karapus78

Воот, о чём я и написал только что в другом посту. Невозможно поменять задержку на взрывателе сзади бомбы. И только замена его на заглушку помогает делу.

Thank you very much. Yes, dynamic slots are enabled.

Despite the fact that pressed the clock in the map editor, and on the airfields available for editing there are only airplanes of the desired historical period (map Normandy 2.0, the date is respectively 1944), then after starting the mission itself on the airfields can take any aircraft, even a modern type.

Он никогда и не работал, если ты о визоре.

Дык сложно это всё же. Зависит от команды разработчиков и её возможностей. Имхо выйдет конечно. И-16 отлично получился! Верю, что и Ла-7 будет таким же.

Вывод только на сравнении устройств? Однако. А можно ссылки на документацию? Или исторический анализ ряда историков по этой теме?

В том то и дело, что никакую. Всё штатно, по умолчанию что стоит, не меняю. Сброс произвожу с 3000-2800 футов, угол 60, хотя бывает и больше или меньше.

У тебя хотя бы взрывается. Видимо парни перестарались и бомбы вообще перестали взрываться. Разобрался. У бомб нужно вместо взрывателя сзади ставить заглушку. Тогда всё срабатывает отменно.

Почему то не срабатывают бомбы на взрыв. Вообще рандомно происходит с редчайшей частотой. По сути один раз на 20 попыток.

I don't know, I bought all the Razbam modules and I'm happy).

А можно как то ссылку в лс что ли на пост с пикабу. Чёт не нашёл.

No one is diminishing their merits or successes, but I can say with knowledge that their JF-17 module reminded me of “Trishkin Kaftan”. (one thing gets fixed, another thing breaks, and then the previous thing breaks again). This module was my first clickabob and as much as I love it, I have to admit that it's still not Heathblur or ED level. And all apparently because of the fact that the size of the team greatly affects its capabilities. Here's what I mean.

And can you not write not by advertising, but provide a link to open sources on technical literature, which will allow to familiarize with the necessary information for modeling? “The most open country” - don't be ridiculous, it was like that in the 19th century. But without delving into politics, as far as the game is concerned, everything that is modeled in DCS is entertaining. And even long before the F-35 was announced, there were, are, and will be game assumptions here. Simply put, as the module developers decide, they will implement (weapons, systems, operation of these systems, etc.). You don't need to write about reliable modeling of the module and its systems in the game. No matter how good it is. There is a game, and there is an aviation simulator. I hope you understand the difference. This is all to say that there would be a desire, and to model the same Su-24, Su-30, Mig-23, Mig-25 and other machines will be no less difficult and troublesome. I'm not looking for any pitfalls. Everything was very clear to me from the beginning. I'm just amazed by people's belief in the “reliability” of data when dividing modules and their systems. Perhaps in some cases everything was exactly the same as in the case of the L-39, but this is just a case, not an axiom. If there are documents allowing to model a module according to technical documentation from open sources, they do it, and if not, they easily model “from their heads”. That's all. So I don't understand what you are writing to me about.

Oh, really? )))) Remind me again please, who and where authorized the sharing of the F-35A? Indeed man is an inert creature and takes a very long time to change his beliefs. The game says in the fine print at the bottom, for those with eyes.... "This software is intended for entertainment purposes only."

That's not the point, it's that the development team is extremely small.