streakeagle

slmod use to work 100% correctly on the Forgotten's early cold war servers, Korea, Vietnam, and Cold War 1973-1977. Right now, it is mostly working except for the auto kick / penalty points for friendly fire. From the logs, these are the errors: 16.863 SLMOD WARNING: Unable to start active units database, slmod.activeUnitsBase does not exist. 16.863 SLMOD ERROR: unable to retreive events from server environment, reason: [string "return slmod.getNextSlmodEvents()"]:1: attempt to call field 'getNextSlmodEvents' (a nil value) 16.863 SLMOD INFO: Create Events 16.864 SLMOD ERROR: unable to update tracked weapons, reason: [string "slmod.update_track_weapons_for()"]:1: attempt to call field 'update_track_weapons_for' (a nil value) 23.595 SLMOD INFO: successfully loaded (name = slmod.basicSerialize) function into export. The MissionScripting.lua has been overwritten with the slmod version, do it is desanitized. I tried running the server as Administrator, but that didn't get rid of the errors, nor did it start scoring penalty points. I have searched the github entries and internet in general, but can't find anyone else with the same issue or a fix for it.

For those that don't know it, this server is still around. The server's name remains "The Forgotten War: Korea 1950-1953", but the IP address has changed as of tonight. Only a handful of servers have "Korea" in the name, so that is a good term to find this server using the multiplayer search function. All three missions in the rotation include tasking via the F10 menu.

I played on a Timex Sinclair 1000 w/16kRAM. Not too much later, the US equivalent to the Spectrum arrived, the Timex Sinclair 2068. I had Fighter Pilot (an F-15 sim) and Tomahawk (an AH-64 sim). Fighter Pilot was a little rough, but flew a bit like an Eagle. Tomahawk was outstanding.

I primarily fly the DCS UH-1H for a variety of reasons, but I love all of the DCS helos. Realistic or not, the flight models are radically different for each model. Not counting free mods, the Gazelle is the only small, two-man helo. The flight model for the Gazelle is like a dragonfly compared to the other helos: agile, but sensitive and able to dart around. The Ka-50 and AH-64 are fly-by-wire helos. Very easy to fly, especially the Ka-50 with contra-rotating rotors. They are my least favorite because I don't want digital weapons systems and stabilization. The Mi-8 and Mi-24 are somewhere in the middle with some old style analog stabilization, but no computer limits to keep you out of trouble. The UH-1 feels heavy compared to the Gazelle. But it has no stabilization in reality. Unfortunately, ED/Belsimtek added artificial smoothing to the controls to keep people from doing bad things. Move your cyclic stick rapidly in one direction, then wait for the in-game stick to reach the same position. When the UH-1 was originally released, there was no lag. If you move the cyclic slow/gently, it keeps up and flies realistically. It is fun to jump from the Gazelle to the UH-1 to the Mi-8 to the Ka-50 to feel the difference in control responses. If you like helos, I reocmmend getting all of the DCS helos. But if I could only afford one, it would be the UH-1H.

Details See the end of this message for details on invoking just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box. ************** Exception Text ************** System.ComponentModel.Win32Exception (0x80004005): The system cannot find the file specified at System.Diagnostics.Process.StartWithShellExecuteEx(ProcessStartInfo startInfo) at System.Diagnostics.Process.Start() at SimShaker.UI.AutoStarterForm.startUWVeditorToolStripMenuItem_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStripItem.RaiseEvent(Object key, EventArgs e) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStripMenuItem.OnClick(EventArgs e) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStripItem.HandleClick(EventArgs e) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStripItem.HandleMouseUp(MouseEventArgs e) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStripItem.FireEventInteractive(EventArgs e, ToolStripItemEventType met) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStripItem.FireEvent(EventArgs e, ToolStripItemEventType met) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStrip.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mea) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStripDropDown.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mea) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.ScrollableControl.WndProc(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStrip.WndProc(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.ToolStripDropDown.WndProc(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.OnMessage(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam) ************** Loaded Assemblies ************** mscorlib Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4515.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll ---------------------------------------- SimShaker for Aviators Beta Assembly Version: 2.5.9.0 Win32 Version: 2.5.9.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/SimShaker/SimShaker%20for%20Aviators%20Beta/SimShaker%20for%20Aviators%20Beta.exe ---------------------------------------- System.Windows.Forms Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4550.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll ---------------------------------------- System Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4605.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Drawing Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4390.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Configuration Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4190.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_B CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Core Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4605.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Core/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Core.dll ---------------------------------------- NLog Assembly Version: 5.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 5.1.0.1480 CodeBase: file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/SimShaker/SimShaker%20for%20Aviators%20Beta/NLog.DLL ---------------------------------------- System.Xml Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4084.0 built by: NET48REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll ---------------------------------------- NLog.Windows.Forms Assembly Version: 5.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 5.0.0.510 CodeBase: file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/SimShaker/SimShaker%20for%20Aviators%20Beta/NLog.Windows.Forms.DLL ---------------------------------------- Anonymously Hosted DynamicMethods Assembly Assembly Version: 0.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4515.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_32/mscorlib/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/mscorlib.dll ---------------------------------------- Accessibility Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4084.0 built by: NET48REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Accessibility/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Accessibility.dll ---------------------------------------- Octokit Assembly Version: 4.0.3.0 Win32 Version: 4.0.3.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/SimShaker/SimShaker%20for%20Aviators%20Beta/Octokit.DLL ---------------------------------------- netstandard Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4084.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/netstandard/v4.0_2.0.0.0__cc7b13ffcd2ddd51/netstandard.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Xml.Linq Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4084.0 built by: NET48REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml.Linq/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.Linq.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Net.Http Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4084.0 built by: NET48REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Net.Http/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Net.Http.dll ---------------------------------------- Newtonsoft.Json Assembly Version: 13.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 13.0.2.27524 CodeBase: file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/SimShaker/SimShaker%20for%20Aviators%20Beta/Newtonsoft.Json.DLL ---------------------------------------- System.Numerics Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4084.0 built by: NET48REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Numerics/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Numerics.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Runtime.Serialization Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4536.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Runtime.Serialization/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Runtime.Serialization.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Data Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4584.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_B CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_32/System.Data/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Data.dll ---------------------------------------- PresentationCore Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4605.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_32/PresentationCore/v4.0_4.0.0.0__31bf3856ad364e35/PresentationCore.dll ---------------------------------------- WindowsBase Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4605.0 built by: NET48REL1LAST_C CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/WindowsBase/v4.0_4.0.0.0__31bf3856ad364e35/WindowsBase.dll ---------------------------------------- Microsoft.CSharp Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4084.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Microsoft.CSharp/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Microsoft.CSharp.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Dynamic Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.8.4084.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Dynamic/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Dynamic.dll ---------------------------------------- ************** JIT Debugging ************** To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this application or computer (machine.config) must have the jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section. The application must also be compiled with debugging enabled. For example: <configuration> <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" /> </configuration> When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer rather than be handled by this dialog box.

If I try to open the editor, I get this error window. I have applied a bunch of Windows updates and .NET updates were among them. Clicking continue doesn't work. The editor doesn't open.

There is an old thread that may be of some interest to you:

To the best of my knowledge, the test was successful, but the aircraft were being retired/sold, so the USAF stopped spending money on upgrading the F-4. I think one or more examples with the one-piece windshield served and may still be serving in Greece.

The one-piece windshield was principally adopted for its improved resistance to bird strikes. The removal of the center window frames did not significantly improve visibility because of the already crowded forward view with the gunsight, video recording system, RWR, sun glare shield, etc. In fact, the detailed writeup on it said that the new installation used a wider canopy bow that actually reduced the viewing area overall. It would still be really cool to have an option check box to toggle between front windshield styles. But it is a lot more work than just removing the frames in the center. So, I wouldn't expect Heatblur to waste even one second on it when they could be working on an carrier capable F-4J/S variant.

If you study aerodynamics, you will find a long thin wing with no sweep generates a ton of lift with very little AoA. The problem with long thing wings is that they break under high loads and are not the ideal solution for high speeds due to their high drag. The auto sweep on the F-14 was originally tuned maximize lift. But, that proved to be a bad choice for structural integrity, so they optimized it for low drag. At speeds where the wing is full out with flaps, the F-14 generates a tremendous amount of lift compared to typical trapezoidal wings with 35-45 degrees of sweep. Not only is the lift great at low speeds, but also the lift/drag ratio: it is extremely fuel efficient, which makes for outstanding endurance. Variable geometry costs weight, complexity, and money, but it does come with some great benefits. At supersonic and stall speeds is where it shows its strengths compared to most other fighter wings that are optimized for combat at Mach 0.8 to Mach 0.9 with compromises to support Mach 2 flight.

Where was this post back in 2006 when I started down this path? At this point, I have: 1. A hybrid seat mixing real parts with a wood frame. 2. A real stick and stick grip which at one time was integrated with a BU0836X USB controller using radio control linkages (threaded rods with ball and socket joints), strong centering springs, and industrial grade linear potentiometers. I need to reassemble this but using a gutted VKB Gunfighter base or Thrustmaster Warthog stick for the analog inputs to get perfect, high-resolution values. 3. A real pair of throttle grips mounted on a nearly identical F-101 throttle quadrant with the surrounding control panels mounted on a left console made of wood with aluminum framing for mounting the panels realistically. I need to integrate this, preferably linking both the analog axes and switches to a Thrustmaster Warthog throttle. I still need to fabricate a main control panel, right console, and some of the other controls such as the flaps switch and left and right vertical consoles.

Clearly this is new behavior. I already install custom skins on the server to fix this type of problem, but now stock skins don't show up. Definitely a 2.8 bug.

What I suggest is joining the VAICOM discord channel where you can find out the full status of the community version and judge for yourself. If you do decide to reinstall it and have any problems, that is the place to solve them. As I mentioned above, VAICOM was always a tradeoff for me. It solved many problems and provided a big step up in immersion, but that came at a cost. The most annoying thing being that any command performed by VAICOM scripting is not recorded in the trk file. So my trk files would not show my aircraft starting up because I used VAICOM to asked for ground power or ground air supply or any other functions provided by ground crews required for an aircraft to start up and roll to the runway. So, I already had to map a lot of the commands I used the most to keyboard emulation commands. I fly a lot on servers that have MOOSE based scripts for mission tasking, troop loading/deployment, calling for smoke on targets, etc. On older, simpler missions, VAICOM automatically added voice commands supporting these menus and it worked really well. In recent months, it has been son inconsistent that I have resorted to using the mouse/keyboard to perform those functions. Unless I was flying the F-14 and using VAICOM to talk to Jester, I have been using Vaicom less and less in favor of conventional Voice Attack keyboard emulation or simply using a mouse and keyboard as required. I think flying without VAICOM for a few days or maybe even weeks will reveal just how much I want/need VAICOM. If I decide to re-install VAICOM, it will be after the development team has had a chance to squash any remaining bugs and maybe even add a feature or two.

What I instantly missed with the loss of VAICOM after 2.8 was being able to talk to jester and make radio calls that aren't possible with the menu system, such as refueling without rearming, repeating "inbound" without aborting, and custom F10 radio menus such as loading and dropping off troops or calling for smoke. Not knowing that it was going to go public and having had VAICOM break my DCS 2.8 install, I already uninstalled and cleaned up DCS to run without VAICOM while retaining Voice Attack for basic key mapped functions such as turning ground power on/off and connecting/disconnecting ground air supply. I am pleased to hear VAICOM is moving forward and better yet free for everyone. Removing VAICOM has eliminated some problems, such as broken trk files and conflicts with PTT button mapping between in-game, SRS, Discord, etc. So, I am going to wait for the dust to settle between DCS patches and the new community releases before I consider going back to using VAICOM.

The F-4E's gunsight looks and works a lot like the F-5E's gunsight. I think the F-4D was the first variant to have a lead computing gunsight to support the centerline gunpod.

The default AMD programming allows cores to overclock as temperature and current limits permit. I started out using a Noctua with my 5800X and moved to the AIO. I saw immediate improvements in the AMD auto overclocking allowed. At least 4 of my cores can hit max clock speeds at any one time using default AMD programming with the AIO. I never saw more than one core at max with the Noctua. I don't have a 5800X3d, so I can't say the AIO would provide any benefit over the Noctua in clock speeds, but I can say that the AIO does provide a lot more cooling whether beneficial or not.

I love the Noctua air coolers, easily among the best available. But if you have money to burn and you want to maximize cpu overclock with stable temperatures, the AIO is still far more effective than the best air cooling. I have two older i5s running on Noctuas that permit modest overclocking while being stable, but my AMD 5800x is on AIO and runs wide open at max overclock on multiple cores without any temperature issues at all.

I found several options between eBay and Amazon, but never decided on which one to try. They all seem fairly cheap/disposable, so if I guess wrong it won't cost too much. But the specs were slightly different. I couldn't figure out which spec was the most correct.

I have never been an La-5/La-7 fan. But I cannot deny the La-7 was one of the best operational fighters of the war and the La-5 wasn't too far behind. It belongs in this sim and will be a monster that can take on the Bf 109K4 on even or even superior terms. It will also visually be a better stand-in for La-9/La-11 than the Fw 190D9 in Korean War scenarios.

One thing to consider with RWRs is that in a game environment, they are extremely useful and it is hard to understand why anyone would not have added RWRs on any aircraft entering service from the mid 1960s and later. The reality is that even the relatively advanced ALR-67 has an incredibly high false alarm rate, which makes it more of a beeping/flashing distraction rather than the life-saving device it is in games. The modern world is crammed full of radio emitters that trigger false alarms during flights over 100% safe areas. Imagine what it looks like in an actual threat environment with both friendlies and enemies clogging the radio bands with all kinds of traffic and jamming. Robin Olds was forced to mount a RWR in his F-4C and quickly decided to turn it off. He knew he was surrounded by radars and that one or more were tracking him. So, what were the audio and visual indications really telling him? He knew he could only dodge a missile he could see. He already had too much audio information between the radios and back seater. He preferred to keep his eyes out of the cockpit to focus on spotting SAMs and MiGs as well as tracking his own flight to provide warnings, guidance, and congratulations on good kills. Of course, most pilots don't have Olds' legendary situational awareness and would certainly like to have at least a launch warning and a bearing to check. Consider the F/A-18 Hornet that was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 during the opening days of Desert Storm. In DCS he would have clearly seen the MiG-25 threat and been able to decide the appropriate course of action, but during a massive aerial attack in the dark, he probably suffered from information overload and his RWR was probably lit up like a Christmas tree. So, the MiG-25 was able to slip through AWACS and escorts undetected and snipe the F/A-18 without any evasive action. So, I can't really fault the F-1C for not having a piece of crap RWR that was comparable to the one in the MiG-21 with no digital display and a primitive form of threat prioritization/indication. Even in the magical world of DCS where RWRs behave ideally, I find the RWR in the F-1CE to be primarily the same kind of annoyance the Robin Olds despised. But having said all that, effective or not, I love having RWRs in flight sims even if my situational awareness and reflexes make them nearly useless for me. If all we are given are versions with RWRs, it is easy enough to leave it turned off if you want to simulate a version that doesn't have one. What I want the most is historical accuracy. If the version being modeled had a RWR, give it one. If a version is modeled that didn't have a RWR, then don't give it one. My preferred option is to have more than one versions to reflect the variety of aircraft available or at least an option check box to choose a cockpit with/without a RWR as required to match the desired version.

And so it is. I had not seen that before I had not though to look there.

The present gun trigger switch control mapping option automatically overrides both safeties. i.e. the trigger flips down and the safety flips out. I get the value of this option for people that have limited button counts on their sticks, but it would be nice if there was a realistic trigger mapping that only permitted firing the guns when both the trigger is flipped down and the safety is flipped out manually. Without this option, there is no safety beyond the master arm. Edit: Per post below, the option is already available on the Special Options tab for the Mirage F1.

Thread title plus your name as the last post, and I was caught hook, line, and sinker, too.

I had my G2 replaced under warranty after the first one failed. But when I built and AMD PC and needed the new cable, they said I was out of warranty. I ordered the new cable and paid the cost. What I should have done was catch a new headset on sale so that I would have had the new cable and a spare headset. But the old cable acts as a spare when used with a compatible USB port and my G2 is still working great with the cable I should not have had to pay for.

If they were smart, they would make one really good base and standardize production. But is seems most vendors need to have two price tiers to sustain business. I have the Supra Libra because at the time I ordered, the only option was the stick/throttle combo. But despite their promises that I would like the Super Libra more than the VKB Gunfighter Pro, I still prefer the VKB stick. If the Orion 2 is superior to the Supra Libra in every way, there would be no reason to continue producing it unless it can be sold at a lower price tier.