sedenion

Found why you can't cancel, however, there is no reason it can't overwrite...the same function is called in both case, and if the overwrite failed in your case, this could be for a good reason... (file write permission or such thing like that). Anyway the "can't cancel" bug is fixed for next release.

Look at the log ! (and copy-past it here): In the menu : About > Log.

This is not a bug, this is a feature to prevent you to improves your mods correctly :D Jokes apart, i will investigate that... thanks for report.

Okey, it is just mater of common sens optimization... avoid useless polygons on flats parts and increasing on round parts, but i hope the M2K cockpit is already optimized as this... Fact is: if you want something rounded to not appear angular, you have to increase the polys count.

By which miracle ? (former 3D modeler & 3D developper here) Anyway, adding some polygons on sensible circular parts will certainly don't disintegrates your graphic card...

Oh hell... then, now, i know why the destiny don't letted me being a fighter pilot despite my excellents eyes :D

Maybe because this is boring as hell... so we imagine a so boring thing is made by people that like to do boring things :p

You said you don't see what stimulation Whaaw can found by simply pushing 3 switchs, then you explain how configuring INS, navigating and do lot of complexe things is way more stimulating... I try to explain you that you simply are not stimulated the same way than Whaaw (or me), and that you seem to completely avoid the "main" part of a "fighter" tasks: fighting... That's a matter of taste, and... many other things i will don't discuss here because this is not a psychology nor sociology forum :D Who configure the cartige ? The pilot ?

Interesting remark.. i don't see the point of flying an fighter jet simulator to "just" start engine, navigate, configuring an INS (which is usually configured by ground crew) and pushing a lot of switch and buttons :D After all, it is not like this kind of aircraft was made to free the pilots from "non pertinent" tasks to let him concentrate to its mission and targets :D

Ho dear Jojo... :D ... Nobody said the contrary, and certainly not me... I only explores the potential reasons why this PCA is illogical despite its practical aspect. As YOU are only following "the reality" like a military guy follows orders of its superior wihout questionning beyond the facts and procedures, I personnaly need to understands the reasons, motivation and potentially occult motivations that lies beyond things to be in peace with myself. Maybe, now, you better understands the gap between you and me (and why i could never be a military, exept maybe in the intelligence service), and why i say, do, and question what i question, say and do :D End of OT.

That's it... this is practical, not logical... The logical way would be to let the PCA stores buttons as weapon/pylon selection either for launch or jettison, ignoring redundancy with HOTAS, AND, with a separated button for Magic-IRST feature somewhere on the PPA... but i guess this was too late to add this "separated button"... So, they did what engineers does in this case: tricks and improvisation.

No...be a little ponderate. This, is Arcade: I recognize FC3 and other modules are not exactly at the same level of fidelity. I prefer the term fidelity instead of realism, because speaking of "realism" in a game is a perfect nonsense to me. To me, all DCS modules have the same level of "realism". But some module have a better level of details of their own "aircraft modelisation" in term of process and features. FC3 modules are less detailed, less fidel. Other modules are more detailed, more fidel.

Well, so i was probably right with my theory of enginer logic (not logical at all) and the "missing button"... :D

I will put everyone in agreement : The current PCA implementation is neither realistic nor unrealistic, but is simply wrong. What many would call 'not realistic' can be something like FC3 where you simply cycle through weapons using one command without embarrassing yourself with some PCA buttons or mode selection. I have to say that for me the "unrealistic" way is sufficient if it is judiciously "rendered", since there many more passioning things than pushing buttons (even more if in addition you have to use a mouse to do it).... But, if the goal is to implement the real detailed process with buttons etc. yes, this process have to be correct, and if it is not correct, it is simply wrong and there is no question of "far" or "close" to realism, nor question of "perfection" or not: it is a fault.

No doubt there is a good reason... a good reason understandable from engineer's point of view... - Ok guys, we must have ability to enable only Magic Seeker for passive detection... - Yes ! but we have no more buttons to assign... - Damn... well, let use the HOTAS override to select it, we will use the PCA to enable the seeker only - Is this not confusing ? - Let say this is the "French Touch" so nobody will complain. - Hem... okay...

in fact the weapon deployement appear fuzzy to me with what Zeus explain... especially concerning the Magic: "MAG option in the PCA is used to activate magic seeker search option. It does not select the missile for launch nor does it set the system in AA mode." So... The "530" button on PCA select the S530+AA mode, but the MAG button is not the same... and so, how to select AA mode and select Magic for launching if we can't through the PCA button ? The Magic-AA-Selection only work using the HOTAS override ? This sound strange to me...

However, it is an optional complexity, like the INS programation... indeed the M2k module CAN be very complexe, if you do all what you can to complexify it, like manually entering ground target coordinate in the INS for example... but this is - fortunately - not required. ( But i know that for a good part of players, the complexity IS the fun )

I wonder if engine start procedure is the most important while you can start from runway and no correct Magic lock and CCM procedure is explained... However, that have something funy to see that while in another topic, some are complaining that DCS (where the C stands for Combat) is not FSX :p

Okay, not exactly every month... only 3-4 month...

Since many people bind some shortcuts on HOTAS, well... realism is here something realy relative. But yes, it is better to have at least a correct process that does not change every month.

No, but: Définitely NO... 5... but with current manual... 35...

I am not even speaking about this kind of thing. FC3 modules are pretty finished. Maybe they are not as realistic as some want, but their limitations are "software design choices" as i explained before. Inside the defined "sotfware design choice" perimeter, theses modules are finished and "well done". The M2K module, is probably more detailed and complexe than FC3 modules, but inside the defined "sotfware design choice" perimeter, it is not finished... and in fact, if we consider only the basic requirement for a "finished appearence", like for example, graphical fidelity and basic standard of realisation, the M2K have serious problems in some aspect... the HUD symbology to name it, this is precisely why i made a mod for... The fact is that many people are focalized on "simulation fidelity", often without understanding that within a game, or if you prefer, an enhenced public software who runs on common computers, you cannot have something as realistic as you are dreaming for. The "realism" many people are looking for is just a big dream... since i am perfectly lucid about this point, my focus is on others things...

m2k module needs a little bit more than debugging and improvement to be considered as "finished" in fact. Technically speaking the m2k module still an alpha version very close to a real beta version (i.e. a finished version that need to be debuged). But well, since with ED and DCS, "Beta Version" is the standard of "finished state" (never finished in fact), the m2k is close to be "finished", but currently, it let this strong impression of unfinished because of numerous small details... This problem is not realy "what is implemented or not", because "what is implemented or not" can be considered as software design choice... the problem is "how what is implemented, is well or aproximately done". And currently, it still many things that are "aproximately done" or even "temporarly wrongly done" and not really "well done". PS: In fact, in my opinion (this is only an opinion), RAZBAM choosed to implements too many things at once... giving themselves an huge mass of work, forcing them to scattering their attention on too many things at once. The module is like a big complex wonderfull cathedral, but with many wobbly stones and unfinished parts.

Links are on the first page of this topic. But the "next release" is not ready yet. I wait for more "fix" or "feature" to create a new release.

For who made a snapshot comparison since the recent DCS update, you probably noticed that because the log has many entries this being very slow and particularly at the end. It even remain a bug with deleted items entries. I am aware of the issue and this is now corrected, you'll have this with the next release.