jamie_c

Don’t bother asking ChatGPT. People can ask me via PM here or find the discord link in my forum profile and ask on there. I did test ChatGPT and Copilot, Copilot seems to have accurate info, but Copilot didn’t develop Budgie, so it doesn’t know much either. Sorry for double post!

You’re welcome Beirut, enjoy the Mudhen again!

Budgie is not affected by Integrity Check, I’ve been on most of the major servers, it makes zero change to the supplied files with the Mudhen or any other part of DCS. How do I know? I’m the Developer.

Yes, so you’re already halfway there, add the services folder and double click Budgie.zip, drag and drop that Budgie folder into the services directory, run DCS and look for the icon on the main menu. Any issues, let me know, happy to help. As an example, your DCS Logs, Screenshots, Missions you’ve created will be in: C:\Users\ <Your Windows Username>\Saved Games\DCS\ In that folder we need to make sure we have: Mods\services\ And you’re dragging the Budgie folder from the provided zip file into the services directory. Once it’s there, open the Budgie folder in the services dir, verify you see entry.lua and a folder called bin, start DCS. The icon you’re looking for is the one from the release notes on github. Provided that’s there, try an Instant action mission with an air start in the F-15E, verify radar is working.

I’ve had zero negative feedback, it does nothing other than tell the Mudhen the wrong date so the radar works. There was one report of a user having a framerate issue, both people who relayed it to me as being a byproduct of low system spec and DCS visual settings not compliant with that spec, or more specifically some config issue. Some VR headsets simply don’t work if you alter the system date, this has been reported as an issue notably with Varjo but other brands as well, so Budgie gets these guys back in the air. Admittedly I’ve hardly flown the Mudhen since I bought it, Budgie forced me to fly it and I might just be loving it too, so I can see why people adore it. If you try the mod and have issues, discord is linked in the release notes just above the zip file, feel free to reach out or PM me here and I’ll get back to you ASAP.

Read the release notes carefully. Parts of the documentation mention DLL Injection, this approach was abandoned with the transition to mod form. As a mod, Budgie is just like the plugins for Tacview, SRS, LotAtc and similar to aircraft mods like the A-4E, the only difference is Budgie only does one thing.

Hello all, In case some of you don’t know, there has been a radar fix mod for the F-15E released. While it is a mod, it really doesn’t fit in the mods section of the forum as it’s F-15E specific. It restores the F-15E radar to working order and leaves your system date unaffected, even the DCS Mission editor date/time is correct (bottom rght corner). EDIT: also restores TFR functionality. The mod is called Budgie. Keep in mind it’s only a short term fix to help those of you who want to keep flying the Mudhen while ED and RB keep doing what they’re doing behind closed doors. I am hopeful of a patch to fix the radar on patch day, that would be ideal, had we received the patch as scheduled on the 26th with a fix for the Mudhen radar, Budgie would’ve never been released. Of course if it’s not fixed on patch day, Budgie will continue to work and will be updated as necessary until such time an official fix is released. Once an official fix is released, delete the Budgie folder, it’s that simple. Also, for Multiplayer, this passes Integrity Check. You’re back to flying in Multiplayer, I’ve tested it, many other users are flying it right now in Multiplayer. Budgie makes zero changes to any files included with the Mudhen or DCS. You can find Budgie here: Budgie mod on Github Please note, despite being a github release, there is no source at this time. My biggest concerns are pouring fuel on a fire and worsening persistent issues in the community and also the potential to use Budgie as a foundation for exploits or cheating, I know this has upset a few individuals out of what I estimate to be 500+ users so far in a community of thousands of people active daily, I simply don’t care. If you’re not comfortable, you don’t have to use it. YouTube Video By Plane Spotting Fargo YouTube Video By VRFlightGuy InPJPants

You’re welcome, understand it’s a huge leap trusting a random on the internet, I’m a user just like you. I’m also one of those guys that has an easier time listing the modules he hasn’t bought for DCS!

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/445aa8950b46bf3b9822e3d58a06f302526fc8f83b2f4277573c93f8d14f4e14/detection Submitted to Virus Total, here's the results. Use is up to you, if the risk is too much, system date change is still an option.

Did you download the mod? AV issues haven't been reported with the mod yet, you'd be the first.

Radar fix mod is called Budgie.

@Q3ark@Slippa Check DMs. Unsure of policy on linking mods.

There's a fix that doesn't require that.

BN, Understood. Thanks for responding anyway, I appreciate you've taken the time given how many cats you guys are herding.

@BIGNEWY just a query, would an end user provided technical solution, aka mod that doesn't alter the module files, allows DCS to see correct time, but deceives the radar potentially be acceptable? If not, I'll be quiet. If you delete this I'll assume it's not permitted, no harm done.

Technically an end user fix is not merely probable but possible beyond changing the system date/time. Where that sits with the EULA remains a concern - the break isn't technically that sophisticated.

Pointless arguing who you think is right based on the EULA that comes with your copy of DCS. Eagle Dynamics can offer the product for license under any terms it sees fit to anyone, the EULA is merely the standard form agreement and anything not suitable under the terms of the EULA could in theory be negotiated, most likely in return for suitable compensation. I'd doubt third party devs operate under the EULA, more likely under the terms of an agreement more suitable to their use of the product, i.e. developing and selling third party modules for DCS World and potentially its military specific equivalent with terms including the use of any supplied tools such as EDM format plugins for DCCs or the Terrain tools.

DRM isn't copyright protection, it's access control like a secure gate to ED's physical property to which we are granted temporary access. In the case of DCS and its modules those are also subject to the EULA that the majority here agreed to (\DCS World\Doc\license_en.txt for english). Notably: Section 9.1 also highlights you can lose your access by termination of the agreement at any time by "The Fighter Collection Limited". If ED/TFC fold one day, you wont be able to login to authorise your account and fly anything and not a single part of the EULA obligates them to change that and as someone who has an easier time listing the modules I don't own - that is worrying and no voice over in a promo video can fix that. Without a degree of luck it wouldn't ever see a community driven resurrection like another sim. The continued sale of RB modules is likely down to business agreement between the parties much like dispute resolution would be and I doubt a clause in the agreement includes public outburst as an appropriate remedy. The reality is many, regardless of outcome of the dispute have bought their last Razbam module, which is a shame because the Strike Eagle could've had a really bright future and the M2k with considerable help from the AdA is now to the standard we all expect with the exception of the recent bug.

Bit late on the reply, but you could be referring to the fact that it's a gyro gun sight, so you can either set the range and wing span as appropriate or flick the switch on the sight off to use a fixed sight instead. The Anton and 109 don't have the same sight and they are fixed.

In blender, click the down arrow circled in the picture and check face orientation. If you're looking at the back of a face, it will show red, you need to make it blue. In edit mode hit 3 to swap into face select, select a single face or all red faces, then press Alt+N, select Flip. It will then be blue meaning correct orientation. This may not help OP given it has been over a month, but may be helpful for others.

Like many parts of the HUG mods to the F/A-18A, there's no public documentation on how those dispensers are integrated into the RAAF Hornet, any implementation would be pure assumption and they'd no longer be able to call it an F/A-18C on the store page. It would be the same as asking for the AIM-132 and no one is doing that.

Yes, I would hope not, which is why I said lower priority, I'd still consider that an essential part of the end state. I'm just hoping to avoid this Roadmap being the definitive list of Hornet capability and getting to the end of 2021 with ED proclaiming "We're finished!".

One thing I'm not seeing on the roadmap is other HSI improvements: GRID Coord Entry GPS Coord XFER I'd consider these two bare minimum to bring it up to a similar level to the A-10C CDU, and that's in addition to any other improvements that are on the roadmap (MK points, Offsets etc). The current GRID Coord display is placeholder text, it doesn't change with LL Coord. Other than that, this is roughly how I responded to the survey: Flight Model Navigation Radar Modes/TGP Counter-Measures Boom Boom Training Munition - agree with jeffham222 here. As for running BITs, INS alignment time etc, lower priority for me, can see arguments for/against, would like OPT-IN through the Options for the jet. HSI for me is a much higher priority and I don't see how someone wanting to do BITs isn't annoyed by a half done HSI.

I would think that it should be coming given the A/C and WYPT pages in the HSI have placeholder text currently and the GRID option is shown on the UFC for WYPT data entry. The only issue that makes it complex is the 100 000 m square identifier selection uses a graphical display on the R DDI with the TDC. Also odd is the manual refers to this as UTM, UTM doesn't use a 2 letter code for the 100 000m square ID. I really hope this hasn't been forgotten.

As would I in most cases, but if you're talking L-39 and Mi-8, you could just as easily have an F/A-18 in the future giving a Bullseye call for a ground target. It's up to the user to decide priority in the fight, if he thinks turning rotraries is his best use of time, best of luck to him :) Whether they can add the feature requested depends on how far they're willing to deviate from the real thing. I'm surprised the real 430 has as much utility as it does.