Paganus
-
Posts
1004 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Paganus
-
-
Did some testing tonight. The envelope is tighter, but it was doable in the pony, and the piano for me.
The Mustang is still easy. I have a lot more muscle memory for her, she's very forgiving, and a visible VVI helps.
The Mossy took 5 tries, with optimal conditions, to not break her, or crab her. I just needed a long steady approach.
I can't tell you if it's more like the real thing or not, but it is doable. Even on my mediocre PC, and controls.
-
42 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:
I love what I'm seeing with the Enterprise, though still a bit worried that no other escorts seem present and the same LST(2) and Arthur Middleton are being used in screenshots.
One question I do have though is what fit will the Enterprise be? IRL its armament went through numerous changes with differing amounts of different types of guns. At the moment, from the screenshots, it doesn't appear to be armed at all.
DCS 1944 Pacific Theater of Operations <--- I would go by this for a general period.
-
1
-
-
That 3060 needs a new rig wrapped around it.
-
2
-
-
Stability, security, and legal reasons make most of your asks impossible. More categories in the file section, maybe.
-
1
-
-
Hopefully Ed understands how seriously bad this situation is, and has entered into "all hands on deck" mode to get it sorted.
-
Same here. 502 auth expired.
-
You can stay in offline mode as long as you want. If you need to upgrade your PC make sure you login and switch back to online mode first or it could break your DCS install.
My only gripe with offline is you have to switch it before you lose internet, or you only have 3 days from the last time you logged in.
So if you haven't logged in for a 3 days or more, you lose internet, no offline mode for you.
It's spelled out in the manual under /Doc
-
1
-
-
DCS track files may not be the best thing for benchmarking anything other than how DCS track files run.
-
Maintain a constant speed, but the reality is it will never lock in like it's on rails, nor should it.
Both aircraft you mention have advanced FCS functionality. Sometimes an occasional, small bump to the stick will help the control pitching. You need to fly within the normal flight envelope or the FCS will be reacting a lot.
Use autopilot when possible.
Good Luck!
-
Open the module manager in DCS and make sure it shows up activated. Then you should find it in under Campaign.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Your gonna get slammed tomorrow 9_
It wont matter if it's the best thing to ever happen to DCS, or nothing. Somebody will be after you with torches and pitchforks regardless, for breaking that announcement tease, I mean promise, you just made.
At least the passion means the base is dedicated, I guess.
-
You might avoid some headaches by doing a fresh install. You can activate/deactivate the modules in the manager.
If you must try a copy over, I would at least install the base game on the new machine, and then overwrite it with the old.
Some Saved Games folders are ok to move. Kneeboard, Liveries, Missions, Scripts... Others are not. Controllers will be addressed differently, and fxo, and metashaders2 will not be the same on different hardware.
Good Luck!
-
You can try flushing the shaders. Delete the fxo and metashaders2 folders from the saved games folder. They will be recreated. Might have a longer load time the 1st time after.
-
It's good to know the baseline to work from, but the situation (temp, elevation, loadout, damage, etc.) will always dictate some of the specifics. Definitely lock the tailwheel!
-
Without getting into if the aircraft cooling system works correctly, it appears to me that the cockpit cover controls for the radiators are in the auto position.
-
I'm not clear on if you're saying it won't load the 2 profile for the 1 version or if you have a 1 version, but either way...
You can wipe the current, and let DCS give you a fresh file to start over with. Maybe it will load correctly.
Move/Copy
Windows>Users>(your_name)>Saved Games>DCS_(your_version)>Config>Input>A-10C
-
3 hours ago, Floyd1212 said:
Question for those who have experience with the Blackhawk IRL:
If I'm flying a transport mission, either for medivac or troop transport, maybe 40 km round-trip, what is a normal cruising speed, altitude and torque percentage for this bird?
I feel like pushing 150+ knots at 100 ft and 100% torque is probably not the best habit to get into.
I'm not experienced with the Blackhawk IRL, but I know there isn't a single correct answer.
Weight, Altitude, Temperature, etc, and some more variables I'm sure I'm not thinking of.
-
After a look...
The last line does look like a usb device. The address will point you to it in Win10.
Even with 32GB RAM that's a small pagefile.
Remove the fxo and metashader2 folders from your saved games folder so they are re-created on the new driver.
Welcome Back!
Good Luck!
-
I understand that was how this started and I would be happy for any asset pack of quality. The conversation for the last 4 pages has diverged into and argument about the asset pack dividing the MP community.
I'm simply trying to get more than one of the asset pack detractors to admit that maps divide the MP community in exactly the same way as the WW2 asset pack, and there are more of them and more on the way.
I think a filter isn't a bad idea, but I don't think that's going to satisfy the asset pack detractors from the last 4 pages of this thread.
-
2
-
-
Has been addressed? Where?
By saying I feel maps are different? Or Don't make the problem worse with assets?
Really? Is that really all you've got?
Someone, please spell it out for me. How can you be against pay for asset packs but for pay for maps?
-
2
-
-
The one fact that you guys pushing for no pay asset packs keep ignoring is maps! If you really believe the asset pack divides the online community then you should be equally if not more against new pay maps. Otherwise your argument is broken and irrelevant.
-
Why are maps different. The argument being made here about assets dividing the MP community applies equally to maps, and yet you're ok with that. Why is it different?
-
26 minutes ago, M1Combat said:
Yeah you're right the argument is pretty much the same but IMO there's a breakpoint where the type of product sets it in a category logically. Much like with airframes where if you buy the tomcat you can't also play the hornet. The maps fit that for me. The assets pack doesn't do that... because when you buy Syria/Iran/Nevada/Normandy/channel etc... you can do whatever you want with it because the assets you'll use on that map are part of the base game. The WW2 assets don't follow the same logic even when applied to maps. You're 100% right though... The split is similar.
I don't have a great answer for you aside from that everyone accepts that about maps. It's just the way it is with maps. It makes sense there. I mean by the other logic you're saying that the assets that come with the game should only EVER be assets that would have or could have been used in a mid-80's-ish conflict in the Caucasus region and all other assets should be separated into asset packs that you need to purchase along with the map to have anything other than Caucasus region conflicts. It makes no sense and there are significant community repercussions. If you add a dollar or two to all map sales and make the assets part of the base game... You don't create problems.
Also... the logic applied to maps doesn't need to be related to asset packs so that's a non-sequitur anyway. Maps only split the community based on the map. Once you own the map you can do whatever you wish with it. you can put a SC in the Channel and try to sink it with a Mustang if you like. You can do that with ANYTHING...
Except the WW2 assets...
No. We're making an argument about the fact that it needs to be bought. Not the price. It's not about value. It's about what happens within the community when someone doesn't have a particular piece of content. If it's a map... I'm ok with it. If it's an assets pack I'm not. It's a double split in the case of the assets. Maybe I'm ok with one split but not two...
I appreciate your honest reply about pay for maps dividing the MP community, but saying people just accept it because maps are different is totally outside the argument you've been making. It's not logical, it's just how you feel about it.
In your model map purchasers will subsidize assets for everyone else, even those that never buy a map.
In the current model you get what you paid for, including those that might only want the assets and not the maps.
This is why I feel the current model is more fair and direct.
-
1
-
-
Where do you stand on new maps as multiplayer community dividers?
The logic of the argument is the same isn't it?
-
1
-
update requires more space than available
in Installation Problems
Posted
Remove the maps that are in the update. Update, then re-install the maps, the download is the same, just divided.
No idea why the installer isn't seeing the change in free space.