Bagpipe

Really? I didn't notice there were more modules which did this. I was posting because when I ejected from the spitfire, the body matched the cockpit body and then the next aircraft I flew was the viggen and I thought I would check that out and low and behold it did not match. I thought, given that they spent a lot of time adding the cockpit body, that it may have been a mild oversight to not update their ejected pilot body. It's probably not a lot of work. It's not top priority at all, just something I thought the HB team may not have realized. I know how they like their detail. I am not actually fussed at all I just report these little things as I see them.

I am starting to feel like this guy has just graduated Troll College and is wanting to test out his new skillset. Let's just back away slowly...so as not to trip on any of the branches he is busy knocking off trees! But, genuinely, if you want this to change start gathering the relevant data proving your point. You can't just say "your trees suck, fix them". Give them several real world examples, data driven examples, not just some random YouTube video. Scientific reports showing the effects of clipping different trees at different times of year/growth and what the outcome was for the aircraft and the pilot involved. Determine in your report the exact variables involved in the real world collisions i.e. Type of tree, height of tree, age of tree, did the tree have any signs of disease, angle of impact, speed of aircraft, model of aircraft, parts which collided with tree, engine RPM at time of collision, payload, wind speeds, ambient temperatures, dew point etc. Then the guys at ED can maybe just about simulate with some degree of accuracy what you are asking for.

Sweet, well if you need a tester hit me up

U.....huh

and check your page file size too. Look for a post by bignewy and follow his signature links for performance tips HDD is an issue for loading in times mainly

It shouldn't break anything and if you use JSGME or OVGME you can remove it again in seconds so no biggy. The back catalogue rarely gets updated these days so I wouldn't hold your breath on a quick fix even if it seems simple to you.

Ok so... 1) Not everybody will have disposable income at every stage in their lives. This isn't ED's problem but it would be nice to know they care about the "little guys". 2) Why would you argue against this idea if it literally will not stop you from keeping all liveries installed on your hard drive but enable others to have a more flexible experience? 3) There is a limit to how many hard drives you can physically fit on a system, realistically. So even if they are cheap, the space on them is not an infinite resource to be wasted. 4) The actual development required to enable this is absolutely minimal when they have all of the resources at their disposal already. 5) That's a $50 module sale ED just lost because you had to go buy a hard drive instead... That's my 2 cents. Also... It is a forum, there's no need for personal insults. You lose any argument by default when you stoop to that level.

What purpose would it serve to have the JTAC offer tasking to a viggen out of curiosity? Just so they can lay smoke or something else? Send coordinates maybe?

The ejected pilot body does not match the new cockpit pilot body. (Same as it was before cockpit body was introduced)

Waste not, want not as they say... It's a valid idea which I think ED should consider for sure. For people who do not suffer this problem, just keep the liveries installed. Simples Besides, OP probably re-mortgaged to pay for the flight controls so may not want to invest further in hardware

What i think they mean is put all the official liveries in an online repository, or something like that, and allow as optional downloads. Wouldn't be a bad idea as with all the new modules and terrains we are seeing these days it is getting difficult to juggle the old HD space. Anythnig that saves me 25-30gb of space is welcome any day

3rd post tonight, apologies for that but may aswell get them all up. The Hud raise/lower toggle seems to be a momentary action instead of a toggle. I.e. When I press the binding with the glass lowered, it raises until i let go of the binding and vice versa. Is this how it should be funcitoning?

At some point the radar filter dial has changed behaviour from a dial you could wind to your preferred blend of red/green to one which if you dial it even slightly it, basically, acts as a switch and goes from 100% green through to 100% red with no mid-ground. Was this intentional? I don't like it this way

@IronMike If you place the Vigg on a runway start in the darker hours (06:30 on 01/04/1971 at Batumi) the cockpit lighting is turned off making it a bit of a fumble looking for your flashlight in order to find the dials to turn the lighting up. Please don't miss this in your next big update for the module, it's not a difficult one. Cheers guys EDIT: tested 0600 and 0530 with no lighting but 0500 did have it on so may be a DCS issue but worth checking it out none the less i guess

Cheers, also just realized it was 2020! Just call me the necromancer lol

could you change your video so that it is not listed as "made for kids" that way I can save it and watch later. Needing inspired to dive deeper with the vigg

@Eagle Dynamics Refunds for all who purchased previous to it becoming free please. I will accept a credit note

May not seem like a big deal but this module is missing the Arcade Chase View i.e. Shift + F4 by default. Surely an easy fix right? Is it an ED issue?

Yes, but still within the realms of possibility. Prob won't happen but all I am saying is it could happen if the devs chose to make it so

I'm with Matuchkin. It would be silly to say that the option cannot be given. Thankfully in a sim you do not have to send your aircraft to the factory for refit. Much like we do not have to wait for ages to have our munitions strapped to our chosen jet when re-arming...etc

Ahh right I see. Yeah looking again at my ultra-accurate official source (Wikipedia again ) about the CCIP program would seem like that is correct though I am now curious about the radar due to this part; " Northrop Grumman was awarded a contract in early 2004 to develop an M5+ upgrade kit to update the AN/APG-68(V)5 radars on the Block 40/42/50/52 Falcons to the AN/APG-68(V)9 standard; upgrading of Block 40/42 aircraft began in 2007 and is to become operational on the Block 50/52 aircraft by 2010." So do we have a 2007 block 50/52 with the CCIP upgrade but awaiting the radar upgrade or do we have a 2010 block 50/52 CCIP? Not sure what differences the newer radar system would make in DCS though? Also, with the CCIP program standardizing the blocks, did the old 40/42 blocks become known as 50/52's after the upgrade or were they still referred to by their original block numbers? Also also, it would be good of ED to list it on the modules page exactly what timeframe their modules represent. Just for ease of reference if anything.

Anybody clarify why and since when the block 50 is now strictly a 2007 block 50? My official source (wikipedia) has the block 50 delivered in 1991 so what I am now wondering is what we are missing out on from earlier/later era of the block. Would it be unfeasible to include all the features, is it much like the A10C thunderbolt where we now have a second suite of the same aircraft/block if you like? There must be some viper nerds lurking around here that can fill me in surely. Just curious to know and if it has already been discussed in depth elsewhere please paste me the link Ta

.