Jump to content

Numien

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Hmm... that's a good idea. Personally I hate the feeling of gloves, but my desk isn't too far in front of my throttle, so I might be able to rig up a similar thing off the side of it. Have to give that a try some day and see how it works.
  2. From what my browser's inspector says, it looks like you're embedding Dropbox preview thumbnails. Those probably only last a short time at the URL where they're generated before disappearing. It might be more reliable to just put links to the files on Dropbox instead... not as streamlined as embedded ones, but better than nothing, as they seem to be gone again already. I've been having this same problem with VR, and am curious what you came up with as a solution, so looking forward to seeing those. :)
  3. From the changelog, looks like this was fixed in DCS 2.5.0 hotfix 1. Thanks.
  4. As I mentioned in the first post, it only lasted for a few minutes before it started working again. This is a "might be a good idea for a future improvement" post. Edit: What that does is flushes the Windows DNS cache, which is useful if it contains an incorrect entry because said entry has just changed. It would be a good suggestion if it was still a problem.
  5. After changing some settings, DCS needed to restart, and on the second start (plus a few more tries after that) it gave me an error box saying "Failed to get authorization data. Error code is: 502" and wouldn't let me use any module using the new authentication method. This only lasted a few minutes, so wasn't a big deal, but it could potentially be a problem in the future. If I recall my HTTP error codes, 502 is "service unavailable" so I'm guessing the auth server was either down or overloaded. Perhaps if that happens, it should fall back to cached auth data (which, at least in my case, should be available), similar to if it's starting up without an Internet connection, instead of just giving an error and blocking access? Edit: Seems I recalled incorrectly, service unavailable is 504. Code 502 is gateway timeout. Probably the same cause though.
  6. Well, they like to patch on Fridays... so how about the 23rd then? Sounds good to me... and I don't mind if it still has a couple of bugs, the M2000 had a ways to go when it was first released and I still enjoyed it plenty... :)
  7. With 1.5.0 Hotfix 2, I was able to fly this mission without crashing. Only tried it once, but it may be fixed.
  8. Correction: This was on mission 2 of that campaign, not 3 as I mis-stated. Just in case, I deleted everything (including my Saved Games\DCS.openbeta directory), reinstalled, and flew everything again. Attached is a third crash report, which is probably the same as above and not necessary, but just in case. Logs2.zip
  9. This crash has happened twice around the same part of the mission, so I'm not sure if it's related to the mission itself or just random and it's coincidence. It tends to happen after I have shot down both the helis and the Su-25s and am starting to head back to base. I'm not sure of a specific trigger. The second time it happened, I grabbed a minidump, it's attached to this post; hope it helps, since I know the rest of the information is rather vague. Edit: Ah, didn't realize DCS makes its own crash reports and dumps along with the logs. Attached those from both crashes as well. DCS.zip Logs.zip SysInfo.zip
  10. I didn't notice the change. Yes, that's far more clear. Thanks.
  11. Yes, but the rule states no posting links to any sort of copyrighted content, it doesn't have any requirement of being illegal. If this is the point of the rewrite, having a rule which could be applied to more or less any situation involving a link, at the discretion of a moderator's whims, does not achieve the goal. It may seem like the intent of the rule is obvious, and to an extent it is. But if the letter of the law doesn't match the intent, sooner or later, it is going to be applied in a case where it is fuzzy whether or not it's right, someone is going to say it was just because the moderator didn't like them, and everything will be back to where we started. Keep in mind, I'm not saying this for my own sake. You can see my post count. More than half of them have been in this thread, trying to convince you of why this rule is phrased poorly. But, I have seen rules applied in very fuzzy ways in the past, and I hope in at least one case I can help clarify things and prevent people here potentially risking a punishment for any link to copyrighted content, even perfectly legal ones, just because a moderator doesn't like it. Edit: Not to suggest that moderators are evil or anything, but we're all human and humans are falliable.
  12. Yes, that is probably exactly what is meant. However, it is not what is said.
  13. I would still encourage you to change the following: As an example of why this is bad, here are 4 posts which would fall afoul of this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2423053 -- Contains link to content "© 2015 Twitch Interactive, Inc" http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2422539 -- Contains link to content "© 2015 Mudspike.com" http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2412437 -- Contains link to content "© 2015 Valve Corporation." http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2292287 -- Contains link to content "©2015 Google" Under the new policy, these would earn you a 120% warning and 3 month posting suspension. I highly doubt this is what you intend, but if what you say and what you intend are different, you have not succeded in your goal to make the rules "fair, clear and accountable."
  14. This needs to be clarified, I think. As written, it would almost completely disallow links. Even links to other posts on this very forum would be disallowed, as per the "Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd" message at the bottom of the page. It should probably be changed to read something along the lines of "Illegally linking to copyrighted content" or "Illegally distributing copyrighted content" or something similar.
  15. The biggest difference is simply that the F-14 was designed to be a naval fighter/interceptor, where the MiG-25 and -31 were designed for border interception against bombers and recon (though their role has expanded somewhat since). Overall, yes, they are reasonably similar in terms of performance.
×
×
  • Create New...