Wyatt109

EDM plugin not detected by 3DS Max 2016 Greetings, I seem to be having difficulty getting the EDM plugin fully installed. I downloaded the latest version and ran the installer, but upon launching 3DS Max, I'm faced with a "failed to initialize" error. I went to the install location and sure enough, the files are indeed there. After some Googling, I also made sure that I had Visual C++ Redistributable for Visual Studio 2012 Update 4. (recommended in this thread) Here's the error I'm getting, despite the files being present. Anyone know a fix? Thanks!

924th_Krinje takes the rookies out for a spin, and I take the opportunity to hone some recording skills. Not being a Blackshark guy, I do the filming! Enjoy :) (Since I've already been asked several times elsewhere - the "Flanker-shark" scheme is for our own use only. Sorry!)

Reposting this from Reddit, but I'd recommend everyone hosting a server take a careful look and see if this behavior is exhibited in your missions. CTLD worked fine in 2.2 with the default config, but it looks like something has changed in 2.5. Specifically, despawning static objects (what happens when you unpack a crate) will cause an instant crash. Thankfully, Ciribob included a fix on line 34 of his script: ctld.staticBugWorkaround = true -- DCS had a bug where destroying statics would cause a crash. If this happens again, set this to TRUE I've tested it a few times and it seems to work fine. Just a FYI! Cheers

Hi Prowler. I shot you over a PM on this matter. Thanks!

Hi Stryker! We are investigating all avenues. We have most of what we need, which is operational documentation for all major systems aside from a couple miscellaneous bits. A weapons employment manual remains one of the big items on our acquisition list ;)

Happy Monday! Redtail Simulations is looking for one additional flight model/systems programmer. This is contracted position requiring strong C++/Lua knowledge. We're looking for a long-term team member with the motivation to sustain a large, long-term project. Prior DCS development experience is desired, but not required. I can explain in detail and answer any questions over PM. Thanks! Dave Redtail Simulations

Dave F-5E

We're looking for maintenance manuals, technical drawings, wiring diagrams, powerplant manuals - basically anything beyond TO 1A-37B-1 (the flight manual). Physical or digital, doesn't matter. We're more than happy to pay for shipping, even if outside the US, if the item if physical. Thanks!

Greetings to all! We are currently looking for programmers (Lua/C++), 3D modelers, and specialists in aerodynamics and advanced math who are willing to assist with a modding project. Those inquiring must have a great passion for aviation and the work at hand, operate well in a geographically-dispersed team environment, and have motivation for an extended-term project. Our immediate, near-term goals are mod-oriented. Please note - all positions are uncompensated at this time. Only serious, professional inquiries are desired, and samples of your work may be requested for review. Please send all inquiries in a PM to me directly. A breakdown of your skills and previous work is ideal. Thanks! (Moderators - Wasn't sure where to post this, but the mod subforum seemed appropriate. Please move if better suited elsewhere!)

I have also wondered this, and having done some extensive work with the bomb tables, I have come to believe that this is a result of mass calculation of values, which results in some that are beyond 200. These values exist, I believe, to show that releases at certain attitudes are impractical or impossible to do with any degree of accuracy. From a flight planning perspective, I think they exist to show the flight planner that "what you want to do is not doable". Just my two cents. What weapons are you wanting to use? I can perhaps recommend something different.

Current pipper behavior for MSL mode is consistent with the AN/ASG-29, not the AN/ASG-31, which is what we have in the DCS F-5E. This is supported by detailed descriptions found in NAVAIR 01-F5AAA-1. Excerpts below: Current behavior (displaced downward, in accordance with AN/ASG-29 description): Behavior as it should be (caged with ARL - not displaced downward, per AN/ASG-31 description): I have uploaded NAVAIR 01-F5AAA-1, and it can be found at the below link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2jvQG7VffmIbFRndWVHb3N2dFk Relevant section is VIII-28-1. It appears all other aspects of operation, including DG/DM modes, are accurate. This is small fix :)

Solution: speed brakes, chute as soon as the nosewheel touches, full aft stick after touch-down, and gentle, steady pressure on the wheel brakes. You'll make the first turn-off at most fields 99% of the time.

I fly the F-5 almost every day in some capacity, and have done so for several months. I have not noticed any change in the P5's performance. What were the release parameters when you noticed it unlocking the target? Also note that "locking/unlocking" is something of a misnomer in regards to IR weapons. Instead of locking, they home on heat signatures. Keep in mind that the target's heat signature and aspect may have changed between the time you released and when it attempted to intercept the target.

He thought he could dive in and help but was already running on fumes, so his engines died the moment he got to the fight. Many laughs were had :lol:

I don't think that's what we're arguing, really. The core of it is that if people followed checklists, they wouldn't have to ask for something that isn't currently possible in the sim. Would I love to have an interactive crew-chief to assist in start-up? Totally. In lieu of having that, I do follow a checklist, and thankfully, in the ideal world of DCS I never need to second-guess whether or not my brakes are up and stowed. So use a checklist or...I don't know...keep taking off with boards out? It's always worth a laugh on ACG Cold War, watching people barely clear the end of the runway.

Definitely not, I agree. That said, if you have the opportunity and you really know the airplane, it can truly defy the stereotype of "you can only fly the Mig-21 fast".

How do you fancy the actual F-5E checklist that states it plain as day?

The Mig-21 can out-turn the F-5 in some circumstances if you know what you're doing. Hint hint - it involves landing-flaps, afterburner, and a lot of discipline. Here's a demonstration:

That link is a great read. Some very good documentation. Now to test this and see how closely the in-game RWR behaves...

Excellent! Happy to help :) And good tip on the clean weight. I will factor this into my calculations.

Great! Thanks for looking into it :)

While doing some flight planning, I realized that my calculated weight differed more than 400 lbs from what the weight was in the sim with an identical loadout. I then determined that pylons do not actually weigh anything. This can be easily verified in the mission editor. Below is an image that shows this bug in action. I have uploaded and linked the Weight Data page (below) from the F-5E's real life TO, which should assist in assigning proper values to the pylons. I have confirmed this is the case on all wing stations along with the centerline station as well. LINK: Weight Data Hopefully this is easy to fix :)

You are correct. I added it up and pylons are indeed weightless on all stations. I will report this as a bug.

More than 400 lbs though?

I'm trying to account for two things - In the real-life F-5E manual, it states that a clean, fully-fueled aircraft weighs 14,950 lbs. If we add 560 rounds of 20MM (394 lbs), that gets us to 15,344 lbs. Empty, sitting on the ramp in-game, an F-5 with full 20MM is 15,556. I assume the discrepancy is down to the chaff/flare dispenser? Here's the second question. I've done a second loadout: Weight w/ fuel - clean: 14,950 lbs 2x INBD pylons: 244 lbs 2x OUTBD pylons: 256 lbs 1x CL pylon: 170 lbs 4x Mk-82 LD: 2,124 lbs CL pylon tank (full): 2,004 lbs 560 rds. 20mm: 394 lbs 2x AIM-9: 342 lbs TOTAL: 20,487 lbs However, this loadout in-game is more than 400 lbs lighter at 20,062 lbs. Could it be that pylons are not being accounted for? Something else? This is a fairly significant gap in weight. It's almost a whole Mk-82. Does anyone have any ideas?