Raisuli

First module I successfully crashed was the Su25. First one I successfully landed was the TF51. Yeah, surprised me, too. It didn't happen twice. You can learn what you need to know without buying any modules. A stick, on the other hand...you can get one on ebay for next to nothing.

Thought I'd with all those people who celebrate their holiday today a Merry Christmas! Hope all your wishes come true!

Maybe...I'm still wrapping my head around menus. :Refresh() didn't do what I wanted and I ended up deleting and recreating a menu item that changed based on user input. Not as pretty as I like. At the end of the day the menu allows the pilot to set up an A2A engagement, and I wanted the pilot object (whoever that might be) to use as a reference for spawning the bandit. A Fox3 engagement will need to be farther out than a guns-only fight. There's a menu item to "Engage <plane type> <loadout> <skill level>" that changes as you select all of the above, but the sticking point is where the spawn happens and what the AI aircraft does once it spawns. Really it's just a coding challenge since I decided to learn .lua and mission editing. Until I solve this there are other things to do, such as the logic that an F-5E can't do a Fox2HOBS loadout, or Fox1, or Fox3...and the user should be so informed. I should just change the way the menus work...

I'm having fun playing with moose lately, carving my initials with the sharpened end of a toothbrush and doing all those things... Now I want to change the local environment, but to do that I need to know who I am, or more specifically an object handle for whoever opened the communications menu and selected F10->MENU_MISSION_COMMAND:Whatever. I've found ways to step through every client, figure out if the client is controlled by a player, then checking the player name. Is there no function to identify the unit that triggered the menu command?

Just want to wish the entire ED team a happy new year and a Merry Christmas! No, I'm not that nuts, Christmas is January 7th for some of the people who build this amazing software. They get the first ten days of the year off, and I hope they are able to spend them with friends and family and look back on a successful 2020, where they stepped up and impressed everyone with what they can do when the pressure is on. This has been a great year for them, and for us. Thank you, and here's to a 2021 with even more accomplishments and hopefully a little less background noise!

They have a donation page? From what I've seen that mod is amazing; hate to fly off with all that work and not leave so much as a cup of coffee behind. That feels too much like larceny. I generally practice with the F/A-18, but that gets boring. Always nice to have other aircraft to crash into the deck, spewing shredded metal and shattered parts about like shrapnel. Heck, when I do the upwind flyby they all start running for cover... Didn't realize the deck crew AI was that advanced.

Well. Ikarus takes about 160MB, the MFG config another 7MB or so. There's at least 5MB in _.* folders in the DCS folder, but still way over 250 GB. I'm missing a couple campaigns, and one or two Garmin mods, but otherwise I've got the whole hanger. The only thing in DCS are the things DCS put there and a couple edited files I have to re-edit every time DCS updates. I don't use any module managers, update managers, or other third party software apart from Voice Attack and SRS, but they live on the C:\ drive.

A switch matrix with toggles probably isn't going to work well. Matrices are designed for momentary switches (think keypads or even keyboards on your computer), and even then it takes some work to tolerate multiple key presses; generally diodes to keep the current from reversing on you.

Key statements here. If IronMike decided to make me CEO for a day I'd tell him not to waste time on the vanes. After 10 years in service very few were in use, and honestly how much time are you going to spend with wings swept staring back at those oh-so-lovely slabs? Given the quality of Heatblur's work I'd rather see the time it took to do this invested elsewhere, in the Viggen, the F-14, or a follow-on product. Just my opinion, meaningless as always.

I have quite a few pictures of VF-21s aircraft flying at the end of the '85 Westpac, which was their first deployment with the F-14. A couple are of a high-ish speed flyby with swept wings; 200 had glove vanes, 205 did not. On the whole I would have to agree the 'not' is more pleasing to the eye. They also looked brand new, mostly because they nearly were. With my 205mm lens you'd think they were showroom fresh. <edit> Decided to add a picture. Apologies for the grain; real day on a real ocean with real film shooting a fast object. 200 is forward inboard, 205 is aft outboard. Also might be worth noting I have a few shots of a 4-ship high-ish speed pass from VF-154, and none of them had glove vanes out.

Put the Canadian F-14 (F-14, eh?) in my Syria familiarization mission and had no issues at all. Must not have any of the offending mods...but that's because historically I've found they tend to jack things up sooner or later and I've severely limited the mods I use. I have to agree that if you want a modded system one of the disadvantages is reduced stability; the developers can't be held accountable for the programming skills, or the willingness to update, of every player/hacker/coder in DCS. ED has already said they're updating many of those 8E+7 lines of code, and that's not going to be good for the mod ecosystem. As for how mods in ~/Saved Games affects the F-14, those libraries get loaded just like the libraries in ~/DCS World, and they affect the functionality of the system in the same way. That's the beauty of linked libraries; you can insert code from any number of locations, which can simplify installation and management without affecting function. Now, about side number 205 on that VF-21 skin... :thumbup:

Darn it! I've been flying at night quite a bit lately enjoying the view, and was all primed to have a self-righteous fit about cosmic phenomena being every so slightly different than reality, and you stole my thunder! So rude. :megalol: DCS is freaking awesome. No, it's way better than awesome, I have no clue what all the toxicity on these boards is about. Some people would complain if you hung them with a new rope*. *and yes, I know the protocol for preparing a rope for a hanging. Get over it.

Did it flicker? Stars flicker, planets do not. :thumbup:

You may very well be correct, enough so I'll stop suggesting otherwise without more data to support the idea (besides, I like greased landings. Thudding into the ground is really bad for your neck! :thumbup: ). Hopefully DCS never gets to a point where they model this stuff; far too many, more important projects. Sheep.

This poor guy did his master's thesis on it: https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=utk_gradthes` Mover once said in passing you don't want to feather an F-18 too lightly or you run the risk of failure. My knowledge is asymptotic to zero, so take all this for what it's worth.

The other thing that doesn't happen IRL, and I really wish DCS could fix this, is my wife suddenly deciding something has to be done right now when I'm on short final, or in the middle of the groove, or trying to reverse a bandit, or... I tried doing an F-16 landing in the F-18 (thumb got tired holding the speed brake out). Went level 13 feet over the runway weighing just under 32,000. Finally touched down at 10.1 AOA doing 118 knots with a VV of -180, full back on the stick but the nose dropped like a rock and hit at 115 knots. Not convinced aero-braking is much of a thing in the hornet, not to mention the planing link which probably isn't modeled.

My dad always said his navigator couldn't find his (BUTT) with both hands. The only reason they made it from Oahu to Tarawa was the lead aircraft had a navigator who could navigate. For the long haul flights it was mid-Pacific windage, with a little radio direction at the far end if you were good enough to get there.

Cows. With multiple hides. DCS is feature complete. Had one crash to modal dialog on something or other (shaders?) but I couldn't reproduce it and decided it was no factor. DCS has said they have more goodies in store for us this year, but...dang...in my world this has been a fantastic turn-around for all of them, in what can only be described as a challenging environment. Can't wait to see what they can do in a more normal world.

Sounds like a Russian to me. Russians are are famous for many things, customer service is not among them. Yeah, yeah, I'm about to get flamed in Cyrillic, but you know I'm right! :thumbup: :smilewink: La-La. Watch me start playing in WWII arenas...freaking rocket ship on the deck; higher HP/Weight than even the vaunted Typhoon (no, not THAT one, the other one!). If he can make an La-7 that's even in the same football pitch as the I-16 it will be a winner in DCS.

PG is Persian Gulf (map) Crossroads Baker is the most famous Wilson cloud in history. The underwater Bikini test. We, and this includes ED, already know the ship damage models are borked, but it's still surprising that the smaller warhead is more damaging to ships. Makes me wonder how that's modeled under the assembler. I played with ship damage a months ago working on Harpoon launches from the F-18 and IIRC the Soviet destroyers' performance varied significantly based on terminal behavior and cruise height of the Harpoons. I also seem to recall two destroyers were significantly harder to hit than one. Unfortunately I didn't document those results as well as you, but I ended up bringing in some Tico cruisers at one point to bat cleanup after my flight of 4 F/A-18s were done.

Still working on the 'stop' part that comes right after 'land'. It's eluding me. I find people who decide to taxi across the landing area when I'm halfway down the groove (in an F-18C LOT 20) far more annoying. <edit> If I wanted the 8 after F-18 and the parend that followed to be an emoji I would have made it an emoji </edit>

Did the single mav hit sink the ship? I've noticed in PG it can take multiple harpoons to sink one of the built-in commercial ships, but a single mav sends it down faster than Crossroads baker.

The other option is to take an existing mission and play with it in the editor. It's a great way to highlight the aspects you enjoy and learn the mission editor at the same time; if you can make your own missions you never run out of single player content...

Correct is the position you prefer as far as I know. Sometimes I bump the seat up to get more view over the nose (especially doing carrier landings in the F-16), but the HUD limits how far you can take that. The (clueless) guys who did this for a living might have better information, but they're probably wrong about it... :smartass: :joystick: (that last bit was entirely tongue in cheek and an attempt at humor)

I hear ya, and you motivated me to get past the 'install Voice Attack and figure out how to get Viacom Pro working' point. I've got the one installed and my license activated (surprising given how long ago I bought it). Now I'm at the 'nothing works' phase. If I get this thing going finally I'll have to get the SC license. Ziptie, that's exactly what I was doing, but my ability to keep the oscillation down up close is minimal at best. Hand from throttle to fumbling around for the KB, which is not placed well, was enough. That and the WifeACK was firing on full auto, so I got a little frustrated. Didn't realize KC-135s have ejection seats... :thumbup: Then again, I was making the ball calls on my latest AFU landing and the LSO never got it. Odd. That binding usually works. At least with the carrier I've finally realized when people say "fly the ball" what they really mean is "fly the ball". That's making much better sense and my approaches are improving.