Warmbrak

It was worth buying since first release; many videos have been showcasing its current capabilities, and all seem to agree that this is a great addon so far. Keep in mind this is a ground attack aircraft.

That is interesting; I watched a video that Ralfi posted yesterday showing the A-10C targeting pod FLIR, and the vehicles appeared to stand out pretty well. Something appears to be amiss here.

Most of the GIS data and aerial photos that will be required to make a pretty decent theatre may cost some money, but it is not outside of the realm to fund these through a kickstarter campaign run by the community. The end result will represent some portion of the earth, and it should be fairly realistic. There is no excuse not to do it, and I don't buy into the argument that it will be cheaper to develop a fictional (fantasy) map. Even with a real world theatre one can take some liberties where no real word information is available (the current Caucuses map is a point in case), and people will understand and accept that. I can not however see why fictional maps of place that don't exist in real life should be created for DCS World. Now I could be wrong, and someone could potentially make a pretty good knock off of mother earth that does not actually exist in reality, and it could end up performing well with great gameplay options, but this is not something I would like to see in DCS. I would back a community real world theatre in a heartbeat, but it is unlikely that I would support a fictional/fantasy map.

Just a question; do you use the in-game anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering or NVidia overrides? I can't remember the scratches being so pronounced, but then I again I don't spend much time in 1.5 anymore.

I have found that even with empty pylons, attempting to execute a vertical landing with more than 3000lbs of fuel can be challenging. I only do vertical landings with 2500lbs of fuel or less, which does not even activate the water system with lots of power to spare. Many good comments in this thread, especially with regards to throttle movement. Only make very subtle throttle changes in the descent; big movements in throttle up ok, big movements in throttle down are bad. Being too heavy in this aircraft can ruin the best of intentions quickly!

Thanks for the suggestion. You are right, there are ways to smooth this out using a virtual device, but I have switched to using DX directly with my Thrustmaster Warthog after spending too many hours over the years tweaking profiles for each of my sims, and I am reluctant to go that way again :smilewink: I will have a look, thanks. In my view, this is a common issue with many controllers, and ED should consider fixing this to improve the user experience. By fixing the sensitivity on their side, it will improve the experience for hundreds (if not thousands) of users.

This issue is not unique to the WH Throttle; I have tried it with a Saitek Pro Throttle, and those slider issues cause the same jitters; not more, not less. This is something that ED will need to resolve, as the axis is way too sensitive at the moment. Unless there is someone clever that can script out the issue to use 1% increments of the axis to avoid the 0.4% jitters that PiedDroit referred to.

Very nice skins guys! I am very new to this and still have a lot to learn. Here is my effort currently in the oven.

Thanks Sverre, looks like that is the way to go.

Hi Tim, Thanks for the comments. I believe this is how I have structured my layers in GIMP, but it does not appear to be 100% compatible with how things are done in Photoshop (I have seen something similar with other paints kits before). I may have to dump GIMP for liveries and invest in a Photoshop subscription.

Sverre, that looks great; I noticed that you are running into the same issue I am with the wheels on the bogeys; they lose their texture somehow. I am using GIMP, and had to turn off some layers relating to the wheels to even get my layers to show up (correctly placed under the Day Paint group). Does GIMP break the layering of the original template? Should one preferable work with Photoshop instead? I know enough to work with layers etc., but I am not familiar with all the nuances between Photoshop and GIMP.

Thank you very much. I however can't seem to find the download link on you site? I have deleted cookies just in place and refreshed, but still nothing. Edit: After many refreshes the page came up with the link. Thanks again Razbam!

Some of us may really need to, especially the pylons.

There is already a great SAAF 80's skin for the M2000-C; I wanted to create my own with some distinctive features and insignia created from scratch. This is my first livery ever, and will need to delve into specular layer magic to achieve the end-result I am after.

Especially seeing that these are springbok, not kudu on the insignia. You are right, should be a lot skinnier [emoji6]

With all the tools available one should not have to install this via command prompt Baz, I agree. Many users are familiar with the process, but it should not be necessary, especially when this is provided by the main developer. That said, a command prompt is easy to use (youtube a tutorial or two), and once you are able to browse to the bin folder, commence the download is per the second post of this thread.

This is extremely messy. The torrent for the Normandy terrain appears to be 4.5GB; I switched to HTTP download at around 75% as it was going very slowly, and now the size went up to over 8GB and the speed dropped to a crawl. Can anyone please confirm what the actual download sizes are for the map and the assets?

PiedDroit is correcty; air-to-air combat rarely takes place. When looking at potential future encounters, these could be either isolated incidents or during a state of war. Isolated incidents take place under typical "cold war" conditions where one would only engage when fired upon or when warnings to disengage are being ignored. Chances are that these events would finally escalate at medium to short range, and are likely to end up in a dogfight. During a state of war the entire scenario would change. Air-superiority then becomes a complex system of information gathering and sharing, and engagements are likely to occur at medium to longer ranges. Parties will most likely lob missiles at each other, evade and return to a safe engagement position. This engagement buffer would essentially sterilise airspace over wide area, and the victor will most likely be the one with the best strategy and technology. I have seen documentaries where aircraft such as the B-1B could be modified to act as a AMRAAM-truck, circling in an area behind F-22's and F-35's trying to lure enemy fighters closer. B-1B's can then literally launch a barrage of AMRAAM or similar medium-range air-to-air missiles at an enemy that is likely to overwhelm their countermeasures and evasion techniques. The B-1B will ripple a barrage, turn tail and run, and then rejoin the combat holding pattern. These are but just two scenarios to describe the possibilities, and there are probably lots and lots more. It is an interesting discussion, but there are way too many variables that will need to be satisfied to settle the argument. So until then, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong ;-)

Dear speckfire, great job and pretty please! This is one of the main reasons I keep checking this thread and I am glad someone decided to do this one.

Sounds like you may have removed your main DCS World installation? Nevada is currently an "Alpha" branch, 1.5 was until recently the "Beta" branch, but at the end of the day the "main branch" was still 1.2.x and now 1.5.2. If you removed your main branch you will at some point need to install it again. Some content may be copied over by the installer from alpha/beta streams, but you will still need the main one.

I didn't want to say it, but I'm glad you did TomCatMucDe.

Great work Razbam! Really impressed with the effort and appreciate the work you guys must have put in to make this happen on Christmas day! You have pulled off a very complex aircraft with your first product in DCSW, and I look forward to the future versions of the M2000C and your other products, Congrats!

I cannot believe what I am seeing in this thread. During the most difficult time of the year to get a product out a developer manages to provide a beta on Christmas day and have stated before that the product is not entirely finished. A reasonable person would understand what that means. A reasonable person would understand from following the developer discussions that some features are still being worked on. A reasonable person would also understand that Christmas is time for people to spend time with their families after a year of hard work. Anyone can see that this product is not 100% finished, but the quality of the product at the moment is not bad at all. The performance is great, it looks great, flies great, and there is a lot of functionality for an aircraft in Beta. Most of the systems that have been excluded from this version was because they weren't ready, or there may be some issues to resolve. Is this the product I expected to be released yesterday? Pretty much yes. Are there things that are broken? Yes. Will they get fixed? I am sure the developer will get to fixing these issues? Do the developers deserve the heat they are copping from some of the users on this thread? I can't see why people are going off like this when it was reasonable to assume that the quality of the product was going to be what we got yesterday. I personally think Razbam did a great job with the M2000C and it has put a smile on my face more than a few times today. I am not blind to the things that are not working and in and ideal world products should be released in a 100% working state. That state will come in future, we just need to be patient for a bit longer. Would I still have pre-purchased the M2000C knowing what I know about the state of the release today? Absolutely. I suspect most of us do. Getting so tired of the whiners...

Also note that the 530 is a semi-active missile and one will need to maintain lock until impact, much like an AIM-7 Sparrow.

The next waypoint shortcut works; previous waypoint does not. And the cherry on the top is that it autmatically switches to the next so using a waypoint as a target reference for CAS is a pain as it switches to the next waypoint every time you fly close to that point. Any tips will be greatly appreciated.