Raisuli

For your next challenge, which MiG-29 flew at Rockford in 1990? Not the Ukrainian MiG a couple years later, the first time a MiG-29 did US airshows; I believe it was Russian. I had the MiG T-shirt from that airshow for years.

Info? Like, the prelude to an update? You're kidding, right? This is the F-5; my absolute favorite abandoned aircraft. Cracks in a compressor blade? Nothing some JB Weld and Gorilla tape can't fix...don't worry about that vibration, it will settle down eventually...

9 FPS in Afghanistan (two EA modules at once; not my brightest idea). I put an F/A-18 at the same base and got ~120 FPS, so that was more about the -47 and less about the map. Took off, flew around, saw a lot of what people are talking about with chopped textures, landed on that roller coaster runway, taxied around the base, took off on a gravel guard loop next to the wall, re-landed...F-18s are tough aircraft! 74 FPS in Syria. Off the map in Syria; there were no other object to render anywhere other than the statics at my FOB, but it was still 74 FPS. Still far below what I would call normal, but...EA. Kind of expect things like that. None of this has been re-tested for confirmation, so take it with a salt mine; nothing says I didn't have other apps running the first time and forgot about them. A bit later I'll try it all again under more controlled circumstances, but I think they moved this thread and that belongs elsewhere.

There's a little static (which might be something else; I literally just undid ED's 'helpful' axis assignments and configured the cyclic and collective), but this is a mod saver! Still some whine, but for whatever reason that's not a problem. Flew from my remote training FARP in Syria to the Helipad of Shame without any ice picks in my head and almost 10x the frame rate I got in 'stan. The CH-47 is officially a thing thanks to you! I greatly appreciate it!

No luck finding a sound mod for the -47, at least not in User files. Global search for 'sound', tried file type 'sound' (300-something files), no joy. Got over the headache, just going to leave that parked in the hanger until I can find a way to block out that whine.

Finally got my plate cleared off enough to fly the CH-47, repaired all the damage ED does with their helpful bindings, took off (it really is easy to fly) and realized the engine sound loop has a high frequency note that triggers migraines. Is there a way to replace the default engine sound, or is this just not a module I can fly (with the sound on)? So far, knock on aluminum, this is the only module I've run into that does that.

AOL Same and same. Apparently ED doesn't want people offline anymore; not so much as a pong from them.

Still not as much fun as jumping up to the 23-9 level in no. 1 diesel room in heavy seas. You have to time it right; jump just after the bow comes down off a high wave, and aim for that 4x4 hatch...but remember you're working with arcs and when the sonar dome re-enters the water that causes a lot of turbulence... Far too many good sea stories, and some of them are actually true. First time at sea after we came out of the yards nobody knew how to stow their shtuff. That was messy, and kind of funny as well when the personnel office looked like a tornado had gone through. That space is not modeled. We only ever had red and white lights, but maybe on bird farms they get more choices.

Nothing wrong with teleporting missiles. Once it's off the rail it really doesn't matter which rail it launched off unless you want to capture the video, and even then clever angles should solve that problem. In the mean time four heaters? Sign me up!

From alt.sysadmin.recovery: All hardware sucks, all software sucks. Ok, the F-18 is slightly newer and has a bitchin' Betty-Lou, the F-16 has a bitchin' Betty that chain-smokes. Visibility in the F-16 is better; that canopy bow is a distraction. The F-16 is a rocket where the F-18 is a beast. The F-18 has an extra pair of heaters on the wingtips. The F-16 has much, much nicer cluster bombs. The F-18 carries longer range A-G missiles (harpoon, SLAM), The F-16 has a HARM targeting pod, the F-18 has a built in jammer. They're the same only different. Just close your eyes and pick one. If I had to keep one to the exclusion of the other I'd be happy either way.

I looked at options like this before I built the simpit and often wondered how you get out of them. No matter where you go your flight controls go with you, and with the stick in the middle you have throw a leg over it to get out of the chair. Apart from which those mounting locations are way too high and far forward. I see some adjustability, but not nearly enough. My shoulders hurt just looking at the stick and throttle mounting position. It might work, and apparently it does for enough people that they sell these, so those concerns might be overblown.

That's her happy face (she passed the final quals; she doesn't get happier than this). Try not to annoy her. HOT-3 missiles make painful suppositories; she's already heard all the jokes and comments, so try being professional. Maybe that will work.

This one is seriously on the attack: null

HA! Poor Reflected has to fly in 2D and can't maintain SA...welcome to my world! Oh, and can you re-write the AI to not jerk around so much? Sorry, I just had to say that. Seriously, since you recommended S&A first I should learn how to fly the -14, but there's a statistically high chance this will be the first campaign I decide to tackle...

No news about the controller issues? Maybe it just didn't make the notes.

My first thought was whether or not an environmental impact study was done before the shelling began. You can't just bomb people back into the stone age without appropriate air and water quality protections. I've honestly never seen a fire like this in DCS (need to play with artillery more), but it's just amazingly cool, and if you shoot upwind it might get interesting.

Always put out the source of the fire. Except in firefighting training. They get mad if you actually do what they tell you in firefighting training. You might want to trust me on this. In a class alpha, which this probably is, an explosion probably won't extinguish the fire simply because the components required for combustion are still present. Once the Taylor wave passes, and possibly even before that, it would re-ignite even if the pressure wave was able to interrupt the cycle. Is this reasonable? Well, what are the floors in those brick and mud houses made of? How about the furniture? Wall coverings? Paint? Bedding? What is the roof made of, and how is it sealed? Tar? Any dry grass around? Stubble from crops that have been harvested? Piles of rubbish? Cars? Get the idea? I've fought a lot of fires, of all kinds, but putting a JP-5 fire out with water was still epic. They say it can't be done, and as usual they're wrong...

Now that we have an Airboss can we get on the 5MC and kick the deck crew into gear? They're still strolling around like tourists gawking at the pretty airplanes...

Yes it is! Particularly in games. There's a FPS my Cow-orkers (yes, I spelled that correctly) play that implement all kinds of stupid things with ballistics that drive me nuts. Just gotta ignore it when they talk me into playing with them; it just doesn't work like that out in the real world. Here? Sure. Why not? I don't pay attention to nozzle position in F-16s, F-18s, F-4s, F-5s...guess I'm a cow-orker when it comes to DCS

...and I still haven't noticed a problem. Too much time spent at the other end of the aircraft, I guess. Sorry about that.

From the comments, screenshots, and videos it looks like this is an EA map with the potential to be the most awsomerist (Awesom-er-est - Adj. - Inspiring the most-er awe) map in DCS. Maybe a little underdone, but the potential is certainly there and no reason not to think they'll get it dialed in! Got a trip this weekend; hopefully when I get back ED will have some of the more egregious issues ironed out and I'll get to see this for myself!

Bindings, and the way DCS manages to make sure no two modules are the same and most of them are missing large numbers of them, are my number one gripe. They then come though and 'help' us by re-assigning binding to devices and over-write what we've done. This includes making us re-add the binding they can't be arsed to put in the modules to begin with. Big reason I don't fly the A-10C; that thing is a disaster. After two or three years of begging, and offering to give them the changes to the F-18 LUA file they added one. One. At that rate the A-10 will have a reasonable binding set some time after the sun goes nova and swallows Mars. The F-16 and F-18 respond to the same physical control differently; one works great, the other not so much. Consistency? Who needs it. This is not computer science. It's not even hard; we're talking about a single text file (.lua) per air frame, and there are plenty of people in the community willing to help. @LeCuvier is a genius with this stuff. Consistency? Different problem, and it's fundamental with ED. As we used to say in the Navy if 2.5 (barely satisfactory) is "Recognizes correct answer when told" what is "Refuses to accept correct answer when shoved down throat"?

<soapbox> I've had this discussion at length with our QA department and the CTO. I'll report bugs they never see, can't reproduce and it boils down to "I use the software, they run test plans". All kinds of details in those quotes that would make this TL/DR, and QA has no intention of changing that because 'using' the software is too fuzzy and hard to document. Which is why most release software is really beta, and beta is alpha, and it's honestly not the fault of the developer, it has to do with the way computers work. Linux was, once upon a time, an exception, but Red Hat has fixed that and now it's as much a mess as Windows. Yea, Red Hat Maybe I should go back to VMS or CMS. </>

Don't really need it. Have FC3 and full fidelity MiG-15/F-86/F-5. Not sure if FC4 gives me two copies of those last three, over-writes them with low fidelity, or just leaves well enough alone. Very little data out there about mixing the two. <edit> Right? Write? Rite? Who invented this English thing anyway? </>