Hyperion35

Tried to pay again, third time was the charm, it worked

Did you also apply the update today? And are you using the Open Beta version?

In fairness, usually I wait until I get home from work to make purchases (so after 5pm Eastern US time), but since I'm working from home, this counts as a "break". But...well, there's only so much time I can really justify as a "break", I was hoping to purchase and start the download now, then hop into the cockpit after work (I will admit that the commute from the couch to the computer desk is much nicer). The question is, do I wait and hope it goes through? Because it should have by now even if servers were slow. Or do I try to push it through Paypal again?

I haven't received a bad gateway error, but the DCS website still refuses to say that the payment went through. Checked paypal as well, and it does not show the transaction. Not sure where the problem is. On my profile orders section, I clicked where it said "Details" under the "Actions" column, it had a button marked "Pay", so I attempted to pay a second time. It still has not gone through. It has been probably 20 minutes now since the first attempt. Obviously I will not attempt to pay again, and I assume that I will not be charged twice since the second payment attempt was on the same order. This has never happened to me before.

Thank you. I know how frustrating it can be with bugs, especially when the problem is the platform and not your own code, or worse when it's unclear which is the problem. And of course, part of why it's frustrating for us is that aside from these bugs, the campaign itself is a lot of fun and we just want to play it all the way through.

I get a message with instructions to refuel, and it says to press spacebar to remove the message. But I jever get a message to press spacebar after I am done refueling. I have done this mission several times, wingman remains with the tanker and does not refuel.

I'm having a similar problem. Several times now I've attenpted to refuel and after a few tries I decide to abort my refueling attempt and hope I have enough fuel for the mission. I have tried contacting my wingman and orderijg him to the tanker, I have tried contacting him and ordering him to return to formation. All that happens is he just flies next to the tanker even as I try to fly off to the next waypoint he keeps following the tanker even after it turns away from WP3. I had assumed that this was not a mission where refueling was necessary, but it sounds as though it must be. I can't skip ahead to mission 3 using the logbook because there are multiple mission 3 files, likely due to the way that the "save" workaround works for that mission. I guess I'll come back to this campaign in a few months when it's less buggy. Can't really recommend it to anyone in the current state.

Unfortunately, I'm in a working vacation in the mountains, with lovely 300 KB/s download speeds. I might try downloading it while I'm working, but I doubt it'll be ready by then

That's not exactly how it works, though. Many modules will require at least some work in terms of navigation systems with a new map. There may be other issues as well. Any time you introduce something new, you want to introduce it in the beta version first. Bear in mind, if they introduced it in stable, they would then have to port that stable version over to their beta version anyways. The whole production cycle pretty much requires thrm to release any new feature in beta first. The only alternative would be to release a new feature in both beta and stable simultaneously, and this would be...OK, you know how in Ghostbusters they weren't supposed to cross the streams of their beams? Yeah, it's like that. This is something that you just don't ever want to do because it will create a development nightmare.

The problem is that the logbook file changes constantly. I had an old logbook file backed up from 2018, probably a situation where I must have made some sort of logbook change then as well. And yeah, I should have backed up the file before editing it this time too. But I also wasn't expecting something like this to happen, I figured either the changes to the logbook would work or they wouldn't, not that it would erase the entire contents and overwrite it with a new and empty default logbook. But to properly back up a logbook you'd pretty much have to do it each time you fly.

I'm not sure what you mean about the code-page. I didn't do anything that should have changed the file or filetype, and I was able to confirm that this is the original logbook file based on the creation date of the file itself, so DCS didn't go and create a new logbook.lua file. Dunno about taking a break or not. It was nice to fly a different simulator last night where I didn't have to go in and mess with a bunch of files, I could just load it up and fly. I still don't understand how this could happen.

On Friday, after the last of many frustrating attempts to complete a mission in a campaign, I finally decided to go ahead and just edit the logbook.lua file so that I could pass on to the next mission. When I re-opened DCS, it showed all of my campaigns as inactive. I assume that I must have mistyped something during the editing. But now when I go back to the logbook with the intention of editing it to fix my mistake, the entire logbook has been completely reset. No campaigns, no statistics, nothing, just the basic default values for a new pilot. It shows that the file was last modified on July 10th, which sounds about right. This does not seem like it should be the normal behavior. Instead of an error and being unable to load my campaigns, all of my campaign progress from every single campaign is gone. Windows does not show any restore options, unfortunately, and I suppose it is my fault for not backing up the file before editing it, but I had assumed that if I made a mistake I'd be able to go back and fix it. I have an old backup logbook from 2018 that I had saved a while back. Is there any other way to restore my logbook? Or should I jusr take a break from DCS for a while?

Building missions, campaigns, skins, etc is probably one of the best ways that you can support ED. Those things can drive up interest in a given module. Putting up videos on Youtube might also help increase interest and exposure. Kickstarter would probably not be a very good idea, because that can create situations where ED would feel that they have to complete a project because it has a certain number of donors, even though doing so would mean putting more resources into it than would be justified solely by expected sales. It also would create a rather warped sense of customer interest and push ED towards products that might be highlu desired by a small number of customers over ones that might hace a much broader but less dedicated fan base.

No, what he is saying is that ED has looked over the numbers, and they have decided that their current business model probably works better than any proposed changes. One important rule in business is that it is much easier to get sales from existing customers than it is to bring in new ones, and so you need to be careful about anything that might drive off existing customers. Bringing in new customers is important as well, of course, and usually there is no need to choose between the two. So they've probably considered that many customers already own the modules that they really want. Hence frequent sales to tempt customers towards older modules that maybe don't excite them, but they might buy for $25 instead of $50 (for example, people who don't usually fly helicopters), and working on new products that longtime customers will eagerly buy like Supercarrier and the upcoming Syria map. They probably have a better idea of their various business options, sales figures, customer data, etc than we do

Just a quick note: a subscription model is not really a solution. Subscription services find themselves under more pressure to put out frequent updates and upgrades, and they often have to push cosmetic updates like character skins instead of under-the-hood upgrades because people want to feel like their subscription is paying for something. Just look at the complaints about fewer updates to the Viper as ED has shifted focus to bug-fixing and imagine if each of those complaints constituted lost revenue. And then consider what happens if there is a major showstopping bug. People will simply cancel their subscriptions for a month rather than waiting for it to be fixed, so ED will lose revenue at a time when they need to spend more. All in all it is a bad idea. And while people have mentioned other successful subscription services, none of those are for a single product. The only single game subscription that seems to be successful is World of Warcraft. Several other MMOs have tried to replicate that business model, and almost all eventually switched back to a purchase-based model, even Elder Scrolls Online, a game that came with a massive fanbase before it was even launched. Compare sales of Skyrim to DCS, and then tell me that a DCS subscription will succeed where ESO failed. More third-party content in general may be the best solution, they will earn less per sale, but it requires less up-front expenses and in theory could result in more products for sale and a more rapid development cycle. However, the problems with the Hawk are also a cautionary tale, because third-party content has to be maintained through various updates and changes to the base software. There are good reasons why ED is cautious about bringing in third party devs. We often don't see the risks, because we see the successful third-party devs like Belsimtek and Heatblur and such, and we don't realize how absolutely unexpected and uncommon it is for those sort of success stories to happen.

So, ah, depleted uranium isn't used in nuclear weapons. It would actually be counterproductive to use DU in nuclear weapons (although I have heard that U--238 may be used for the outer casing of some high-yield thermonuclear warheads). DU is what is left over after you have extracted the fissile (ie goes boom) uranium isotope U-235 from a sample of uranium. Depleted uranium has been used in the armor-piercing incendiary (API) 30mm rounds used by the A-10C main gun, although my understanding is that they are transitioning to tungsten or some other substance. Some armor-piercing tank rounds have also used DU. No nuclear weapons have been used in combat since 1945. I believe that we can all, regardless of nation or political faction, hope that they will never be used again.

Does the PIRATE include the ASRAAM? There are soooo many opportunities for inappropriate jokes if it does...

If you're flying single player, the F-14 is going to have its frustrating moments, such as when Jester, who can see the radar, tries to direct you to the enemy fighter, leaving you wanting to shout I'm looking 12 o'clock high, WHERE THE $&%*@`@&$*@ is he?!?!?! The thing is, in the Tomcat you really are the pilot and only the pilot, your RIO is doing all the fun stuff in terms of actually engaging the enemies, especially when the AIM-54 comes into play. If you are only going to have one fighter, the F-14 would not be my first choice. The F/A-18 is farther along than the F-16 at the moment, although both are still missing some features. The F/A-18 is mostly complete in terms of its air-to-air capability, though, it's the air-to-ground stuff (like ground radar) that is missing. And of course, the Hornet also has the whole carrier operations stuff. One of the best aspects of both the Hornet and Viper is that they are multirole. However, if you are looking for a fighter, this may make them slightly less interesting, although there are a few weapons that they have that are not in the Warthog, like HARM, HARPOON, JSOW, and WALLEYE (the last one I believe is only on the Hornet, and it's kinda more of a cool-to-have feature than anything you'd likely use often). But in terms of air-to-air capability, the Hornet does carry more AAMs, especially if you have to use a pair of underwing pylons for fuel. I would probably advise against FC3 if you're used to the Hog, the difference in systems modeling is just going to make them feel like toys. The F-5 is an interesting suggestion, however I'd also suggest looking at the MiG-21 and the Mirage 2000-C as well, those are both fully finished, fully functional, and they are primarily fighters, although both have some multirole capability. The MiG-21 can be especially challenging due to its primitve nature, and landing it will always raise your heartbeat and blood pressure since you have to come in very fast, and have little view of the runway once you're over it. No FBW, pure stick and rudder and prayer. Also no real HOTAS, so you have a choice between using the buttons in the cockpit or binding them to your stick. Also, the navigation system is rather crude using radio beacons, similar to the F-5 but even more primitive. The Mirage 2000-C is really underappreciated. It lacks active homing missles like the AMRAAM, its Matra Super 530 is somewhat similar to the Sparrow, which adds to the challenge, and the tailless delta makes for some interesting differences in flight dynamics. It also has a complex navigation system like the Hog does, although it is very very different. However, it is FBW, like the Viper, so it has a bit of that artificial feel to the controls.

Yes, thank you, that was mentioned at the time. Removing the A-4 did not resolve the problem.

I haven't been able to start a mission without the Viggen falling through the tarmac for 9 months now. Posted about it back in December. Still no resolution. It was a nice module, but I've been sticking with aircraft that are usable.

I removed the A-4 mod from the Saved Games directory. This has not resolved the problem, my Viggen is still sinking through the tarmac. I tried several other aircraft and they do not have this problem, so it appears to be only the Viggen for me.

I tried another mission with the Viggen, this time set to take off from the runway. The same thing happened, except this time when I sank through the tarmac, I got a Mission Script Error: [string "handler = []..."]:8: attempt to index global 'mist' (a nil value) stack traceback: [C]: ? [string "handler = {}..."]:8: in function 'onEvent' [string "Scripts/World/EventHandlers.lua"]:13: in function <[string "Scripts/World/EventHandlers.lua"]:11> I do not know if the script error is related, as I did not get it the first time that I experienced this. I could try to do a repair of the installation, but I am on holiday in the mountains where there are more deer than people, and my internet connection is not very fast. Additionally, after the April 1st debacle, I learned that you should never spend hours trying to fix DCS without first confirming with ED that it is not a prank. This is, ah, not how most professional software developers work, but they've been clear and unapologetic about it.

I just had this happen with the AJS-37 Viggen in the Interdiction mission in Single Player. The mission loads, I am in the cockpit, mission is paused with the briefing screen as usual. The moment I hit Fly, the aircraft sinks through the tarmac. I double-checked the mission editor and it is set to take off from ramp (not hot). I have successfully taken off with the F/A-18C from both ramp and aircraft carrier without a problem. I am running the latest OpenBeta. The only mod that I have installed is the A-4, but I have not flown it in a long time and I have not updated it since it was released, I cannot imagine that it is the cause (but if it is, it needs to be yanked from circulation). Can we confirm that this is not just another prank by the ED programmers again? I hate to have to ask, but they've pulled this sort of thing before.

I'm done. I might consider returning if and when (not holding my breath) some devs are willing to apologize and promise that their code doesn't contain any more hidden undocumented "surprises"

I'm waiting to hear confirmation from ED as to whether this is intentional behavior. Why should I install an update that already has one un-announced "joke" in it? How do I know that they haven't put in any other "jokes" that we haven't found yet? Go look at the bug reporting sections of this forum where people have reported spending hours using diagnostic tools looking for a hardware fault and then tell me this was funny. I have experience with other software developers who started with "jokes" and "pranks" that eventually escalated into redirecting their customers' connections for a DDOS "prank" on a rival. I don't like installing software that has un-announced "features". It makes it hard to trust the developers. Especially with things like, just for example, paypal information. Or automatic crash reporting. Or all of the other ways that developers say "trust us" and rely on goodwill and their reputation. And 99.9% of the time that trust is fully earned. But I've experienced the 0.1% of the time when that trust is lost. At the very least, ED showed horrible judgement. But what's worse is that they put this out as an urgent hotfix and even went so far as to say that people needed to update if they wanted to access multiplayer servers. And they did that to try to encourage people to download their "joke". So what happens the next time that there really is an urgent hotfix? "Haha, fooled me once" and people won't update. Seriously, the problem with April Fools Day is that some people really think they are funnier than they actually are. Abusing people's trust when you want them to give you money and install your proprietary code on their comouters is just so far beyond stupid that words fail me. So yes, I really will consider uninstalling DCS, or maybe just remaining with the version I currently have for the foreseeable future. At the very least, I won't be installing any updates if they really have shown that I should not trust their code. This isn't funny. At all.