setup a new profile (F-15C TM Warthog.lua) on the desktop and transfered it to the laptop thinking the same settings would be active once the lua file was loaded. -- WRONG!!!! None of my settings are the same when the lua file is loaded. Note: I only transfered one file "F-15C TM Warthog.lua" Question: Am I missing a file or is it possible that settings can't be used on two different computers? Thanks Guys!

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1293634&postcount=36

Thanks Guys .... I noticed a change when I switched from USB2 to USB3 ports. And thanks "tietze" I found the latest version of the TM Calibration tool, and surprisingly the stick wasn't too far off "out of the box". "KirkaFordis Rex: I absolutely love the TARGET software." I'm finding several users making similar statements -- I'm going to continue with assigning keys within DCSW, while I study-up on TARGET.

US Serial#: 25921

Hey Guys. My warthog hotas arrived today :joystick: and I was doing some testing and noticed some lag in the response time, between when the button is pressed and when the action actually occurs. Is this normal? So far, I haven't loaded up the target software, I've been just assigning the buttons. How common is it to not use TARGET? And is it really necessary? Lastly, are there any calibration tools available? Here's why I ask: When I pullup the HID-complaint driver info (devices & printers) ... Its all microsoft circa 6/21/2006 and this is with the Thrustmaster drivers installed. Shouldn't native TM drivers be there and not decade old MS drivers?? Thanks a million!!!!

Can anyone tell me why this isn't working. I loaded the modelviewer (finally got it to work) and I'm using the exact texture names displayed in the textures used list. The images are the correct size also, so I'm a little baffled. SU25T {"rus-helmet.bmp", 0, "rus-helmet_AR.dds",false}, KA50 {"rus-helmet_ka-50.bmp", 0, "rus-helmet_ka-50.AR.dds", false},

I'm trying to make some custom painted helmets and searching the forum, even with g00gles help isn't finding the info for DCS world 1.27 Got the modelviewer to work which answered the questions I had .... But still cannot get the following to display the custom helmets KA-50 SU-25T Thanks in advance!!

Thanks Much!!! Sadly, I figured that was the case, when it stubbornly wouldn't display my skin. I guess I have to take up the long, dreary process of tracing the new skins for a template.:(

Has the current release discarded the use of older skin files for the SU-33?? Current version: 1.2.7.23803 No matter what I try, nothing appears to work ..... Here's what I have inside the livery folder's description.lua: livery = { {"texture Su-33-SKIN-L-01.bmp f2 g0", 0, "su-33-skin-l-01.bmp.dds",false}; {"texture SU-33-SKIN-R-01.bmp f2 g0", 0, "su-33-skin-r-01.bmp.dds",false}; {"texture rus-pilot-2.bmp f2 g0",0,"greek-pilot-ru.bmp.dds",false}; {"texture nomera.tga f2 g0",0,"empty.tga",false}; {"texture nomera-red.tga f2 g0",0,"empty.tga",false}; } name = "SU33_Arra" countries = { "RUS", } What I used as a guide: (Thanks to =GR=VAGGOS) http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2029887&postcount=3 For the SU-33 ED still uses the old model from LOC K ON FC1.1 & FC2 (and no SU-27 Skins can't be used on SU-33) The template can be found here http://www.lockonfiles.com/files/file/764-su-33-flanker-x4096-template/ and with some programs such as GIMP or Photoshop you can create your skins.After with a program called DXTBmp you can convert it to DDS format and import it to DCS World. The LUA that will need is the following: livery = { {"texture Su-33-SKIN-L-01.bmp f2 g0", 0, "su-33-skin-l-01.bmp.dds", false}, {"texture SU-33-SKIN-R-01.bmp f2 g0", 0, "su-33-skin-r-01.bmp.dds", false}, {"texture rus-pilot-2.bmp f2 g0",0,"greek-pilot-ru.bmp.dds",false}; {"texture nomera.tga f2 g0",0,"empty.tga",false}; {"texture nomera-red.tga f2 g0",0,"empty.tga",false}; } name = " MY SKIN " countries = { "RUS", } THANKS in advance !!!!!

Ignore my ignorance ... just found a bunch of screenies of the FC3 F15C and can see that is the norm ..... :megalol:

I'm just upgraded to FC3 (Already own A-10C & BS2) and started working on a custom F15C skin. But it appears as though a few things are off-scale or misplaced in the template. Hopefully someone can offer some assistance .... Thanks in advance!!!

I'm going to make this as brief as possible ..... It is indeed an interesting and curious move by DCS to indulge into the WW2 area of flight sims. To date WW2 sims have been well represented by Maddox & Co. and it has a very large fan base. Of course, one can always present an argument to having WW2 aircraft represented with all the bells and whistles. But, if longevity is a concern with DCS, then I think one would have to consider where the market is and where it is going. I stop by the forum from time to time to see what's new and also, to view the activity levels of users. And to state that it has diminished, would be a understatement. The biggest question to be asked when dealing with such a niche market {Flight sims} is whether you're presenting a product that will attract fans and increase revenue. It is my belief, {Based on my reaction to the news} that the addition of another WW2 based sim is not earth shattering enough to encourage a purchase. Sure I, like many, will probably want to see it in action, but the desire to use another developer's incarnation of "WW2 in the sky's" is just not that interesting. I look forward to getting a peek at the offering, just to satisfy my natural curiosity. But secretly, I'll be hoping and wishing for other dev's to come on the scene with products that have an impact. As an example, when F4 by MicroProse hit the market, it had such an impact that many joined the flight sim community, based on that product alone. That is the impact that is needed again, for I see many simmers getting lost in the sauce of products that only have temporary appeal. It is my opinion, that another WW2 item will not have any significant, long-lasting appeal .... sadly, I might add. WW2 has been done to death exponentially, and this will be represented in the sales of future products. Best of luck & regards ....

Never mind Got it!

Best regards ............. :D

I was actually quite satisfied with the earlier replies on page #1 .... But some have a warped interpretation of the term "Completely Different" and the initial post was, as normally is the case on forums, taken out of context and the trolls ran with the deformed interpretation. Adding irrelevant, ill-conceived metaphors to a conversation derived and perverted from the original. That wasn't my intention when creating the thread - but, it is a forum, and opinions are varied and plentiful ... whether relevant or not. And just as I predicted: Guys checked in their opinions emotionally, disregarding what was clearly stated from the start, turning this in to a immature free-for-all troll-feast. It happens & and I understand. So, I'm not deterred in the least. Bottom line, I've supported ED from the beginning and will probably continue to do so. Even though my desire for a multirole goes unfulfilled.

I'm going by the journals & FAQ's. Will Flaming Cliffs 2.0 use the same "engine" as Black Shark? A: It would be more accurate to say that both Flaming Cliffs 2.0 and Black Shark use the same generation of The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine (TFCSE). The initial release of DCS (the Black Shark module) uses a modified version of The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine (TFCSE). This is the same engine we used for earlier entertainment and military-grade simulation products. This engine provides worlds that are much, much larger and much greater rendering distances. As such, object density cannot be as high or suffer significant frame rate slow-downs.

You guys can add me to the list of those wanting a multirole fighter - I'm not particular to one over the other ... just make it so.;) A Tornado would be a dream ... but I wouldn't be disappointed if a FA\18 showed up for the party. I'm not clear on the meaning, "jumping in someone's face", but I digress. If you, along with others choose to believe that two sims distributed under different license agreements, but have the same developers, same code with enhancements and more importantly, the same engine - make them "COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SIMULATIONS", that is your prerogative and choice. I choose to acknowledge a different perspective .... they are NOT "Completely Different Sims". -Lockon with code enhancements and additional craft = FC1 -FC1 with Additional code enhancements, GUI modification and additional enhanced craft = Blackshark -FC1 GUI interface modification and additional code enhancements = FC2 -All previous code\GUI enhancements and additional enhanced craft = DCS:A-10C Maybe we're using different dictionaries, but last I checked: Different - "not alike in character or quality; differing; dissimilar: The two are different." ... dissimilar, unlike, separate, distinct.

I see you make a habit of misinterpretation ... lol!!!!!!!

You clearly and grossly, misread my statements, there was no comparison made between the FC2 A-10 and the yet to be released DCS A-10C. You cannot compare something that is distributed to something that is in production. The logic that fails is that "one would get tired of flying a particular flight model version of a F-16, FA\18" because he owned Falcon 4 or FA\18 hornet. This previous usage and ownership would, as a result, exclude that one from wanting any high fidelity version of the F-16\FA\18 released in the future. This is illogical!!!!!

Several of your statements fall flat on logic - especially since the A-10 has been flyable since Lockon. And certainly there are few claiming to be sick of the Hog. Also, To suggest that there is a complete separation between the sims is somewhat ludicrous - otherwise we wouldn't need to have lockon installed as a foundation, prior to installing FC1 or FC2. So, you're wrong .... they are not completely different! And lastly, no where in my post did I mention the F-16 ... I stated a multirole carrier based fighter. ******* My thanks go out to slug88, EtherealN and Danish_Squid, for the very informative replies.

I stumbled upon the news {DCS: A-10C} by accident and think it will be a great improvement over the previously released version. But, I am curious about the why's. Why the A-10C? Why not, a Multirole Fighter? The introduction of a model that is, in its older form {A-10A}, flyable in the recently released FC2, doesn't IMHO add anything substantial to the series. I know there are several cockpit and weapon enhancements, that favor the newer version A-10C, over the older, but, it is still an A-10 variant - That has been flyable since the original LockOn. The NATO side has had a (CAS) and an Air superiority tactical fighter, but no multirole fighter, which would IMHO, add considerable balance to the sim. Russian side: Su-25, Su-25T, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29A, Mig-29C and the KA-50. NATO side: F-15C, and A-10A. I was hoping to hear some encouraging news, about a carrier-based multirole fighter {Ideal situation} on the NATO side - Especially since several multirole models are available ingame already as non-flyables. But that doesn't seem to be in the works and I'm having a difficult time understanding the why's. To conclude, I was a little hesitant about submitting this thread, knowing that many, quite possibly, will reply emotionally, without understanding the content. But, keeping these thoughts to myself wouldn't help to gain a greater understanding about DCS's future plans - Nor would it aid in understanding the big picture. So, there it is!

I just purchased the newest version of FC .... FC2 I'm curious about why the original paint scheme & loadout screen was eliminated and replaced with the newer version where aircraft paint schemes are not visible. This isn't a complaint ... just a question. I've installed my F15C paint scheme I was using in FC and after 10 reloads to find where it was classified under {Because it wasn't where I thought it was} - Only to discover that it didn't install properly {Problem yet to be resolved} But these are the problems encountered when there is no in-game paint scheme viewer available. How are some of you guys dealing with this issue .... any suggestions???? Thanks And sorry for the newbie type question ... it would seem that I have to relearn alot again.

Added: TextureCollections { common = ".\\Bazar\\World\\Cockpit-F-15C.cdds"; That was the problem .... Thanks

Alright, got it to work .... I just extracted F-15-PEREPLET & F-15-PEREPLET-2 from the .cdds file and put them in the TempTextures folder. Don't know why it wasn't working via modman install.