gospadin

Not (yet) ruled out, but no progress either. --gos

Community A-4E: September 2017 Update Hi everyone. Sorry we're a day late! For September, we'd like to show some of the unwrap & PBR material conversion that our artists have been making. The move to PBR in the new engine requires a lot of trial-and-error in different lighting conditions and that's where most of the month has gone. With PBR being the future of the DCS rendering engine, we figured it was time to make the conversion. While the unwrap is still not complete (you'll see the matte throttle handle and toggle switches), it's coming along slowly-but-surely. Left-side objects: Right side objects: Leather head-rest: Cockpit from the model viewer: Over the shoulder view: Tuned warning lamps: And a bonus shot of plusnine's Israeli livery: As to other work, the only code change this month was some internal re-plumbing of the navigation system to work better with the T4 maps (NTTR, Normandy and in the future Caucasus) Thanks for everyone's support! --gos

Hahah, gimme a few minutes here.

It's not a lack of raw horsepower. Heavy blades can only be accelerated so quickly by the engine governor. Make sure you don't change the collective pitch by more than 1 degree per second, and you should be fine.

Did you model them in a CFD program?

No, BST hasn't implemented airspace boundaries at this time. Point being, there is a potential use of having airspace boundaries marked in the NS430 for both civilian and military operations.

This already exists (the restriction). In NTTR Red Flag, if the player gets too close to Groom Lake, the mission fails. They are briefed that they are not allowed near R-4808N.

Can you give specific examples of which ones you're talking about?

RE: navdata, yes, I don't know what their navdata's date is, but it would make sense if it were constant RE: landmarks, I don't know whether BST plans to implement the landmark/obstacle database. However, I think that data likely needs to be pulled from the map itself, versus a real-life obstacle database in order to ensure the data matches the maps we actually have. Doesn't make sense to have a tower on the GPS when the tower wasn't modeled in-game. RE: URSS, can you be more specific? I'll look tonight, but if you can post a link to an approach plate or SID for URSS I'd appreciate it (and I can list it as a bug that way) thanks! --gos

The NS430 contains real FAA data and real approaches today, at least for NTTR. I am not familiar with Russian/Georgian data sources, but the procedures for Caucasus line up with existing Jeppeson chart updates at major airports. (The lesser airports in Caucasus don't exist today and thus have no modern charts) I don't know (and haven't tested significantly) the approaches (if any) in Normandy, but given the time period I would expect a lot less. Is there a specific IAP/STAR/DP missing that is needed? (I haven't gone through and done an airport-by-airport check) In all cases, the magnetic variation is (I believe) fixed in each map, and will not follow changes in the calendar year. However, since GPS waypoints are lat/long, magnetic bearings should align to the map being used. --gos

Sorry, haven't tried yet. Will try to reproduce tonight after work.

Yup, should help mission designers if they want to force the platform's capabilities to a specific time period. --gos

Can you please take a screenshot if you can reproduce it?

This is fixed internally already, but not in time for today's open beta build. thanks! --gos

I am not quite following the discussion. What, exactly, is the bug being reported? Is it about the design of the helicopter icon showing current position in the north-up map page? (Helicopter icon and plane icon are not the same, I believe) Edit: nevermind, in overhead view they're the same. Or is it something else?

Yup, this has been reported already and is being worked on. --gos

this has been reported, thanks

These are both already reported, thanks.

I agree this is something that should be menu-configurable, along with font size scaling for higher resolution monitors. I use BManx2000's mod from this thread, with a few small local changes: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=149832 --gos

My guess is that is what already exists, but that the MiG-21 chose not to use it because they didn't want to limit navigation capabilities outside of Russia. --gos

It would have to be implemented as a cockpit livery. Briefly looking at the structure, doesn't seem the skin setup exists today, so that .lua code would need to be created as well. No idea if the result would pass IC or not, since it would involve changes to the existing lua files.

My point is that if you look through the lua, the code for handling the Y-TACAN channels right now is a bit special-cased, and not all systems are aware of it. Yup, I'm aware of your mod, though having them on actual VOR/TACAN/DME frequencies would be what is actually being asked for.

Tutorial is currently incorrect in this area and being worked on, just need to wait.

Would be nice. Right now, I think the Y-channel TACAN stuff is special-cased from the original TACAN code, so might require some internal work from ED to fix.

Agreed. What they have is already way better. Nothing prevents them from programming approach waypoints too if they chose to do so, though in reality they're probably going to be flying TACAN/DME or ILS, instead of a RNAV (GPS) approach. --gos