fl0w

Tested the pilot body controls in 2.5.5, and so far no fix. Has this been yet an acknowledged bug?

I doubt ED would purposefully change their EDM support to disable numerous mods and potentially upset a big portion of the DCS community. I hope the modders can make the models up to date with the newest export tool.

This is normal. Only in air to air situation is the HUD refresh rate quicker in guns. Any other makes it jaggy.

It seems that random JESTER actions cause CTD as well. That, or something audio wise may be missing. Putting in my dcs.log here: (Cleaned up stuff for shaders and input devices)

Track file (since thread title changed): https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=211285&stc=1&d=1559792509 I also did some digging in the files. For mainpanel_init.lua, it specifies argument number 165 as the pilot argument in the gauge code. However, this is what arg 165 controls: Code for reference: The fix is able to be done in the mainpanel_init.lua file. EDIT: Going through all of the argument numbers for animations in the cockpit, not a single one of them has the pilot body/bodies. yak-52 bug 1.trk

The same feedback you're providing is a few people's opinions compared to the masses. This feature was hoped for by many Heatblur fanboys because of the realism buffer, just like a pilot body, good textures, accurate FM, and it goes on and on. If you're telling me that throughout your whole time in DCS, you've never messed up a single thing on your comms for targets, ranges, airfields, etc. compared to when JESTER is giving a range on some nails, then I guess you have a reason to complain. BTW, Hoggit has it much worse than the forums. You've got it flipped around. ;)

I was siding with your story, not against it. "Contradicting" as in this. Heatblur promised this, and since the launch, they found out that DCS handles VRAM usage poorly with texture maps and the uncompression of audio files for JESTER. I have 24 GB of DDR4 RAM and 21.5 GB of VRAM. So I am curious about how they are going to do this with this limitation as a factor. So no, I was not bashing.

We've hit an all-time low to be complaining about an AI consciously making mistakes and then correcting themselves. Is this where we argue the realism v. i-dont-like-it crowds?

I get it, priorities make first headlines. The acknowledgment from the developers is always better than nothing. I still remain the same on this front: always focus on fixing bugs first before working on implementing new features. Adding things with things that are broken doesn't feel right, but doing both is workable. I still have my money laid on this module Nick, you haven't ripped anyone off here. The work on the Tomcat is incredible. :)

Well then, this seems quite... contradicting. When this was announced after their Heatblur FORGE thing with the new workflow and development techniques, they said every cockpit would be dynamic. But since HB have chosen to have high quality (and literally big sized) files for the texturing in the cockpit, it bottlenecks the VRAM that people have. So now having this LOD action kind of thing in the cockpit every flight (or at least preference in settings) would just hurt the user more. Fingers crossed still on the pilot body though!

Pretty straightforward. When using multi-crew or flying by yourself, the show pilot keybind controls the variometer sideslip animation instead of the bodies themselves. Before hitting keybind: After:

As Razor stated, you can make a 3D model and code it in DCS as a static object, but it isn't exactly what you're going to be looking for. Official maps need the TDK tool in order to be created.

I'm still going to fly it. Am I totally devastated by the lack of a pilot body or radio? No. Would I wish for improvements though, specifically engine wise? Yes! At the end of the day, it was still ED's choice out of the contract to allow us to have this. But then again, this is consumerism at its finest. If we (as consumers/those who bought this module) do not like it, that doesn't mean we can't give criticism. Not sure why that has been the latest thinking with other modules as well.

Just bumping this. As far as news-wise for the next F-14B update, HB has said that they are mainly focusing on a lot of performance fixes and FM improvements. The pilot body (I assume at this stage) is a low priority issue that can easily be enabled by visibility track means in the cockpit 3D model.

This module is awesome, and I enjoy flying it. But with that being said, the engine seems screwed. When starting the aircraft up, the propeller no longer naturally pauses during its spins and spontaneously starts. Carb and hot/cold air seem to have no effect with the engine, and the performance is significantly weaker. The radio I still have not yet been able to work. And of course, the notorious damage model still makes you bounce off the ground like a rubber ball when you crash. What I exactly question about this module is why we're getting planned development updates but everything has still been exactly the same, if not been getting worse ever since EA.

Another respected man we have lost. My condolences to his family and friends, may he rest in peace.

The Lua code only allows you to have the option enabled for MP. C++ code is required AFAIK for multi-crew to work for a mod or module.

Any idea as to why the hot start throws you to IFA then? And is there a point to having a preference over one or the other? (Assuming IFA is only modeled for just aligning in the air at this stage)

I only have 2 questions in this instance. Whenever I finish my INS alignment inside of the Harrier on the Tarawa or on land, am I supposed to: 1. Move my INS knob to NAV or IFA mode and 2. What specifically is IFA? Whenever I watch a tutorial or get involved in the mission, I go for NAV mode but whenever I am in a hot start of the Harrier, it is in IFA mode. Any answers are appreciated, and apologies if this has already been answered.

If you honestly expected to post this in the wishlist without telling us who or how this decision was made, expecting people to follow along and help you easily, then you came here to get your dream shattered into pieces by other people. The Modding Hub is a good place to start, try asking there.

Gotta enforce the law somehow. ;)

Words of wisdom. People complain about the product that is in EA, including myself have done it when they knew exactly the state of the module wasn't finished.

I think the Harrier is almost viewed like the Hawk. The way it was launched really could have been better, and RAZBAM is obviously trying to improve their product but it has already started to build a negative reputation for a portion of the community that focuses their views on systems completion and not the overall product. I hope RAZBAM is able to tie up any loose ends with the modules, including finishing the MiG-19P bugs listed and completing the avionics overhauls of the Harrier and Mirage.

Thanks for the notification. Fly safe!