key_stroked
-
Posts
545 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by key_stroked
-
-
2 hours ago, Shadow KT said:
Good luck with that.
He replied.
-
Sorry, but this is the last way I know to get your attention. Please check your private messages.
-
Well, I've tried every which way I know how to ask for an update on this. I've tried tagging people multiple times, asking politely, and the final attempt was private messaging IronMike.
All attempts have ended with complete silence.I guess I know where I stand as Heatblur's customer
-
@IronMike @Cobra847
Please...I'm asking in the nicest way possible. Can either of you ask Grover what he found out about how we're supposedly to correctly rearm the countermeasures after a sortie?
If I've somehow offended the team then I'm sorry. I don't know how I would have done that, but whatever it was it wasn't my intention.
I just want to know how to do this without getting a completely new aircraft and going through the startup procedure again. Can someone please answer? -
On 4/27/2021 at 10:30 AM, NineLine said:
Can you give me a track where they wont move when given orders? I am not getting this when I try your mission. So thats super weird.
And just as I said that, it happened
I will report it.
Great! I'm glad you're seeing the same behavior. Btw, the track I supplied in the OP showed that behavior (not moving when given orders). Imo your track file system isn't very reliable. It doesn't show a 100% replay of what actually happened -
I guess not...
-
The modified tint .bmp is in the right location (C:\Games NS\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\Ka-50\Cockpit\IndicationTextures), and the modified color shows in the folder when I set the icons to large tiles, but in game it's still black and white.
Anyone had luck getting the tint to work after 2.7?
-
1
-
-
Was this fixed in today's patch? I didn't see it in the patch notes
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, NineLine said:
Are you saying you guys normally use on road with a formation? And previously it worked fine? I generally stick to using off road for formations, them trying to navigate trees and such, plus hold formation, and path gets them confused.
Edit: I tried the track a number of ways, the only time the vehicles went off road was when I let the track play back without touching it, if I took control, even with the path already set it was fine.
Is the mission created in 2.7, can I have the mission?
Thanks.
I don't expect non-column formations to follow on a road. That wouldn't be very logical obviously. But currently in 2.7, changing their formation is only one of two ways (that I've found) to get them moving again.
If you select a group and give them a road waypoint (green icon), the yellow dashed line pathing will appear, but very frequently the group won't move. Their speed is set at a default of about half the speed bar, but they'll just sit there while you watch the yellow dashed line start to disappear, starting at the units, and continue to shrink towards the waypoint set. You have to drag their speed slider bar to 0, and then back to a desired speed to get them to move and the yellow dashed line to once again emanate from the lead vehicle in the group.
The second way to get them moving is changing their formation type, but upon doing that, they'll go offroad, really fast at first, before slowing down because they hit every single object they can. Often driving offroad is faster than driving on the road in a column formation.
Units will also sometimes stop at bridges and remain there until you do the speed slider bar workaround, or change their formation to a non-column formation. Of course doing that makes them cross the river by going through the river, and as I said in the OP, if they're already beyond the river and you switch them back to the default column formation, they will drive back through the river to get to the road and then cross the bridge.
I attached the mission I used. It's just an empty Caucasus map with the three unit groups I outlined in the OP. I slotted into the tactical commander slot and issued them waypoints and reported the observed behavior that was supposed to be in the track file I provided.-
2
-
-
This needs a hotfix right now. Anything that crashes the game this regularly is literally game breaking and shouldn't wait for a regular patch.
-
Tested CA path finding on an empty test mission I made.
3 unit groups:Group 1 -- 1 unit (M1A2)
Group 2 -- 4 units (M1A2)
Group 3 -- 6 units mixed
Putting all three groups in column formation results in only the lead units moving (for multi-unit groups) at first at really slow speeds. Eventually other units in multi-unit groups will start moving, but also at slow speed. Some units don't move at all.
Any other formation (line abreast, staggered, diamond, etc.) forces all units to move at increased speed, but then they won't follow roads if you set a road waypoint. The yellow lines show on the road, but the units drive off road, though trees, etc. Units will also attempt to follow a road but instead drive beside the road through trees/bushes/other terrain objects instead of driving on the road.I had all three groups pathed to cross a river using a bridge. In any other formation except column, they'll go off road and cross the river by driving through the river.
After they crossed the river, I switched them back to column to get them back on road, and some units actually did a 180 degree turn and drove BACK through the river to get to the road, then used the bridge.
-
4
-
-
Can also confirm.
-
Still looking for an update...this is beginning to feel intentionally ignored by Heatblur.
-
I gave up waiting for Razbam and modded it myself. It's literally a 1 minute change but I guess they can't be bothered to include it in their patches.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Naquaii said:
In conclusion the AWG-9 is very much not a "look up radar", pulse doppler was the very function that allowed for look down-shoot down. It's just not that great at it against heavily maneuvering targets, especially in TWS.
Wouldn't going below your target allow for pulse to work without ground clutter, and also eliminate the drawbacks of the pulse doppler filter issues?
-
Can we get an update on this? Please?
-
Wow Groove.
The OP has clearly shown you multiple primary sources and all you keep saying is "that's your opinion". Documents aren't opinion. They're literally written facts.
And as was already mentioned, you didn't even put the right value from the source YOU posted.
Is this how you guys verify data all the time? It's like a trial court has a bloody knife in a bag with the defendant's fingerprints, but the defense lawyer says "that's your opinion. It's not my client".
Pretty disheartening to see how you treat verifiable information presented to you in order to fix an error that anyone can visually see with their own eyes.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, marcocom said:
the one-button start feature is like for absolute beginners who play in unrealistic arcade-mode, like my little sister
I've been playing since the Jane's F/A-18 and LOMAC days and I use auto starts, hot starts, and air starts when I have limited time to play and don't feel like going through a 10 min INS alignment in some aircraft.
But I guess that because I prefer time-saving features over ultra-realism, I'm lumped into the same "absolute beginner" category as your little sister.
Try to open up your mindset and consider that people with schedules and jobs might not have the time you do, or that they just may prefer getting in the air to do the flying or fighting quicker instead of spending time flipping switches and knobs.
-
When will the Harrier manual/pocket checklist missing pages be filled in? I haven't seen any additions or changes made in quite a while.
-
On 3/21/2021 at 9:03 AM, BreaKKer said:
Read some documents.
What documents?
-
As a programmer, I'll just say that Razbam's methods of bug and feature tracking is pretty bad. Any software company worth their salt will have clearly defined tracking areas:
- not planned
- todo (planned feature not implemented yet)
- bug (coded but not working)
- resolved (coded and working correctly)
A feature that is planned, but not implemented yet (meaning there is no code for it), does NOT belong in a Resolved tracker. That's absurd. I know Razbam stated they're their own company and will do business as they see fit, which they're entitled to do, but I sure won't be pre-ordering their next module (Mudhen) if this is how they choose to do business.Also, Elmo's demeanor with statements like "I'm doing it this way, you don't like it? Tough." is completely unprofessional and just reminds me of the same old Razbam before the debacle when they said the harrier was feature complete and various Razbam employees were acting unprofessionally on various social media platforms.
I thought that they were turning over a new leaf after they got roasted for how they handled that.....I guess not. Shame.-
5
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, QuiGon said:
Probably because there simply is no update on this.
That doesn't make any sense.
IronMike said Grover would get back to us, and that was back in October, 5 months ago.
I've seen IronMike active in plenty of threads these past few weeks, but for some reason he won't come back to this one and just give a simple update, even if it's to tell us "we don't know how it really works yet".
That would be a really bizarre statement, but it's better than just silence. I'm not really asking for much here.
-
Is there some reason this is getting ignored?
-
Skhval won't lock clearly visible targets.
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
I have the feeling we have to wait until BS3 before this gets fixed. Last update from @BIGNEWY was February, and it's now June.
Why can't you guys follow up in a reasonable amount of time?