Notso

That's fair. However, stopping all payments doesn't seem to indicate "working together amicably" while they address the issue though.....

Yeah, that's a good point. I'm very surprised that a company in "breech of contract" for supposed IP theft would be allowed continued access to the SDK and APIs and allowed/welcomed to continue submitting updates to the modules. As you said, normally when that happens - you're evicted or locked out pretty quickly. If that (IP theft) happened in a company - you'd be immediatly locked out of your work computer and marched off the premises on the spot. So the accusation seems incongruous with the pattern of behavior over the last year.

100% agree. But presumably, the 10 months before Ron's announcement was spent trying to resolve it in private - no?

And all it it took was one party to stop payments. Yeah, I wish this had never gone public at all and that it was resolved by now and no one was ever the wiser. But how long do you expect one party to work for free? Absolutely both parties have been reputationally harmed by all this. But, right or wrong, when one party feels they are out of options - AS WELL AS having a fiduciary responsibility to their customers to tell them they are stopping all work and why - what alternative was there? The ONLY alternative was to work this out in a timely matter. That did not happen, so here we are.

Yep, I can totally understand that. Hopefully, the adults will see that at the end of the day - its about a BUSINESS relationship and not "feelings" or friendship. If ED and RB can put egos and hurt feelings aside and go back to making beautiful money together - then they should and all of your customers will be better served. This happens in business all the time. Mature companies get past it and move on. Immature ones who can't let it go, always suffer in the long run. As for the hateful comments, I totally get it. I've asked people on the RB discord to KIO over the personal attacks. Especially to you guys, the ED CMs and such. None of this is your fault or even in your control. Fingers crossed this gets fixed!

Hi NineLine, I appreciate your hope for the module coming back. I think we all agree that it would be a shame if it did not. However, your bolded sentence above seems ominous. Why do you see it becoming harder for it to come back and flourish??

The Missile is SUPPOSED to ignore the fighter's radar once it goes active. Once the missile is active, your RDR lock is meaningless to what the missile does or doesn't do.

I would hope not. See my post and the videos above. IRL, Its a very small short duration puff of spoke.

I know you later found the culprit of this bug as being a Blue vs Red GPS quality issue. But I just want to address the laser thing. Firing the laser is NOT (or should not) be required if you are transferring accurate coordinates to the bomb from the NAV system. Using the TGP at all is not required to deliver accurate JDAMs, as long as the coordinates and elevation in the bomb are accurate. However, if you are targeting and transferring coordinates derived FROM the TGP - then YES you should fire the laser to have accurate slant range to correctly produce the coordinates. I just didn't want people being confused into thinking they HAD to use the TGP with laser ranging for accurate JDAM delivery.

My first question is: Why are you flying boring missions?? Its a simulator. You can make it anything you want it to be.

Related to potential AIM-7 errors, I've been noticing a lot lately that AIM-7s go "stupid", i.e. discontinue tracking completely, when the Target passes through the beam, even if only for a moment. This is incorrect behavior, at least for the newer 7M and MH. I'm pretty sure the 7F as well. If the RDR itself is able to handle tracking the TGT through the beam, the missile will continue tracking the TGT. It does NOT get automatically "trashed". I don't know about other jets, but the F-15C and E both have a part of their A/A WEZ display called Rtr - "Range Turn and Run". This WEZ display exists for both AIM-7 and AIM-120. The definition of RTR is: So there is no way to turn and run from a HOT aspect to a tail aspect without turning through the beam. Ergo, the missile should be able to continue tracking the TGT even if it passes through the beam momentarily. And the F-15E has track memory that will allow it to maintain track on TGTs as they pass through the beam. Obviously, it the Maneuver breaks the RDR lock - the AIM-7 will lose guidance. But with a good track, currently in DCS - any momentary beam maneuver loses the missile completely. If you need further supporting documentation, please DM me. Thanks.

Disregard. Moved to its own thread....

Align the INS and your screen won't be cut off by the ATTITUDE caution, Senior Dumas. Definite skill issue

The Swooping at 800 kts exceeds the Dash-1 speed limits. Since its difficult in DCS to model exact failures that you might see from an overspeed, the wing snapping is the next best thing to punish players for breaking the limits of the jet. This is not ace combat. The FM was designed to as closely as possible replicate the real limits of the real jet. Otherwise players will exploit these areas if they are not punished. Easy fix: Don't do that. No bug, correct as is!

Aliens, obviously!

Most WSO's are not rated pilots either. Not even civilian PPLs. Some are, most are not. They get almost no actual formal stick and rudder training beyond the basics. I'm a former WSO. I had a commercial ME rating by the time I retired. It still did not make me a USAF manned pilot. I never considered myself a "fighter pilot" in the strict sense of the word as in doing the JOB. But of course fighter WSOs are "fighter pilots" in the community sense. But that's a different topic for another day. There are WSO's that literally go their entire career in the SE and never touch the stick except for brief times. Some don't want to fly. Some but not many. And it's not expected of them. Riding along in the back seat doing your WSO job and occasionally flying the jet for <profanity>s and giggles doesn't make one a pilot even in the loosest of understanding of the word. It is clear that the only one here who is not understanding is YOU. FFS!

Yeah, it should be great for SP. But the REAL fun is to go crewed in MP. If you get two guys working well together, it will be unbeatable IMHO.

One thing to add is that Suites are not tied to engines or other hardware like the radar type. The F-15E fleet is roughly half and half 220s and 220s. They are also currently a mix of APG-70 and -82. Yet all the jets get the current suite OFP. So at the time, All jets had S4+ OFP, but they obviously didn't reengine them. Suites in the -15E are nothing like Blocks in the Viper - where you have both SW and hardware unique to a particular block.

Actually, you don't need the push IN on the Castle. There are two ways of taking command of a display. The first is as described above: Castle IN and release and then castle short press towards the screen you want to take command. The 2nd method is just a LONG press >1 sec towards the desired screen. Both methods work to do the same thing. So if your stick doesn't have the IN option, the long press should work just as well. That's in the FCP only btw. The WSO take command is simply coolie towards which ever screen you want to take command of for that side. So for instance if I want to take command of the R MPD, then I would go coolied LEFT on the right HCU. If I wanted to take command of the R MPCD, then I would go coolie R on the Right HCU.

Yes, you can. Most everything system control wise is controllable from both cockpits once turned on and set up correctly, with a few exceptions. For example, the Auto-Acquisition radar modes are pilot only. As is changing the Master mode. The WSO has some controls in the back like power and mode setup for the TGP, RWR, CMD, ICS, EWWS, etc. But once they are all turned on and set, then either cockpit can use those systems interchangeably. There are a couple of HOTAS functions the Pilot doesn't have that the WSO does and vice versa. But those are the exceptions. I would say 90%+ of the HOTAS can do the same things in either cockpit. The HOTAS switch sequence itself is usually different due to the different control configs - i.e. Front stick & throttle vs The two Hand-controllers in the back. But the end result of the HOTAS sequence is the same. Now "could" a solo pilot fly in combat without a WSO? No, not really unless he didn't need the systems that can only be turned on in the back. Maybe if the Crew chief turned them on once #2 motor was started and before the canopy is closed and before #1 motor was started. Even the story of the reporter flying in "combat" was a very carefully managed event in a very low threat scenario and they really didn't do much except support the wingman. And I'm sure they had to teach her to turn on certain switches in the back once the jet was running and after takeoff. So I wouldn't use that example as proof that pilots can fly the jet solo in combat. My understanding is the EX was redesigned such that they could manage it by themselves in a mostly A/A fight, but retained the rear seat for more complex missions where a WSO would be value added.

Oh jesus, what have I walked into??? Sorry (not sorry) but no. A WSO is not an F-15E pilot. They are NOT trained to fly the airplane even though some can and do on an informal basis. But it does not make them Strike Eagle pilots. Could they land it from the backseat - yes probably some could (and have). But it's completely against regulations and is prohibited unless in an emergency. In fact there are a lot of WSOs who are not interested in flying the jet and are content with doing their job well - and their J-O-B is NOT flying the jet. So for "normal people" a WSO is not a USAF pilot much less specifically a SE pilot.

Agree. That is all about what the bomb does post-release. It's all about the release parameters you are in at the moment you Yeet it at the target. From there the bomb does it's thing. That's what needs to be modeled correctly to have value in the game.

Sorry, but you're way off with your "8 modes". It's a bit more nuanced than that. This ^^

Agree with this!

Nice rant, agree with most. In a nutshell it boils down to this for me...... If ED moves in the opposite direction and makes it MORE demanding on VR to the point where the hardware cannot keep up - I will abandon DCS in a blink and never look back. I'm never going back to flat earth flying. The fact that soooo many other titles out there are embracing VR while Ed seems to consider it a sideshow or an afterthought. I'm sure they don't actually consider VR an afterthought. But I suspect that they are so far down the road with their legacy engine, that they are finding it hard to keep up and make improvements in VR with an engine that is not really set up for it. Always the conumdrum. Immersion & Performance. of course.