Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MikeMikeJuliet

  1. Here's another set, this time active pause is used. Caucasus, Su-25 instant action. Cursor is pressed, leaving it on the aircraft position. First one is again north up: And second is track-up: As you can see here, both coordinates show the same point in track-up. The difference is also not as noticeable because both coordinates are pretty close to each other. The position of the cursor has not changed and neither has the aircraft's pos, so it's not that. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet To the last post, here's another thing: Exactly same position, but I move my coursor to the left in Track-up (to the north) which makes the latitude decrease in stead of increase. Longitude has changed logicalle (the heading of the aircraft is about 098, so moving the cursor directly left does not equal exactly north which would keep the latitude unchanged) I hope these help to get to the bottom of this Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  2. And I forgot... Alright, here's a screenshot form the Marianas F-15C freeflight instant action, note the coordinates (cursor east of aircraft postition, North-up mode) And here's the same situation, but in Track-up mode, cursor again on the east side of the aircraft (left side): I wasn't on active pause so the aircraft moved a bit (as you can see from the background) but that is besides the point. As you can see, in the track-up mode the latitudes are completely bonkers and exceed the limits for 90 degrees N/S by some 55 degrees Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  3. I would imagine that if we get a tutorial considering the radar, then we can surmise that the module release is imminent. As long as no video covers that we can safely assume that the radar is not functioning properly yet and will thus hold the release. This is my guesstimate anyways Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  4. Hello! Having used the real counterpart to the NS430 quite a lot, I am requesting a feature to be added to the cursor when in map mode. Currently: When you activate the cursor when in the map screen and move the cursor to any arbitrary location and press the Direct-to -button, the NS430 presents you with either your current location (the airfield you are at if you are on the ground) or alternatively the point that the cursor is over (though this bugs out at times). Request: As per the real device, if you set the cursor at a point on the map where there are no waypoints (user generated or otherwise) the device should present you with a new user waypoint marked "+MAP" with the current cursor coordinates. This allows the user to set their destination quickly to any point on the map without needing to first navigate to the user waypoint menu and then build a new waypoint by setting coordinates. The following picture is taken from the official GNS430 manual (https://static.garmin.com/pumac/GNS430_PilotsGuide.pdf) Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  5. A little update on this topic. I just tried to replicate the bug on the Mariana islands, and you can see the bug there in action very well. In essence if you set the Track-Up mode and activate the cursor in the map screen, you will see your latitude at around the same ballpark as your longitude (which should be impossible, given that the longitude is around 140-150 degrees, and latitude naturally goes up to max +/-90 degrees). I will try to post a screenshot later today.
  6. Yeah! I really like these "a bit of modern things, but still very much analogue" -types of aircraft. Really waiting eagerly for the F1
  7. I do really think the only reason is that back in the day when DCS was built (or rather the core which is way older) one system was chosen instead of implementing multiple, because there is no reason you couldn't play just fine with what we have now. As a counter point to this being a tecnical limitation, consider the following: in VR this already works when using in-game menus (the esc-menu for example). While the menus are active the mouse is locked to the scene and you can look around just fine. No warping or twitching of the cursor (as if this was done by somehow compensating the motion due to head movement after it has moved). It's solid. It works and it is wonderful! Problem is it does not work in any other instance. And I believe the reason is just simply that no-one ever found it that necessary to implement before. I would argue that this would definitely be an option to be implemented. I know I and many of my friends would switch instantly. At the same time I know a lot who prefer the current system. Hence options. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  8. Hello, it seems that there is a bug when setting up user waypoints via the map cursor while the map is in track-up -mode. In said mode the waypoint seems to get the correct coordinates as was shown in the cursor info-box, but then when I set the navigation to said point, the waypoint is far away from where I originally put it, even though when I check the coordinates from the user waypoint list all seems to be correct there. If you use the north-up -mode everything works just as intended. So it seems, that even though the NS itself show the proper coordinates, the actual position is copied from the screen as if it was north-up. Very confusing indeed! I found this flying in Caucasus. Haven't tested on other maps. Testing is simple: set the map to track-up, fly somewhere other than north and try to set up a user waypoint via the map (notice the coordinates!), set the direct-to function to the waypoint you just created and observe the result. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  9. What has been the closest that two modules have been released from eachother, not counting campaigns? Because I don't think ED wants to push modules out too close together even if they do not directly affect eachothers sales. Q1 does not necessarily have a january patch since ED usuaöly have their holidays through much of january... and give that major patches come out once a month now *and* the Apache is most likely coming out first, it could be that March is too early for the F1. Hopefully I'm wrong and we do indeed see the Mirage out sooner rather than later, but I have my reservations at this point. Then again if ED get's to squeeze the Apache out end of January it could be that we might see the F1 com out in Q1... "Soon" in DCS-terms is, typically, actually something between "not quite so soon" and "around a year from now" Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  10. I understand your frustration, but at the same time I ask you, where did I say that this ought to take priority as no.1 fix for the F-15? The way you have formed your answer gives out the impression that no bugs/oversights are allowed to be reported before every bug/oversight more important than the one being reported are addressed. And by making that priorisation you also imply that you know the absolute order of issues to be fixed/improved on the module. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet Thank you!
  11. Hello, most of you probably know this already, but I'm bringing this up again. The F-15C (and the A-10A) does not have any altimeter setting keybinds. This effectively means that the barometric altimeter cannot be adjusted, which is a critical oversight especially considering the probable rise of instrument flying due to the new (amazing) clouds and the upcoming weathersystem overhaul. This has been an issue for years. I believe I last posted about this like 4 years ago. The other FC3 aircraft apart from the A-10A have the binds (so the A-10 should get these too, along with the F-15) and the do work, for reference. The name for the keybinds are: "Altimeter Pressure Decrease" and "... Increase". I hope this is finally resolved to bring all the modules to the same state systems-wise within the FC3. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  12. Yeah, I'm aware. Must be an oversight by ED because the keybinds are there but they do nothing... I think a reminder might be in order
  13. Ah, now I get what you were after! Yeah that makes sense. I believe when you set altitudes to waypoints you can set it either AMSL or AGL, but I've found these are almost never exactly what I set them to (theres probably something missing in how the altimetry is handled there)... so technically it is there already but does not quite work as one would hope. And of course the STD setting is not there. Sure, the controls for altitude could be more clear for AI. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  14. Why would you need to choose this in the mission editor? There is already a weather selection system that allows for differing pressures (albeit a poor one, but luckily that will be all remade in the 2.7. patch) if that is what you mean. If you mean an option to preset the aircraft to show QNH/QFE/STD from the getgo then I really would call that more of a waste of resources... there is a knob in each cockpit to alter that already when in game. Making a feature to save a couple of seconds in a game is simply a lazy request I'm afraid.
  15. I support the original idea. perhaps combine the abilities to both set it off via ME (or even in-game) + disable the ATC when a palyer takes an ATC-slot. Why both, you ask? Because quite a lot of people use Lotatc as their controller interface without opening DCS at all. So the AI needs to be able to be muted even if no-one takes an in-game ATC-slot. As for the problem with FC3-aircraft, yes their systems are simplified to the point that they actually hinder gameplay rather than boost it. But there is a keybind that allows you to toggle the radio chatter to players's own comms + answers only. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  16. It has been a long, long time, but I've finally managed to rework the whole document. New link is in the OP. Have a gander and send a message here or on Discord (I'm on ED discord if you need me). The document undoubtedly still need some tweaking and I know of a few small inclusions that did not make the cut at this point (vacation calls!), but should suffice for most of your VFR and IFR -needs. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  17. I think it is naive to think that it wouldn't. The scoreboard makes it possible to confirm kills in situations where you shouldn't be able to with absolute certainty - say, BVR in IFR. Sure, you can see if the enemy disappeared, but that's no guarantee that he is dead. Not knowing for sure ought to keep a player more on their toes. That is a definite behaviour change. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  18. ... and of course it would be *an option*. You could always set it back ON from server settings etc.
  19. Agreed. This is truly needed for more realistic missions! Live scoreboard allows for kill confirmation and in part promotes K/D over actual mission objectives. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  20. Or simply have both. A slider for sea roughness/size of swells or waves, and have the wind affect the waves on top of that. Then you just mix and match to get what you want. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  21. I support this. Many say that transport aircraft have no room in the current maps ("too small map sizes"), but I would say the opposite. An aircraft like the C-130 has and is being used in inter-theater mobility operations. There are a LOT of things to do even on shorter distances. A proper TAT aircraft (Tactical Air Transport) can be used to great effect on multiplayer servers to move larger troops around and faster that we currently do with helicopters. It would also offer interesting targets for allied fighters to protect and for enemy fighters to destroy. And the choice for the 130 is great especially due to the mentioned multi-capabilities of the airframe in different versions. This would be a great multi-purpose module that would most likely find a lot of use in MP scenarios if handled properly. Plus I bet a proper multicrew military transport aircraft would attract a lot of positive attentiont in the general flight sim market. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  22. Indeed a long time coming, but here it is. Now we've gotten rid of the annoying zoomout upon entering a cockpit and this. Many times it's the little things that bug you.
  23. I've got a request that has a bunch to do with "realism" (haha, since what's real about being able to respawn after being killed in a fighter jet...) but also with cheating/gaming the system. Death. You get shot into the cockpit and what do you see? You see no cockpit - but you see around you as if you were on a parachute though not decending. You can see missile launces around you, aircraft, tracers... and you can communicate these things to your teammates if you are on comms (bar SRS since it cut's your comms on death). I think a better way would be as abrupt as the instant death - a black screen with no info on it except a button to return to spectator and open the slot menu. This would prevent you being a "god's eye" in the area which is particularly troubling if you just died doing CAS and can now be an indirect camera for your wingman. Currently you can in some situation get a marked benefit post-mortem to your wingmen when they should have just lost not just another aircraft, but the eyes on that aircraft. I feel many people would appreciate this feature as a promoter of fair play and "realism". Regards, MikeMikeJuliet
  • Create New...