Cobra847

Not as far as we know? This is a new report. Do you get crashdumps, or does DCS just disappear instantly?

IIRC, something broke on the scripting side just before launch of the F-14. Hence why the Floggers don't trigger. We'll fix this (and take a look at beppe's version from above) If you've seen Graywo1f's and Hellreigns' MP coop video of this mission, you can see that the floggers do show.

Because there are "cracks" on the tarmac on some maps that cause the suspension to shake. Not an F-14 bug.

Backrubs for all pilot & RIO teams! :) In all seriousness, we can't really do anything to facilitate this more.

I hate that thing with the fiery passion of a thousand suns.

Packing and shipping is underway :)

The Hubcap and tyre were based on two different scans, and when merging them together, we didn't scale the hubcap properly.

The issue is not fixing some of the issues reported, but rather doing so without breaking other things. E.g.; (not an exact example, I can't recall now) - but if we make the tires less sticky, the rollout becomes too long, or the aircraft slides around the carrier, etc. We'll tweak this asap :)

The inverted behaviour is unfortunately an ED issue AFAICT.

I don't think our AIM-54 is unrealistic. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite, and we've done our due diligence in conducting the necessary CFD and other simulation. We've had to fit it's performance into the way DCS models missile physics in general, but that doesn't dramatically change the performance of the missile in a way that significantly distorts reality. Feel free to re-read our whitepaper here: http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf If someone has data to disprove our conclusions, we'd love to see it and adjust accordingly of course.

Unfortunately the DCS suspension system is incredibly tricky to get this right. We're aware of a bunch of suspension type issues and we're waiting for some more documentation before tweaking

Indeed. Noted- but sporadic. On the list!

I can confirm that the movement ranges are borked at the moment; we forgot to change an animation parameter. Won't make it for today's patch.

No apologies necessary! Don't be silly :) Though donations of salmiakki are very welcome :D

Er, I don't think that's true. Our AIM-54 goes pitbull (more or less) when it should. There is a MP desync bug that makes it seem like that isn't the case though. :)

Yes, that's a bug. We don't know why it happens yet. We're investigating. If you hit F3 again, you'll get a flyby without the bug.

Just to reiterate: The frequent CTD introduced in the latest hotfix is fixed; and is slated to be released in the next hotfix update. A temporary workaround is to ask JESTER to be quiet, using A-A-8-2.. You can also rollback to the previous Open Beta patch (.39) Sorry for the inconvenience everyone.

Probably the first time I've heard that said about us. Tomcat fame must be getting to our heads :D The crux of the matter is that I won't say; "Yes- that will improve!" when we have no plans to revisit or revise. That would just end up being a lie. We're not going to rip apart the entire sound gamut and re-mix everything. We're close to final. Those who are unhappy with our design choices to provide sound feedback and skew the mix have the option of very simple .sdef or sample edits to adjust. It's a sucky answer, but we're knee deep in subjectivity on that front. Expecting vast improvements in all facets of a module just because there is an Early Access tag on it is not quite the expectation I'd hope you have. If we're satisfied with something, we won't revise it just because it's EA. That said, close to final does not mean final. Flyby sounds will see some improvements, so will wind noise with the canopy jettisoned, or appropriate volume changes based on canopy status. But by far and wide, we feel that both external and internal sounds are in a good place. Even moreso, we're proud of them and feel that it sounds great. We'll try to do what we can to alleviate for those who don't agree, but never at the expense of honesty through false promises of some future overhaul that won't happen. Hope that makes sense.

No. That will be corrected. Regarding engine whine not being audible in the real tomcat due to the ECS; we know. We intentionally kept the whine audible as a feedback cue.

Re VSync; it's possible (I don't know) that DCS doesn't support triple buffering. When you look ahead, you're dipping to sub-60 frames, capping you at 30 instead. Unfortunately not. The cost induced by mirrors is a completely separate renderpath to render the game world from the ground up but in a different perspective (rear facing "camera"). It's only rendered once for all three mirrors (which are then placed appropriately on the rendered texture). Thus, limiting to just one mirror would not have any impact. This need to re-render the world might be introducing new bottlenecks based on your system, hence why it hits your frames so hard.

It takes time, because we'd rather not send out .PSDs with a ton of WiP layers and ambiguous layer naming structure that we've used during production.

Not much will change on the sound front- I think we're close to final. I'm pleased with where we are at present, especially inside. Expecting a Hornet howl from a Tomcat is somewhat unfeasible. Fly-by sounds may see some improvement down the line- but again- we can't give it some sort of special sound that it didn't have in reality.

We've adjusted the tone to be less shrill and more pleasant for the ear. Coming in a next patch!

Not an F-14 bug. Sorry :(

This issue is fixed. We're hoping to push a hotfix first thing next week. For now, to avoid it crashing, mute jester (A-A-8-1) Sorry for the inconvenience!