Vakarian

Yeah, it was quick and dirty test on Marianas just to see if there's any discrepancy after a few years. I'll do what you suggested sometime during this week. Have all maps so it shouldn't be an issue.

While it wasn't any definite test given that I lack modules from number of 3rd parties, I did throw a quick test with few ED, Heatblur, AvioDev and Razbam modules. With QNH set at default 29.92 in both tests, only thing changed was the temperature. First test I did was with the maximum allowable 40 degrees and second with the minimum allowable 20 degrees (Celsius, both values positive ofc) In +40C test, briefing QFE was 29.38, in +20C briefing QFE was 29.35. Aircraft +40C measured QFE +20C measured QFE A-10CII 29.39 29.35 AV-8B 29.38 29.38 C-101 29.39 29.36 F-14B 29.37 29.33 F-15E 29.38 29.38 F-16C 29.39 29.36 F-5E 29.40 29.36 I did also include P-47D in the test, but for the love of god I cannot figure out how to read the pressure setting that was set QFEtestWhileOnRwy_40c.trk QFEtestWhileOnRwy_20c.trk

It probably got renewed and it took a bit for it to propagate. Seems fine on my end for last two days at least

One way that worked for us is when you set a lot of units late activation and invisible (50+ units) and then activate them via trigger at once. That introduced freezes in missions in my group quite consistently so we imposed a ban on doing such stuff

Yes, that was the point . Wags misspoke a few times which is understandable when you get asked such questions on the spot.

I've always ignored it, but after getting FFB base and trying it out, this thing is a blast to fly. Haven't had that much fun in a while. If you want something to do wild stuff, this is it

It's also a bit weird here too. No SSL errors, but definitely haven't seen this message so far

How about no? This was "discussed" many times before, it always revolves around few different points and ends with one of ED members coming in, saying they won't change their business model and that's it. Little forum search would have found you this in a no time if what you are truly interested are opinions of the people.

Hey. Wasn't meant to be condescending, sorry if it turned out like that. That "I mean, just using pure logic, what kind of an exhaust doesn't produce any heat blur?" was just me saying that there shouldn't be any need for IRL proof that it should have it. Now that I look back at it, maybe you meant for videos that demonstrate how it actually looks. Ah the joys of written communication and me being bad at it. I missed that part that the regression happened (that part I really know how can happen ) and it'll be fixed.

Because you might not, but people should really stop being selfish and maybe consider that there are people that do like to have one "thing" from which they can launch, update, repair and whatever they might add in? You want to play, open DCS.exe. Want to update? Use updater.exe. Want to repair DCS, use another thing. Some people like having one interface with nice big buttons they can click to perform various actions. It's a convenience thing that a lot of people have gratification for when they deal with people who are less skilled around PCs.

Hi Flappie. From the video you posted, it's visible that the blur is there. Not a lot of it as the run-up has only been completed, but it's there. I mean, just using pure logic, what kind of an exhaust doesn't produce any heat blur?

Tease =/= reveal

From what I've seen, that's realistic. Bombs we have in DCS can use laser codes that have following scheme: 1. 1 2. 5-7 3. 1-8 4. 1-8 So from 1511 - 1788 can be set, those are the limits and that's how it should be. Linking F-16 subforum, but you can see there the diagram of what codes are actually settable on the bomb itself.

Basically, if it could be done in a similar way RAZBAM guys have done it for the controls "ghost view", then this would be best of both worlds. You still see the pilot body and controls, but it's transparent and you can click on the controls as if there was no body/controls rendered.

You need to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less aggresive on your controls

Well, I would guess that IRL not everything works perfectly as in DCS so they actually might ripple two LGBs on a single target just to ensure that either hits it. I think I've heard it mentioned here on forums "somewhere"

No it does not. It was changed a while ago, it's longer now

You have a SHOT page which tells you on which target each Hellfire was launched at, so cross-reference that and what FCR tells you. You know, do some actual pilot stuff and not just yeeting off 16 hellfires in 20-what seconds and RTB.

Well, post a track so someone can see what exactly are you doing

1. Add a bit of a deadzone to ensure it's not your hardware (sensors can not center correctly, especially on cheaper equipment and original TM Warthogs) 2. Ensure you don't have any double binds and that you got your switchology correct. You were slewing in INS mode couple of times and while there might be time to do it, I really doubt you were trying to do that while looking through the TPOD and finding the target

Yep. I've known for this for at least 3-4 years. Think there were more forum posts regarding this, but it looks like it never got on the TODO list.

Yes please, this has been a really bad inconvenience ever since I switched to ultrawide monitor. Bumping for visuals

IIRC that altitude is in meters, not feet so you need to account for that

Known issue, supposedly to be fixed in the next update. Fingers crossed

Yeah, that's a downer with the current implementation. Depending on the module, you might need two sets of binds, one for the VOIP, one for the comms menu. IIRC that's on most if not all ED modules, F-14 does have some special options to allow for short/long press operations of the mic switches