zaelu

I am sure the procedure of uninstalling the modules will be improved. To be able to repeat this free events in the future maybe the modules should just be disabled - there is a button for this but the lua file that is written for that is making the modules disappear completely from main screen. For VR users I think there is a little plus problem atm.... the game hangs while the uninstaller waits for it to close so after restart you have to do it all over again and just kill DCS manually at the necessary moment.

Hey there... :) Any chance for these mission to be made to work on current OB 2.5.6.47404?

Have you tried other WW2 airsims? In some you can jump even inside 2 tanks with inside 3d model for free. Not to mention you have all the maps and tanks for missions building and gunner positions to jump into when in multiplayer included with the first base game purchase that can run during sales to under 20$. I am not saying that everything is mandatory to be cheap... but there is competition, when you try to sell same stuff at big price you basically take a hit in the sales.

Something rather simple. Just as ED improved the Control Assigning interface, improvements could be added to multiplayer slots table for better ergonomics, declutter, esthetics, usability and learning of DCS. Something like in this picture. It can be a floating transparent window like the player pool but I guess that take a bit of performance and is more complex and not straight forward to use It can be a pop up side window like in the picture or Simple drop down lists in the place of Unit Type and "Airfield" columns heads just like the controls page have for different aircraft. If ED has the time... they could add a search box also, to easy search your plane, airfield, task,

is this a mod?

Imho... judging on what others are preparing in the future... there is no future in building maps for DCS. You simply can't compete with AI, you should simply embrace what it offers, automation in rebuilding something to real life level with minimal costs. Building a business plan on this 3rd map building in DCS looks to me like a dangerous gamble. I need to find an example of somebody winning against automation on the long term. @Lunatic98 Sorry man, all I can say to you is that the 4 points are based on real world practices and examples. Same goes to what I suggested in the other thread.

It could be something with those guns though? And a combo with the AI dm? We fooled around tonight in multiplayer and at the end of the session we observed that a human Huey can absorb a ton of bullets from another Huey with damage very slowly accumulating. In the picture my friend got tired of my heli not exploding and my copilot not dying (my pilot died after tens of seconds of direct fire from 20 meters on the ground) and parked in front and unleashed hell. Finally the copilot died.

The bug is acknowledged. I don't get this "supportive denials" replies. Let ED or other 3rd parties fix the problems not put doubts with replies of the type "I've read a colouring book..." No helicopter can take hundreds of 7.62 rounds from under a kilometer to 300 meters and just stroll away. Nobody will be willing to test that in RL. Ka50 is armored but not everything. That thousand of bullets that rained on it would have at least clogged the engines with lead and weld the rotors shut.

1. Make all the themes available to anyone to see and use. - They are adverts not rewards. 2. Make multicrew planes have the second seat available for non owners of the plane (when the multicrew thing will be sorted) - You will not lose sales you will gain because nobody will be 100% satisfied with flying as RIO with a AI pilot or human pilot in multiplayer but it will increase the exposure to your modules and chances to convince a potential buyer. I think this would work even with Huey and Mi8 if you restrict access to the commander seat, still players will be tempted to own the module to have full access than be satisfied with the minuses. 3. Make an assessment if possible to see if the WW2 asset pack sold separately isn't actually hurting the sales of the other WW2 modules 4. Having a World Map in the planes for the future, make an assessment if giving the current maps for free would not actually increase the numbers of paying players. Notes. I have most of the modules and rarely use the music from them so is not a personal need. just a sales idea. I have all the multicrew modules, again is not a personal wish to gain access to them as more a sales tip I have the ww2 asset pack... I need to remove a lot of times the units from it in my missions so my friends can join the games... which is counterintuitive and counterproductive at least. I have 3 of 4 current maps. I tested the forth and I don't need it just as I don't really like Normandie and Nevada one being unrealistic and FPS hungry the other down right useless for me personally. The Golf map I find it ugly. Personal opinion... But... the idea to allow all people use all the maps is inspired from IL-2 where all maps from different addons are available for all (just like the gunner seats) so players are exposed to the modules and community not splitted. I think that is a clever approach.

And that is a lost money possibility. Is like keeping the theme (wallpaper and music) of a plane in the main menu just for the ones who already payed. You don't need sales classes to see how wrong it is. Is like asking money to see adverts. Put second seat as free so people are exposed to your module, let people choose the module theme so that they are exposed to it so they could be prone to buy it more. And it is done by IL-2 with great success. You don't need to own maps or planes to join the matches and gunners. And +1 for the OP

Any chance for a Caucasus version for people without Nevada?

You can cry no about it but I think is coming. This month of free trial on most of modules was a dry test imho. They could do it more and more often to see if sales spike positively to "demo" incentives . Then... they can run it in paralele no problem. Buy the module and have it all the time or wait for it to be demo again. This is a good incentive. Then they could bring in the subscription as an alternative. What I would also like is for them to consider using lower fidelity models/textures for demo/free version. A good example is the Macchi mb399 free mod community module. If all modules would be free at that quality and then have the F14 or F18 level of quality as payware would be a great strategy imho.

Very interesting mod, another area were ED should help a bit. I used to have those empty cockpits after tweaking the VR optimisation mod and I observed that after mission restarts they were solved... so that hint me that maybe it was a problem of patience so next time I loaded the game and had the void cockpits only with MFDs and HUDs... I waited... and waited... and voila... the cockpits appeared after the shaders finish calculating. Do you have HDD by any chance? have you waited like...10 minutes to see if the cockpits reappear?

j/k

I don't think EDs problem is communication lately. They do communicate. In many different ways. From info about the development to deeds like giving free access for a month to almost all modules (this communicates good will, wish for a test in business model, worrying about future since Covid, etc). What EDs lacks is development in the core game. For years we couldn't set up our controls while in game, then, finally we could... in single player... years later... we could do it in multiplayer... then some more years and we can not only do that but we could plug in a controller while in game and then program the controls! Wow! Sure... adds some stutters and some disable the feature but... Then more time passes and now we can sort the controls by collapsing the categories, we can delete individual categories controls... amazing! 30 years later basically. We still can't copy controls from a Su27 to Su33 or have all developers have a basic set of controls named and programmed in totality in the same manner and then ability to quickly copy that base set so we can start using a new module... no... usually we still need to delete 12 assignments of axis and buttons of our rudder pedals. And this is just a small example of little frustrating things that evolve so slow that basically they don't. Other examples. Ability to spawn via a menu from Game Master at least all the units already placed in the mission and set on late activation by various triggers and scripts. To see them too in layers. Asking for ability to just add units with task like in ME live while the game is running the mission would be asking for the moon for a game engine designed basically in the 90s The mission editor, made only for few OCD professionals of mission editing and scripting basically cuts off 99.9% of community that would really add value to the game by creating crazy missions at first if it wouldn't be so powerful yet so incapable. Simple redesign of Units Panel that can show layers, groups etc. Redesign off triggers menu that can group the triggers and show them in trees not simple accounting lists. Simple way to spawn groups (presets/templates) of units easy to use by the rest of 99.99% of people. Spawn a column... small, medium, large, bias to AAA or Armor or transport. Spawn a CAS group... same quick parameters. ETC Basically there are 3rd party fan made mission editors... editors that show more potential and power than EDs editor. Yet they are still unusable by most of people. I don't consider myself a low level ME user, I would say I can build really complex missions, but it takes me 20 times more time to do it than necessary and then I observe that sometimes my "lower ME skilled level" squad mates can have better ideas in 3 seconds after joining the game but inability to implement them due to no fault of their own... they might not have the time to lose on understanding needlessly complicated procedures. What else is lacking? Ability to sort slots on a multiplayer server by airfields and planes or tipe of tasks. NO! We still need to scroll through 300 slots and the designers still needs to waste years of his life carefully naming the units so they make minimum sense to the joining players. How much time and money would the core game improvements take? I can't estimate but I can guessestimate that less than a F18C module. ED's probably with every new model in a dilema. Build a F17 (j/k) and gain maybe 10 000 clients paying that module or Build improvements in the core game and then gain 1 000 or 100 000 clients that might or might not buy the existings modules. I think we can see where the choice leans... But imho... on the long term the game would look so odd that the core DCS game might not be salvageable. Nice modules but in a barren game compared to competition. One might say that there is a big possibility that a 3rd party would build a ME in a certain in development civil sim that might just give the final blow. And then... the likes of Razbam and Heatblur could not afford to ignore the market share... just saying...

Yep, probably it takes a lot more practice than 109 K4 did. One of my favourite life quotes is "never underestimate the power of repetition" so I guess I was guilty of doing just that error. I (re)found today this old movie and I think this guy is quite a better pilot than me :P

I think you just need the gear up (down) command be pressed while the gear transits and the lever moves by itself. You do nee to unlock the safety, tell the gear the direction and loosen or tighten the gear cables tensioner... :)

I have to inform you that I have finally managed to take off! I fee the aircraft being very hard to control and dangerous in the unpredictable way. Ofcourse I am no pilot but I think is unsafe to taxi and takeoff. I have a warthog stick with extension and curves and a Thrustmaster TFRP with curves. Sure the rudder pedals are not best in class but they are new and work flawlessly. Throttle and prop etc are on a custom controller with hall sensors. Anyway. I feel after such a surprising take off (I was actually trying to show to some friends that is impossible) and a revisit of the plane after some time... and now in VR... I need to amend my comment that I made a bit earlier. I think was too harsh. Yes, I do find it difficult to control on the ground (hey did I mentioned that I also landed without any ground loop or breaking anything or going crazy hitting the ground with the wings? All good just difficult.) But, for the rest of the plane I can't find any flaw. The model and textures are top notch, even in VR they look awesome. It has a lot of systems modeled for such small and rather simple plane and all works and even the gear, complex as it is was easy to use and since now I have a gear lever and some "safety" 2 position switches near by I was able to map all the handles for it and it was a breeze even in VR. The plane flies great once in the air. Very realistic feel (knowing the plane a bit from IL-2s) and with great nuances. So... Sorry for being harsh earlier. I take my words back even if I know I will crash on take off and landing a lot with it even with this success but the plane doesn't deserve such harsh words just for that. So. If anyone is on the fence to buy or not to buy this. At least don't take my word for it but if you want take my turn around and change of heart about it. :beer:

Maybe you need to have the NADIR on? I don't use it as my missions usually don't require complex navigation.

I know you have split since then and the guy doesn't work for you anymore but is still stickied on this forum and the date is 2016!!! https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2762205&highlight=civil#post2762205 PS. It has a place with all the civil planes and choppers variants.

Why I can taxi the other planes? Why I don't feel the plane go crazy on the other planes? This plane is like 109 K4 used to be when first got out. And at fault is the fact that some extraordinary "numbers" (like huge torque, narrow gear, etc) are taken in consideration but others are not well simulated (like ground friction and what not) and this makes the plane act absolut crazy and probably no real life pilot would dare to climb in such plane if they would be so unpredictable even in slow taxying.

That was a head scratcher... turned out my fuel flow lever was assigned to an axis that was going only to 99% so AP was not allowing autohover to engage. I have put a little deadzone to that axis so I made sure the lever goes to 100% in the helicopter and... voila!... it works easy now. So anybody with this strange AP not engaging any auto mode whatsoever check axis on fuel flow lever,

Yes, they should prioritise Gazelle first. Putting out Kiowa first would be suicide. I don't expect that FM to be 100% accurate but put on Gazelle people might see improvements and that things go in the right direction. Although... for me is a bit too late. So many years of denial of problems with FM made that the acceptance in the end that the FM is indeed FUBAR and they will fix it "at some point" mean very little. I sincerely say to you PC, if other developer would appear now and say... "we are making another take on Gazelle with everything an super FM" will present more interest than you fixing this one.

I use 1.3 SS in OTT and 1.3 PD in game and I think the image looks better than 1.3 just in OTT and better performance than 1.6 in OTT. I wish more people would test a mix between the two and not just say it from a manual. I will test some more with 1.5SS in OTT and max 1.7SS in OTT just to compare but at some point I can very easy be mistaken and fool myself :) . Also AA in nVidia settings don't do anything at all but 2 or 4x MSAA in game makes big difference in quality! 4x is preferable!

Looks very difficult... it is on the to do list for 2 years or so...