MikeMikeJuliet

I have a similar issue after the Harrier hotfix. Before the hotfix game ran fine, but after it MP stutters so much I can't play properly. Joining, immediately logging out and rejoining lessens the stutter but does not eliminate it. Happens in MP regardless of aircraft and even in spectator cameras. Singleplayer runs normally. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

It didn't work for me completely. The stutters are not as severe after one or two reconnects, but certainly there. I'll post the issue on the 1.5. version bugs-subforum just to be sure. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Hello! On MP my game started doing serious, constant FPS suttering after the latest hotfix (that supposedly fixed the FPS problems caused by simultanious rendering of FLIR, DMT and TPOD). Strange thing is that this happens on MP regardless of aircraft. This did not happen just prior to downloading the update. The stutter is constant regardless of aircraft or camera-mode (F2 camera, aerodrome-camera or spectating other players), not just with the Harrier, so I'm currently unable to fly MP at all in openbeta. Should I report this on the 1.5. subforums since this clearly affects the whole game, not just the Harrier - though the Hotfix was clearly what caused it? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

If it is indeed coming in a few weeks I would expect some sort of technical information prior.

According to the pocket guide it is 20,750lbs. It's right there on the first page after the table of contents.

One thing to note is that if your flight is of any length, you may exceed max continuous power, which is 102% OR 645°C for 15 minutes straight... So if you say you've been flying approximately between 100-105%, remember that you might have been over the 102 mark for too long OR, more likely you have exceeded the 645° limit without noticing. I'm not saying this is absolutely the case, but I've found that you need to watch your engine all the time with this bird. The lazy flying allowed by previous "perfect condition" aircraft is really biting back here at least on me. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yes, this has been requested by me and others on multiple different threads. There have also been requests for several control-method options for both VR and non-VR users to improve cockpit interaction. Good that it is brought up again. Perhaps one day... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I approve.

Try to learn to unlearn past connotations. Though difficult, I try to take things as they are and not as popular culture tried to make me think they are. I know, easier said thab done. When it works it really shows things in a more fresh and less tainted light. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

What on earth happened here...

Choo choo!

That is true as well. Though ED has typically announced release dates on their newsletters. In this case it was only announced by RAZBAM and rather casually at that. Well. What matters is that it is coming and we know when.

A cockpit shake -slider would be a very good addition to any module.

I hear you. And I didn't mean I have anything against the module - especially as it is integrated from ED's other work. I would question the announcement if this was made specifically for DCS at this point in time. Some might argue there is no point in having the module, but then again no-one is required to have all the modules. I'm glad to see variety in the sim even if it is not an armed aircraft. I guess this module can be used to simulate GAT around busy airfields by players on larger servers. Sure makes it more interesting to operate an actual combat aircraft - especially with someone as ATC.

I find it hilarious that ED didn't bother saying anything about the Harrier EA launch on the newsletter... but instead stole the show with the Yak-52 :D

:thumbup:

I've been flying the L-39 both versions with both metric and imperial, and I can't even get close to 700 kmph. What fuel amounts do you use? Obviously no external load...

A good return to form. If there is a release date given: you would know. And if you didn't, it means you are not following the most important forum thread - the official news. That said I see no harm in speculation. Those are two different things. Reading the newsletter should be highly recommended prior to posting on the forums?

Great news! You are doing important work for the community!

Calm down gentlemen. The request was probably made without 100% operational knowledge by a person wanting to enjoy a game. If you are this defensive about A person having a differing opinion on a hobby on the internet, the I would advice to stay away from these forums. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Sounds good to me. It is best to have a good solution rather than have to patch and rework the program time and again as DCS evolves. I bet you've got plenty of ideas, but one way I would approach the problem is to draw airfield diagrams as to-scale drawings that are only displayed at certain zoom levels to avoid clutter. Each drawings center would be RWY center, so they would be easy to overlay to the airfield center coordinates. RWY numbers and TWY names could either be inserted into the drawing, or as a separate layer when zoomed in enough. This way one would only need the properly scaled drawing with the proper name in the proper folder under each map for the program to automatically read the correct images for each airfield. This would also technically allow for user-made modifications to the layout if desired. Just a thought.

Shouldn't we in that case be allowed the L-variant if that is indeed usable?

Does this mean all aircraft prior to incorporating a HUD are not proper aircraft? I believe you may have been spoiled a bit... Though I do agree it would be way more convenient to have it projected on the HUD. Then again I do know that my selected course shows up on the HUD, and I also know that a standard ILS glideslope is 3 degrees, so why would I need to see the cross on the HUD when I really just need a super quick glance to see that the bars are centered, and continue to fly the approach with my HUD despite not having the indicators up there. Problem solved.

It might not be as simple since the listed items may not be equally valued in % of work needed to accomplish them.

I read the document yesterday, but I don't at all remember every single thing. What I do remember was that following items at least will be missing: - Radio functionality partly, - INS alignment, - certain weapon submodes, - part of NAVFLIR adjustment options for the HUD, - NAVFLIR color (should be green), - Ground Power Panel, - NRAS and PC value adjustments for VSTOL (will be a fixed value initially), - Voice warnings (Native Betty) - some UFC modes... ...to name a few. The disclaimers are pretty much all in the notes so you can find the relatively easily. This was the best I could compile for you being on my phone atm. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet