bkthunder

I didn't disable the track file... I'll have a look at the folders once I get home, but I also think it's a problem with my install, just unsure how to solve it... P.S. the problem happens with every module

Fully agree, and I'm not old :thumbup:

I have a problem, at the end of a SP mission if I click on watch track nothing happens, and if I click on Save Track it says "Cannot open file for reading C:\..\..\..LastMissionTrack.trk." I don't know if it's a bug or a problem with my install, I tried a repair but it didn't fix the issue, any ideas?

Well, I don't know what it is but certianly somethign is off (pun intended XD). On a more serious note, can anybody shed some light on this one? THe pilot is clearly sitting on the left side of the cockpit in DCS, plus the HUD is also not perfectly centered if you look closely at the picutre I posted. The Viggen is a very particular airplane so I'm not ruling out the possibility it is actually like that, but I don't see any practical reason for it...

Great, thanks:thumbup:

The rudder is hinged on a slightly wrong axis, so that when fully turned, part of it intrsects the vertical stab structure. Error

As the title says, I noticed today that the whole seat is offset to the left of the aircraft's centerline. See the screenshots. Is this how it is supposed to be in the real aircraft? It seems really weird...

Reverse ground effect getting stronger? I was flying low over the runway at about 80 feet and literally got sucked down and crashed. I'm aware of the reversed ground effect bug, but did it just become stronger with the last patch?

I'll just point out that the Harrier changelog is, again, the shortest of any of the modules in EA :music_whistling:

Out of curiosity, would an unpainted (and polished) F-14 really look like that?

Lol, if you could enclose all of DCS fanboyism in a single picture, it would be a screenshot of this post. Well done, you win another subpar module at premium price, and another EA that will never be finished :thumbup:

Two words: GLOVE VANES

Same here, no preorder even if it's my favorite airplane of all time (well, there's that other sim to keep me busy anyway).

Erm... I bought the module at full price and it didn't say anywhere that it was a special project, so sorry, I can complain and I expect it to have all the bells and whistles that other DCS mdoules have. What specification they had from their private customer has nothing to do with me. Did it say anywhere on the shop page that "this moduel is for a small minority and therefore has low priority"? So let's say that I am Joe Pilot and new to DCS, I go on the store and I buy the Yak-52, because that is what I am interested in. How am I supposed to know that it woudl take years to finish because other projects have higher priority (project which have come AFTER the sale of the Yak-52)? I personally don't care about the yak-52, I also prefer the F-18 to be completed sooner, BUT, and it's a big but, this is not a valid argument for people who have spent their money and rightfully deserve to receive what they paid for in a timely manner, or are you suggesting that some customers are more important than others based on which type of module they buy, even if they bought it BEFORE other modules that now magically have higher priority?

And where did you read in my post that there is no progress or they are not working on it? I agree, big mistake buying EA from Razbam, I will not repeat it in the future and wait for the module to be released. So much for supporting a 3rd party...

Glad to see some fixes and additions :thumbup: As for flying the plane, as long as there are bugs and inconsistencies that I consider big (such as this https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232088&highlight=fuel+flow) I prefer to spend my little free time on modules that are more accurate at this stage and where I can better simulate RL procedures, the "S" in DCS is important for me ;) On the Harrier it's still not possible to perform a full start-up as per the checklist and there are still bugs and missing features in basic HUD symbology.

As per Natops checklist, functioning of emergency pump LOW/HI should be tested prior to engine start. However, if controls are deflected during the test (as prescribed by the manual), the LOW pump doesn't switch off when the switch is moved back to AUTO (LOW). Removing and reconnecting external power doesn't solve the problem as the pump turns on again as soon as ext power is reconnected. If controls are not deflected, the pump switches off as it should.

Returning to this part of the forum after a while, seems pretty quiet here. The Harrier still has big bugs and missing features, did everything grind to a halt once again and the community just gave up with hoping for a finished AND accurate simulation of this wonderful aricraft? :(

I opened a bug report months ago about this "turbo-prop" sound, and apparently it is realistic. In fact, if you do an F3 view above 350-400Kts, you'll hear the veyr nice and typical whine of the F-18. In F2 view, that whine (without the doppler effect) sounds like a prop. I read somewhere it's given by a change of air pressure going through the intakes..

I'll just throw a couple of thoughts out there: During the Mirage development, Razbam was by far the most communicative 3rd party ever. I've personally praised them more than once for how they handled bug reports etc. In fact, I bought the Harrier because I had trust in Razbam. However, the Harrier has proven a totally different experience and I am very disappointed. The M2000 was developed in cooperation with Metal2Mesh, who had already made a good FSX payware Mirage (as well as an F-15E I believe). The Harrier, OTOH, was made by Razbam alone, first for FSX and now "ported" over to DCS. I think Metal2Mesh added some degree of skills/quality that Razbam alone can't achieve, and the Harrier is a much more complex aircraft than the Mirage. Given the F-18 and Harrier share similar avionics, I bet Razbam has counted maybe too much on ED passing over F-18 tech to them (MFD pages, HUD and such). In a way, I really wish they could use what ED has made for the F-18 (where it makes sense), as the F-18 Avionics is undoubtedly high quality compared to the Harrier's. TLDR: They chewed more than they can swallow with the Harrier, maybe counting on more goodies from ED.

Well, I just had a dogfight with a Su-25 (AI) on GAW server, I had 3 PH, 2 Sparrows and 2 AIM-9, half fuel and no tanks. At 5k feet, with full AB I swear there was no way for me to keep up with the Su-25, he was running circles both horizontally and vertically around me. The Cat was as sluggish as a fulyl loaded A-10 and on a straight line the Su-25 was able to catch up with me as I was trying to gain some distance in full AB.... Provided DCS AI is as dumb and broken as a pile of rotten meat with worms inside, I am pretty sure the F-14 is a total hog in that configuration. Either that, or the FM has to be tuned.

Thanks Hiromachi, I didn't notice a difference as you reported, but I'll try it again. As you said, no AoA difference. I hope you can improve it! :thumbup:

+1

You're right, it's been like that for about "two weeks" :thumbup:

Ah good to know about the Tacan volume, is that realistic though? The big annoyance is the beacon lights though... I will never understand how these kind of bugs remain unresolved for years on end, considering they are right in your face and probably easy to solve. The F-5 could be a fully functional and bug-free module (a rarity).