Hawkeye_UK

Thanks Flappie for the quick response. Of all the pages the sat position page is actually the worst (my rig is not slow either at just under 6ghz and 24GB Vram/64Gb RAM but this page alone can drop the fps by circa 20% from the on position, let alone when its switched off). I think the most concerning is the amount of issues listed through the NS430 forums, that have been around years, then they put it in what is a leading module (29A) and also include it in the sales blurbs, yet when you start digging deeper there are so many basics just abandoned. The fact that no maps have sid/stars since PG is another in the long list of problems. It's branded as NS 430 is particularly useful for older aircraft with less sophisticated navigation and communication systems. on the actual NS430 core module. Also on the sales page for the Mig 29 extra plug in module The NS 430 is fully wired into the electrical and radio systems of the MiG-29A . Not sure how they can state this when non of the communications side of the NS430 is operational, or ever has been. This is not just misleading, its false advertising. At @Wags please can you have the store page ammended, or provide a roadmap - I'm only including you as this has gone on for so long and it really needs senior producers to be across the issue to get resolution or direction. Doesn't need to be resolved in the next "two weeks" but I do think years later the community, and customers have a right to know what the plan is, with some circa timescales. This is nothing to do with EA either, the module is what 8 years + at this point with a feedback communication to the many early testers quite simply not at acceptable standard. I note many posts don't even get an acknowledgment let alone a thank you. Someone somewhere needs a metaphorical rocket firing in their direction to get the many issues logged, acknowledged and worked on, either that or don't sell it as a plug in for a AAA module. Sadly 2 years later its a good job you were not in a hurry lol!

Well Flappie how did that chat go? I'm guessing one way as law and behold as testing anything to do with the NS430 getting a 10-15% drop when in any of the nav or waypoint pages. The control page for testing is AUX, then see the dips as you select the pages from there. In its current state, along with the missing comm's feature, missing data points, missing airfields even, no updated sid/stars on any map since PG, missing F10 presentation for navigation it really is a box of spanners. The worst affected page for performance drop, you'll never guess, nothing to do with with the terrain page being diplayed, the Sat position page drops by 20%. Make this make sense, all GPU load according to the ingame dev page. Note this does not need a track file or log to post - after discussions online across a multitude of hardware and setup's everyone is reporting the same. @NineLine @BIGNEWY @Wags Please can someone explain why so much of the NS430 has been left untouched, without response and with zero feedback for the customers that have been trying hard to assist with the EA Process. We see posts on here, with valid bugs with not so much as a thank you, sometimes in excess of 5 years. Wags i never include you on posts but given the dereliction of not replying hoping you can add this to your long list, given its fresh release with the Mig 29. It is hard to recommend anyone buys the add in, for VR or standard given the state of play. With the launch of the Mig29, this should have had a clear brush up, with the core module and cleared the development backlog. This is not a case of an EA product, but something long established into the game. The Module as it stands is being misleading at the point of sale for many reasons. Note this is constructive feedback and just seeking general answers and would rather seek them here than have the conversation elsewhere outside of ED moderation.

I note some airfields don't have the ICAO code on the F10 map when you click on it, and sure enough they don't appear in the NS430....

I mean even a reply would be a start.....

buur sorry is there a way to import these into the mission editor on an existing mission template (I have some old long standing mission templates that took me along time to set up biut have alot of scripts in them and really don't want to start from scratch) Also the points listed are those that are already in the NS430 database file that you cannot see, unless on the limited screen ingame, or are these additional fixes you have added? Finally are any thoughts on cold war germany, i note i was at an airbase tonight and even the airfield wasn't in the database somehow!

I will just add in response as an edit buur to you reply, its not like anyone is after a monthly AIRAC cycle, but a base position would be good, even if that was 5 years old, or static for when the map was released etc or set to date. Doesnt have to be exact but a real base position is required.

Please feel free to get involved to push this agenda, its a disgrace at present the lack of response from ED, and i mean over years, I think we have been patient enough, its the lack of comms on this that is the issue, not just the lack of work.

Hi Buur thank you for commentating and I note your efforts historically in trying to push the progress of this module, not just today but I also came over your work few months back when trying to raise this point prior to the Mig 29 release. My whole point is for the majority of users, especially those of us who are not computer literate and haven't had a life in code or PC's it's even more problamatic. The points hidden within the internal structure of the NS430 should be clear for all to see on the F10 map with an overlay toggle, the fact they can't could actually be intentional given the lack of them! What i would say the whole module is really not fit for purpose and for too long now ED have just blatantly ignored any feedback or request for this module. The fact they then hyped up the selling of it for the Mig 29 is a bit of a sham it has to be said, feel free to correct me ED with how you are going to remedy this with a timeline and roadmap, but at present on the NS430 threads its just tumbleweed and no replies. All maps need supporting, day 1, not 7 years laters still nothing. Be it down to ED, or the third party at the end of the day a flight sim that cannot even navigate is poor. I've listed this many times over the years, it should be the base block and foundational stuff, not trying to add it it at a later point. Mission planning is everything especially as the sim is ramping up into gen 3 aircraft etc. Trying to do anything on the cold war map is basically just leads to nothing but frustration, the lack of nav points included is poor. It's worth highlighting that as it stands thus far only Caucasus and PG are really properly supported oh and Normandy i believe (although not tested) as i only use the map for warbirds and well never opened the ns430 in that map. I mention all this as wiht the c130 release, ED has an opportunity to bring in a whole new customer base, but they will not stick around as that type of player would very much be into the mission planning and flight planning, and for that it needs to be on the F10 map, not some plug in, not some extra import and trying to stumble around community input. Completely unnacceptable in terms of the poor communication back to the community over the years.

With the release of the NS430 for the Mig 29A , I had at long last hoped that the NS430 module was going to get some much needed work and development, sadly with the exception of some very limited map work it's largely as was. Performance, which can be found on the NS430 forums, has been ignored for years, literally no reponse. On the sat page alone there is a 15% drop in FPS, and any of the nav pages show similar, its not just the terrain page. Clearly there is a long standing issue as per the forum page about memory leak that has not been resolved. Apart from the module being sold with a blurb "The NS 430 is particularly useful for older aircraft with less sophisticated navigation and communication systems. Can someone explain to me how the NS430 module is helpful as a communication's system when 7 years on its still not modelled? Also how is anyone meant to navigate when the list of waypoints is so random at best, take cold war germany map for example, you know given that the Mig 29A module is a natural fit for that map and also the fact was heavily sold showing that terrain, how are we meant to navigate with so many of the real world nav fixes just not present, even airbases. SID/STARS not completed for the module since the PG map, anything after just not in the database. How are players meant to plan a mission to navigate using the NS430 when we cannot even see the points on the F10 map. This is completely unnacceptable as a product and as a "flight sim" game. If ED ever want to move from cockpit simulator then it needs to get serious about mission planning and also ensuring that all map makers (and i single out OnReTech) have all nav beacons working correctly, including ILS etc and that they are displayed on the F10 map. This is a BASIC, day 1, requirement. Moving on with the introduction of the C130, how do you think new players coming into the sim, looking at the F10 map, who are used to say planning flights with navigraph etc, are going to find the product, and the NS430? They are going to evaluate for what it is , substandard, and not stick around. You don't get a second chance to make a first impression, and the first impression is terrible. So the point being with the sales for the Mig29A NS430 add on, and no doubt players that have bought in for the first time to the NS430 module is this ever going to be incorporated as sold re comms and nav database. Also the F10 map actually be useful for mission planning with all relevant nav fixes that are hidden in the NS430 displayed, because at present its frustrating to have a route planned to then just have trial and error on what is and isnt included/available. Not good enough ED, not good enough by a long shot. EDIT - i would have posted this in the NS430, but as it specifically relates to the Mig29 posting here, especially as anything in the NS430 has topics that have not been replied on in Years, despite recent jogging prior to the mig 29 release.

also worse if if you hit and reset defaults it does not change from manual back to auto on the display page - this is a problem! The whole module is like a bag of spanners, on auto brightness its blinding at night, on manual can't get it back to auto it seems. Manual is less then useless. Truing to go from manual to auto, the small knob does nothing, its not like the real system. If someone in Englight can provide a 1, 2, 3 exactly what to press and how to get back from MANUAL to AUTO would be greatly appreicated. @BIGNEWYcan you elebvate this mess back to the dev team to get the implementation correct and also to ensure that when hitting RESET DEFAULTS, it does just that, aka taking the module back from manual to auto brightness. The nighttime needs looking at, the way it calibrates for time of day. For what is a "New" module release for the Mig29 plug in, its dissapointing and this is nothing to do with EA, its a years old problem

It's only been 7 years.....but your 100% correct the product is hugely misleading at the point of sale, the problem is @BIGNEWY @NineLine didn't respond to any of these posts....I'd actually foreseen the missing comm's integration would flag issues when launching for the Mig29a and all we got was tumbleweed. I was actually hoping that with the NS430 being added to the Mig29 it would have spurred some work on the module, given its largely been forgot about, but no, minimal bits on few map updates but that was it. The comm's should be implemented, purely for the reason of in MP it allows to change to freq's that might not be preprogrammed in, or towers etc.

This needs attention, esp for the germany cold war map - can able to remove the lamposts to make a road landable by a trigger, but yea civ traffic off on the whole map make it look dead, we need it to by not enter a trigger zone @BIGNEWY

Have to sat spotted this tonight, but also thought no big deal really, fascinated to hear the background on how it worked in real life! What I would say however, the loss of the VSI is a nightmare, and really does need a hotfix rather than running metric or waiting until the next big patch update. BUt yea really was fascinated that it was a camera roll perforated in cockpit, and then there for analysis post flight. I also thought it didnt look that bad that people are going on about, but thats just me. Yea a camera film will not be affected by an EMP pulse

@BIGNEWY@NineLine Great to see this in the patch !!

Tumbleweed - makes you wonder the point of the forums when a month later zero response, actually i will correct that.... SEVEN YEARS and still no response from ED>.....