311Gryphon

I tend to agree. A-10C was my first module to learn so that may be part of it. Switching over to the F/A-18 and F-16 has been weird and they don't make much sense to me at times.

Also rear firing missiles face an interesting problem as they have to accelerate through 0 velocity and near that area they have zero control with conventional control surfaces. Experimentation has been done with thrust vectoring but it seems to not be that big of a priority, for some reasons yo mentioned.

I was thinking about entering but couldn't help myself and bought it. These are good screenshots though so I'm guessing I made the right choice. LOL. Good luck everyone and thanks to vJaBoG 66 for doing this. Happy flying.

Is there a more elegant solution than that? Currently that line is commented out on my entry.lua and line 64 is active. I'm not sure what they do but it appears that only one should be active at a time. I'm guessing as the mod was updated new lines were added and the old ones commented out, and if that's the case something happened after an update to hose line 64.

Similar to this post except I have FC3. When I first downloaded the mod it worked great. I started getting questions on my YT channel about it not allowing the players to fly. They could put the Su-57 in and allow AI to fly it but were never able to fly it. I assumed they were just missing something in the Mission Editor but I finally went in to try it myself and I was no longer able to fly the Su-57. Does anyone know why this is happening? I'm assuming a DCS update did something. Maybe I need to reinstall the mod? Aside from that this has been a lot of fun and I'm stoked to see where the mod goes from here.

Oh, you'll probably want to skip to like 1:45 on that video to avoid watching me download templates. Also, here is another person's tutorial from earlier but it may help too. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=73093

There are quite a few. I know I used a .pdf when I started learning on the A-10C. I wound up putting together two different series of videos on it but I'm not sure they're the best. There are some nuances to each module...or there can be anyway, so it is doubtful that a single tutorial will answer all your questions. I reference the .pdf I think in these videos so you might check those out first. Maybe my videos will help at least. This is the first video of 2: In general I think the hardest parts for me is finding where the different parts of the mesh are on the texture file, getting the seams right, and a distant third would be getting the files in the right locations. There are a few different places you can put files but that isn't as hard to work out. Hopefully this helps.

What's the best method for finding the proper viewport terms for the various instruments and "dohickies"? For instance and completely hypothetically: IPC? EDIT: Perhaps in the devices.lua that is in Mods\aircraft\F-16C\Cockpit\Scripts\ ?

I kind of agree. I see both sides of the issue as I'm a consumer like the rest of us and I've been in customer support roles on projects that got released in beta states. I have some sympathy for the devs but I also get the frustration. I think the issue for me is that the F-16 was less complete than I thought it would be (unmet expectations but there's not much that can be done about it in this case so I'll not hold it against anyone) and the fact that I'm not really impressed with how fast some of the historical products have been "completed". I know people are working hard, I'm not trying to suggest they aren't. The work that gets done is usually impressive and well received. I guess it's just sort of frustrating to grab a module in early access knowing it's not complete yet, then wait months and months and months to get features. It's how the process goes, and I'll not complain about it TOO much; however, it's frustrating. And I'd like to see a benchmark for what "complete" means as well. Maybe there is one, but for me, if it is missing any systems or features that were decided upon when it was announced, basic training missions (cold start, taxi-take off, landing, basic weapon systems, etc), a handful of single missions for SP and MP, a complete and accurate user manual, a texture template, and a campaign (yes a campaign) then the module isn't complete. I'll be a little lenient on the campaign but I think every module should come with some kind of campaign even if it's a relatively short one. That's my cent and a half. Keep up the good work, Eagle Dynamics. There is a ton of stuff you all are doing really well so don't let up off the throttle. There will be frustrations for sure and many are valid, but it doesn't mean we don't appreciate what is being done. Thanks.

Whoops, I uploaded the last video but my video editor messed it up and I didn't watch it after the render. I had to take it down and will try again tomorrow.

I won't disagree with you and that makes complete sense. I'd also agree with the rest of what you've said. The only thing I would reiterate, and this only in case I've poorly communicated it thus far, is that the barrier to entry for other scenarios using this same map and many of the resources is low. For instance, a Battle of Britain scenario is not THAT far away. I'm good with waiting for it till AFTER the post-invasion stuff is hashed out, I'm not advocating taking focus away from that. I'm simply wanting to ensure that the desire for focus doesn't present an idea that there isn't a desire for other scenarios. I'll duck out now. Your explanation makes complete sense.

I read the original post and am aware of what units are listed. I'm dissapointed on a number of levels and not necessarily with the list. I think the list is a good list and I know they've said countless times that other units may (and probably will) be added later in time. That's good and I'm very happy about that. I have several levels of frustration that I won't really get into here. Most of it is just mild frustration so I'm trying hard to be positive and not downplay the progress that has been made thus far. But on the topic of this conversation my frustration only stems from the fact that I'm seeing requests that seem rather reasonable and then I'm seeing a lot of people saying "tough luck it was meant to be 1944 only" and I don't see the reason for that. We have a map that could be used for some very, very, very good missions going back to 1940 but we'll apparently never have the resources to make such a mission. I don't think it would take much. I don't think any one expects ED or any other developer to remake the Spitfire or BF-109 or any other plane in a variant 2 years older. I think what people would like to see, eventually, is a few more AI aircraft types to widen the range of scenarios they can put into the game. Even if the aircraft we fly aren't exactly correct for 1940 - 1943 it would be close enough to have a bit of fun. Saying this map is only good for 1944 is basically like saying any other map is only good for 1982 and then ignoring the possibility of making any other assets that weren't around in that year. Obviously, Normandy is a bit of a special case due to the lack of already existing assets for that time period so I'll cut a little slack. I'd just like to have the option of making missions from The Battle of Britain at least, in addition to D-Day and post D-Day. Especially with the real estate we've been given. I'm not trying to argue or bad mouth the plan...just throwing a humble two pence out. It's a simple customer's opinion. Take it or leave it. Or take it partially. To put it in an "elevator talk" format, ED will get a lot more bang for their buck on Normandy and the Asset pack if they include a few more AI aircraft, because more people will find more to do with it and other people will see that and want to play along. As it stands, there just isn't enough included to keep me flying there for long.

I hope everyone will keep in mind that we don't have to be limited to 1944. I'm sure someone will point out that the aircraft we have available to fly weren't the versions available 1940-1943 but I really don't care. To be honest, I bought Normandy and the WWII Assets Pack a couple weeks ago and I'm kind of disappointed in both. I'm going to keep calm and not get too worked up over it and hopefully we'll eventually get enough assets to make better missions. All of this is to say that I wouldn't limit the AP to have only things available in 1944. The more assets we have the more missions we can create. They don't all have to be perfectly historically authentic. :thumbup:

We're nearing the end. This is the 2nd to last video in the bracket. This one wound up being a bit better just due to them all being purpose built air superiority fighters. I wouldn't call them close necessarily but a couple weren't one and done fights at least. Next video will be the finale of the regular bracket. I do plan on doing a guns only bracket though. Maybe single elimination so I'm not stuck doing this till mid-summer.

Round 4 - Winners and Losers brackets

Losers Bracket Rounds 1 and 2

Round Two

I'd be willing to look at it and see if I can make it happen. Do you have any images you could link? The more the merrier and if you have any detail images of the decals you want throw them in too.

Wow...I came in here intending to tackle a skin request but I'm afraid I don't have the time to make that one. It's a bit involved for my abilities and time.

I know this is old but I never saw it. In case anyone stumbles over here looking for this maybe the below information can help. Some of the modules work a little differently but usually you can find a pilot skin and a helmet skin, and sometimes a patch skin. These aren't really templates but just textures, so at least for me, I have to get creative using GIMP to change them because they aren't layered. Some helmets use one side of the helmet and mirror it, so you can't use words or do anything other than bi-symmetrical designs. Others show both sides so you can get away with different designs. In some modules the pilot skin also contains the patches. In some you do different patches and the game applies those to the pilot. The files need to be saved as .dds files just like airplane textures. I save them as 24 bit .bmp files then convert them to .dds with DXTBMP. I'm positive there is a GIMP plugin that can save to .dds but I just haven't gotten it. I suspect 32 bit .bmp files would be fine but I have just never done it that way. Once you have the .dds files of your pilot and helmet in your texture folder (with your plane textures) you call them up in the .lua files similarly. And again, this can vary from module to module. If you can't find the right lines to add see if you can find someone's custom texture that include a pilot and helmet, download it, and look at their .lua. For the A-10 it is: {"pilot_a10_helmet", 0 , "YOURHELMETFILENAME" , false}; {"pilot_a10_body", 0 , "YOURPILOTFILENAME", false}; For P-51 it is: {"pilot_P51_patch", 0 ,"YOURPATCHFILENAME",false}; {"pilot_p51_body", 0 , "YOURPILOTFILENAME",false}; {"pilot_P51_helmet_A", 0 ,"YOURHELMETFILENAME",False}; For F-15: {"pilot_F15_patch", 0 ,"YOURPATCHFILENAME",false}; {"pilot_F15_00_helmet", 0 , "YOURHELMETFILENAME", false}; {"pilot_F15_00_body", 0 ,"YOURPILOTFILENAME",false}; For UH1: {"pilot_UH1_patch", 0 ,"YOURPATCHFILENAME",false}; {"pilot_UH1_helmet", 0 , "YOURHELMETFILENAME", false}; {"pilot_UH1", 0 ,"YOURPILOTFILENAME",false}; Those are all of them I've done. I haven't gotten around to doing a custom helmet and patches for my F-18 pilot yet. Should be similar. Additionally I did a few different videos on skinning on my YouTube channel. There are some early ones specifically about the A-10 and I did a series later on specifically how to use GIMP, so they may not be quite what you're looking for but may help. Link in my subject line to my channel.

I too would like to know. I've adjusted reflectivity on other skins using spec files but I can't seem to find any for the A-10C. I would assume it could work the same way, but was anything like that ever implemented for this module? It wouldn't be very necessary for realistic operations I suppose.

Round one is in the books.

I honestly don't know the answer but since it's been 24 hours since you asked the question....I would assume MP4 would be best but I don't really know. Having said that, all my recordings have been in MP4 and the quality could be better. They're decent enough but maybe there are better options. Plus Pinnacle Studio seems to not handle them as well as I wish it did so I think I lose some quality there too.