Headspace

It shows the version it finds in the registry. People are suggesting that this isn't the same version they have--it may be that the registry isn't getting updated. But you can point it to the world folder and it will work.

Try enabling write permissions to your TS3 directory. We'll be moving the settings out of that directory into user space. It's probably part of what the problem is.

It defines the standard Export.lua functions but makes them empty, just like the default Export.lua does. When other mods (like TacView) install their hooks into it, it should work like the old one did. Provide logs, if it is working for some but not for others than it may be an easily-fixed configuration issue. Since a lot changed in 1.2.3, there may be some problems that we need to work through.

What player quantity and server?

If the server (or whoever is hosting) doesn't have TARS installed, it needs to have object export enabled in its network.cfg file. The TARS Control Panel does this for you automatically, but if you haven't installed TARS on your server and you have a new 1.2.3 install, it's doubtful that it was enabled. This file is found in your $USER/Saved Games/DCS/Config folder. Export being disabled may be the cause of the problem you're currently having. Make sure it's turned on.

I've created a new version which contains significant changes to the control panel, making it compatible with the new way that 1.2.3 and above will handle mod folders. More details are in this post. I decided to put the usual regression tests on hold and allow everyone to try it out right away, but be warned, there may be some bugs. Please pay special attention to: - Windows XP and 32 bit installs - Muting in and out of game (TS3) - The speaker direction bug that people are reporting As always, logs are really critical.

Pop the master caution CB and #YOLO. :devil:

Expect an updated version by this weekend. During crunch time I usually give priority to testing and not TARS. Don't worry though.

Do you have IAPs then?

Happens a lot. That is why you see me demand logs as much as I do. Glad you got it sorted out though.

I'll hop on there as soon as I have about an hour or so to troubleshoot it. Send me a PM on this forum or Reddit WRT when you'd be available to test (this week or the next). I have a busy schedule until mid-Feb, then it's slightly less busy. If there's a bug causing you trouble, we will find it and I will kill it.

Nice work, EBS.

There's one piece of equipment in there I recognize--a Garmin GTX 327 (probably what people are saying looks like a CD changer). Civilian transponder used in general aviation. Not sure if there's a military version but I suspect if there was the head would look different.

Right. Consider a tandem-rotor helicopter (Chinook, for example). Sideways is the only way out, since forward or back puts one rotor into the other rotor's vortex.

A VORTAC is just a VOR and TACAN colocated together. The DME component of TACAN has the same specs as the civilian DME. The TACAN is more accurate than a VOR but the cone of confusion is bigger. Not sure of the technical details as to why this is. Station passage is a valid fix for a VOR. That's not the case with TACAN. Notice how on an approach that requires TACAN, you'll never see fixes that are defined by station passage. The wiki page for tacan is actually pretty informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_air_navigation_system

Russia makes them available for free--there so far isn't a free link for the Georgian ones. It's pretty difficult to learn real world approach procedures without an instrument background. A lot of the stuff isn't immediately obvious. But I'm sure someone could learn it at an intellectual level, with practice, in a sim like DCS. A huge amount of the theory has to do with what ATC is actually doing. Which you can't get in a game (unless someone is pretending to be ATC).

Doing a lot of stuff that doesn't involve gaming, sadly.

In a general sense? Be extremely conservative with the aircraft. Don't put it in harm's way for more than a few moments. Learn where the threats are (are they mainly on the ground? Then fly above it. Alternatively fly below long range SAM threats). Also don't expect to be able to see things like infantry, especially from altitude. Expect that if there are MANPADs in the area that the first you will see/hear of them are missiles being fired. Just be really conservative. Pretend it's not an action movie.

I might be interested in doing this, but I am not 100% sure I can make it on a Saturday night. We'll see. Leave a spot for me if you can.

The problem is that in DCS, the ILS isn't coupled to a DME--the TACAN is the source of the DME signal. So you would need a different approach. These approaches look pretty weird to me. I guess they're indicative of the type of approach one can expect in the region, but stuff in the continental USA isn't structured anything like those. Usually the missed approach point involves a holding pattern that can be flown while other aircraft are using the approach. In the case of the one I'm looking at from Bad CRC's link (Sochi) it seems like there is no MAP, and instead, you literally circle around for another shot at the ILS.

I would rather see actual wake turbulence than the visual component. The real thing is invisible. But I'm sure that would be a mega processing sink.

You can make fun of it all you want, but these games usually sell a lot more than do hardcore flight sims simply because they're easier for the average person to pick up. It's the same reason that Call of Duty is a billion-dollar industry and games like Ghost Recon (the first one), OFP and ArmA weren't and aren't. Either the late 90s were a statistical outlier, or the industry was doing something different to pique interest in the flight simulator genre that it isn't doing now. The advanced flight sim genre tends to be seen as an inaccessible timesink by the average person.

I was going to do an instrument approach tutorial and then I thought it might bore a lot of people. So I figured I would come back after two years to do a tutorial that more people would find useful and do the instrument one later.

Is that published somewhere? (edit: Unless it has to do with FalconView, in which case I probably already know what you're talking about) I would like to compare it to what DCS is showing me. It is probably the case that any offsets are not big enough to be a factor.

Sure, in the meantime I would look at the videos Eddie linked. If I didn't think it was something a layperson could learn to do in the game, I wouldn't make a tutorial for it. It's just one of those things that takes practice.