osram

The fact that you are trying to imply that I am actually trying to "damage" this community or ED in any way actually proves how ignorant you are about my argumentation. I am merely posting my thoughts and opinions. If someone is critical (instead of blindly trusting) and worries about a subculture he is part of, it doesn't mean that this individual is trying to damage it. Actually it means that the individual is trying to help progress and cares. - Even if those thoughts might not be "nice" and hypocritical, but rather annoying or honest. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.. but most of the time ignorance can actually be severely damaging for a society or subculture. Even if you might not clearly "see" that right now, since you are trying to defend the FW190, yourself or ED. I am not fighting any of these things, I love flying and simply wish the best possible future for this rare gaming genre and DCS. Funnily enough, this kind of includes YOU and ME within this DCS subculture. The reasoning behind my arguments is actually an entirely opposite motivation: It has to do with my personal concern of ED possibly making problematic decisions, and moving into an (for ED/DCS gaming standards) unnatural direction when it comes to their resources, to marketing and the "target audience". And therefore its potential outcome of damaging the quality or prosperity of DCS. Which would not only hinder my own craving for CA-compatible content, but also a FW-190 or any future DCS modules. So I only indirectly "defend" "Combined-Arms-Compatible" and modern content. It is simply a coincidence and part of my underlying worries. My limited interpretation or POV right now, and this is rather a personal prejudice, kind of suspects ED having attained good numbers and sales from the P-51 module, and that they might be tempted to generate another excellently selling module in the same footsteps i.e. era. Despite the risk of actually moving away from CA... and possibly wasting time and resources for a P-51-succesor which might not only not fit in too well, but not stand up to the P-51 sales at all. Also I suspect that the reason for ED's interest in older planes, is that it might possibly be less tedious or time-consuming to get hold of reliable data and therefore save a big part of the workload -> maximize profits? Who knows. For my part: I don't know which, or if the FW-190 is the next module in ED's pipeline. But if that's the case, I am rather worried and dissatisfied. Because I am certainly not going to buy another WW2 module out of "goodwill"... especially if it moves further away from what I would find efficient, coherent and logical for DCS. Possibly maybe others kind of share the same monetary attitude as I do. For my part I can only say that within my group of DCS players most share a quite similar opinion. --------------------------------- I have played IL2 for a long time. I am not trying to tell people to move to another game at all. And also played quite a bit of ROF, it didn't sound like you've personally witnessed ROF's or 777's qualities at all. My thoughts of this extremely interesting and innovating experiment between 1C and 777 is that 777 will bring in the outstanding qualities in their engine and programming skills which seems to be the exact opposite of what we could see with 1C's disastrous CLOD display... whereas 1C will rather bring their share of experience when it comes to WW2 Flight-Models. This will in turn provide a highly efficient collaboration, and in my opinion: That game will most probably become a serious contender. From my limited, non-professional logic/marketing understanding and market-share POV I really don't think its a terrific idea for ED to "experiment" and mess around in that kind foreign habitat. Just stick to whats natural for DCS and to what you are already good at. I am very interested in game-design theory/practice and what games actually do well or not from a marketing and game-mechanic perspective. Different opinions are great. And I love maximum realism as much as you do. Where my taste or opinion differs though, is that its not important if every single knob/function is clickable or not... IF the flight model and critical functions of an airplane are actually existant and implemented in an exceptional way. Another factor is multiplayer "fun" and general application flexibility when it comes to usability, performance etc. After all, even if most of us value realism, we are simply gamers... playing a realistic simulation game. And IF one game is super-realistic and rather mediocre in performance, engine, multiplayer, fun and feeling... and the other game is still super-realistic when it comes to flight-model and it's needed functions, but also exceptional in terms of performance, engine, multiplayer, fun and feeling. Which game do you think comes out ahead and provides better quality and enjoyment? If ED does not make the right decisions and provide modders and the community tools and collaboration/communication (i.e. open up the LUA/API/Tools needed) to actually fix the current problems with CA and team-vs-team multiplayer and for example: Create mods with a new ruleset / scoring-system / win-conditions... to actually fix the current CA issues ED doesn't seem to care about or doesn't have the resources to fix... I see potential problems arise. Especially if they continue developing rather wierd products. And even if the new Sturmovik will not have fully clickable cockpits, judging from ROF's multiplayer fun, flexibility and reliability plus their beautiful engine. I am really looking forward to their newest title. The following video is only a small experiment regarding land vehicles, but yes... it looks promising. Also the map will encompass around 83'000 km^2, whereas my estimate for DCS map-size excluding larger sea/water area, is around 150'000 km^2. So I guess their endeavor is commendable even in this regard. Source: http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/168-developer-diary/

Don't act like Sturmovik or especially Rise of Flight are complete garbage and low fidelity. Even though Sturmovik is getting old, the feeling and realism is good enough to have some serious and immersive 2. WW multiplayer battles which actually immerse into THAT ERA. Despite Sturmovik being old, with the diversity of it's planes, I would even say it does an even better job than DCS with P-51 vs. FW-190 only.. no matter how high fidelity and realistic those models might become. It's gonna be nothing more than two highly realistic 2. WW planes stuck in the wrong universe and server/module landscape. ROF has proven an exceptional job when it comes to fidelity, complex engine management, realism, multiplayer and also the graphics engine. Even for simulation standards, they did a truly amazing job. They have the skills to compete with ED easily IMHO. Comparing a P51 to a 1. WW ROF plane, I wouldn't even know if the P51 is THAT much "better" and realistic. I've heard people being kind of disappointed about the P51 flight model, regarding drag and losing speed in moderate curves. But anyway, I'm not a physicist, don't ask me. Plus: You pay like 50 Bucks for most of the ROF 1. WW planes, whereas you get 1 single arguably "amazing " P51 for that money in DCS... which has a really hard time being actually "fun" and "useful" within the DCS multiplayer server landscape. You will have a hard time even taking out a single Vulcan with a P51 in DCS... Fightgenossen.ch is specifically hosting some training maps with soft target areas because of that. Hell I even bought most modules, including the P51... just as means of supporting ED. I rarely play the P51 though, it's very hard to fit into DCS. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against including 2. WW planes or other eras. But I am against it if I feel like it makes me wait longer for actual "modern era" content which I would actually expect from DCS. Lock-On and all the other predecessors of "DCS World" they are not known and do not cater or target the 1. / 2. WW fans, i.e. market. They are clearly. or at least "were", clearly targeting a specific branch or modern era simulation enthusiasts. And that's what I find kind of irritating and confusing. If I need to wait 2-3 more years for an F/A-18 or SU-27 because ED is releasing FW190 first, I have to say: I don't like it. You are actually sitting here with your argument and 5-7 exclamation-marks shouting and demanding a FW-190 ASAP and by all means, ignoring the fact that it will actually push back DCS-healthy and DCS-suitable content on the development timeline. Despite ED actually owing their money, support and success to people mostly paying for and expecting modern era flight simulations. ROF has a strong standing in the 1. WW market. And my bet, is that it will even become a stronger rival in the 2. WW market, especially if the 1C + ROF - Joint Venture is successful. When that's going to happen, there will be no way for ED to beat ROF/1C on their "hometurf" and the time spent on FW-190 and simile are partially going to waste. ED is gonna kind of stand here with their pants down, with two 2. WW planes for some lame and boring FW190 vs. P51 dogfighting DCS servers.. and DCS World CA without much newer stuff other than the scripted flight-model FC3 content. "Woohooo!" I can understand that ED needs to earn money, and pay salaries. And I prefer them earning money with 2. WW planes, than going bankrupt. But I really doubt their financial situation to be THAT bad, although I don't know anything about their books anyway. What I really doubt though, is that a SU-27, or an F/A18 would be sold LESS often than a P-51 or FW-190. So why not just stick to your target audience and towards Combined Arms, i.e. the modern military era? You kind of need to respect that kind of POV too. I'm not against the FW-190. I would just pick an F/A-18, the new EDGE engine.. or an SU-27 over a FW-190 or P-51 for DCS World any time of the day.

I've been actively promoting DCS World within our own Swiss community. And since we are hosting a beginner-friendly Fightgenossen.ch Training Server, I have been recording introductory tutorial and gameplay streams to get DCS or Simulation beginners up to speed. Also I personally kind of hate to jump around dozens of 10-Minute Youtube Videos when learning new systems or vehicles/games. Not meaning to promote or shamelessly advertise here, just welcoming new players to take a look at this resource to get up to speed with the SU25-T and DCS. Obviously people are always welcome to join our server. The recordings were made while consuming around half a bottle of vodka... to get the authentic russian/SU-25T feeling across. So have mercy with any criticism, but still.. feedback is always welcome. Hope this seriously eases the beginners' entry into DCS, and somewhat shows that the learning curve is less overwhelming than it might initially seem: DCS World - SU25-T Highly Concentrated Intro Tutorial - EN http://www.twitch.tv/loktibrada/c/2005197 DCS World - SU25-T - (RWR) Radar Warning System explained - EN http://www.twitch.tv/loktibrada/c/2005694

Can someone explain why I might get the impression that the SU25-T stalls way more often and has actually less uplift flying at around -5 degrees Celsius or colder temperatures compared to around 15 degrees celsius? Noticed the difference playing two different MP maps... and it somehow doesn't make much sense, since the "general opinion" is usually that cold weather provides better flying characteristics. The difference is really noticeable... and somewhat annoying, even harder to fly the SU in cold temps.

The folder structure I am using is exactly the same as it was in 1.2.2 since I use JSGME and deactivated the mods. I had changed/backuped some Servman filenames due to use/change with SLMod. Tried running Servman by reverting those changes... /admin help /help Only returns "got command..." but nothing happens. Still a bit puzzled about the "got command" message, suppose it must be vanilla behavior. servman_server.lua, main.lua and missions/multiplayer are set up as before. It was working perfectly fine in 1.2.2 - Now it doesn't. Unsure what you mean by last part and net changes, suppose you mean main.lua, and that one is set up anyway.

Kind of having issues with SLMod/Servman3 (Non-Official Servman3 Update) - And my last attempt was disabling the SLMod Servman Edition... I suspect Servman issues, but maybe someone in here has suggestions. Disabled all Mods in JSGME, disabling SLMod first, Servman second.. enabling Servman first.. and enabling SLMod second, due to the lua "dependency", i.e. SLMod's Servman-Lua usage. Anyways.. All should be the same, since I use JSGME and it worked perfectly before 1.2.3, plus I disabled the mods before autopatching.

FW-190? Not meaning to be a fun-bump... But with the old Sturmovik 1946 and upcoming Rise-Of-Flight + 1C Company 2. WW simulation becoming avaiable at some point in the future I really don't know if I like this development. Either I play Rise of Flight for 1. WW planes... If I want 2. WW, I go for some Sturmovik, and if I'm in the mood for some modern era, there's DCS. DCS should stick and concentrate to what it's kind of meant for and good at? The P51 feels out of place already, nowhere to be seen on servers... how would it able to, anyway? People argument that it's "cool" that ED leaves themselves the freedoms they want. That's OK. But to me it doesn't really feel like they are having a firm standpoint or line of operation. Really don't know how the 2. WW is supposed to fit in. After all... why make Combined Arms.. if you are going to focus on a neverending mix of eras? Better concentrate on one era, and get that right. Especially since we don't know how things are going to turn out with 3rd party modules. Plus I wouldn't care if ED + 3rd party would be pumping out a quality release every 6 months... but that's just not the case.. (yet)? Which means that we will end up with a Huey, a P51 AND a FW190 kind of not contributing to the "Combined Arms" direction whatsoever. Sounds chaotic and wierd to me..

Seems like the control-scheme of my CH Pro Throttle is lost due to Update 1.2.3. The .lua files are identical, but only the Fighterstick controls remain usable. This happens for both KA-50 Sim and SU25-T. Although the binds of the throttle are visible in its column, they are not functional, new Throttle inputs do not get recognized either. Didn't have a chance to test pedals yet... Also SLMod and Servman mods seem to be affected by the new 1.2.3 - Couldn't get into finding out if the folder structures or something relevant changed. Or we just might have to wait for new mod versions. :/ Edit: I used the Autopatcher. Update: Deleted the affected LUAs and cleared category, reinstated the backups thereof. Had to do this with other kinds of control issues... but wasn't the cause this time. Unplugging and replugging the Throttle worked though.

Regarding your mod Hello there and thanks for creating this sweet and clean mod. I only recently started hosting the Fightgenossen.ch - Noobforce Training server including SLMod. Since it didn't take long for 1-2 griefers to show up i noticed that ED did not supplement hosts with a ban feature, so I stumbled upon this little gem. Installation and application was a breeze. events_output = true Doesn't seem to work for me though. The file is created, but it remains empty. It's not write protected and seems to have same rights between User/Admin account on first glance. Also Pause on empty seems to bug out for me. Cannot unpause with "Pause" Key or admin command after starting my server. Don't really need the Pause function anyway, but just my feedback. Regarding your work on a possible score system I find that idea extremely compelling. Although I'm only some lame C#/OOP Noob (Don't even know if LUA has anything to do with OOP) I would be totally happy to try and contribute to your Mod regarding the "Score/Stat System". I know this kind of offers usually sound pointless, especially because I'm not an experienced programmer. Barely get my head around class/object concepts. But maybe if I get a crash course into your file/code system and data type conversion, variables/arrays functions and file input/output in LUA it might actually really be a help? Naturally I'm always highly motivated for interesting ideas, when it comes to learning. Not saying I'm not willing to do the needed "Learn LUA" work on my own horseback mostly. I see huge potential in the scoring system. Only looked at your example briefly, but judging from it it would be possible to widen DCS with a rather sophisticated and intriguing "Score" system for people who want to host/play with something more interesting than just "Score X for vehicle A". It would be amazing to implement a more sophisticated system possibly inspired by some of the ideas in Sturmovik 1946 or Rise of Flight but adapted to the problems/needs/challenges of DCS and upcoming CA gameplay: I'm aware that this is a flight sim and the score isn't really an indicator of anything. But an intriguing and fun score system might make the game more appealing for "mainstream" standards, or the new generation playerbase. If it is implemented in a smart way it can surely be a true addition/option to DCS, for veterans and noobs alike. I loved the fact, that you would get double the score for kills/vehicles if you managed to get back to a friendly airfield and land succesfully in Sturmovik. It doesn't sound like a huge difference, but that little detail actually made the multiplayer rather immersive and gave some scorebased, playful incentive to try hard and get back alive. Especially when having amassed a lot of points on the sortie. Rise of Flight has some interesting types of "default" mission goals needed for a team to actually win over the enemy team. Apart from the rather usual/simple mechanic of reaching a certain number of score tickets or vehicle/unit kills: For example. Destroy enemy recon "balloon", Bomb Industrial facility XYZ, Recon Area XYZ by flying a certain path from A to B in a certain altitude range, bomb/kill a specific convoy (Maybe even train? I don't remember) - But even the train objective might be feasible in DCS, if it returns an individual kind of message somehow or there is a way to ID that kind of stuff and "pass" it to SL Stat/Score Mod. Anyway if all the objectives are completed by one side they would win, regardless of unit-numbers or tickets. "Warning"/Recon messages would actually warn the team if enemies would be approaching a specific mission goal and therefore create rather interesting Attack/Defend situations. I am talking about score systems like: "COOP Combo Bonus", Multiple your Points attained, by actually destroying vehicles which were passed to you through Datalink by teammates... You could even give the designator and receiving players points as a reward/incentive. And/Or: Attain a timebased score multiplier for every 300 seconds of your vehicle actually being within an active hotzone. Pinball scoring system anyone? Get additional score for fighting and achieving kills against "all odds". i.e. 1 Red Fighter getting 3x killscore if he scores a kill in proximity of 3 Blue Fighters. Get additional score for evading missiles fired at you by an enemy. Get additional score for making it back to your homebase as a Striker after being Spiked/Locked by an enemy fighter. Get additional score or multipliers for successive enemy players killed without landing/dieing.. or even.. additional bonuses when not being hit in that time. etc. Get 20% of an enemy players currently amassed/stored sortie score on kill. Reward additional points to a fighter if he succesfully defends a friendly Striker player unit (which has accepted the task of bombing a certain enemy mission goal) from a close by enemy Fighter. Or reward additional points for kills close to your own or enemy hotzone/goals. (Attack/Defense bonus points) Combine that with CA, real Sim possibilities and a smart/positive scoring system and you can actually lead the game mechanic in a better direction, adapting to gameplay limitations or problems. Like designers of "board games" do. I really don't know the limitations or possibilities of LUA/Modding and DCS. But from what I have seen up to now, some really nice S*** could be actually done. A sophisticated Score/Goal system might even help with the success of CA, since you have means/tools to actually lead the game/mechanics in a direction which makes it "balanced" and intriguing Team vs. Team. Despite being a simulator with natural "imbalance"; After all, a striker group repeatedly trying to reach Waypoint A vs. 5 enemy FC3 Fighters and one single F15 on your own team... for hours. That's just terrible game/map design. Simulation or not. Probably the best example to illustrate what my motivation/idea is, is the last bullet point from the score example. Regarding the issue with fighter/striker imbalance. If you implement a system where Fighter/Striker/Commander/FAC player balance on a server must remain even. And additionally automatically reward fighters score rewards for actually protecting friendly bombers... you eliminate the need for TS or demanding player-driven "cooperation". You just build into the game, its rules.. or scoring system. If the player, as an individual is kind of directed lead to reach specific goals, and those goals are diverted geographically, plus he has different.. possibly even dynamic options to choose from in regards of accumulating score or making your side win. This can actually neutralize the issue of people not communicating in CA team vs. team in DCS and actually remove the need for Teamspeak or private servers, i.e. organized teams to attain some interesting/balanced Team vs. Team gameplay. AKA: a nice DCS "War" Simulation every one of us likes so much. What I am seeing online and with CA/FC3 right now. Is actually not much.. tbh. All we have is low-fidelity ground units, commander/strategy possibilities and lasering fog of war etc. I doubt it will get to something interesting and balanced on PUBLIC servers, when max. 4-5 players per side are sitting on Teamspeak (Out of 30 players) total. And even if they try to communicate, the others are not on TS, its just gonna be flawed nonetheless, even if there are comms between fighters protecting/clearing for A2G units for the usual, rather "simple" DCS mission "ideology", i.e. clear waypoint after waypoint. It's pretty much unclear and blurred if the community/players/mappers are "mature" enough to make CA work from a Simulation AND Fun Point of View. But if you ask me its up to the Players/Community and ED to make this an amazing platform, be it for Sim vets and Mainstream Sim-Greenhorns. -> More Fun = More Sales = Faster development of DCS Modules. Make this game even more terrific, accessible and addictive than it is. Sorry for the wall of text, but ye. Some euphoric thoughts of mine. Hopefully people see what I'm getting at. EDIT: NVM about my coding talk btw, just saw the tut vids on your first and noticed i totally misinterpreted what SLmod actually is. Thought its basically an admin mod with its features, and upcoming "score" things... but actually it looks more like a "framework"... In that case I'll see if I can get into LUA regarding DCS World and check out what is possible regarding what I've been talking about in this reply. ;) Wonder where the limitations/possibilities start/end though, regarding DCS World scripting.

Thx alot mate! ;)

Ehm, think this hasn't been answered quite clearly? On the first page the mod creator states that this mod will work with vehicles like P-51 and SU-25 T but no one actually elaborates? How is that supposed to work if you have no radio like in Ka-50? Can anyone work me through the working process step by step if it is possible at all? Could an A-10 somehow laser targets for me (Su-25 T) in multiplayer, i.e. "private" server?

Hello there.. and first of all. Thanks for this Mod! It doesn't seem to really work as a true 6DOF in my SU 25 T in version 1.2.3 though. The head just stays in the center... Although the angle changes do happen, and they feel great... compared to being physically restricted after turning your track IR head a couple degrees. Default angles just feels like being constantly hit on your head and humiliated... by your own canopy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JipYAjZ3R5I Anyways... I love the removal of angle-restriction. But I wonder if it would be actually possible to have the 6DOF working, together with removal of angle restrictions. This mod here works with true 6DOF for my SU25 T including multiplayer: http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/file/2266-dcs-world-su-25t-6dof-cockpit-mod/ Would it be possible to kind of combine the best of both worlds? Or does the 6DOF with this mod actually work and I am doing something wrong? Because I am using JSGME with proper folder structures and the angle restr. works anyway, so I doubt the mistake is on my side. D:\Games\DCS World\_MODS\Russian 6DOF and Angle\Config\View And no. I am not accidentally using both mods at the same time. Also tried using the View.lua from this mod, combined with Server.lua from other mod.. but would have been too easy. Maybe this MOD isn't really working for 6DOF in newest DCS World release? Getting both to work would be amazing. Appreciate any help or suggestions.

How exactly would you go about that, is there a way to slew/laser/lock a target for use in Shkval while being in ETS mode? Only started playing around with that possibility, but seems like you would need to switch out of ETS and kind of eyeball, or do it manually on the Shkval. Or do you have a better way/solution?

I dont want to sound rude. But as a paying customer your reply sounds like a kick to the balls. Let me tell you this. I've dealt with annoyed and pissed off customers in the IT-business for years... but your reply from a community/support/service POV is a huge slap in the face for every single customer who is having this issue right now. You have thousands of customers. I would love to use your service right now. After not having played for half a year. So... I forgot my password. Big deal. I have tried resetting my password like hours ago. It doesn't seem to work. So I check the forums: Is this really possible? Wow... Year 2013... and this company is unable to provide a simple password reset function. I bet you love the feeling, when you actually would like to or need to use a service, product, game, software or platform... and it just doesn't work... because the company who actually is making and programming games, for a living. Is unable to provide a working password reset function for their customers. What a wonderful feeling. I bet you would love that too, Ethereal. Best of all: Ontop of that... you get to tell the customers that they "need to understand"... something. It's not ED, who needs to apologize, or get shit done. No. The customer "needs" to understand... are you serious? You should really work on your customer relationship wording. It's not that we are talking about some highly complex system where the customer NEEDS to "understand" anything. It's not a stereotypical question like: "When will it be fixed?". It's not a prerequisite for a customer to "understand" anything.. ever... do you understand why this can piss people off, when they are already pissed off in first place? If you are having issue with your originating mail within several mail services. How about you "understand" to evaluate the possibility of actually using a different originating mail address, or a new.. working.. password reset system? What kind of excuse is that? Have you even read what you wrote right there? It doesn't look like it at all. Totally reminds me of "The War Z" PR attitude... or some lame, prewritten PR apology from "Jay Wilson". Seriously. WTF? Do you even care what your customers think about you or your company image? Because it doesn't look like it. At all.

Alright, thanks for your feedback. Seems like the behavior of my plane works for the replay from another player on the server: Hopefully the replay issues are fixed in 1.2.0. client-20120710-012950.rar

I've searched quite a bit, but haven't found much Info regarding the ability to play SU-25T in CA. The official statement refers to P51, A10 and BS... but will I be able to fly with my beloved SU in CA multiplayer? And if yes, how is lasering targets, i mean receiving data about lasered targets supposed to work if the simplified SU model does not support sharing laser codes/targets? Is this possible/happening on a simplified level... or will I have to rely on smoke signals... or by at least seeing the detected enemy unit on the F10 map? Can anyone give me some insight if the SU will be flyable and how or IF it will be capable of fulfilling a useful role within the new CA "metagame"?

Alright. I have tried playing the replay by using the original loadout I had picked in the rearming GUI during that multiplayer session. If anyone cares to verify and see some serious SU-25T self-immolation plus one-winged flying (and at some point hopefully including the succesful landing) just use the following loadout during the replay. From inside to outside: 1x Mercury Pod, 2x 500Kr (TV guided bombs), 2x Vikhr, 2x S13 Rockets, 2x S8 Kom Rockets and outermost pods are empty. Total weight: 14999/15000 KG. Although now I am able to play the replay properly with taxi etc. and the first half, at some point when the plane starts to spin a few times around itself and catching the stall at low altitude over some village, it will fall off and crash to its left side. Also tested without fast-forwarding... same crash, i.e. behavior. Maybe there is an issue with not properly removing the weight of jettisoned weapons within the current replay/rearming system? I also noticed that all of the weapons which were mounted on my right side immediately fell off after my right wing got teared apart. Is that regular behavior? At least this replay shows how the new rearming system causes issues when it comes to weight/speed and replay-events. I will wait and see if I can get hold of the multiplayer replays from the POV of one of those two mates that were flying with me tonight. Will have to wait until late at night though. Europe vs. South-American timezone shifting sucks. :S Hopefully the replay from their perspective will include the succesful emergency landing... since I suppose their replay/loadout will not affect the behavior of my plane in terms of the new rearming system and replay events/physics.

I'm not too experienced with replays in FC2 or DCS, but even though I did not fast-forward this specific replay of me in the SU25-T flying with two mates in an A-10 and BS, my plane does not taxi the way I did during the game and crashes into a hangar. (To be honest this is the first Track file I have watched in DCS:W, maybe this is a known or general issue?) The replay of this multiplayer session has become useless, since I do not see any of the post-taxi events. Also the weapons on my SU do not correspond to what I rearmed using ctrl + '. Talking about the ress. management GUI, I'm not sure what to do with that popup at the beginning of the replay. Press OK? Cancel? I only tried going with Cancel up to now.. will also try "OK" after this post. The rearm popup might possibly be the cause leading to this kind of replay issues? Anyway. Since I haven't found any bug reports regarding replays in the forum, I allowed myself to post this issue. You can find the relevant track file attached to this thread as a two-volumed rar file. client-20120710-062814.part1.rar client-20120710-062814.part2.rar

Okay, Thanks.

I haven't played FC2 in a while. But shouldn't there be a 360° Orientation indicator at the top or bottom of the HUD? IIRC it was avaiable in Nav and A2G Mode... maybe only Nav Mode? Anyway it seems as if it is completely missing in DCS:W?

Okay I stand corrected. I've also seen cases where it doesn't seem to be related to the input config folder. Tried copying msvrc100.dll thingy or whatnot to the game folder as stated in another thread. Can't report yet if it solves the login crash, but didn't have any similar issues since around 5-6 hours of playtime up to now.

:D I think patients and patience both kinda works.

Try this. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=90859 At least thats what i managed to find out, and its reproducable, fix works.. at least for me. Btw. Where do you find out what Bugs/Feats are being adressed in the next Beta release.... or when they plan to release the next patch. is there any section? I couldn't find anything.

I've been witnessing crashes to desktop after Multiplayer/Masterlogin usually after changing Control settings for my CH-Products in the game Controls. Mate uses the TM Warthog gear, and he has it even worse, he couldn't even reach Multiplayer/Login, his game would always crash after displaying the Version-Number. Fix to his solution was Deleting the entire config content in C:\Users\User\Saved Games\DCS\ Fix to my problem which was more about crashes after Multiplayer/Masterlogin. And most certainly shows up after changing control settings, like axis-tune etc. After fixing the problem, it will eventually show up again when changing control settings or finetune, eventually. At least from what I have seen. For my behavior I was able to pinpoint the issue to deleting the following folder: C:\Users\User\Saved Games\DCS\Config i.e. Input stuff. Deleting all other DCS folders will not remove the CTD situation. Also the .luas in the Config do not seem to be the problem. It's related to the Input Config files. After Deleting the Config folder i.e. replacing them with a working backup it always worked to launch the main game and Multiplayer/Login without a crash.

When mounting the external Gunpods and using Gunpod Only Fire (No internal Cannon) I can only shoot 2-3 shots and the gun is empty. Tested twice.. looks like a bug. This might possibly explain some wierd issues another user is having when using "ALL" Guns...? Also it does not seem to be possible to use the Ressource Management to use less than 100% Fuel after mission start, when it is @ 100%. IIRC Rearm/Refuel will not work at all in that case. Only possible to Rearm with 100% fuel setting. Also Rearm and Refuel does not work at all after returning to your base and successfully repairing your plane. You are just stuck with having to respawn a new plane anyway. Was tested with Engines off, Power Off, Canopy Open and tried to turn ground power On/Off.... Nothing helped.