Oldguy

ED can easily limit access to DCS paid modules to one person logging in to an account at a time before they play. In that way, no more than one person at a time can play the modules; thus the copy protection remains intact. That is already the case for the installation routine. Isn't that what Steam does? Steam does not permit multiple, simultaneous logins to the same account. That's all that ED wants; no more than one person playing with a module at one time. Who cares who that person is? Who cares how many times it has been installed on what machines? If nothing else, ED could make the deactivation/reactivation dance monolithic, so that everything is done with one operation. That way, the activation count should remain constant. As for now, we have Starforce piled on top of activation counts on top of Module Manager login. Surely this is more than necessary. :helpsmilie:

Since DCS module installations are now done over the Internet, through the Module Manager, and not by standalone installers, wouldn't this be the ideal time to eliminate the activation/deactivation count dance? Seems to me that once a module key is bound to an account, then ED knows that ownership is correct and installation can go forward. Steam keys and ED keys get bound to an account the same way. ED login credentials at the Module Manager layer provide proof of lawful ownership. Given the looming disaster that is impending with the W10 'upgrade' installation, and various hardware changes, etc. that may be envisaged for the product moving forward, (e.g. video hardware purchases to take advantage of EDGE), I'm working on various software upgrades and hardware purchases to take advantage of 1.5's/2.0's new-found performance. Every time I make a significant change, which may or may not prove to be useful, I have to de-activate and re-activate all of my modules. I own 12 such now, and I hope to buy more; I do not look forward to that routine. Wouldn't it would be nice if ED would embrace a more Steam-like copy protection scheme, so that the product access to lawfully-purchased modules could be seamless? I understand that Starforce and activation/deactivation were thought to be necessary in the era of stand-alone installers, but now that such stand-alone installers are gone, please consider modernizing the installation routine going forward. It would be so nice not to have to deal with that anymore.

The tab your illustration shows is the post-installation tab; are there no modules for you to choose from under the other tab called 'modules'?

Any notion of where that might be found? I looked in 'User files' under his forum name, 'Devrim', but no joy. I appreciate the help, thanks!

Just this module?

Does the Warthog hotas have a calibration routine? Have you completed and saved that state? The possibility of multiple assignments of controller input to same action might very well give rise to what looks like controller cross-linkages. Every time I add a hotas assignment to one of my controllers, I search the keys, other controllers and the mouse for duplicate assignments. On my screen, I have to scroll side-ways to pick up all the controller columns. I have often been surprised to find a mouse or keyboard assignment, for example, on the same input as my new hotas controller choice. Check Device Manager to make sure you have no conflicts with the Warthog controller within Windows itself. :thumbup:

That's a very generous gesture; good on you!

The odd part is that the Model Master paint looks, in real life, just like your cockpit colors when they display as a 3D texture. You got it exactly right. So, I am totally happy with your choices; I thank you most sincerely for your effort. It's nice to have choices.

I found this color reference for you, in case you are still thinking about the correct color for the psychologically-soothing Russian cockpit teal blue color: http://www.art-paints.com/Paints/Metal/Model-Master/Testors/USSR-Interior-Blue-Green/USSR-Interior-Blue-Green.html This is a paint color that I have often used with my Russian aircraft models (I am particularly fond of the MiG-21 and its variants). Personally, I really like the color. It looks, in applied model paint, very convincingly like the oft-seen photographs of Russian aircraft interior blue/green. I have confidence that the Model Master series of paints are fairly accurate. This reference gives you a host of blending tables for the various color formats, e.g. CMYK and RGB. Perhaps this might be a useful guide. I cannot predict how it will translate to the PC monitor, though, so it is just a suggestion. In any case, many thanks for your modification. It is nice to have a choice in this matter. Thanks for that!

Patience, grasshopper, patience...

Looks like a new form of chaff...

Looks like the translation tool turned "aerial sortie" into French "exit", non?

That's very kind of you; may you and your wife have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Chuck goes from strength to strength; nicely done.

That's very kind of you; Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

I want to go to Las Vegas in Nevada!!

The slight distortions seen in the canopy when viewed from the pilot's p.o.v. could have resulted from several sources, and are not all from the same effect, even though they may give very similar appearances. Most modern canopies are made of various forms of acrylics. The surface, or internal structure, of such canopies can be damaged by improper or hasty cleaning (scratching), protection by covers over slightly dirty surfaces (abrasion), heat-cold cycling (stress), ultraviolet radiation damage (chemical) or the use of improper cleaning material damage (hazing), among others. They appear to the pilot to be much the same, but can result from several different sources of damage to the canopy material. Because the source of such visual distortion damage varies, their appearance and likelihood of successful repair likewise varies. I searched for images, and found a variety, which varied slightly from one example to the next, depending upon the source of damage. Spider-web appearance suggests an impact form of damage.

It's possible that ED, or perhaps a third party developer, does not want to intrude upon the presence of BMS 4.33. It is a disappointment, in my opinion, because DCS is much more approachable, from a gaming world interface, than is that older product. However, the BMS 4.33 modelling of the F-16, as an aircraft, seems to be very meticulous, and any comparison, particularly with a new attempt by ED or one of their developers, might suffer, ab initio. However, I believe that, for example, Eagle Dynamics, Leatherneck Studios, or RAZBAM is well-qualified to attempt the development of the F-16, based on their success with their own high-fidelity products. But whoever does will face the inevitable comparisons with Falcon 4.0 in its present form, and that might prove daunting in the short-term. I would certainly support such a product with my money.

In honor of those for whom military life is more than a simulation...thank you!

W8.1

Shipping address is typically used by the credit card company that you are using for your purchase as part of verifying your identity. They match what you put in your application to buy the goods to their database to confirm you as the correct holder of the credit account.

Nicely done.

15 modules, 14 seconds to load from my RAID 0 Velociraptors.

The radiator usually goes where the top, rear exhaust fan, that most cases have, now sits. I have never had any issue with EVGA products; I do not know the Zotac brand, but I suspect that plenty of reviews are out there. If I could afford a hybrid EVGA product, that is what I'd get for myself.

Look under the properties for the launch shortcut for DCS 1.5 and see where the executable is installed, then point Tacview there?