NineLine

Reported, thanks!

Sorry guys for the delay, I am looking into now, I think its been brought up before, but we had been waiting on the new AI FM. I'll let you know what I find out.

It is not a simple issue to fix or else it would have been already, its reported and we are hoping a solution can be found with all the changes ongoing with the core. Thanks.

Thanks I will be taking a look at this, this week.

Thanks, guys, I will use the info found here https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer/ along with your additional information on these and fuel tanks in the bays and go from there. Here is what I have requested: Leaving open for feedback, info and corrections.

Full disclosure, I edited the title, we have certain not abandoned anything. That said, I am not sure what the point of this thread is. You always have to remember to make time for yourself, or you do get burned out, that's what this sounds like. A better thread maybe would have been to suggest what you found to be so difficult and what we could do to improve this. I myself would love to get back to painting some liveries from time to time, but yes the complication has grown over the years as the models started using new technologies, etc. The devs build these things with development in mind and do not always think about how the end user mind use or like to use these things. Feedback in this regard is great to have, and if you already have shared it, point me to it. Heatblur would be responsible for releasing their template. Realistically, you don't yet, the model isn't 100% finalized so the template is not 100% ready for release. When that is ready we will share that with everyone. I am not sure what this is in reference to, but I certainly do not understand why you made the abandonware jab in the title (which I removed). Feedback is critical to DCS's success, there is no way with our Q&A and volunteer tests we can catch every issue, especially when there are so many things people use DCS for. I briefly looked at your post history and didn't see anything related to livery issues. If you decide to return, and we hope you do. Give us some feedback, and if you are worried no one will look, send me a DM when you posted it and I will take a look. Thanks.

I would not undersell the value that all 3rd Parties have brought to DCS, they are very important. We have some new ones working on some very cool things as well.

This looks like a good idea, the team is on holiday but I will submit it to them for consideration. Thanks!

Oh, very cool I will check soon. Thanks so much for this!

We can all settle down now please, let's not make any unfounded claims or stake shots at any developers or others in this discussion, this is not just to one person or one 'side'. Please be nice to each other no matter your opinion or belief.

Nobody wins here, NOBODY, if this is not resolved. And honestly even if/when it's resolved, a lot of work will need to be done to repair all damage done in customer faith on both sides whether you want to believe that or not.

Track from the crash file didnt work, but was easy enough to reproduce, will report it. Thanks all! Update: Already fixed internally.

Thanks, will take a look.

I quickly took a peek at the track in the first post and it did not seem to be a fog issue at all, I will flag it with our team and get it looked at. PS looking at the posts after this one I see the interesting finds, thanks all for checking. It's flagged now with the team.

I hope everyone is having a great Christmas, those that celebrate anyway. Everything we have is in the original thread, we will do our best to maintain the modules in working order if there are bugs coming up, report them and if it is something we can solve right now we will try, that said because this is a legal disagreement, we also will not do anything that can impede this, including removing products from the store without an agreement to do so. As for the MiG-23 comments by our COO, so what? As far as I am aware there was no contract signed for the MiG-23 by any party, obviously RB had at some point had some intent who knows now what might happen. We have a number of Ru devs on our team, and many of them are very interested in doing Ru aircraft, they are super excited to finally be doing some form of the MiG-29 and I am sure there will be more to come. Kate stated that the MiG-23, one way or another will be in DCS one day, the statement was in discussion with those worried because one team was at risk of leaving DCS and this meant a plane would never be in DCS. It's the same as the F-15E, it must be in DCS, it's too important. Right now the best way of that happening is getting the RB issues solved, but if that doesn't happen, that doesn't mean the F-15E is forever disallowed in DCS.

That is what I am wondering, possible his 'vision' needs to be tuned, but I can't look right now.

Sorry all being Christmas, I would take a look when I can, let me know if there is fog in the mission at all.

2006 would probably still be controlled, but if you know of a valid legal place to download from then it could possibly be useable. I generally only see the older ones out there.

To bring our F-5E more in line with the Swiss F-5E operating with US forces, we are open to investigating the addition of the digital radios and the INS. However, public information on the operations of these appear to be limited. If anyone is aware of such data, kindly message us and we’d be happy to take a look. Thanks all!

Its still WIP, so a number of items may not have destruction models yet. Thanks.

Moved to Missions and Campaigns and marked as reference, thanks for the work on this, its appreciated!

Yes, we use legally sourced documents, that does not mean that we can share or reference them. We do not just look at the internet for sources. And that fact means nothing as neither of those sources was used according to our dev team, thanks.

Unless I missed it, no evidence has been sent. Sorry.

Your assessment of the data we used is not correct, we did not use this as a source but we are also unable to share our sources. As well, you should be careful leaning too hard on Tacview, while it is a good tool to feed speculation, it is not necessarily valid for diagnosis.

Also, keep in mind it's not our intention to do a 1:1 representation of Iraq. It's important to have some decent POIs, have the towns and cities have the look and feel with some key buildings and more so airfields to be more accurate. But to achieve a 1:1 representation would be an much to long to do, and little reward for towns and cities people may never interact with. To add to this, the map will be mixed era to allow the most mission possibilities and fun for customers. So keep this all in mind for expectations and bug reporting, major POIs we will very much consider. Where there is over usage of a certain model is also fair to report, but as I said, keep in mind its WIP, and these things may change or have already changed internally. Thanks!