vgilsoler

If I use the last version 1.0.3 then I get the attached script error. Let me try with the workaround.

The new TDZ script is giving following error when added to the mission. I'm trying to add the TDZ to Orly RWY in Normandy 2 map. When using the previous version the TDZ is showed in mission map in a path 0/180 instead of 70/250.

@NineLine The thread is tagged as only ST, but the issue is reproduced in MT too. Is it updated in the report to the DEV team?

Yes, using Normandy2. It did a clean repair and copied DCS to DCS.bak to generate a default saved games folder, but it didn't work. I tested the same mission in openbeta and it worked using 40.30 freq. So let's wait for the next update. Thank you in any case.

I've changed to 40.30 but still failing on BF109, and Dora can connect to TWR using 40.35, when I change the Dora to 40.30 then both planes are failing. The Mission Editor and F10 map show 40.35 for Villacoublay. I tried the autostart in BF109 to check if I'm missing any step, but failing too.

I have issues with the radio calling to ATC or IA flight members. For example, I have a mission with FW190D9 and BF109K4 in the same Normandy airfield and both planes with same radio frequencies config and channels. With the FW190 I have feedback from the ATC, but not with the BF109K4. I already tested with BF109 starting in runway but same result. In the BF 109 challenge campaign I haven't feedback from any ATC nor the wingman in all missions I played until now. I attach the testing mission and track using stable and MT. I was looking for other threads or comments about the BF109 radio is bugged, but I didn't see nothing. What I'm doing wrong? Regards, bf109_radio_issue.trk VG_Normandy_Proving_Grounds.miz bf109_radio_issue_2.trk

I can confirm the same issue in the previous mission called "Ground Attack" - Using Stable and MT

I know ED is working on IA and Damage Model, I just put them as examples to remark the importance I think it has to establish a different way to deal with long term bugs. I think this will only hide the problem from the forum to your inbox. In any case I will proceed in this way and you’ll have a PM (or some of them ) Thanks and Regards

I'm sorry but does not correct, if we need to request to rebump reports so often. You can see it in almost any bug forum. That's the point, in my opinion it has been demonstrated along the time that must be improved. From my point of view the weakest point of DCS, even more than erratic IA or damage model, is the permanency of these old bugs. Don't get me wrong, I think DCS is good, probably the best sim in the market, but as my mother said me when I was a child "you could do it better" Correct, and for a different helo/plane each time. Solving old bugs in only one frame, or a big update just will move the frustration from one side to another. At this moment it seems totally random (except for the big sellers) which bug and which plane will be the lucky one.

Hi, I know you have your priorities and your limited hands on solving bugs and issues. But it will reduce the user frustration to see in every patch an ancient bug resolved and knowing that in the next update another ancient bug for a different airframe is resolved and the same for the next update. So every user can expect one (at least one) old bug solved of their favorite helo/plane for the next 6 months or one year. I reviewed the change logs in every update and in all of them there is a lot of work done, of course, but there is always the feeling that some planes received more attention than others, even when there are reported bugs for years. I'm sure that focus in one (just one) of them for a different airframe in every patch will not disturb so much your development roadmap. And I'm not referring about eternal bugs discussions about 1 RPM or 5s more and the engine is death, I mean radios not working, incorrect bind controls, graphical glitches, etc. What I'm looking for is not a punctual action, but a scheduled task that we can track. At this moment we only have your words (which I appreciate) but few facts (which I appreciate more) I tried to be not rude, but I'm not English speak native, so thank you for understanding.

Could be possible to add the beacons for AFN-2 radios in the airfields?

I would have a section in the updates for long time unsolved bugs. In every update a long time bug for a different airframe should be addressed. In that way we can see that ED takes a minimum care of every product and less criticism about abandoned products will be in the forum. I mean something like: february update an old bug of F-5 april update an old bug of F86 june update an old bug of spitfire…

I attach logs and track. The flaps are tested about t 600s. It is Stable and MT. dcs.log bf109_flaps_flickering.trk

Running 109 training missions on Stable and MT and I can see the flickering. I’ll try to upload logs and track later

+1

And flyable when possible. Not a lover of naval fighters, but diving bombs and torpedoes…

Of course, I already understood it is not a copy & paste task, but it seems FlyingIron already did some job on about it (quoted from their website) Detailed & Extensive simulations of the Lightnings core systems, including accurate, code-driven replications of the Lightnings Fuel, Hydraulic, Propeller, Cooling and Electrical Systems. All systems are programmed to function virtually identically to the real-world P-38 Systems. Almost all default X-plane systems have been overridden and/or enhanced significantly. Incredibly realistic Flight Model made possible with carefully data-matched simulations of the NACA 23016 & NACA 4412 Airfoils. Flight performance has been verified against real-world Performance & handling tests to ensure extensive realism. We’ve gone so far as to model the drag from individual coolant flaps! Custom heat & thermodynamics modelling, extensive engine management simulation Realistic Engine Start-up modelling (don’t forget your checklists!) Realistic External Tanks Integration when a plane in DCS needed different versions to match the theatres?

I wonder the lack of information about adding (or rejecting) this airframe to DCS. Have ED or 3rd parties evaluated that? FlyingIron, for example, has developed it for XP and MSFS. I don’t want to discuss the bussiness decisions in DCS, but is there any insurmountable reason to reject it? Like legal issues with Lockheed IP?

One more

Well, it seems I mixed the comments in this thread with the DLSS one. So forget the second thread and focus on the improvements noticed in this one, and the lack of related changes in the changelog. Thanks for the advisory.

Just some posts before in this thread and also in

Some users are talking about performance and visual improvements using DLSS/DLAA with this update, but the changelog doesn’t have any comment about. Is it intended? Or just something “lost in translation” between ED teams? @BIGNEWY

Just to understand how it should work. Should the script have a condition to control if it is running the mission or is it replying track? Something like “if missionreplay == true then …” Is this property available by default? Or needs to be coded?

Yes please, it will be a must buy

Could you check in dcs.log if you get a warning for integrity check after doing this change?