Flagrum

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.

Nice! Embedding YT Vids now works without any special handling - just copy&paste the complete link into the editor!

I can't edit my old postings made prior to the forum engine update. But maybe I can edit at least newly created ones? edit: yes, I can!

When an issue is reported, they are tagged by Elmo to assign them to a certain category. Most of those tags are self-explanatory: [REPORTED] = a bug is acknowledged and is scheduled for fixing; [uSER ERROR] = this is not a bug in the module, but the user was using the feature in a wrong way or under wrong assumptions. And so on. But there are a few others where I am not so sure that I understand them the same way as Razbam. Specifically I struggle to understand the difference between [NO BUG], [AS INTENDED] and [FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION]. NO BUG seems obvious: the reported problem is not caused by a bug, but the feature is working as in the real aicraft - which might be very well be a bit quirky. And FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION means for me, the reported problem is due to the fact that the feature is not finished, yet. It is WIP, but will be working as in the real aircraft at some point in the future. But now, how does AS INTENDED fit in-between(?) here? How I read it: the feature is working the way Razbam want it to work. But it might not be the way it works in the real aircraft. Otherwise it should be tagged NO BUG. But as it is also not tagged as FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION, I am now worried, that it might never be working as in the real thing. Which, for certain type of problems, may be very well be acceptable of course. For example when it comes to certain technical (or legal) limitations of what can be done in DCS. But there are many problems reported and tagged like that, where I struggle to see any valid reason. So, is my interpretation of what the tags mean correct? And if it is, can we have at least a brief explanation of the decision to not implement a feature, as it would be in the real aircraft, in the respective problem report threads? Or did I get it all wrong and AS INTENDED is just a different wording for WIP/FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION? Some clarification from i.e. Elmo, would be greatly appreciated!

No. Ask again in 10 years.

You want your VR recorded tracks as if they were not recorded in VR? Why? I mean, perhaps VR is not the best option to begin with if you want to record some Glowing Amraam style footage? Changing the environment for the replay is problematic, be that an other aircraft in the same flight (you, flying formation with the recorded aircraft) or different weather. It potentially or actually changes the flight parameters that the recorded aircraft has no knowledge of. It will crash into you, or be blown off course, or whatever ...

It's better now as now progress is visible - thanks to Elmo, but also very much thanks to the devs.

Are we confident that the missile should not loft - at all? I mean, it should be possible to get at least a rough estimate of the range as the slant angle and current altitute should be known. Also it should not be necessary to go straight down to the target. Instead the missile could try to keep the target near the lower edge of the seeker FOV and align more precisely as it gets closer to the target (i.e. as the rate of the slant angle change increases; similar to ARBS).

I had experienced something similar, but haven't had the time to investigate it futher. But at that moment, it seemed to me, that slewing the TPOD was using the world coordinates of the target point as reference, and not the screen coordinates of the display. This was very confusing, because as you fly the relation of target point and aircraft was constantly changing and thus was the direction of the TPOD movement when using the same slew control.

One aspect might be, that this content has to be mainainted. As DCS evolves, things change and this community content has to be adjusted as well in order to function properly. Skins depend on the 3D models, 3D models themselfs need skins/textures, which also depend on the rendering engine, etc. Who will, reliably, maintain this content, once it is included into the base game?

This thread started in the FA-18 subforum? Now it is under the Mods & Apps subforum?? --> This belongs into Chit Chat, tbh.

In theory (I am only guessing here), gyro stabilized should keep the vertical and horizontal axis of the sensor fixed in relation to the earth(horizon?). Ground stabilizes then should keep the sensor pointing at the same spot at ground elevation. The difference would be the moving aircraft. When ground stabilizued, the horiz. and vertical angle of the seeker would compensate for aircraft movement, but gyro stabilized would not. Example: you point the seeker directly in front of you, 45 deg. downwards. Gyro stabilized would keep that 45 degree angle and your pipper would move as the aircraft moves forward. When Ground stabilized, the initial angle of 45 degree would get bigger as the aircraft moves forward, keeping the pipper at the initial point all the time. Depending on the course of the aircraft, the position + distance of the target and the duration you are observing this, it might be plausible that you would not notice much of a difference.

I would assume that this behaviour is correct. You don't assign the TDC to the DDI, but to the sensor that is currently active on that DDI. I would therefore also assume (but haven't verified this, yet) that after you switched to a different sensor and then go back to the first sensor, the TDC should still be available there.

It's all less functional than before. With the old style, you could see everywhere which thread in which subforum was posted in last that you haven't read yet. Now you have always to navigate to at least the thread list to see that. In the forum overview, you see the last posting in that section, but you don't actually see in which sub-forum it was made. That's a bit pointless, imo. I used to skim over all subforums by just looking for the latest posings in thread that I might find interesting. Now I have to navigate in and out of each sub-section ... Directly jumping to the last not yet read posting is not available everywhere. I guess, this will be fixed soon...ish. In the News section and here in Customer Support, you only see the name of the last poster in a forum or thread, but you have to hit a 4x4 px icon to go there (instead of just automatically getting there by clicking the thread name link).

No mobile-style giant icons, true. But several features that were previously available automatically are now only available by clicking a tiny icon. For example, accessing the last not-yet-read posing in a thread was the default for the link behind the thread title. Now you have to hit that - what is it 4x4 px icon in front of the thread title. :( Why would anyone want to default to go to the beginning of a threat? "last not read posting" was soooo much more usefull ... Or the last posting in a thread was accessible at the forum list and the thread list by clicking at the last poster link. Now this is also available by clicking an other tiny icon. edit: "first not yet read thread"-link is actually available like it was, but not everywhere. It does not work in the "News" section and not here in "Customer Support".

This. Afaik the WCMD are INS guided. That means they actively steer towards the designated tgt - even if wind tries to blow them off course. But once they released the submunitions, there is no INS anymore, only dumb bomblets.