Jump to content


ED Team
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About NineLine

  • Birthday December 25

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World (all current Modules)
  • Location
    BC, Canada
  • Interests
    Flight Sims, Game Design, Design, WWII Aircraft Research & 3D Modelling, photography.
  • Occupation
    Community Manager

Recent Profile Visitors

24154 profile views
  1. If someone has an example of this, send it my way. Thanks.
  2. I think there is more, or maybe more isn't the right word, but I think it is not necessarily accuracy. If you created a row of BMP-3s and Zu-23s, and then over fly at different speeds with a Hornet (which is what I did) the BMP-3, every time, pick up the Hornet no matter the speed, and turn and get shots off, from what I saw though, is when the Zu-23s did get shots off, they were more likely to get hits. But law of averages, the BMP-3s are reacting faster and better and getting more shots up, I can see how accuracy may be skewed their way over many more passes. Edit: I should mention I reported this, even though accuracy seems less than the Zu-23s, the reaction of the BMP is well above what it should be, IMHO. Edit2: My test results for my report Hornet - 820 knots BMP-3 - All Engaged - 0 Hits Zu-23 - 0 Engaged - 0 Hits Hornet - 520 knots BMP-3 - All Engaged - 1 Hits Zu-23 - 2 Engaged - 1 Hits Hornet Dead Hornet - 320 knots BMP-3 - All Engaged - 1 Hits Zu-23 - 5 Engaged - 4 Hits Hornet Dead You can see issues I am sure. This is not to say accuracy is too good, for example, I have reported how good infantry is with RPGs.
  3. The change that should fix this is set to be merged, but just missed this patch, some of the things related to the fix are related to changes in how CA controls vehicles. From the report: Problem with units driving uphill Clutch pedal input axis added Autoclutch implemented Automatic gearbox corrected gearbox parameters can be defined in unit script
  4. Thanks @maэстро, will close for now then if you have everything you need.
  5. Please, if you are going to contribute to this bug report, include tracks, and try and leave out the extra chatter, thanks.
  6. I haven't received notice that they have been merged yet, sorry. I will chase them up once again.
  7. In hate to be the one, but you guys do realize this was all a bit of tongue and cheek from the start... there is no hidden base.
  8. Then its a typo, I will have that updated. Thanks null Typos in a few places. Thanks for the report.
  9. Just to update, I have talked to the mystery man, and any documentation is not legally shareable, and in this case not something we can use. The video shared to us, while a good video has no info on any specifics to what the aircraft being shown actually is. I will leave this open, but we would need legally shareable documentation to proceed with any changes. I know it sucks, and I know some documents are out there that can be used, but in this case, this one is not.
  10. Give me an exact track when/where it happens, make it long enough that it doesnt shut down on me right away, and I will confirm with that, maybe its specific to something I am missing.
  11. Masking is something our SME asked us to address, I hope to see it at some point when we get back into the A-10C II.
  • Create New...