AndyJWest

It may be working better than it was, but it still has issues. As for rewind, I don't think that is possible without a fundamental rewrite. As I understand it, track files essentially 'play through' a mission, and consist of data on the initial situation, followed by user inputs. If that is all the data available, it simply isn't possible to 'rewind' to arbitrary points in the recording.

If anyone wants to 'support DCS', they can buy more stuff. If they already own all the stuff, they can still buy more, and gift it to someone else. As for 'bonus content', creating new material and then only making it available to a subset of your customer base is almost always a poor business decision. If it is worth having, sell it like anything else.

In answer to the obvious question, 'doesn't that hurt?' I can definitively state that nobody knows, but most likely, yes, it does... From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodpecker

This seems to be a result of the way the scratchpad on the UFC probably works. It appears to be a segmented display, rather than a bitmapped device. Only the first two possible characters are alphanumeric, and the remaining seven are numeric only, according to NATOPS. The 'A's or 'R's are '8's with the bottom segment unlit. The option display windows to the right have a different segment layout, so can show more characters.

Not possible. Completely different data formats, and a TacView file simply doesn't contain all the necessary data - compare the file sizes.

Sadly, I seem never to have any to spare. Can I download more from somewhere?

Oddly enough, in the case of the Mosquito, it might be. The construction method results in an outer skin largely lacking the small-scale details - panel lines, rivets etc - that add extra complexity to otherwise simple shapes. Having said that, it's a fairly ambitious project compared to other DCS WW2 aircraft, and I doubt this makes any significant difference.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_Havilland_Mosquito_wreck_West_Malling_-_Royal_Air_Force_-_Air_Defence_of_Great_Britain_(adgb),_1944_CE136.jpg

Yup, 6.8.2. I only tested it briefly though, it is possible there is still an issue somewhere. Maybe another mod causing a conflict?

I've just tried creating a Herc mission on the Marianas map, and it worked ok for me.

Yup. Not all heroes wear capes, as they say. Though come to think of it, can we be sure he doesn't?

Opinions seem to differ on this. It has been suggested that since the ball is configured for the Hornet, following it precisely may not put you in the optimum spot. And there may possibly also be some subtle errors with the hook positioning and/or landing gear position and behaviour that affect trapping negatively. Some people seem to follow procedure and trap consistently. Others do the same thing, and have issues. Personally, I've not been able to be consistent enough to say one way or another, though it is clearly better for my ego to say it's the sims fault not mine. I'd concentrate on trying to be consistent, and if you can do that, maybe try experimenting a bit to see if you can 'tweak' your approach slightly from the 'exact' real-world optimum to get better results. The mod is a work in progress, and it is possible that any issues will be resolved in a later release.

Have you tried restarting Windows, rather than shutting it down and turning it back on? Win 10 behaves differently by default than previous versions, and during a normal shutdown will 'hibernate' the kernel to storage, for faster startup. A restart will sometimes fix odd issues that shutting down won't, since it gets things going again from scratch.

See the v1.0.1 changelog: "Removed SRS script from download; the T-45 is now integrated into the latest SRS update".

My beta install is 267.4 GB. 169.5 GB of that is in the 'terrains' folder. The maps use a lot of storage.

You use AoA, not speed. Much more precise, in an aircraft that can vary quite a bit in landing weight. And note that you don't flare for landing. I think there may be a bit of an issue with trapping currently though, as the mod aircraft sits too high with weight on wheels. This might possibly hold the hook up a few inches higher than it would be IRL.

Won't that give you a negative result if the wind 'direction to' is less than 180 degrees? I've not tried it, but I think this should probably give the right result, if I understand correctly how Lua math.atan2 works: local windDir = math.deg(math.atan2(-WIND_Y:get(),-WIND_X:get())) Note the minus signs.

Why are you expecting a different response to the last time you made this request, three weeks ago? https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/269391-will-pay-to-fix-mig-31-mod/?tab=comments#comment-4645001

You need to be at 20,500 lbs or less for VTOL, per Chuck's guide.

What weight are you trying to take off at?

The mod is built for 2.7. It won't run with earlier versions.

I think I've confirmed that the error on the HSI is due to not taking magnetic declination into account. Use the editor to set up a T-45 on the Nellis AFB runway, with the next waypoint aligned with it, to the northeast. The HUD etc show the runway heading as about 28° (the runway is marked as 03, as rounded per standard practice), but the heading to the waypoint is shown on the HSI as something like 40°. If you take off straight ahead, and maintain you heading as shown on the HUD (28°) you will overfly the waypoint. Magnetic declination in Nevada is about 12° East.

Is this an issue with the difference between true north and magnetic north not being taken into account on the HSI?

Many thanks, Chuck.

Yup, it's a three-way switch. Incidentally, you'll be better off asking for help in the T-45 thread, rather than in the general DCS world subforum, if you have problems with the mod. People with relevant knowledge may not see it here. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/203816-vnao-t-45-goshawk/#comments