stickz

Completed this campaign Tuesday this week. Presume you mean mission 6 - flew this particular mission over the weekend successfully (after 3or4 attempts cos I kept scuffing the ils landing). You do not have to completely refuel or actually even refuel at all (even without using the short cuts at mission start). Provided biff has told you that you can finish refuelling at any time with the F10 menu. You then have option to finish refuel with it by communicating to biff with the FM radio. The tacan works fine provided you set 10X and T/R (not A/A setting). What makes you think biff is unhappy with you? Maybe you missed a trigger zone somewhere after the flight reversionary checks? On one attempt, had biff stop talking to me cos I had not hit space bar prior to starting refuelling, meant I never got the F10 menu option to finish refuel. By the time I had caught up I had missed a couple more checks and mission never caught up with me, got no tower messages. I landed but never got mission complete .Maybe you have done something similar.

Man in a suitcase - started 1968, uk spy series with richard bradford. Not surprised you never heard of it, but same people that did danger man(then again you probably never heard of that either ). Nearly got a 20yr headstart on you, by 1973 had finished 2yr electronic degree training for RAF.

Hi max, very happy new year to you too. Yes, I even removed the A4 again after found the phantom worked, re down loaded it and tried again but no avail. Still whilst it would have been nice to find that both now worked, I'll settle for having phantom fixed. Dark magic, I remember in 1976(ish) an airframe (rigger) sargeant came into the squadron electonics den with a briefcase, containing a motherboard, 5 LCDs and a hex keypad. And tried to explain to us for half hour how useful it could be, whilst also trying to defend why it couldnt add 2+2 without an hour programming it first - unlike the early calculators that were making an appearence. heh heh wonder what he is doing now? He was forever nicknamed " man with his brain in a suitcase", a take off from a popular tv programme then (man in a suitcase - but you gotta be old to remember it)

maxsenna and zabuzard - miraculously, after the last patch at christmas this is now working. Took 7hr download and didnt run game until this mid week so was stunned to find the phantom missions now work by me able to enter cockpit. Have no idea what might have changed at your end of the dll for it to now work (it does have a new delivery date but do not know if there were any changes you made to it). The only other possibility for it now working, I (dare I say it), re-installed BMS Falcon4 beginning Jan and left the visual studio install checked. Latest version was already installed (checked it so many times even before F4 trying to get A4 mod to start working again). Maybe that bms fixed some sort of broken link so F4(dcs) could find visual C library now (have doubts cos the A4 still dont work). Regardless, finally got a working phantom, brings back 45yr old memories of working in the snow and ice at leuchars attempting to fix its recalcitrant radar. Thanks for time you both spent trying to help me, glad got my reward for not accepting your offer of a refund

Hi Max, yes I have done several repairs since excluding the paths. I have also been through and checked the exclusions. I even repeated the process yesterday after your previous suggestion to try it. After that I have tried turning off both avg, then defender, then again re-install the F4 and then repair and trying with them off (assuming I had successfully turned them off but was getting multiple warning from windows about being unprotected). As for the A4E yeah its been reinstalled multiple times over a couple of years as well as checking the visualC redistributable due to forum mentions of that being a cause. There was a list there of things to try at some point. Plus clearing saved game mods - or making multiple versions of it to move the A4.dll just in case my drive was faulty. Even got my son to check I wasnt doing sume thing daft with redistributable install. Never got to the bottom of it, and as not much of a mods user I just forgot about it. Just appears odd that neither will load for the same reason (although prev to about v2.0.1 A4 worked fine) yet 18 other modules (if I include 3 or 4 trials) work fine. So some thing definately changed in it. I even went back and installed a very old version(of A4) just to see if I could find one that worked - needless to say this failed as well. The only thing I have stubbornly refused to do is a full dcs reinstall -- not worth it for me for an estimated 30hr down load.

ok as far as I could work out having AVG on deactivates overlapping activities of windows defender. But I tried with all disabled as far as I could tell and it still refused to load the flightmodel.dll in a mission. So I am still at square one.

Before I add too much confuion the files left in the bin directory that would not let module manager remove were mainly .pak files (inc the one in locale directory) chrome_100, chrome_200 and chrome_elf.dll, libcef.dll. Dreactivated avg,removed F4 as said earlier, full cleanup, repair, re install F4, cleanup. Run training mission. Still no load the F4 flightmodel.dll

Hi zabuzard,I assume so, I have never tried before so have no idea if its possible, may take me a while to find out - or get my son to do it :). But no I have not tried this previously. Something additional, I had just tried to uininstall the F4 again to try to ensure that I had at least got through Maxsennas last suggestion above. Its telling me that it cant delete most if not all the files in the F4E\bin directory (including the locales directory in there). It may have done it the last time as well and I just clicked a few popups cos the text is so small to read - normally I have a magnfying glass to read these things, but working with a trusted utility I didnt take enough interest. When the uninstall had completed, I went in and delted the F4 directory manually. No idea if this is relevaant in any way, similar to the same idea the the A4-E mod .dll in savedgames fails for the same reason as the F4. But I will give the deactivation a go. Thanks for the refund suggestion, will give it a bit longer, a few more weeks are not gonna make a huge difference - "avoiding" the problem is something of a short term fix. It will to all intents and purposes leave me unlikely to buy other module in case the same problem occurs without a similar safety net. It also has a certain pull cos I worked briefly on RAF phantoms back in the 70s and unless a lightning, hunter or tornado turns up fairly soon I probably wont see anything I have a connection with - (I dont really count being a development engineer on ecr90 as a direct connection ). Let you know how deactivatioon goes.

Hi Max, I am sorry I might be confusing you, but I appeciate you taking time to help me here. AVG quarantined the heatblurJester.dll but not the flightmodel.dll. I recovered the heatblurjester.dll(by renstalling) and it is still in the F4-E\bin directory. With it removed, attempting a mission never got far enough through to load the flightmodel.dll. Once the heatblurjester.dll was installed and exceptions put onto the directories it has not since removed the heatblurjester.dll. But it has returned to the original condition where it cannot load flightmodel.dll for whatever reason as reported in the log file. Which at least shows to me that the avg exemption is working on the relevant directories because the heatblurjester.dll has not since been removed. The flightmodel.dll has never been quarantined and been no indication from avg that it was taking any action, I think I probably got to the correct sequence by brute force and ignorance.

Hi Max, I use AVG (free version) never had any particular issues with using it so have stuck with it for long time. If you are meaning full slow repair after I moved the dcs installation then not directly. Assuming I am remembering 100% correctly here - I moved the install, added via module manager the F4 then tried running a training mission. That failed, although I think that crashed out the mission (whereas usually the mission starts but you have only F10 view) and AVG said it had quarantined the heatblurJester.dll file for containing something nasty. So then I uninstalled F4 again then reinstalled it then did a clean and repair. Then added exceptions - initially just for the F4 and then for the whole DCS directory. After that the error just retirned to the usual. AVG has never given any kind of indication that it has rejected the FlightModel.dll, it just doesnt run for some reason. AVG might be involved just cannot see why - or how to tell.

Hi Max, I already have both main installation and saved games excluded. Had done saved games back when the A4E showed problems. Pretty sure the exclusion on main game is working because when I swapped the installation to the new Nvme drive it flagged F4 Heatblur jester.dll as bad and excluded it. So it reminded me to swap the exclusion to the new drive - and as I couldnt remember how to get it back I removed and re installed phantom. But thanks for replying, its possible I mentioned when making the initial F4 support ticket that I mentioned I had already excluded them.

Starting any quick or training mission for the F4 only puts me into F10 map view. Refuses to load the F4_flightModel.dll. Trying to click on it and using the enter cockpit keypress (alt-J ?) just tell me its not possible to fly this aircraft. All other a/c including A-10c, viggen, mossie, spit, F5, mirage, F-16 all work fine. I tried making additional copies of the bin directory merely to attempt to "move" the .dll to a differnt location on disc to no avail. Removed all mods (only have A4E, tacview, viacom and 476 range targets anyway). Made no difference. Raised a ticket back in May and had support give me a succesion of things to try. Reinstall visual C++ redistributable and then provide additional debug info. Neither seem to have helped, (installed both the x86 and x64 just in case). Was then asked to provide a checksum of the flightModel.dll which I provided (asume it was correct although never got direct answer from support to that). Then requested I try DISM and the sfc/scannow utilities. DISM came up clean. The sfc scan did report a problem with visual C which gave me some hope. It corrected it, I then reset computer and reran sfc which now reported ok. The flightmodel.dll still would not load. So then removed F4 module completely, repair, clean (and I additionally removed mods directory), then reinstalled (also redid hashsum of flightmodel.dll no change). Still not loading .dll. Never heard anything more from support for a coupla months until I sent a trifle snarky query about it. At this point (August) I was still running version 2.9.5 ie no additional updates due to several reported bugs that I wanted no part of. They requested I update. With a nvme drive 50Gb free and a potential 300Gb update from forum comments this was not really an option. Been in and out hospital in meantime but 2 weeks back bought a bigger extra nvme drive, spent 10+ hours to download latest updates and then tranferred the game to new drive - including reinstalling the F4. Still no work. The log file refers to one of these. Went to suport to update after this and found the ticket had been auto closed 5 days after asking me to update game in Aug (which has left me fuming to be honest). To only thing I will add, although all official mods work as always, the A4E (mod) has shown the same error since about v2.0.1. It worked when it initially went to v2.0 but at some point it would no longer load the a-4E-C.dll with the same error. Play this game in patches so its was never obvious which stopped it. I had already tried visualc checks multiple times since from comments in the mods section to try this. Had also created 5 or 6 copies of the A4E aircraft section to move the dll(never fixed it). I just was not bothered enough to chase it up. So I guess there is either something common in these 2 .dlls or my visual C library has some obscure error but why does it only effect these 2 modules (that I have found) and decided to try here if any new thoughts could arrive dcs.log

Thank you Baltic dragon, nicholas and all voice actors associated with this campaign. Unlike most campaigns there is little pressure that any mistake is gonna see you buried six foot down which is a welcome change and enables youto take your time over it. Although it has taken me some 6 months to complete, health, age, summer (rather ride a bike than be indoors even in rainy scottish summers) slowed it down was great fun to do and complete. Every mission provided something new to learn & practise. Even managed to complete the in-flight refuelling. Whilst I, like several others, had some issues with erratic comms and I have stuck with dcs v2.9.5 (since comments re FM radio volume in the campaign came to light) but they seemed less noticed after the 4th mission so didnt find any deal breakers. But running 2.9.5 the following 2 remarks are maybe out of date. The Final mission briefing note first page seem to refer to Lotus flying as your wingman/winglady? (we had no female pilots in the RAF in 1970s so whatever is preferred) rather than BIFF. Also a comment re the 9th mission with tgt pod training - the yardstick measuring from northern most viking to southern sabre - looked and measured it in mission editor came to somewhere around 750-800feet. Good answer seems to be 1/4 mile (1300 feet) but arguably 100m option is an equally valid answer (330 feet). Although the biggest problem I found here is not running out of fuel to complete mission 9. Found several briefing screens had conflicting information to the kneeboard but which is lost in memory over 6mnths. Plus once or twice ATIS qnh seemed to change over time, but didnt change in reality (ie if altered altimeter it was then incorrect). Thanks to all, and I would recommend it to anyone (esp in dcs v 2.9.5)

they didnt have those lovely exotic paint schemes when they first arrived fresh out the box at cottesmore in 1981. Probably the only plane that would drag me outta the viggen. (Bar a BAElightning perhaps)

Completed it, and enjoyed it. Although the night time exercise never got anywhere near a target. Bit surprised that my somewhat stretched pc specs manged to run it well. nice job by bunyap though thanks for it. Lot of work put in for the briefings.

Thanks for the extra insight renhanxue. I knew the limitations imposed for the locations and that in reality nevada and persian gulf would be out of zone. Just not aware that it included the vertical also. Unlike the lat/long, it just seems somewhat of an unecessary limit. Needing a special switch for this purpose plus code. And I cannot really think of any logical reason for it, even if you are not reasonably expecting to see higher terrain (its still 800m higher than uk has). Nice to know its not bug, and that I have found out why and when. Its lovely to fly and fight in (apart from those blooming mavs). Its image caught my imagination way back in the early 70s (those then novel canards) even when working on lightnings blasting your senses daily (just to show my age). Only a tornado could shift it from number 1.

thanks for answer Ragna. Been driving me nuts trying to discover when it occurs. I take it then that if above the trip height (2.4km it seems) and the ground rises above you, the viggen jockey is totally dependent on either terrain avoidance mode of the radar, VFR or pre flight planning for a warning. Did they hire a dutch computer programmer to be involved in writing the mission computer code?

Question for those experts with the viggen. Been plagued for ages wondering why the HUD altitude selector switch HOJD CISI seemed to occasionally physically lock in the LD (barometric) position. Tonight I finally found out when it occurs. When in NAV master mode and RHM (radar height) selected, when my altitude hits 2.5km (climbing) the switch physically switches to the LD position. Any attempt to switch back does not work (switching noise occurs but switch locks back to LD). I know the radar height only works to 600m but it seems strange that the switch mechanically moves (although not impossible). Even stranger that it occurs at that height. It also seems illogical that flying over high terrain it does not then indicate ground rising to within 600m below you. When I drop back below 2.5km it is again switchable. Also in LANDING/NAV mode it also locks into LD @500m. Is this normal occurence? Can find no mention in bugs, anyone else seen this - or is it some fault on my installation (or my searching ability)?

Certainly an engineer was not considered by the designers. If you did not have your arm ripped apart by locking wire daily you were on holiday. But it did teach you to work blindfolded and be totally ambidextrous. As for entering intake, you squeezed your head sideways in at the top by the standby pitot then pushed and let your weight carry you down and in. Surprising the size of some who could get in. Wonder if I still could? When you really did not want to do it was after a bird strike to check the intake vanes. Several heavies had to be pulled out due to collapse over the years. Counted something as a right of passage.

The 2 front line squadrons at Binbrook (5 & 11) throughout the 70's, mk3 were missile only and mk6 had the belly guns in ventral tank. We never hung anything under the wings (apart from the odd recalcitrant liney) and offered a prayer up when equipping the overwing fuel tanks - usually only for overseas deployments. It may well have been possible to change - but never done and the jockeys never trained for anythoing other than A/A. And from your earlier post - if you think the cockpit was cramped - should try fitting with 2 people hanging upside down in there to replace the computer red plug under the floor behind where the bang seat would sit.

that GR4 rear pit surprises me a bit, looks barely any different from the GR1s at Cottesmore from the early 80's even with my radically reduced memory now, it looks very familiar. Thought they would have at least updated the MFDs and CRPMD, I vaguely thought they had updated from green screen to colour MFD but from that look at seems pretty similar although guess it could be deceptive this many years on. Similar to you, would love seeing a 2 seat weapons capable version of this.

The manufacturers claim that RDI will detect 90% of 5m^2 fighter-sized targets out to 66nmi (122km) in clear air using a four-bar search pattern over 120 degrees in azimuth, and 60 nmi (111km) with a single-bar pattern over 30 degrees in azimuth, dropping to 50 nmi (93km) in pulse-Doppler look-down mode." Why would the detection range decrease using a smaller horizontal and vertical azimuth? Actually the manufacturer is not strictly saying the detection range is less, they mean the odds of you detecting the target is reduced (very fractionally). And yes I realise it comes down to a similar thing, its just the perspective put on it. In principle it should not, a 30deg single bar scan would pass over the target 16 times to the 4 bar scan once (assuming constant scan rate), so the odds would be much greater of breaking the target from noise floor. Especially if specifying a moving target and platform (ie reflection power varying). If target position is known then it will not matter which scan pattern you use provided a bar of the 4 bar scan sweeps out the same area of sky as a single bar scan sweeping over target, but this depends on how the manufacturer sets up the mechanics of the antenna scan. However, at extreme range, the target needs to be pretty well central in the 3dB beam width for max power to be reflected back to the receiver. As the target range increases so the adjacent scan pattern beams overlap. So your odds of detecting a target can be marginally increased. A target right on the extreme edge of the beam bandwidth may be seen 'better' by the adjacent scan. You are seeing an example of manufacturer specmanship. Often these values are quoted by systems engineers maths ( especially modern stuff), backed up by flying a target at a known height and path through a range, whilst you try to detect it. With a single bar at extreme range you have to be pointing antenna boresight right into it, a multi bar may see it less precisely aimed. Sorry if I aint described this very well, I am a very long in the tooth radar engineer.

antenna elevation control is on the front of the stalk of the throttle for M2000 (Blind side to pilot). As far as I know is has no function in game but probably cannot be accessed in that position anyway. But a rotary control works antenna elevation just fine