viper2097

Will it ever added? :-/

So have the team been able to reproduce it with the provided track files and investigate further?

Reported half a year ago, still not even a comment. Any news on that issue?

Unfortunately, still present. Any news on that topic?

To use the NVG now, we have to - Equip it to the aircraft - unstow it - mount it to the helmet - finaly use it Thats one setting and three key bindings where one keybind (shift+home) is alreadey used to start engines (how is that even possible?). Could you please simplify it as it is in all other modules? Thank you, that would be very helpful...

Yes, flying in VR.

Still not fixed, problem still present. Any news about it?

The new PCN Panel is missing the ENC button for automatic waypoint switching. Is this a bug, or intended?

Count me in :thumbup:. I'll take the half of the cost :smilewink:

I can't understand the DCS community. "Everybody" is upset because modules do not get finished and stay in EA forever with bugs known for years, but if you have a poll to decide if a Dev should fix bugs, add a new feature or work on the next module, most votes are for working on the next module. We customers are full resonsible on our own for all those things we are upset about and it seems that we don't deserve it other. RagnarDa, sorry, don't want to hijack your thread. Its a great idea doing what you offer. Both thumbs up :thumbup:.

Any info if that is also under investigation? Still present in the actual OB.

Jester is still missing since months in his menu, will he ever come back or did we do something terrible to him?

Wenn ihr über optische Erscheinubgsbilder oder Aufwand für das Modul sprecht, habt ihr euch schon mal das Video mit dem TGP angesehen? Ausserdem glaub ich dass das Ding noch ein viel tiefgründigeres, fliegendes Serverrack als die F-18 ist. Ich wäre vorsichtig mit voreiligen Schlüssen welche rein auf der Optik des Cockpits gründen.

The VR headset tracks even the smallest movement of your head and the FOV is nearly double of that cropped in the video. You won't recognize any kind of wobbling while playing. BTW: In youtube, you can go frame by frame with the "," and "." key. If you do that on my video, especially on the written time codes in post nr 226, you'll see that the wing sweep indicator is always on the same spot, and that everytime you see the flaps and slats indicator, that those are also fully retracted. My initial post with the video had only the intention to clean up the wrong thing about bomb mode and that it is not true that wingsweep, flaps and slats are makeing problems when refueling in auto.

Wahrscheinlich weil sie mehr Priorität auf das Abschießen von Yankees zu einem günstigen Preis gelegt haben, als auf hübsches Aussehen ;).

That wobbling is normal when you record it trough a VR headset. I guess you still don't understand what I try to say. It doesn't matter if the wings are at 20° or 22°. Or if the flaps are extended or not. When you are doing AAR correct, you are changing speeds not more then 5, maximal 10kts. You won't notice any difference in wing sweep, even the computer would set it from 21° to 22°. In my video, you can't see any movement of the wing sweep indicator. Also no movement on the flaps and slats indicator. Show me a video of AAR, where it is done correct, where the wing sweep or flaps/slats are moving during the approach and taking fuel. That's impossible, because you are not changing the altitude and not really change speed. If you feel more comfortable to refuel with 40°, keep doing it. But its just not true that wing sweep, slats and flaps are causing problems when refueling in Auto. Its with Auto as easy/hard as it is with 40° (in DCS). Just another flight profile / characteristic to learn. In Auto, it just reacts more to wrong inputs on the throttle, thats what most people are misinterpreting as wing sweep, slats or flaps movement. The key is to fly in formation, being perfectly trimmed and do it with patence and minor speed differences. Then it will also work flawless and without any stress in Auto mode. (My video proofs that, even while flying a circle pattern)

Wing sweep indicator is visible the whole time. No movement. 2:22 -> Flaps & Slats up 3:01 ongoing to 3:19 -> Flaps & Slats up Don't know why anything should move overall. Change in speed is maybe around 5 kts over the whole refueling procedere... If someone has problems with the cat AAR (no matter if Auto or 40°), I can offer to fly together for training purpose. Some things are easier when someone helps you...

In those range you are changeing the speed during approach and refueling, the wings are not moveing a single degree. Watch my video on the page before. Was done in Auto. No wing / slats / flaps movement. Or could you provide a video of refueling where you can show that the wings and /or slats & flaps are moving? If you follow the rules (fly in formation, trim hands free, approach slow) that should not be a problem.

Faszinierend wie manche denken. Das Cockpit sieht wohl so "fürchterlich" aus weil es wohl in Echt auch so aussieht: Da wird sich gefragt "Wie ED sowas freigeben konnte?"... Schon bemerkt dass das Ding fast vollständig fertig in den EA geht? Dass der TPod in seinem Verhalten (slewn, unschärfe, Auflösung, bewegende Gates etc.) so toll animiert ist wie in keinem anderen Modul? Dass ein funktionierendes A-G Radar inkludiert ist? Dass die externen Licht in der Helligkeit gut passen und mit den Reflektionen absolut genial aussehen? Dass das Ding wohl im Sinne der Avionik auf einer Ebene (wenn nicht höher) mit der F-16 und F-18 angesiedelt ist. Dass es das erste mal in DCS ist, dass ich sehe dass ein HUD "rund" projeziert wird, und nicht rechteckig bis zum Sichtende. (Siehe F-16, DCS vs. *piep* um zu verstehen was ich meine) Dass, wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, es das erste Modul mit Sensorfusion ist (RWR & SA display um den Flugzeugtyp dem Radarkontakt zuzuweisen) Dass es ein custom IFF hat (was das auch immer heißen mag wird man sehen...) Dass das externe Modell eigentlich richtig gut aussieht... Ausserdem empfinde ich persönlich dass das Cockpit auch nicht wirklich schlecht aussieht wenn ich mir das Video von Jabbers so ansehe... Wenn einem Eye Candy lieber ist als detaillierte Umsetzungen aller Funktionalitäten dann ist man wohl bei einem anderen Dev besser aufgehoben. Ich hingegen finde es absolut geil dass Deka anscheinend so eine technische Detailverliebtheit an den Tag legt und werde mir daher die JF-17 zu Release mal genau ansehen.

The Harrier is now (or tomorrow?) two years in early access. There are more then plenty of bugs, I would say 90% not even aknowledged by Razbam, and countless missing functions. Some bugs are also 2 years old. After developing a completely new module in the meantime, Razbam said that they have learned from their faults, that they have three independent teams working on the modules and that they are working full steam on finishing the Harrier, the Mig-19 and getting the M2K bugfree and on the level of recent DCS modules. They also said, that they will touch nothing else until those three modules are finished. The last update to the Harrier was two weeks ago and was really not worth mentioning. Before that, the last update has been in the middle of July with fixing a few bugs. That is already 4 months ago. Razbam, how is it planed to go on with the Harrier? At the moment, it feels abandoned (again).

PTT - Voice & Com menu in the future I would like to link to this existing thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=254447 I really think that this would be a good and easy idea to handle voice & com in the future.

Will the deck sliding issue be fixed with the upcoming supercarrier?

You missunderstood me. I wanted to clean up with two fairy tales: 1 - Everyone refers to do refueling in bomb mode. -> Thats wrong, 40° would be the correct, not bomb mode with 55°. 2 - Its hardly to master refueling in auto cause she's bitc*ing around as hell. -> To show that this is just not true, I posted the video. Additonaly, I just said that the reason for useing 40° is not present in DCS, so it does not help you really. I would guess, that most people are haveing a harder time in Auto because they are not approaching slow, perfectly trimmed and with only little inputs on the throttle and stick. For me personally, refuleing in Auto is different then doing it with 40°, but I would not say that one is harder then the other. Flying with Auto or 40° result in having two different flight profiles, more or less like doing it with two different aircraft. So you would need to learn one or the other. Maybe 40° does not lift as much as Auto when adding throttle, but for that it is more nervous on roll and more damped on pitch, you trade always only one thing for another.

You can't use it as it is INTENDED. Intended would mean, to be on a moving carrier, crank up the turbines, set the air source to both and THEN turn on the cooling in the backseat and start up the WCS and begin aligning. If the WCS will be turned on before getting cooling air from the turbines, it would get damaged quite fast. So the workaround we need to use at the moment is, to accept that this would break the system IRL. Fine if you don't want to use it in a realistic way, but I would like to do that as DCS is designed around realism. And I would like to prevent the RIO from useing the comit bag even before the plane got in the air. its so worse in VR... My patience in the whole DCS enviroment is getting overused more and more, but It would be easier to wait for a fix if we would know what the situation is. At the moment we know nothing, except that HB is pointing at ED and ED is pointing at HB. That makes me more sick than being RIO on a moving ship. As you can see, ED also pays no attention to that situation. Maybe you'll find someone who have spare time to do something like that, record it, report it and wait months for no answer. I'm not gonna test that.

Good if you are fine with it as it is. I would like to use the Tomcat as it is intended to. To do so, this bug needs to be fixed. At least it would be nice if the Devs would let us not sit in the dark regarding that topic.