Wing

Join a proper vFighter Squadron that does weekly flight nights. Problem solved.

Great work Dover, thanks man!

Negative, even those that have not updated yet are unable to get in. I’m guessing this is effecting Stable version as well…

I’m guessing the auth. server is going to remain down at this point until the Sun comes back up on EDs side of the world? We had a flight night planned for tonight and everything - so kind of a bummer this is effecting all clients, and not just those that OB updated Guess it happens, but for things to be down literally all day… (this issue was discovered 7+hrs ago) is disappointing.

Thankyou for "taking one for the team" with this one. It will be greatly appreciated!

I guess what some people have in mind, is that the newsletter shows an announcement from a 3rd party dev. We primarily want to know what is going on in ED's development hangar in every newsletter. The extra 3rd party announcements are great and also added icing on the cake when they do come to fruition. This is a normal expectation when it comes to development newsletters -has nothing to do with "not pleasing people" tbh.

These are the files that were detected btw.

Same issue here. My ESET NOD32 is finding 2 separate files from Combined Arms as threats since last update.

I had the same issue with ESET NOD32 a couple days ago. It quarantined 2 different combined arms files. I figured it would just my antivirus being too picky, but interesting this is happening now to other platforms.

Bump. Would love to see some future hope for this, now that the ARC210 is finally coming to fruit.

Check here for documentation proof of how the current Tanker Tacan is bugged.

Bump.

Bump... this is huge. Would be great to hear from ED in this regard.

Bump...

Are you able to edit the poll to include the current mission roles the B52H participated in? (JTAC) on station support, command and control, war against Isis ect. Also the maps in DCS, support the current operations of the B52. So for (the hundredth time now), the B52 is not just a long range platform anymore. Current day ops utilizes it in different mission roles than what you are listing and attempting to convey. Maybe one day, people will actually see its mission during the past 10 years is actually very applicable for DCS.

Yes, please see the numerous references of unclassified proof in the same thread. Thanks,

Continuing to try and get some sort of response, update, or acknowledgement from ED in regards to A/A Tacan. For whatever reason, for months now, they are not wanting to acknowledge it. But will continue to bump here:

Bump.

From my understanding, after reading that thread on F-16.net rudder snapping on touch down is risky in the Viper - depending on wind... Its quite a different dynamic compared to something conventional like a Cessna

Something I have learned over the last year with the Viper, The F16s FLCS handles this amount of crosswind nicely, and will adjust on crabbed touchdown. "A normal plane dips the upwind wing and counters with the rudder to keep the plane on the centerline, landing on one wheel but straight down the runway. A F16 pilot said the Viper cant do this because it loses too much lift with its small wings and they run the risk of hitting the missile on stations 1 or 9. So they just land crabbed and stay that way throughout the roll out and "wobble" down the runway until the nose wheel comes down." This will also be a unique training factor for Viper pilots in DCS... Source from real world aircrew: https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9288

Bump.

Bump...

1). Not "making stuff up". I was told that a DM with tech data proof was sent to you, over a week ago. Then never heard any response back. This behavior as a CM, is blatantly frustrating. I have seen the DM itself, and the user attempted to reach out to you on 5/3/2022. No response from you. He then attempted to reach out again at 5/5/2022. No response again from you. He reached out AGAIN... weeks later. You finally bothered to reply on 5/18/2022. In further proof to show that I am not "making stuff up", I can send over the DM proof of this to @Wagsif needed. I will not play this game with you, if you are going to continue attempting to write off paying customers as "making stuff up", to hide the actual fact of the matter that I originally pointed out as a CM you ignored initial private reach out with this subject. 2). Is it possible then as you claim "we have no actual, good documentation for Litening in this time period, only videos that SMEs have indicated are Litening." that the current DCS modeling for the TGP is actually infact showing Lantirn symbology then? To even compound this a bit more, the current ED modeling for TGP HOTAS controls is also replicating Lantirn controls, and not Litening - as per the tech documentation. Instead of saying "correct as is" right off the bat, why is it difficult to humbly not take offense - and be a bit more open minded to this not actually being "correct as is"? 3). The tech data that shows very clearly as per this tape, the Lantirn symbiology vs Litening symbiology, as well as Lantirn HOTAS controls vs Litening HOTAS controls is the 1F-16CM-34-1-1. I will not personally send this over as it is Distro E, but I am sure ED has their own proper channels to gain eyes on this tech data for clarification. Why not be a bit more open minded and humble with your customers? This is brought up passionately, because the store page advertises a Litening TGP with the Viper. Not Lantirn. So the further investigation should be valued instead of taken offensively along side alot of other situations like this in the past. I.E. A10C dispersion included.

That is not how this system works. This is one of those bugs with tech data backing that is literally “un-refutable” . TGP symbiology is blatantly modeled in the DCS Viper around Lantirn and not Litening. There is tech data documentation that clearly shows this, for the correct tape. So I’m curious what’s really going on here… Last I heard, NineLine has been DMd this documentation proof, but he is not bothering to reply. Another example of ED turning a blind eye to what is honestly a big bug. Among the symbiology being incorrect, this would also mean our current HOTAS controls are also incorrect if ED modelled as per Lantirn. I would not even be upset if they were just truthful and said "look, we can only do lantirn since that is all we have info on" but to try and deceive people into their module advertising of "Litening TGP"... is really messed up from a consumer pov tbh. Especially now when they are attempting to say "correct as is" when some of us have official documentation that is completely counter to that.