Ornithopter

I've not been following the drama, but with the right monetary offer, why wouldn't it be possible for ED to purchase the rights to the F-15E and continue to develop it, assuming RB would be willing to sell it?

As already pointed out, Aerges, Aviodev, and Heatblur offer multiple versions of the same aircraft, for the price of one. Maybe that isn't the most profitible way of developing a plane initially, but the value and flexibility it adds is immense, and at least for me, keeps me coming back for more. I think ED should definitely do both an earlier and later version of the F-15C.

If it would help out: I recently had a "hang on loading" problem with DCS. I looked it up. I went into the User/Saved Games/DCS folder and renamed it to Temp. It then forces a rebuild of that directory, inlcuding the configuration files.. That made it all load again. It was easy then to copy the old Input and Snapview.lua file from the Temp to the new DCS folder, and reset your graphics settings (because a REALLY smart guy writes them down). The problem might be right before you, Tensorail.

Seems like a pretty petty thing to get all bent out of shape over. As for me, I find it so annoying how long it takes to load, that I take that time to get a can of beer from the refrigerator, and get on with my DCS session by the time I get back. Don't you have better things to obsess about? Add me to the appreciation event. I really happen to like DCS.

Excellent! I can definitely see that this kind of thing wouldn't be used very often, but the idea that someday we will be able to do it, grease pencil and all, is pretty amazing!

"As they sat at the end of the runway before takeoff, the WSO would put the pod in 9-acquire so it was looking left of the airplane. The pilot looked at his TV picture to see where the pod was looking; then he would look through the left side of the canopy at the same point. With his left eye closed, he then drew a half-dollar sized circle on the inside of the canopy aorund the point with a grease pencil. He then repeated the process wth his right eye closed. When he opened both eyes, the circle appeared as one black circle around the same point at which the pod was looking. Later, during the attack, with the pod in 9-acquire, he looked through the circles and flew the jet to superimpose them over the target, thus allowing the WSO to see the target in his TV picture. It was a five-cent fix to a multi-thousand-dollar problem" - Sierra Hotel: Flying Air Force Fighters in the Decade after Vietnam So, as pilot, I know how to use TGT Find with the Pod, with the Jester Context action, to designate a target under the gunsight reticle in 12-Vis. However, how do you do this in 9-Vis, looking 90 degrees left of the aircraft? I can't find any Jester command to make him flip the pod to 9-Vis, and also, it seems the Grease Pencil will only draw on the right side of the canopy. So there appears to be no way to do the above procedure from the book. So, is there some way to make Jester flip over to 9-Vis, without having to explicitly go to the back seat and flip the switch for him, and is there any way to draw on the left side of the cockpit with the Grease pencil?

Been waiting almost week now for a refund, but it hasn't even been looked at as far as I can tell. I'm assuming this must be because the system is swamped with requests?

I must have watched too much Yellowstone, because the first thing I thought of was having "E.D" burned onto my chest with a hot iron!

I'm surprised this thread is still going on this morning, but If they are actually giving out refunds for the SE, I would think that would resolve the issue for a lot of people. I wanted to buy a plane when I did, and I bought the SE, but in retrospect, I would have gotten something else. So if they actually give you a store credits at this point, it's like never having bought it in the first place, isn't it? Some people might stubbornly insist on being consumer purists, but relinquishing the Strike Eagle for a different airplane or helicopter would certainly work for me.

That would be totally dependent on what your system specs are, cpu, gpu, RAM...

I should probably start thinking about getting an Avatar, because every other flight sim forum has become very boring compared to this one.

Actually, I write already in goodlike Englich langwage.

This seems like a really unrealistic point of view. "Kill the game for everyone" ? I can't speak for others, but I'm enjoying the heck out of the F-4 and several other modules, some third party, some ED. I'm keeping my eye on the situation, and yes, I'm on verge of asking for a refund, but life goes on. If people want to make a stand of "I'll never buy another modules from ED ever again", thats their choice, but this end-of-the-world for DCS talk is just nonsense. That said, I agree that some statement would be a good thing, and I do hope the situation is resolved.

Are you kidding me? There are many many ED modules that are every bit as good or better as this early access/maybe forever early access F-15. It might be too much work to take on RB's code, but let's get real when we're talking about "quality".

Then you'll be probably waiting for a year or more, while the rest of us become phabulously skilled. This is a flagship module. I'd rather have it tomorrow, myself. Hopefully I won't let it sitting around untouched forever, like I've done with a few, but I'm a little more motivated with this one.

Are the tables in the latest Chuck's Guide up to date and accurate? Because I can't hit the broad side of a barn anyway, and I really don't know if its me, or if its the table.

I had really been hoping for more of an update after this long a time. I was starting to get the hang of the Strike Eagle. My lack of confidence in a satisfactory and timely resolution dims my interest in the module, and since I doubt it will ever be "complete" insofar as that term is relative, I don't feel like continuing with it. And what about all of the other RAZBAM modules I have? Will they start breaking after DCS updates? Still hoping that there is a resolution, but increasingly feel like there isn't going to be one, and that I've payed for a module that will no longer evolve towards completion. And, as much as I hate to ask, does ED ever consider refunds, even in a situation like this?

Lets face it, the best part of Flight Simulation is getting sloshed and posting trash-talk on a forum anyway.... And I'll be three sheets to the wind by 1500 GMT. So the flying part can wait unitl tommorow. -->-->-->--> Cheers.

If I had gone into the service, I'd have gone into the Air Force. Carrier life sounds tedious, lonely, and stressful,lol. And yes, a delay in DCS is about as First World as it comes, but thats the world that many of us who have the time to care about a video game are fortunate enough to live in, and I was hoping that it would come today, not tommorow.

Well, I guess I could go start learning the Strike Eagle...

When I paid closer attention to how I actually use the Hind trim, I see that I hold in the trim for coarse attitude changes, but in hover, I see I also tend to quick-click, after tiny corrections. I also don't hesitate to use the "other" trim, on the directional hat, to tune it as necessary. At some point, its just whatever works to get the precision you need.

When its flown like it is supposed to be flown, the Ka-50 trim works just like the Hind: The trim button will reset the autopilot, and you need to hold the trim button down while establishing a new attitude. The Shark will jolt and jump just like the Hind, if the pilot doesn't hold in the trim. However, he is referring to "Flight Director Mode", which is more just a three axis damping system to the pilot inputs, not full on autopilot. When in this particular mode, the trim button will act exactly like it does on a Huey, or the Mi-8, so you can just click it once, and it will lock the stick. In a game, we can fly it however we want, but I've read that in real life, that isn't a standard operating mode. As for me, I've just gotten used to holding the trim button down on both the Shark and the Hind, but it will mess me up a little bit after flying the Mi-8 or Huey, most especially when going into a hover.

The only slider I see on the Options page is labelled "External Field of View". I can't find any others (although I might be blind). Its been a long time since I manipulated my views, like years, so whenever that was added I didn't notice. I had played around with it earlier today, and it seemed only to influence the F2, externals, so if there is more to it, that is good to know. I'll have to mess around with it. If that slider works to set a particular value in the Snapview.lua, that will be good for future aircraft. I guess, for existing aircraft with existing custom views, one would still have to load up every aircraft, and Save the view again, but at any rate, it looks like I've got it all sorted out, after lots of cutting and pasting, lol. Thanks, SharpeXB.

The problem has been explained over and over again, and I really don't know how to explain it further. The new 'viewAngleVertical' parameter screwed up the existing Snapviews, and apparently the only way to restore the custom default views, are to do them over again, completely from scratch. That's a lot of time. I just want my existing default cockpit view back. And Yes, that new parameter should have populated automatically, based on the existing value for horizontal field of view. I assume that value should be proportional to screen aspect ratio. So I either need to go in and populate them manually in the Snapview.lua, or I have to load up every single aircraft and try to recreate what I had, and hit Alt Num0. I didn't even know there was a "FOV slider" now in the settings....How long has that been there? hmm. In fact I don't even know what your talking about. edit: Duh, I call those "Zoom In" and "Zoom Out", and didn't know what you meant when you said "FOV slider", disregard. [13] = {--default view viewAngle = 110.200706,--FOV viewAngleVertical= 61.932899,--VFOV hAngle = 0.000000, vAngle = -9.500000, x_trans = 0.113927, y_trans = -0.004946, z_trans = 0.000000, rollAngle = 0.000000, cockpit_version = 0, So, here are my results doing the same... Like I said, I have a 21:9 aspect ratio. So 110 degrees across, and 62 degrees high? Funny that it gives me degree proportions for a 16:9 monitor. Guess I'll just have to stick in the correct value for all planes, like 47 deg because that would be the correct proportions for 21:9. But honestly, I'm not even sure the parameter is being used. I'll have to just look and see if it even matters. UPDATE: Changing that viewAngleVertical to reflect a 21:9 aspect ratio didn't give me the results I expected. Therefore, I'm just going to let the calculated value of 61.9 deg stand as is. Those dimensions don't quite make sense, but nothing ends up being visually squished, and I am able to recreate my old default cockpit views more or less, so those dimensions are the ones I'm going to use. Pasting it in to every section [13] for every airplane is a pain, but not even close to as time consuming as it would be to load up all the planes and redoing all the angles and zooms from scratch with the view controls and Alt Num0! It would have been a lot more convenient if the existing Snapview.lua had been updated automatically to reflect the new parameter, without requiring any action on the customer part to retain their existing custom view angles and zoom.

Thats a really good question, and it just made me rethink my method. In the game, with that one plane, I zoomed in until I had about a 110 deg horizontal angle. The resultant VFOV in Snapview.lua was about 62 degrees. What is 110/62? That is a ~16:9 ratio. So if you are doing it the way I did it, letting the game calculate it, that seems to work out as expected. In my case though, I have a 21:9 monitor, but it calculated 62 deg, (not ~47), so now that you mention it, my VFOV numbers must be wrong. Its simple math, but, if I'm making a dumb error, I hope somebody corrects me. I never actually flew today, and it makes me wonder if when I do, objects will appear squashed on my screen. The cockpits looked just fine. Is the new VFOV even being used? This needs to be addressed, like soon.......Customers shouldn't have to be d*cking around with this kind of nonsense, just to get their sim back to where it was a few weeks ago. Why in the world the view system couldn't have just remained the way it worked for the last decade, who knows..... I think for New Year's Eve, I'll just play something else...