Hawkeye_UK

PS - i should have said having a decent hotas though is a must with min 3. 4 way hat switches.

as with most things in life the more you put in the more you get back - it's a module worth learning. I do think alot of people over egg the hardness of the A10c to learn however if you have a background in sims (falcon 4, BMS etc) and a good base knowledge of systems then its pretty easy to pick up quickly. No idea about flight model dynamics as find FC3 aircraft painful and no interest in them.

Ok so ive gone back through ovgme and triple checked - my mistake i still had the VR shaders mod enabled - damn! This oddly enough stopped me getting the fly screen at the start of a mission - everything seems to be working again except 130 still invisable. What i would say though is that the VR mod (that only draws the screen in the middle and removes a load of things outside the main vision is such a performance boost and makes logical sense why ED do not do this themselves or at least put in the option god alone knows.

no mods - yes cleared fxo and metashaders as part of the course. So when you start a mission the clear window that you use to get that you had to hit fly - no longer get that either - have to just hit escape to unfreeze the game. Also just another point - KC 130 now invisible in harrier mission ive just set up..

A simple question - the mission editor is absolutely ruined following the upgrade. So many problems what has changed? Why cannot i even start my missions anymore without it loading straight in and not being able to get the select role tab on the options (through the inferno, operation snowfox etc) - or equally all missions now start without even the transparent screen that you normally have to click fly. Campaigns not loading just get hung saying loading but even 15 mins later (ive timed it) its clearly just crashed. Its a total mess this is not even Beta, its pre alpha stuff. A problem i think with so many people asking when is the patch out, when is the patch out and i'm guessing ED feel pressured to release sub standard code which is a shame as the few missions that still work the PG night lighting does look utterly amazing. I do not use viacomm either as heard the sounds menu has been completely changed, again no mention of this in the patch notes. New graphics option for reflections but in system settings again no mention in patch notes which by the way plays havoc with VR, again no instructions or explanation. The communication MUST improve its getting ridiculous, customers are not telepathic. I play multiplayer normally - which again has so many issues on the latest patch, so forced to play single player and even that rarely is working.

ps before anyone say's anything i have no mod's installed, completed the update and also cleared out my FX0 and metashaders folder just encase pre loading.

Ok so since the update has anyone else got an issue with campaigns not loading, some mission editor missions not loading then the only way to cancel it is to force quit by task manager. SO an example, new red flag campaign for the viggen wont load through campaign tab, so copies the mission files into my saved games as a work around and mission 1 gets hung on a file called terrain graphics init 97 : nevada.ng5 THis is just one example however it seems to really not like loading campaigns anymore....

I believe this new setting is only for the water at this stage - i tried it and in VR lost 30% of fps - was quickly disabled again.

Agreed IRL on zero moon over non urban areas and especially over water the horizon can become quickly lost and it can be disorientating - hence why in all aircraft centre stage is an Attitude Indicator. The conditions in the sim that you say (i have a rift s and gamma at 1 to 1.1 seems about right to RL) ) however not sure why this is an "extreme setting". I think people esp in multiplayer abuse gamma settings and wish they could be locked server side to avoid exploitation of low light conditions. Think the new PG night lighting esp around sunset and dawn and into the evening looks very, very good. My only criticism is actually on clear condition's you can see much further than currently modeled with the new night lighting, especially cities / autoroute's.

i believe this new feature currently only affects the water as per @Bignewy. Leave it off currently it kills fps exp in VR.

no wonder your having problems - gamma at 2.7 lol ! i have mine at 1.2 to 1.3 looks normal and great. Only reason why folks turn up gamma so high is to see ground units easier in my experience - ruins the visuals wish servers could lock gamma settings as an option.

Anyone that thinks this has never been a rio in the 14 - clearly you have no idea what your talking about - no offence meant however take time to learn the back seat of the 14 the radar and its abilities in game out strips anything else in terms of its ability to track and find targets.

100% correct can do nothing without ED - the hold up lies with them as needs FLIR to be accurately modelled and also software target recognition algorithm (as in RL) as currently every tree would be a target lol!

Got to love the razbam haters - i'd put down the pipe and stop smoking whatever is in it to divert space and time re no updates in months. Its not a big team, harrier is actually very enjoyable, yes there are niggles, some long standing however as with all EA aircraft and DCS its not a rapid process. Look at the F16 and F18 release states lol. Its currently the best simulation we have of the harrier on a PC. Its brilliant fun and great to fly in VR with one of the best cockpits and MFD's. Instead of trolling with nonsense maybe be constructive with your comments and approach the dev's with your specific concerns just not with an arse of an attitude. Take it personally or not its observational. Clearly EA or OB is not for you, which i understand its not for everyone.

if you've been away from flight sims for some time and with your system (rtx2080) go and buy a rift S when you next have some spare funds. It will be like the first time you every played a flight sim - but better. Your SA is amazing and more true to life so you end up choosing better IP points for attack runs using the relief available. You will be blown away....

using voice attack (don't need viacomm ) you can fully programme anything on the jester menu. So for example in game i say "set chaff" and it will within (0.3) of a second set my favorite chaff programme etc. Or set radar scan 200 for 200 miles etc etc I play in vr but even on a 2D monitor using Voice Attack makes the module so much better.

m2 are v v good

Thanks Zues for the update that was posted the day before yours, obviously my post is some weeks old and have been offline for the last couple of days. Great news though look forward to this being pushed through to OB. Have to say the Harrier is a great module, one of the best in VR and appreciate all the effort you guys put into this module. I think once it gets this update for waypoints it will make it very relevant for tac commanders in multiplayer who require fast CAS support and their ability to set target points by the F10 and these be imported into the CAS page. Also just a really quick question do you plan at some stage to complete the sub pages such as fuel ?

???? Are Razbam still on holiday ???

Absolutely incorrect on so many levels - where do i start. Without writing war and peace lets start by saying sidewinders where not designed from the onset with large bomber in mind - it was designed for rear aspect shots pf close range air threats of all natures however with the emphasis developing into manoeuvrability, speed and intercept (fighters), something you don't need for bombers. To suggest the Soviets couldn't counter the sparrow is nonsense and that their fighters lacked a BVR capability until the late 80's is misleading and completely misplaced. They actually had an operational version with a longer range in the early 60's - the R40 (range 80km), which was later morphed into the R37 in the early 80's (range 120+km). The R40 are still effective and unfortunately actually killed Scott Speicher's and his F18c over Irag in 99. The reality of the situation was that actually many of the soviet systems of the 60's, 70's and 80's where first rate and a match and in some area's better than the west. After the fall of the Berlin wall the Mig 29's of East Germany with their irst helmet sights where very hard to beat attaining high kill ratio's in mock dog fights of the best the west had to offer. It is naive to think the West had air supremacy at that time.

I go back to my original statement - Aim 7 was the favoured shot with higher pk against fast moving fighter aircraft. Testing against a flying drone, even an F4 target is not the same as a fighter that is defensive, notching and evading hard. It's two very different cups of tea. Hence why when it came to a combat situation they chose to arm and launch Aim7's. Anyone that thinks the Aim54 was designed for fighter aircraft or would have been used in this manner needs to take a reality check. When the US navy launched them in combat they missed against Mig 23/25 aircraft. It has 100% failure record in US air to air engagements. It does allow some inept pilots though to get long range BVR kills in multiplayer depending on terrain when they have not the faintest of ACM or BVR tactics lol. Like the post mention's i do hope they are eventually modelled correctly and not have the current PK that they currently enjoy. I have the Tomcat and think it is an amazing module but find using the 54's too easy and to be honest slightly boring killing from 20+ miles just has no fun. Anyone that thinks the 54 is not OP? Please explain how you can be hit on the ground by a phoenix from 20 miles spooling up on the ramp, or equally 2 mins after landing in an Mi8 when flying at 10 feet and moving another 200 meters from the landing site.

just remember AIM54 was designed for bombers and c3 aircraft, not fast agile fighters. I find it hilarious the reliance on this system in multiplayer but hey it sells modules i guess for people that launch chancing shot's and still be able to go defensive and outrun anything thrown at them from 6 miles re 120's. Fox 3 30 miles + on release lol. There is a reason, even when given the opportunity the US navy engaged fighter aircraft with Aim7 fox 1 at the time - it was more suitable for fighter aircraft that the Aim54 with a better pk. Its hilarious how misunderstood and misused this system is in game.

So its in the latest OB today....have faith and ED will deliver, eventually.

if you play multiplayer with a complex ground war being completed that is player controlled you would know that this is a huge problem and not ask for an example. Its been a problem for years, thankfully the ending is (fingers crossed) insight with multi threading coming this year. Huge lag freezes occur and or crashes stemming from two primary problems, people that a) dont know what there doing in Tac Command b) playing with malicious intent.

Understatement of the year! lol Ok so its actually circa 50 feet and at speed their seems to be an exponential effect. Current FM pitches down into the deck and needs review. Interesting that you mention 20 feet, that is actually in keeping with what it should be (re 1/2 wingspan) although not a sudden end to the effect above that. The reality is that the opposite to some extent is true you get a ground buffer, some aircraft that have a high wing loading can actually ride this cushion trimmed out with zero pilot input and its actually quite stable at extreme low level. The model does need looking at , should not be sucked in at 50 feet, and if ED are attempting to model ground effect then i suggest that's almost impossible with current Hardware as it very much depends on the surface your flying over - trees for example or deep bush absorb more than hard surfaces such as water or deserts. Also lastly and on a sidenote IRL you actually require less thrust to maintain the same groundspeed when flying with ground effect, note that the DCS F18 there is no speed increase with the same thrust which should occur. I think the simple answer on this one is purely to trim it back to 20 feet, remove the pitch down and reduce the drag coefficient at this altitude - or don't model it at all. Better to not model than to model it incorrectly.