Vakarian

I've made a simple mission where I places IFVs on a Handy Wind tanker "for narrative purposes" and when I went in to test how it's picked up from TGP I noticed they can be invisible when watched from certain angles. Then I went to F9 view and same thing was displayed there, so it's not TGP related issue. I'll link the track, mission file and a YT video my SQN mate made that describes the issue. Video describes the F9 view, but on track you can see it from the aircraft perspective too. ifvsDisappearing.trk test.miz

Why do people who have no clue on how certain stuff works, blindly and I'll even say stupidly keep dying on a hill? It only makes everyone else believe you are a troll and nothing else. When you persistently say "It's fine as it is", and then you see multiple people explaining their issues with ME and elaborate how will this idea fix the problem but you still keep on and on how "It's fine"... Btw, I just love you you contradict yourself in a same post. One more point to consider you a troll So how did you never seen a hot start option?

@SharpeXBDude, understand that the DCS doesn't revolve around you and that there are other people that would very much like this option Just a quick and dirty example. I use a mission in which I have every aircraft I own and they are all on Kobuleti airfield. As I would like to sometime practice cold-starts, I have each aircraft in cold-start mode. Also, sometime I just want to do something quick I do have every aircraft again placed with hot-start slots. Now, as I sometime use this mission to test something with the guys in my squadron, I need to multiply the aircraft in each group. However, if the OPs request would be introduced to the DCS, that would halve the slots I need. So in a nutshell, having a choice is not a bad thing in this case. This could be same as any other mission-enforcable options (F2 views, what's seen on F10 map,....), mission designer could decide does he want to enforce cold-start. If not, then user would decide for himself on joining the slot does he want the aircraft hot or cold. "Minimum" effort from mission designer, but great QoL improvement for everyone else.

Because why would you want the altimeter to read 0 when you are on the ground, when it can show something else. That just makes perfect sense /s

I've tried placing come PT-76s and BMD-1s on a cargo ship to mimic invasion force. What I found out is that non-static objects do not spawn where they are shown in the mission editor. If I place some static objects and link them to the cargo ship, they spawn where they are placed and all is fine. Now, I would like not to use static objects unless I really have to, so could anyone else test this to see if it's a bug? .miz file is in attachment. test.miz

That's by design, not a bug

Main difference is on FFB wheels, there is only single axis of movement which is fairly simple to do. For the FFB flight sticks (better said gimbals), you need to be able to move it in 2 axes which significantly complicates things.

Ah, the armchair project manager strikes again. It's one thing to make standalone app to do one single thing. It's completely another thing to create a new architecture that will encompass all modules that are currently in-game and those that will be added in a future, integrating that into a who-knows-how-old codebase with features that could be more advanced than what SRS is currently doing. SRS is an awesome thing, but it's nowhere near as complex as how integrated VoIP solution would be. Also, calling people like that amateurs is condescending at best. Just because they aren't working for ED doesn't mean they are amateurs. They could be (most likely are) already experienced devs who thought to do a little side project to help the community. Making a mod is and always will be "simpler" thing as most often than not you can use some other technology which could be more advanced to create stuff and then integrate it into whatever you are making a mod for. As for EDs VoIP solution, give them time. You already have great replacement which isn't that hard to setup, but also is not as easy as working radio ingame which you control just by tuning the radio.

I can confirm. I did test the new tools, and after drawing a bunch of them, on a polygon I did reduce thickness to 1 and the icons were gone. Also in my case, the blue background of the menus (those seen on the screenshots in post above) turned black which was definitely weird.

Well, there is an option to build a FARP yourself. The use of a FARP as a whole object seems kinda not flexible enough. Like with the current FARP, I don't like that it has predefined set of landing spots, always in a same position and with a prepared surface. By the use of the invisible FARP, you can create a FARP yourself with every object in a ME that currently exists. That way you can create much more scenery specific farps that can even blend with the environment, have as much or as little objects as you would like. I do agree that having a guide crew (or at least refuel and rearm guys) would be awesome to have and would bring up the feeling like you are in a live environment.

With the attitude like that, you might as well avoid the forums in a first place

Post a track as I've replied to you on other thread that Harrier can certainly take off with GW of 19klbs

Then you are doing something wrong. Haven't flown a Harrier in a long time, but just for this I did a quick run and was perfectly able to take off with more than 19k lbs and land afterwards. It's not pretty, but here is proof that Harrier has more than enough power to take off and land vertically VT_VL.trk VL_VT.miz

Use static template for this. This is what group I'm in uses. Basically each flight configures their flight the way they want (waypoints, radio presets, loadout, liveries, callsigns,......) saves that as static template and then mission maker just imports it. Ofc, mission they are making the static template must be empty to include their flight only, but it has worked so far for us.

No, RB fixed it couple of updates ago. I believe one update after they were introduced so no biggie

This was fixed for at least one update before yesterdays one

F6, subsequent presses will scroll through all launched weapons

Do you do startup by yourself? If so, how are you doing the alignment? Something is wrong, look at your TPOD data. All coordinates read 0, elevation too, slant range is also 0....

That's not what he asked. You box MAV (still caged) on STRS or EHSD page and you go to find target using TPOD. When you do SS Depress to switch between INS and TPOD designation mode, IRMV gets unboxed so you can't uncage it as soon as you've found the target because you need to go and select MAV first

R7 5800X + R9 6900XT Combined Arms Smart Access Memory was disabled Happened to me first time on saturday after ~1 hour of being on F-10 map. Don't remember doing much of the zooming in, just overviewing the action and progress of the flights when suddenly all icons and buttons were gone.

Using TCP in multiplayer games (and a lot other time sensitive applications) is not really something you want. If some packets get lost, client/server would need to resend them and only after receipt of those packets have been confirmed you can move forward. That's a big NO-GO in MP games so UDP-like connection is what you want. You need to have some mechanism to make sure the continuity of the action is not lost, but also you must not rely on all packets getting to a destination as that is virtually impossible and would quickly deteriorate game experience.

What new features will come with the upgrade? AGM-65L Laser Maverick GBU-54 Laser JDAM APKWS Updated, weathered cockpit textures Updated and improved external model Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) Updated HOTAS commands ARC-210 radio (not at EA release) Updated 3D cockpit to remove TISL panel New mission content Adjusted flight dynamics (available to original A-10C as well) Not seeing that the TAD updates here. Am I missing something or was it posted somewhere else? If it was, then ofc we should get them, but if it were just rumors and nothing confirmed then I can't complain that they won't be made.

Well, almost all planned features are delivered, except the new radio IIRC, so we got what they wanted. The rest is purely up for them to decide to see if any other new features are feasible

The point of the wishlist is for community to express their wishes (surprising, isn't it), but it's ultimately up to ED to determine if those wishes are firstly realistic for the module, can they implement it (legally or with technical limitations in mind) and also how many man-hours it it going to take so they have to see if it's feasible. Noone like to work without being paid to do so, so implementing a lot of new stuff to the older module it not financially good decision.

Can't help to notice that sideslip indicator is again not aligned to it's brackets. That seems to be fixed one patch, then broken again after couple and that cycle continues on and on.