Flagrum

There are not many threads about only one certain aircraft. Reality is rather, that in every thread always at least one person posts "I'd like to see a XXX" which inevitably lead to respones like "No, while XXX is nice, I would sell my grandma for a XXY" and so on. It is just getting soooo old after some years. F-16, Ka50 with AA missiles, AH-64(E please!), F-1xx, F-yy ...

fwiw ...

Why? And why do you not read the 5-43 other threads here in the wishlist sub-forum covering the same question?

FFB implementation is a mess. Use the forum search function here and you find several threads describing several, rather fundamental issues. Iirc, the devs stated some weeks ago that they assume the FFB implementation basically as finished. *shrug* :noexpression: edit: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=214310 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=173762 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=204804 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196099 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202962

Because it was faaaar too obvious. ^^

GG, you used the term "english bias" several times - what does that mean, I never heared that before? Or is it just a mistype and you meant "angle bias" (which, in my non-english-native-speaking ears, would make at least some sense in the given context)?

Dead reckoning

No.

Maybe it's my (lacking) english language capabilities, but the thread title asks for "fixes" as in bug fixes, not for new features? And bug fixes are certainly necessary - to make features work as they were intended. Not adding new (also not bug-free) features...

That would contradict the meaning of "bundle" ... "Buy a new car and get the first inspection for free!!" "Hm, I have a car already, but I'd like to have that free inspection, please!" ;o)

The English cockpit is supposed to be available now since the last patch, but I can't get it to show up. I've set the Special Options to, ofc, "English", but in game it still shows the French one. Ran a repair, but it didn't help. Anyone got it to work?

That would be a M2000 issue then. IFF transponders are not modelled in any module so far, instead IFF completely is up to the implementation of the IFF requestor side.

How do you know what you will use a lot ... if you don't have it installed? ^^

Well then, please share! I think, many of us would want to know more about the AP and how it does what it does so that the helo's flight behaviour seem so much ... "different" than that of other helos.

Accoding to the change log of today, the Hornet can now carry Mk-82Y. But what is the difference to the known Mk-82AIR that whe had for ages for the A-10C?

The thing with these batch runs is, first you wait a few years and when they actually produce a batch, you must be quick. If you miss that window of maybe a few weeks (because you got bored to check their news every week ... ), it's another 6-12 months of wait. IF they not switch over to another product (i.e. another 1-2 years waiting). No matter how good their products are, but I am getting too old to wait half a decade for a f*ng joystick ...

Since a couple of months AI ground units also got the ability to divert from their pre-set route that was set in the mission editor. This new...ish GO TO WAYPOINT functionality seems to be quite incomplete/WIP ... or broken. I think, I posted somewhere about this already (right after the feature was introduced), but for the heck of it, I can't find it anymore. So, I'll try to document all my findings here now. Please watch the track - it illustrates several issues. In this mission, I wanted a AI unit to show a patrol-style behavior. The unit should continue it's route a WP 1 after reaching WP 3 and thus going around and around forever. For that, I had set a "PERFORM TASK: go to waypoint" as Advanced Waypoint Action at WP 3. Issue 1: what happens is that the unit does indeed go to WP 1 after reaching WP 3, but then it does not follow the roure any further. Instead it seems, that the "go to waypoint" is never finishing - even when the unit had arrived there, it never stops moving and maneuvers back and forth and around WP 3. I had also added a global trigger that does an "AI PUSH TASK: go to waipoint 4" if the unit was damaged. The idea here was to make the unit "flee" if they got shot at on their patrol route. Issue 2 (might be the same issue as 1?): when fired upon, the unit does indeed go to WP 4. But there it then turns around and goes back where it startet from. In this case it was again WP 1 where it was still idling around. Back at WP 1 it continued what it was doing before ... idling around a bit more. Issue 3: when heading to the new waypoint, the unit seems to ignore all WP related settings. The speed seems off, the formation is neither that of the last WP nor of the "go to" WP. Further testing might be neccessary to confirm that other apects, i.e. set by earlier WP actions, are ignored as well... Issue 4: there is a "PERFORM TASK: go to waypoint" and there is a "SET COMMAND: go to waypoint". The behaviour of both seem to be identical. Conclusion: In a way, "go to waypoint" does what it says ... but as such, is not really usefull. The action should work more like "set next waypoint" - i.e. follow the defined route, starting with the new waypoint, while respecting all respective WP and route settings from there on. All in all, this feature looks very "WIP" at least. If a tester would confirm that this is reported/known/worked on, after all these months that it was implemented initially, that would be great! Thanks!

I see.

DCS and it's modules, like the F/A-18, receive updates about every second week. The updates are alternating weekly between the stable version of DCS and the open beta version - so every other week the accumulated changes are available to be installed by the DCS updater program. Check out the release notes for both DCS variants here to get a feeling of what and when happens in regards of updates: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=214251 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200724

Mhm ... ja ... oh! ... nein, doch nicht. Nein, meine Kristallkugel bleibt dunkel, die Schleier lichten sich nicht. Aber poste mal die log files von dem Vorfall, dann können wir es nochmal mit Tarot Karten versuchen.

So you were about one minute faster than him to hit the "Submit Reply" button. You're awesome. That will teach him to read and type faster next time so that you will be the second one to reply.

Versuch's hier: https://www.gutefrage.net

Afaik the wingmen are already supposed to replicate your exterior lighting settings. Might be bugged, though (haven't paid attention to that lately).

Assuming that the max. range of DCS designation lasers will be fixed, the TPOD logic should work something like this, imo: - check that the laser spot is actually located at a position (near) the ground or an object. That would prevent that "Maverick kite-ing" where the AGM follows the "tip" of the beam from happening. - check that the distance to the laser spot is within a decent range before allowing a stable lock.

Yes, sure, that is all well and good. But without any moving air, nothing of all that happens. So the air speed does matter - i.e. at 0 kts = no pressure difference anywhere. And I assume, the higher the air speed, the more pronounced the effect is.