fl0w

Glad that I was able to help! :D Feel free to pop any more questions at me to be answered.

This may interest you for a basic animation script on systems like the flaps, gears, airbrake and etc. You would have to change the ID for the system event (ie. PlaneGear, PlaneAirbake, etc.) according to the system you would like to model and develop some additional rules to each system the more advanced you make it, but this should help. Check this for control systems if you have direct linkage controls: https://pastebin.com/fAHHGp53

I assume you did this, but just to make sure: did you place your code from command_defs.lua in a Keys dictionary variable? ie. Keys = {}. A clickable control lever would just control the ability to allow interpretation in the SetCommand() function with the element's value. You would be using whatever number you assigned to your element value along with the command Airbrake check. Doing that would be "if command == Airbrake or 3001 then" instead. For your control surfaces, if you're modeling just linkage and no hydraulics you are best with getting the base data from stick roll and pitch positions, along of rudder and dividing by a number like 100 or higher and actively drawing it with calculations in an update() function.

From what I have been able to observe, the state of a system like the airbrakes, landing gears, etc. are dependent on the animation position value. Try this: dofile(LockOn_Options.script_path.."command_defs.lua") local dev = GetSelf() local update_time_step = 0.1 make_default_activity(update_time_step) local sensor_data = get_base_data() local Airbrake = 73 local AirbrakeOn = 147 local AirbrakeOff = 148 local airbrake_command = 0 local airbrake_state = 0 dev:listen_command(Airbrake) function SetCommand(command,value) if command == Airbrake then airbrake_command = 1 else airbrake_command = 0 end end function update() if (airbrake_command == 1 and airbrake_state ~= 1) then airbrake_state = 1 end if (airbrake_command == 0 and airbrake_state ~= 0) then airbrake_state = 0 end end need_to_be_closed = false -- close lua state after initialization A basic script that will set it at maximum animation position, no transitional movement. Hope that helps.

Here's the 2nd last to be made, getting closer to being satisfied for release. All tails are going to be re-done. :)

Which means the more reduction, the easier the bending may occur from forces. Not all bending of wings on aircraft are linear, not even the Tomcat which has more extremity around the edge as well.

I'm going to side with the 3rd party developer here who actually knows what he is doing. Wing flex is a result of lift forces that occur on the wing. Every aircraft has an amount of wing flex but it is barely noticeable. More lift occurs around the wingtip section than the rather general area, that when pulling G forces it causes a significant bend. While you may argue that it is visually incorrect, the "bend" or flex of the wings is dependent on the wing's internal structure, as well as the composition of materials used. The 1st example is what we are observing in DCS with the edge of the wing structure bending (I-beam in this case) becoming more extreme the closer it is. The 2nd is what you're trying to observe.

I'm not able to reproduce this myself. Is anyone able to send a video to show?

Likely on full release. We still have the -A variant which will have a lesser RWR and more inferior engine set. Not much was different between the -B and prior besides those 2 features and slight cockpit layout changes. They're probably focusing mainly on the bugs right now along of the missing features of the -B variant, such as the TARPS system, jamming for the radar, Forrestal, USS Ranger Deck Crew functionality, and etc.

Sure, not a problem at all! The tail stripes were something that I personally was not overly satisfied with, primarily because they feel to be too downward in the first place and too thick.

Yeah no, I'll believe it when I see it.

Welcome to RAZBAM, Elwood. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. :)

Here is another version being worked on, from 2001. Will include in the release. :D "VF-154 Black Knights 2001"

WIP shots on the Low Viz variant No. 1. "VF-154 Black Knights 2003"

A small update on this thread: As progress has been continuing (and minor procrastination) on the VF-154 High Viz skin, the livery has now been completed. I am fairly satisfied with what I made out of it during my free time, and learned quite a bit to how livery making works with the F-14B. I overlooked a lot of this beforehand, and now that I have been able to practice my own skills on this, I can now look back upon this knowing that this was an easier said-than-done kind of deal. In other news, I will be now working on the Low Viz variant as I had promised that I would look into doing for Robert. This version is just one of the other two that I will be making. Progress on the first one is almost done as well, with some exceptions like the pilot helmets. Sorry for taking so long to get these liveries released to you guys, but they will come! "VF-154 Black Knights 1988"

Why does this code exist exactly? To me, it would not make sense to have this if MP servers had all slots available, if not less for a carrier/boat to spawn on for delaying to be needed... Unless spawning under the deck was possible?

I'm not sure whether or not this is a bug, but I thought I would post it here after seeing the post about the A/G reticle being offset. (Note that this link purporting that issue is not a bug.) See attached the video.

Thanks! Just checked it with my model and it is the same. :D Hoping to release this soon, I just want to make it look good and minimize new updates to it upon launch to ED user files.

Easy for me to do with the current livery with some simple color changes. :)

Sorry for the crickets chirping guys, I have been super busy with personal life matters. On the VF-154, the red stripes have now been properly aligned. Red trimming has also been fixed on the stabilizers. Currently, the other livery maker is busy, so the liveries may be released separately depending on the amount of time being able to be allocated towards our own designs.

This is not a bug at all, just a simple request. Can we get a "Solved Bugs" subforums area where all the bugs that HB have addressed can go? It would allow for cleaning up the Bugs subforum and show you the bugs that haven't been addressed/fixed.

That's currently the last thing I am working on before release. :)

Der Tomcat ist 100 Prozert mein lieblingsflugzeug! JESTER ist cool in die hinter, aber braucht ein bisschen arbeiten zu die Mechaniker. Meine Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut, so entschuldigung. :D Ich möchte Deutsch lernen.

No kidding. The latest bug post was this June 27th, and it got re-named as [REPORTED] tagged. Glad to see that some of these posts are getting ignored as they say that they're "still working on" the Yak-52, even though they only added failure sounds and effects... :noexpression:

This is absolutely amazing! I have always had a fond feeling for simpits, and yours is one of the best that I have ever seen for the A-10C! There are some things that I am sure are going to be added, like the HUD framing and a tiny little parachute when you pull out to eject. :D