NeilWillis

Purely speculation - which was my entire point. You cannot possibly know what's coming, so why make sweeping statements about stuff that may, or more crucially MAY NOT change anything at all. All we can do is wait, and see.

Excellent, thanks.

Warranty. Send them back, and get them exchanged.

One thing that may help is to rename your saved games folder. Sometimes the inputs corrupt, and you end up crashing every time you try to save after mapping changes. If that solves the problem, reinstate stuff from the original saved games directory back into the new one that gets created when you re-start DCS World after the rename. I am afraid smallberries is incorrect in his assumptions. You can remap controls from the options screen, and make as many changes as you like without issues. If you've got instability, try the saved games reset as described here.

Most definitely not certain at all. I suspect if the mods work in 2.2 they ought to work in 2.5 too. The biggest difference will be to the Caucasus map, so missions will need tweaking, but that in no way implies that mods will all be obsolete. Add them gradually and test them of course, but you are most definitely certainly wrong Sirius.

As an alternative, take a look at VKBs website. They have a Hornet style stick too, but it is not yet available in Europe unfortunately.

There are a number of virtual squadrons that will be happy to provide training. Just browse the thread where they are all listed, and pick one. Here's a link: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=34062

Yes, the extension he was talking about is a tube that goes between the stick and the base, to give better control but it is not needed to fly the Hornet. You will be able to map controls and buttons to any type of joystick and throttle combo.

So you'd be able to create a sectional chart, with all the terrain features, airport approach plates, elevation details and all the other essentials for VFR as well as IFR navigation? Nothing to do with reality, just about making use of real world data to fly realistically on a DCS World map. Check out all the documentation easily available on-line for pilots. I can't see creating a fictional map would be any less labour intensive than taking real relief scans and making them into usable terrain. Regarding the polls - just scroll down to the bottom of the window when you create a new thread. The poll stuff is all pretty self explanatory - unlike how terrain and maps work together work it seems!

I read it as a wide test of the procedure to update to 2.5 by the method described. I take it that wasn't the meaning then. Hopefully we'll see the update out this week as anticipated then. I don't mind which, as long as we are not misreading the situation. Personally, I would be happy to see a smooth run out rather than a quick one.

What is the point of fictional maps? Aren't there enough regions of the real world to be replicated? What would you do regarding navigation and mapping? Seems to me this is an utterly nonsensical suggestion. So no! And why couldn't you have done this as a poll if you want to do market research? I suspect you haven't really given this much thought at all have you!

"Some time (maybe one-two weeks, we hope no more) for wide test of this procedure." Does this now mean you will be missing the "End of January" deadline you have promised? One week takes us to the 31st, and 2 weeks takes us to February. If you're testing it on the 31st you are sure as hell cutting it fine!

Probably because the pilot is incapacitated, and you're just the pilot but with an external view to bypass the lack of vision. Does it happen when the aircraft is re-configured? It may be a bug, but it should be avoidable if you don't go to that particular part of the envelope. Pin down the exact parameters, then submit a proper bug report. It'll get followed up if the data is included.

Doesn't it all depend on the environment Fri13? The use of jargon within a community that uses said jargon is definitely not elitist, it just means they're communicating in the most effective way they know how. Using jargon outside that community however, would just mean a total failure to communicate. Hardly something you could label elitist. As for the term super bug - it's in common usage within the flight sim community, so what is wrong with using it on a flight sim forum? Just go with the flow, and if people choose to use jargon, so be it. You won't change anyone's attitudes by attaching provocative labels to them.

Repair, backup, install, repair, transfer necessary files. Or back up essential filess, start with a completely new install, and then add what you need little by little testing as you go.

80% of the avionics, and a percentage of the airframe doesn't make it any more simple to recreate. First, there is the small issue of classified information (probably that entire 20% of the avionics), then there is the small matter of completely remodelling everything from flight model, to 3D model. Frankly it is different enough to have to rip everything up from the C and start again. And with the added complication that you have a whole new license to obtain, plus the classified aspects - it all starts to look very unlikely at least until the next generation airframe takes over.

That's all well and good. However if we're dealing with facts, it's pretty moot isn't it. The version of MiG-19 we're getting has nothing to do with Viet Nam. End of story. To try and use a non-existent link between an aircraft and a particular time in history is nonsense. However, whatever period you choose to emulate in your own time is of course entirely up to you. Just don't expect a whole map to materialise on the strength of fantasies - that's for the likes of Warcraft!

Great work Matt.

I don't think the issues you're having in multiplayer are exclusively Spitfire problems. We have had issues with other airframes missing, or appearing at crazy attitudes. We have also had issues with people not being able to log in, missing servers on the server lists and other stuff like crashes and instability in general. We know some of those issues are down to the need for servers to be DX11 capable - something that arrived with the AV-8B it seems. Did you try any other aircraft on those servers you were having Spitfire glitches? What servers were the issues found on, just one, or lots of them? Did you raise the issue with the server admins, and if so, what was their take on it? And yes, it could be 2.5 will change the situation, but right now with 2.5 release looming, it will be a case of wait and see what happens I suspect.

Yep if you have to delete one install to update, then 1.5 will be the best candidate. The NTTR map (if installed) is huge, and Normandy is also exclusively a 2.* installation. All airframes are applicable to both versions, so that will account for the majority of reusable data. Keep both if you can, but if you are stuck for space, then keep 2.2 and delete 1.5 would be my guess too.

We're far more likely to see a 3D rendered views of the maps than Google Earth as part of DCS World. But hell yes, something to assist in troop placement would be a huge asset.

We can all see there would be advantages to it. However, the cost implications - for absolutely no return - would be huge. It is just technology that arrived too late to be incorporated easily. Maybe in 5 or 10 years there might be a Normandy 2.0, but frankly there are a lot of other items on the wish lists too. 2 engine bombers, 4 engine bombers, Typhoon, Tempest, Me-262, Jug, Earlier marks of 109 and 190, more ground assets... Time will tell I guess.

Time zone would help. Maybe letting people know your approximate geographical location would be useful to allow you to find people in your hemisphere as well.

The current version of v2.* is v2.2. The one we're waiting for is v2.5. If you have v2.1 currently, you just need to run an update to reach v2.2. When will you get to v2.5 - well that's the question all of us are waiting for the answer to.

Never seen a P-51 with a radial engine, so how is that going to help you?