FSKRipper

Thx :thumbup:

Strange light reflection on the ground Encountered this issue using the latest 1.55 and 2.04 versions of DCS with the F-5. No other of my modules are affected.

Just as a short Information for guys with crash problems in the 1.55 version. I'm aware that only vanilla installs are supported but I solved my recent crashes when loading DCS by disabling the sound mod compilation from diveplane which seems to be not working with 1.55 anymore. I use JSGME and updated with all mods disabled. After some experiments I nailed it down to the soundmod. So maybe worth looking if you guys are using any mods...

Not sure if there is a workaround but when using Default in a helicopter (low and slow) I noticed a very ugly line in the lower area of the cockpit which seems to be the border where the most detailed shadows are drawn. You can easily recreate it by flying over Las Vegas and observe the cars and trees. Is there a way to change this distance in the graphics.lua?

You choose very wise words to express your point of view and as already said I have no problems with people following this way. But as with all the other additional items on the wishlist I see one problem. If ED will follow these with their precious time, we can plan some additional months/years before we see 2.5, the new Caucasus map, revised NTTR, the F-18 and all the other nice suprises. Can only speak for myself but I'm 36 years now and would be happy to fly a F-14 and F-18 from a carrier in the Gulf before some stupid handicap like Alzheimers disease, a traffic accident or cancer get's me :joystick:

Sure, without advertising some specific game they call it Hardcore Mode or Ironman Mode :music_whistling: You are much more careful when knowing that death has consequences. I'm aware that specific games (like Civ f.e.) need savegames but if I have not enough time to prepare and play a campaign mission I choose another shorter option. Just my two cents and I'm aware that most people have another point of view which is fine for me :thumbup:

I would disagree in this point. As long as tracks are not played back 100% correct especially in turbulent or long missions we can't speak of a working save system. And as long as this system is not bug free we can waive the idea of mission saving. Apart from this I'm against such a feature for the reason you told already for the qualification campaigns. Before somebody gets the RL mace out, I have a wife, two little children and a job so yes, I know RL. Currently I'm studying the briefings in the of the A-10C Red Flag campaign and the according maps in the evening to prepare for the Saturday evening when I do my next Mission. If it went wrong I would hate it to quickload instead of going through the Tacview recording to find my mistakes (Anybody knows how Tacview will behave with saves ? :music_whistling:) The point to make it an option in the ME is as useful as the Autoland, Autostart, Autorefuel demandings. If ED would implerment even 50% of all this stuff the ME will get so overloaded that most Newbies won't even touch this tool and we could only rely on some experienced cracks to get new missions... The issue for me would be that with saves you continue the game flow but you won't learn anything and get better by avoiding your mistakes. You will quickload until you have a lucky run and don't get an idea what went on...

Thanks for the reply, I thought it might come in handy for bullseye reporting. I'm very happy with this plane but having 8 switches from which I don't have a clue what they do made me feel sick :lol:

Hey guys, I have a question regarding the VTB. I have seen a facile description of the left and right parameter Input Switches in the manual and some detailed information in Chuck's guide. Are these switches already functioning and if yes how (only got luck with the waypoint change switch)?

I experienced this also but loading a second mission and pressing LShift+M worked.

I can only speak for myself but the contact was never an issue for me, even during my first attempts. Staying in contact is a whole different story and thats the part where the training kicks in (in my case). And I still don't get the point. If I have no time for AAR (due to RL or whatever) why spending 4 minutes on the boom with hands off instead of using unlimited fuel? Both solutions are cheats and ED has a lot of programming work to to on other issues...

Did you tried the training or a little bit of practice? Apart from the WW2 birds most of the planes are really easy to land within an hour of practice.

+1 Without practice even a Warthog Hotas won't help you in refueling. For people who can't or won't practice there is already a cheat function available called "unlimited fuel"

The funny part is that all of your examples except the Albatros are made by 3rd party developers and not ED so they have no influence on the decision. Furthermore as it was stated above the F-14 and the F-18 are in development. Regarding your other ideas, the AH-64 was developed but it stopped due to a commercial agreement with the military. The Comanche is nothing more than a prototype and I have serious doubts you will find enough reliable sources of Information.

Even with detailed pictures or videos you can't guess flight characteristics. Only 20cm deviation of the center of mass can change everything. The "medium" changes with altitude, temperature, wind and humidity. You said it yourself. It would not be accurate but more fun, so a nogo for DCS. As you again ignored, you don't know weights, speeds, avionics, control surfaces and fcs systems. You take some points from wiki and call it facts. You are still ignoring hat the other DCS modules are not made by guesses. They are made from hard data from existing relationships between actual pilots, pilot handbooks or in rare situations official agreements with military contractors. If all what you want is a simple fun module to fly in DCS you could make a request in the Mods subthread but believe me, if you are asking for something less than 75% reality you are in the wrong place in this thread :music_whistling:

First of all you have not more than speculations about the weight and the thrust performance from which you can not even guess about the mass distribution. Neither are there enough data on avionics or the FCS nor are there any reliable Infos about the cockpit which is a must for a simulation. If you could bring us the official flight handbook it would be another point but I think you would be a very endangered Person and since ED is a russian company...no way You would have more success about asking for DCS Mars Lander, Believe it or not, ED doesn't create fun modules based on pure speculation. The Su-47 would at best be a crazy idea flown from 3rd Person perspective and HAWX, here we are... BTW, I have flown the F-22 in 1992 with a nice external model (for this time) but I have serious doubts about the grade of the Flight model...

A simple question, do you own any flight performance charts, official military documents, flight test recordings or maybe a reliable independent source of information backing your demand? If yes, we will be happy and hungry to study them. If not, you are simply bitching around supported by some guesses of the "free for all" encyclopedia

As it was already stated I see no extra gain in an Alouette III. If we were talking about a french helicopter that could bring some more fun into DCS I would vote for the AS-365N4 or as it is called now the Eurocopter EC 155.

If you can wait until the F-5 comes out of Beta the Sidewinders will track and the gunsight will work so you will be happy. You will probably see no Mavericks since this is a special aircraft version with a different Radar/Monitor Setup. As long as BST doesn't decide to model a special export version this will be the final state.

If there is a planned option like at the Gazelle module, fine. So let's be practical, could they build it? Sure! The question is would you and other folks be willing to pay for lets say some 100 hours developing time for another version of the same module? You would have to, because I won't...

Maybe, but this is WIP by ED to improve the AA-missiles. That is not a justified reason to demand another version of the aircraft and as far as I remember Belsimtek stated clearly from the beginning which version with which specific armament is coming. Imagine the Su-27 pilots would start a rebellion because the R-27 isn't working as supposed to do :music_whistling: @mattebuben: I really like this gunpod. Could I also get a lightweight version with supermodels? Would also change the M-16 for a an Uzi.

Not really, even 1 day before the patch the Razbam guys don't know which features will make it to the patch. Even if send early it's not more than an educated guess which single features will come through excesssive testing. As there were always speculations about an 2.0 update during the last four weeks, I would assume that only the testers are aware of possible Client updates.

:thumbup: Great work guys. The right question but for the wrong guys. ED determines which update will hit which version and when.

I had not much spare time to follow the developments during the last year. Regarding single clock speed (not overclocked), did something significant faster than a i7 4790K showed up on the market (without crazy expensive extreme editions)?

Thanks! :thumbup: