Flagrum

Also the special option works only when starting a new mission. If you respawn within a running mission, you always get the indicators, not matter what the special option says.

I just found out, that RPG dudes shoot at helos now! This must be relatively new? I always wanted them to be a threat - thanks ED!

@myHelljumper or @RAZBAM_ELMO Can someone of you guys please have a look at this? For months now people are raising concerns and provide evidence that the current implementation of this feature is in need of a rework, but it seems this completely slipped through Razbam's net. tl;dr: *bump*

... if it goes super sonic. ^^

The new 3D Model for the Blackshark 3 seems to have functional avionics access panels on the fuselage. A few other aircraft have already something similar as well. It would be great, if those panes would be clickable if in F2 view (plus weight-on-wheels) and could be opened and closed by the user! That would allow - to some extend - to pretend that we virtual pilots perform a proper walkaround. Really nothing fancy in terms of simulating anything, just for the visuals experience. If there is already detailed 3D modelling present, why hide id 99% of the time behind closed access panels?

Yes, perhaps. But different people might be, well, different. But whatever, lets just lock everything and eventually and finally get rid of one of DCS' best features - it's moddability (mod, as in modification/altering stuff).

Yes, software runs on hardware and therefore if hardware fails, software is always involved in one way or the other. But it is the responsibility of the OS and it's drivers to allow access to the hardware within it's specifications. Regular applications like DCS have no real way to make the PC hardware work outside it's safe parameters - aside of user(admin!) errors and hardware issues.

This kills half of the comunity mods, which people might enjoy in singleplayer. Why can't this be enforced by the IC check for multiplayer?

Getting worse and worse? That sounds more like a hardware problem which is worsening over time. Maybe a failed fan that causes overheating? Or something wrong with the PSU. Software can not "progressively" damage your hardware.

Chapter "LITENING II TARGETING POD" / "Designating Targets Using the Laser" "When set to MARK, the laser designator will fire. This laser is invisible to the eye, and provides a firing solution for laser-guided munitions like the GBU-12 and AGM-65E." --> replace MARK with LTD/R "When the emitter is set to PTR, the LTD/R fires an eye-safe infrared pointer. This laser pointer is visible at night when wearing night-vision goggles, and is used to visually point out targets." --> replace LTD/R with MARK

This is already reported, according to BigNewy:

There are actually several Bug Reports that are tagged as [future implementation] but moved to "Resolved". I understand "future implementation" as "yes, it is not working right now, but we will make it work some day" and thus it is still an open issue, it is not "resolved".

Was ich merkwürdig finde: ich sehe in den Logs nicht, dass ein Joystick oder Ruderpedale erkannt worden wäre. Nur Maus, Tastatur, etc. Was benutzt du da und kannst du bestätigen, dass das Gerät funktioniert (anderes Game, Windows Control Panel)? Ansonsten scheint irgendwie der Grafikkartentreiber zu crashen. Sind die Treiber aktuell - oder hast du die Treiber vielleicht gerade erst aktualisiert?

CTRL+Z, CTRL+Z, CTRL+Z ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think, you mixed up who posted what? At least I can not see any snarkyness in bkthunder's posting ... And as to why let the aircraft acellerate beyond it's envelope: to demonstrate this bug. It's like "Gosh, this is really fast for a Harrier. Should this even be physically possible? Let's see where we end up with!"

A lot of mods under "Saved Games" also produce many errors. I would try it without them.

Thanks, I haven't seen that. So it is "as intended", but I still think, it should not be that way. Call it a feature request then, but sitting at the end of the runway with enabled parking brake makes no sense, imo.

When the mission is set to "starting from runway", the parking brake is enabled when the aircraft is spawend. Should not be enabled - I doubt, that enabling the parking brake is considered SOP after lining up on the runway.

Thanks for your reply. But the main reason for my question was that I am worried that my interpretations were correct, specifically in regards to the differentiation between "As intended" and "No bug". Unfortunately you now seem to have confirmed my worries. To summarize: [AS INTENDED] means, the feature works as Razbam want it to work and does not plan to change it's behaviour. It does not mean, that the feature necessarily works as in the real aircraft. Different reasons for this could be: technical limitations, (lack of) available documentation, and probably many more ("comercial business decisions"?). There are quite a few bug reports tagged as "As intended" - and that is, what worries me. It means, that those features most likely are not working as in the real machine. A better understanding of why Razbam deviates from the DCS gold standard (most realistic sim, etc.) in these cases would help a long way to mitigate such worries. Therefore I politely suggest, that you explain in the respective bug report the reason of tagging it as "As intended". (Quite similar to, for example, cases of "User error" where you explain what the pilot did wrong.) Thank you!

What does it do if i tag someone by prefixing his nickname, i.e. @Flagrum? My assuption is, the person gets a notification that he was mentioned in a posting? Well, let's see ... edit: No, does not notify me - at least not for self-tagging. Could someone else please tag me here to check? Ty!

tagging@RAZBAM_ELMO - could you please chime in? Thanks.

A very broadly used feature here was to use links to other postings to point the reader to similar topics, related content, etc. Help requests were linked to already posted answers, bug reports to already found solutions, and so on. These links were just the respective URL of a posting, copy and pasted into the editor, of the form https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=nnnn ALL these links were not converted during the forum migration, as it seems! They are now all dead links! A massive amount of information is now lost. I hope this can still be corrected...

Wayback machine only works, if the old posting is old enough and was already indexed by Wayback machine before the forum changed. I.e. how do I get to https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3552954 ? If an automatic redirection is not possible, maybe we can get some sort of tool (accessible directly from the 404 error page?) that generates a clickable link when a old topic or posting number is entered?

You can either enter an direkt link to a graphics file directly in the posting, or via the "Other Media" function (imgur "direct link", i.e. hxxps://i.imgur.com/KGTIcao.jpg ):

As the notice on top of the forums says, the old forum content is currently converted. Many threads are already fixed and the formatting is ok again. Your thread probably will be processed later. This processing of the old forum content is probably also the reason, why we can't edit old postings (for newly created, it does work). Editing is probably disabled so that nobody interferes with the ongoing converting process.