nomdeplume

I dunno, maybe having both versions installed might cause it issues. It does write to the user files directory, but I don't know how it finds that location. You could have a look to see if it's writing its scripts to one of the older DCS folders, e.g. a DCS Warthog folder in your home directory or to the actual game directory.

Probably... but it should be created if it doesn't exist when you enable DCS World in the recording options of TacView. There should also be a "TacviewExportDCS.lua" file in the same folder, which does the real work. The export.lua is read by the game if it exists, and TacView just adds some commands to run the TacviewExportDCS.lua file.

Have you tried using the Repair DCS World option?

I installed it just a few days ago and it's working fine. Are you using the latest version? Also, you can double check that your Saved Games\DCS\Scripts\export.lua exists, and has the TacView lines in it. And finally check that the location you've set TacView to record to is correct.

It might be helpful if you explained what happened and why you think that something killed you. All I see when I view the track is a very short (~2 minutes) sequence that appears to be you spawning in an Su-25, then despawning and spawning in a P-51, then despawning, and then the track ends.

Thanks JayPee, that would be this thread.

Um... yes, if you want to use it in semi or auto mode then you'll need to modify the programs. If your Google-fu is better than mine, you might be able to find a definite listing of which programs the game's CMS selects for different threats; so far I've found this post from Eddie which might be useful as a starting point. Also it's generally better to use too many countermeasures than too few. :)

I'd take a look at your graphics settings especially regarding draw distance, but all the quality settings could apply here. The missions can override a lot of settings (unless you select the "Use these settings for all missions" option in your options screen), including things like the "Scenes" setting which alters the detail levels. There's also the possibility that particular 3D models have incorrect level of detail (LOD) settings which can cause this as well; the LOD is used to display a simpler model at longer distances, but it's possible to end up with a LOD that doesn't show anything and then when you get a bit closer, it suddenly appears. So... pretty vague, sorry! Basically: fiddle with your graphics settings, and also try to determine if it's particular units that this occurs with.

What frequency was the JTAC on?

Oh wow, I hadn't thought to test that. Thanks for the heads-up. ;) Hopefully it'll come to the other aircraft -- and across the network!

For wing vapor you might want to check linked in this post if you haven't already seen it. Still WIP with no release date AFAIK, but it looks quite promising.

Nod/vertical movement isn't present at all as far as I can tell, i.e. if you look down at your instruments then switch to an external view you won't see your pilot looking down. Probably some complexities with getting the head rotation to look right. So it's not just a matter of sending it across the network, they'd have to actually implement the visual effect as well. Agree it would be nice to have, though.

If you're not already aware of it, you might want to check out the LotAtc 4 DCS project.

I remember having this problem in MP a long time ago, I had thought it was fixed but perhaps not? You could probably see if this is the case by dropping a mark point on the received SPI location rather than hooking the SPI itself, and then slaving the pod to the mark point (since the mark point will be created at ground level).

Why can't you believe both? :huh: The current terrain won't utilise/benefit from EDGE. That doesn't mean they'll be removing or disabling it when they release terrain using EDGE; it just means the existing map won't benefit from the work they're doing for EDGE/Nevada. The game will just support two terrain rendering engines, like it supports aircraft modules of varying fidelity, and non-aircraft modules like Combined Arms.

The current Black Sea map will continue to work (using the "old"/current rendering engine). The Nevada map (and maybe other terrains in the future) will take advantage of the new rendering engine and look & perform better as a result.

I think RightCtrl+Num0 will enable the snapview mode, and then if you press one of the Num keys it'll go to that view and stay on it. Hit Num0 again to disable.

Yep, uploading the logs to this thread would be fine. Very strange you wouldn't have an 'input' folder under config, though. I'd probably go a step or two further than Maulkin's suggestion, and just move or rename the Saved Games\DCS folder - that'll remove all your custom settings so you'll have to reconfigure everything, but it's probably the easiest way of determining if the issue is with your particular settings or there's something more serious going on. Have you tried the HOTAS in any other games, or even just using the Windows controller properties page to make sure it's working properly?

If it was a DCS World trailer, then the only cockpit they could show would be the Su-25. ;) And I can't speak for others, but I have never in my life gone out and bought a $50 game (or even a $5 game) based on a trailer. That's why I don't think it's a big deal... it's a frickin' trailer. I don't think showing these things is so far from reality as to be worth getting upset about, in the same way I don't think showing the photogenic hairsprayed burger when advertising fast food is that big a deal, either. Artistic license and all that.

Clearly communicating the entire scope of the product line is going to be an ongoing challenge for ED, and I don't think trailers really are the place for the fine print. Countless games show pre-rendered cutscenes in their trailers without clearly indicating they're not actual gameplay for example, and nobody cries foul over that. It's expected trailers are there to grab attention and entice further consideration, not to fully and unambiguously communicate the entire game experience. Plus, don't forget that you can play multiplayer with people using those platforms, so in that sense they can actually form part of the game world and game experience with just FC3.

It might be worthwhile doing a survey of missions to see how often the 'player can drive' option is used... I reckon a strong case could be built for making it default to off. So many times I've created a group, added units, selected unit types and then... d'oh! Forgot to disable that option at the start. Now I have to turn it off for each individual unit. :(

Even if all the 'hardcore' players are buying FC3 just to support ED, they're also buying other modules to actually play, so they wouldn't be seeing a noticeable difference in sales figures if Flaming Cliffs wasn't popular outside of the existing 'hardcore' market. In some respect, you could consider that the low fidelity (more popular) products may be being used to somewhat subsidise the development of the high fidelity products, which are obviously more expensive to develop and don't sell as well.

Wags' update made it sound to me like the AFM versions will be available within FC3, but they'll also be selling the individual aircraft separately at a lower price point. I could be wrong there, but it would make sense if this is an initiative to try to get more people to try the product out -- a fairly cheap F-15C with a good flight model and simplified (easy to learn) avionics could be very appealing to a wide range of folks who are a bit intimidated by the detail in the core DCS products. And the Su-27 is of course a natural counterpart for those who prefer Russian fighters. The downside of course is that people who buy these might be less inclined to get FC3, but maybe they could somehow offer a discount since they already own two of the included aircraft? Keeping the FC3 aircraft with the simplified flight model might make sense from this perspective, but adds a lot of ugliness to the actual game (two different aircraft? different flight models depending on what you've bought? etc.).

The best way to see this would be to compare the flight modelling of the Su-25T you get for free with DCS World with the FC3 aircraft, if you have those. The Su-25T uses the advanced flight model, to give more realistic and enjoyable flight dynamics. The simple flight model is, well, simpler. It doesn't give as good a feeling of flight, and I think most noticeably the transition between ground and air dynamics (e.g. when landing) is a lot nicer with the AFM.

I'd guess User is referring to the cold start option -- the flaps are extended if you do a cold start. Possibly also static aircraft, but haven't checked that.