Pitot

Didn't the new changelog for the upcoming update state that you will be able to change mission date in ME?

Okay, then good enough :)

I won't post this to "Wishlist" section, because I am unsure if it is already doable. If it is, please enlighten me. What I would like is a possibility in the DCS settings / Axis section to assign a joystick axis to trim. Specifically - I'd like to tweak an old joystick and make trim wheels from it's X, Y and Z axis physical controllers. Right now, when I go to axis settings in the control settings section - there is no possibility to assign that (there is no "trim" option in the list when you switch to Axis controls). I suppose it can be done via something like VJoy or similar software, but if anyone knows a good, working solution: fire away.

I run on CPU: E8400, 8Gb RAM and Ati Sapphire 5700. That is, today, lower end PC that runs DCS. And Page File matters in such case. Also, notice that I've told him that if Page File is set to less than recommended it can cause various problems on almost any rig when it comes to certain software (meaning in plural). Also, do notice I've mentioned more than Page File, doesn't hurt to check various things. There is no need to clutter this thread with ramble about PF, you can PM me if you want to discuss, or open a new thread and I will gladly exchange experiences and acknowledge any point that you prove to be right (that's called learning I guess), but let's not do it here. It does not help OP in any way.

Am I wrong, or all of these people who have unexpected problems are using the GTX cards who happen to run on a more or less same drivers? Other than that: 1. Check your HDD fragmentation 2. Try installing an older driver from your GPU manufacturer page 3. PCI Latency setting (if you have it in BIOS) can really make your life miserable in gaming if set too high. That effectively prevents your individual hardware elements from finishing an operation, because it interrupts them to give space to other elements. Don't try all at once, try one by one. As for latency, it has steps defined in settings, 32 or 64 is what people mostly use with average rigs. Actually... In DCS it may make a difference, depending on your PC and DCS settings. "A pagefile can be read from the hard disk as one contiguous chunk of data and thus faster than re-reading data from many different original locations." Now, put that in the same basket with pre-load setting in DCS and you just might have a slight difference when it comes to low-end PC. His game runs fine for a while and then goes berserk. It sounds kind of fishy to me. Now, I saw his configuration and I agree that Page File can be a problem in his case only if set below minimum recommended, which is according to Microsoft 150% of your physical RAM. Why would it be? I saw people having page file disabled by malware, by the guys that sold them the PC etc. Doesn't hurt to check :)

Flashpoint was nice :D

Lol, that works, tnx XD

Hey, Greg, we're in suspense here... :D

Well it acts like no command is given. If it is a column, it just moves from point to point, or if you give the last WP to be offroad>formation-line (just an example) it just stops at the last waypoint, still holding in an ordinary column. So, when I set the option to assume preffered formation - it acts like no command to assume specific formation is given.

Since I have noticed this issue so long ago, and nothing changed, I take freedom in supposing that I am doing something wrong. Please correct me if I am wrong, or point me out to how to properly use the Mission Editor option I am about to write about. In Mission Editor, you have an option to set a group formation (line, wedge, diamond etc.), and it is applicable at waypoints. Now, I was thinking that you can use it to tell, for example, a group of tanks to move in a wedge formation across the field, or to tell a group that when it comes to the last waypoint - to take a certain formation and then stop. I am not any kind of advanced mission editor guy, just to mention it, so again - since I have this issue for a loooong time, I suppose that if it was a bug it would be fixed by now, and that is probably an indicator that I am actually not doing it right. Can anyone enlighten me on this subject, please? :) EDIT: The actual issue is that units act like no formation command is set. Moves trough waypoints, stops at last, nothing else.

Oh if you say it like that, then all is well. Next time, please just say it like that :) Then, again, I targeted post toward people who are in the bussiness, but yeah - you're right. It's a public board, so what you said at your last post makes a lot of sense. Nice to find a colleague, if you don't mind me saying :) Maybe if I have time this week. Work is overwhelming. I guess you know the feeling. XD

Well, I supposed that one is not a module-specific issue, but DCS issue. But a good tip, thanks.

...

I think I have explained well enough, for anyone remotely connected to Graphic Design or DTP to understand perfectly clear what am I having in mind. Since you are declaring yourself as a colleague, I firmly believe you know exactly what I have wanted to say. And even more, I believe that if the guy who made this (otherwise very pretty) banner won't have problems understanding what I have said - no matter if he agrees or disagrees with me about the aesthetics of what we're looking at. P.S. This is not about judging, this is about intelligent discussion, with no intention to "judge" anyone or his work or to get sarcastic ;), but with intention to hear other opinions and maybe find a way to make something that's awesome - even more awesome and free of minor imperfections. You know, best intentions, progress... That is my reason. Thank you for your comment.

1. PCI Latency setting in BIOS may be too low or too high. (Google about it, my shift is ending, no time to explain in-depth) 2. Check your Page File size. Microsoft recommend it to be 150% of your available physical RAM. 3. Check for fragmentation of your Hard Drive via built in Windows® Tools. 4. Check speed of your HDD. If it is a slow HDD, or "Intelli Power" or something like that with variable speeds, that may present problems too. Some additional data, system logs etc. could be helpful too.

Thumbs up for Buddyspike :) P.S. I would like this to happen again, when possible, after future events. Please don't be discouraged by low response. I suppose nobody expected this contest while rounds 6 and 7 were up, and that it's the reason for it.

I agree that MP servers are, at it's current state, pretty bad environment for such operations.

Dear dudes at ED, while enjoying the new banner, I've noticed the appearance of the logo on the left. I would just like to say that: 1. The way the typography "digital combat simulator" is placed is awkward, because A. It shouldn't be touching edges - that disrupts the geometrical and visual integrity of the "DCS" typography. 2. Maybe it should (the "digital combat simulator" text) be placed at the lower sector, still enclosed by "DCS" letters. That way, you'd preserve the readability (which is bad this way anyway) against the background, and you can divide 3 words to be encircled by the three letters in "DCS". 3. Same thing from no1 goes for "Eagle" word in the Eagle Dynamics logo. Edges are touching and it looks bad. If you'd move those words as proposed in no2 to the lower sector, the ED Logo with the eagle would have to move to the right to escape from possibility of cramping the space with too much elements. As a long time Desktop Publisher, I firmly claim that DCS logo is one of the best I've seen IMO. Seeing it crippled like this hurts me :) So, in my best intentions, I propose these small changes to the current, May Banner.

But... Is the Mig29 chosen to be on the new banner because they are close to releasing the PFM for it... ([ame] [/ame]) Disclaimer: This post is a joke and it is not to be referred in serious discussion, or to be taken seriously.

For the moment, the biggest issue is that visual references ("yellow boxes") sometimes don't go away when you complete the operation they reference. A repeated issue, for example, is when you need to close the cockpit. Yellow box stays, and tutorial does not advance. However, fortunately, if you know that you need to lock and pressurize the cockpit - triggers move one as you do those next steps, and boxes again act as intended. As for any compiled list of uncertainties, bugs or else, you'd have to wait for few days from me. Thank you for your reply. --- I am glad that the sparks didn't burst into flames and salute all of you. Flying together sounds nice, with all of you who proposed it, but when there is free time. You can always PM me for setting the timeframe.

I just expressed my opinion in the OP, everything else is reaction either to people being friendly toward discussion, or defensive attitude to those who don't want to discuss the subject - but rather have need in life to prove how I am a bad guy. That is really not worth mentioning anymore. Every time someone tries to discuss a subject about the game, bunch of people start talking things that were not called for. I am sorry that most of people here are unable to stay on the subject, but are meisters in dragging the discussion to the pit. This is not a place for a reasonable conversation, as far as I can see. I said many nice things about LN, Cobra and some of you, but the blind attacks continue without even trying to discuss the OP. Okay, I am a miserable person for saying my opinion, or for feeling that a developer needs to have more temper in talking to people who earn him his pay instead of using "there are people who think otherwise" as a reason to call our opinion non-important - and that when he claims things - he must provide proof for that. No problem. I am insane, sure. And rude. No problem. LOL. This is ridiculous, and I do admit - I am stupid for not ignoring those comments which dragged the try to discuss a matter in which I see many people outside of this thread agreeing on with me. I was thinking this will turn out to be a discussion where we can agree on what would be balanced approach to tutorial missions, because there is diversity among clients, but no. People need to go into "you're this, you're that". No probsey mates, ahoy.

1. I don't care if he's "a dick". 2. I am not illiterate, and it is not about "I want info, provide it to me". It is about the quality of the mission which learns you - nothing. 3. In the context of his sentence, there is no place for enthusiasm. "That is what the manual is for!" - this is shouting. The first use of ex. mark is indeed enthusiasm, I agree (the one where he talks about positive feedback). 4. Me not being native english speaker does not at all make the tut. mission any better, nor it is any of my fault that someone has it hard to understand sentences longer than usual. But yes, I write long sentences, but that does not have anything to do with my native language. And I speak English only 4 years less than my native language. Being able to write long sentences is not a sign of not knowing a language, but a sign that you know it well enough to construct them. CAPS is shouting, but it is done by me here just because few people act as if they don't "hear" things they read. I say something, and put other words in my mouth and then blame me for something I haven't said at all. :) Also, I am sick of how every time someone says an opinion, people dilute the thread with trolling and personal attacks up until the point where admins are forced to lock it. Nice way to silence people... 5. Don't try to identify things, I said it clear enough in the first post, but then some people dragged me into discussing on their level where the subject gets diluted. If anything I wrote is insulting or seems insulting to anyone - then they should read it again and pay attention on all those places where I mentioned faith and appreciation toward the module and the developer. It is insulting how those who "support" the devs are in fact acting as if I said that the whole module is rubbish. I was talking about one specific mission and how it demotivates from going further. I never said that I want to kill stuff in 5 minutes, or that I have given up on Mig21, but people read half of it, forget a quarter and then start flaming. +1 for your effort in keeping some reason in this discussion (which ceased to be discussion because few people talk about everything but the mission I posted about in OP).

Cobra, man, I really appreciated you until now, and I still do. I have respect for what you do, but please - don't go on us with such attitude. In this thread itself you have somewhat balanced sides on do we like that kind of mission or not. If you do know how to do serious marketing research, you'd hardly say such things out loud. As long as you don't show us any serious market analysis and interviews with user groups divided into sub-groups that correspond the target market age/financial status/region and other attributes important for creating a DCS market target group, with statistics divided into time frames of pre-purchase, initial release and at least two points in time separated in relevant time periods from initial release - don't pull out the "we have data" argument. In the form you just presented it, we might get the wrong picture from your 2 comments. The picture that you base your opinion on initial release comments and interviews with people close to Leatherneck. I want to believe that you don't base them on that. The only reason I've posted this is because I wanted to give insight into other side of story, and you act as if you deny existence of unsatisfied customers. That really puts out a bad picture. I don't want that, I want 3rd party developers continuing to provide quality content. The whole point is: It is nice to have humor, but make tutorials more informative and keep it like that without having a large amplitude between individual missions. Include humor, why not, but info too. As far as the "manual" argument few of you have put out - it is a bit rash. If we'd look things like that, DCS would not have ANY need to have tutorials, because it is all said in the manual. But there is a reason ED made a game frame which contains tutorials and I believe that, with a good point, the reason is that in that way you get better immersion, and you get encouraged to continue with learning the modules, while after completing the initial tutorial you don't feel as a complete noob and you can have confidence in yourself, go trough the manual, consult people etc. The first Mig21 tutorial mission does not learn us anything except how to press a sequence of buttons that is anyway listed in many places, and that the instructor had a shepherd, and also that he has paychecks due. Sure, it is funny, it gives personality to the instructor - and that is good. I applaud that initiative. But, I still stand with other people who wanted more. AND AGAIN I remind you that you need to take care about new customers who aren't in the FC/DCS world for ages, but are new customers who don't know the functions of APU, or Batteries on a plane, or any of the sistems they turn on in the first mission. One sentence per system is enough to make them feel confident and thus - make the tutorial rewarding. When in that mood, they are surely going to fully enjoy product and appreciate your work more. And buy the next module you provide. So, all of you, please stop with personal attacks, stay on the subject; don't pull out fictional arguments without physical proof, or just ignore the thread.

I did not attack anyone, I just pointed out what I see as a flaw. I haven't said anywhere anything about killing anything in five minutes, and your comment is absolutely off the mark. I am sorry that you choose to attack me, instead of discussing the matter I pointed out. I am calmly explaining what I think and why troughout this thread, while you accuse me of something not being done by me, and you are trying to provoke a flame, which is a very rude thing. And you're completely off topic. Everythin I have said is explained in a calm and layed out manner. You have said nothing in the quoted comment about the matter, but rather chose to use personal attacks to prove that I am wrong. That is just... Nevermind.

1. I intentionally left out ED out of this thread, because all that should be said is said long ago. On the other side, from guys like Leatherneck I expect(ed) a little more care about what customers think. 2. No rose glasses here, trust me on my word for now. 3. As for A10C and Ka50 tutorials, I must say that I obviously compared the FIRST Mig21 tut against the first A10C and Ka50 ones. A10C is fully informative, while Ka50 one is less of a good example, but it is still better. The point was, however: The first missions in those tutorials are much more informative and immersive and after them you HAVE A DESIRE to open the manual and learn more about all those things mentioned. 4. Diminishing content: This is not entirely ED fault, or 3rd party developers. From the point where DCS became base of the game officially and 3rd party devs were included - the community is the one who's hunger for new content can't be tamed. ED might have succumbed to that (and I say that without putting any blame on them, because I find it a natural reaction to the market behavior) and so did the 3rd party dev's. As you can see, the majority of the community part that is talking on these forums are mostly concentrated on pushing "when will this come out, when will that come out". ED works for money, not for beans, so they have to try to keep the buyers satisfied (regularly fed with new content). I would, personally, prefer not seeing a new module in 5 years, but then having that F18 properly done, F15E, Straights of Hormuz which was announced to be released by the end of 2014... etc etc etc... Instead of that, you can hear (ofc on team speak servers) about "infinite betas", "too bad there is no competition" etc, things that people are not saying here because they have done exactly what cichlidfan said here: "They just shake their heads and walk away." I don't want that. I want us to get finished modules and new theaters and enjoy DCS.