Jump to content

burritto

Members
  • Posts

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by burritto

  1. Another push for this to be included please.
  2. Having said it was 'fixed', I'm now getting it to a slightly lesser extent with elevator movement... anyone else seeing the same?
  3. I also get a lot of double images, similar to a cross eyed effect. It just doesn't feel realistic at all in VR. I'm a retired fast jet pilot and instructor, though on the jet I instructed on we had a HUD camera that was projected onto a flat screen rather than viewing through a lens like in the F1 so it was different.
  4. It appears this is fixed in the latest patch 2.9. Thank you.
  5. Yes, I get the same. I've not found a way to avoid it unfortunately.
  6. Thanks for such a quick response to this request. Looking forward to giving it a go from the back seat.
  7. As per the title, can you please add the rear gunsight repeater? Unless I'm missing something, I can see no way to add the rear gunsight. There is a special options box to add or remove the front cockpit gunsight but not one for the rear. Pages 222 to 230 in your manual explain the workings of the sighting system and make it clear that there should be the option for a rear cockpit gunsight repeater. The MB339 would make a very poor weapons trainer without one. I would like to be able to use the MB339 to instruct on academic weapons delivery and the lack of the gunsight makes the C101 the much better proposition at the moment, while the 339 is my preferred tool for everything else. Thank you.
  8. Adding another voice to this request. Please add this functionality.
  9. What will happen to the Dedicated Server Install? Will it update automatically to the new Normandy 2 full map? Will NORMANDY_terrain still be the install/uninstall id for the new 'modular' server install?
  10. With the latest map announcements, can we get an update on when the solution to this request is likely to be incorporated?
  11. If you read the replies above from 9L, then no. Normandy 1944 and Normandy 2 are different modules and will have different installs. If you want to play Reflected's (or anyone else's Normandy 1944 campaigns) then you'll need to buy the old map. If you buy the new map you can't play them, despite what was said in the newsletter and over the weekend. If you buy the new map first (and who wouldn't) and then decide you like WW2 and want to try a campaign, you'll need to buy Normandy 1944 at full price (or in a sale), or The Channel for those that run on that one, again at full price (or in a sale). So it's hard to see how this won't impact negatively on the work that content creators have put into their existing campaigns for sales moving forward. With the Channel area seemingly a bit of an unknown (will it be modelled in high res in the future?), then it's probably best for content creators to stay away from developing future stuff for that part of the map until some time has passed and things are better understood.
  12. What happens when a player with just Normandy 1 spawns at a field on a Normandy 2 MP server that isn't on the Normandy 1 map? Are collisions between aircraft and structures handled on the client or the server? If he taxies through a hangar that he can't see, will he see himself catch fire , or would players with Normandy 2 see him catch fire or just taxi through the buildings? Please tell us you've tested this before claiming Normandy 1 players can join MP servers running Normandy 2.
  13. Yes, the aerodrome opened as London Airport in 1946 when the first runway was complete. That aircraft approach shown in the movie is probably a little later (the movie was released in 1949), as there are several runways and some airfield buildings (they used tents initially in 1946). It wasn't a military base, either before or after 1944. Fairey Aviation developed the site. There were military detachments there earlier in the war years during the blitz of London but it wasn't used routinely as a military base, which is why it seems such a strange choice of field to add. Farnborough is similar, though it was used by the Royal Aircraft Establishment so had lots of joint military and civilian test flying going on, and more regular military detachments.
  14. Here's a historical video produced about the history of Heathrow during the period https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1945to1951/filmpage_la.htm Will we be getting the grass aerodrome with the Fairey Aviation Hangar and buildings, or a construction site, or the one runway when the airfield opened in 1946, or the one with multiple runways when they were finished sometime later? Is that a better way of asking?
  15. That's not 'WW2 Heathrow'. The aerodrome operated by Fairey Aviation was taken by the MoD under pretences of building a transport bomber base, that was resisted by Churchill and others. Work on building the runways only started in 1944 after compulsory purchase of the old aerodrome (a grass field) and the surrounding farmland, and Heathrow airport didn't open until 1946.
  16. Farnborough is a curious choice too. Was it in use by frontline sqns then? Or was it still not RAE Farnborough? At least West Malling and Kenley were in use by frontline units.
  17. Heathrow also seems a very strange choice for a London aerodrome in summer of 1944.
  18. What happens when ‘ Normandy 1 players’ on a Normandy 2 server spawn at an airbase that isn’t on the Normandy 1944 map? Will they be able to take off, or will they crash as they would on the old low res surface? Are the differences between the high res areas in Normandy 1944 that overlap onto Normandy 2 so slight that units placed by a mission maker won’t behave differently, or look differently, on the two maps? Will they appear inside buildings, or inside trees, or floating midair where thaere are differences? With such a change in high detail areas I feel it is wrong to have players with such different views of the world/mission created by the creator to be flying on the same server.
  19. Excellent. Thank for that explanation.
  20. Could one of the devs give us a little further detail on what 'standard basic synchronisation' means vs 'full state synchronisation' in that latest update? At initial launch, would it be an aircraft I could teach in from the back seat? I.e, engine state, fuel state, aircraft services state (gear/flaps/brakes. etc) all synchronised? Looking forward very much to the module's release.
  21. Great work on pulling this all together. I know that warehousing was a big frustration on Storm of War and just one of the issues that led us to close the server down. Having the ability to interact with them as suggested would be a great addition. I'd also like to suggest that the documentation from ED in all regards could be much improved. While there is some information available, any detailed stuff is generally third party and there are rarely any changes noted in the change logs relevant to the scripting environment. I've found it very frustrating to try to get scripts functioning to only later find an old thread several years old, unanswered and ignored, highlighting a particular bug. Putting some more resources into this would not only support the existing content creators with better bug fixing but also make it more likely that more creators will persist to create more and more scripts, that in turn expand what is possible for DCS. I hope we'll see something positive come from this initiative.
  22. +1 for this. It would be a great feature to expand mission builders opportunities to make the most of our maps.
  23. It would be nice to be able to see both the magnetic heading and the true heading (or would grid heading not be more accurate for DCS?), and/or the magnetic variation. The same would apply to the F10 map. Personally I don't mind if it is a switched option (like the different options in the coordinate system), or am option to display both headings at once.
  24. This seems like a bad idea to me. EVERY time someone connected to the server they would have to download however many liveries there were during the mission load screen. trk files would become bloated. You've already stated how what you want can be achieved - people have to download and install the custom skins. Have a skins pack that people download THE ONE time and install and then don't allow people to change the skins. If they don't want to do that, they see the default skins. If it's only for one or two skins, this is hardly an issue, and if it's for many skins, then do you really want those to be downloaded EVERY TIME someone connects to one of your missions? If ED did want to do this, it would be helpful to have some form of indication on the multiplayer server screen that custom skins were involved (and the size of those files), so those servers producing particularly large trk files and slow load times could be avoided. P.S. This is the Mission Editor Bugs subforum.
  25. My bad then. Sorry, I misunderstood your link in the previuos post. We’ve many more years to wait for any fix then.
×
×
  • Create New...