Whisper

Hello Cisco (guess I'll have to rename myself Juniper just for trolling purposes ;) ). Actually the MTR shown clearly show packet loss starting from 1 hop and continuing on all hops after that. Also, when doing the same during the morning (I'm in the same hours than Greece), I didn't see any packet loss, and I use the incriminated link. This is quite indicative of congestion during peak trafic hours. Checking the GEANT RIPE entry (https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/query.html?searchtext=AS20965), they seem to have quite a few peering links and are also using Level3 as a second upstream provider, so people using these peering or Level3 links would not be affected if the issue is indeed a Cogent - GEANT congestion. That would explain why some people are not affected, and others are. I'd say many things point toward a congested link in this case :)

http://www.cogentco.com/en/about-cogent

From my ISP network engineer PoV, Cogent is indeed an huge and old "transit provider" (international network connected to everybody on the net and reselling connectivity service), but has on more than a few occasions shown issues managing and upgrading their "peering" connections (free links with other networks and organisation that permit them to be connected everywhere and resell this connectivity to others) when saturating. I would not be surprised if that was the case. Anyway, there's nothing anyone can do apart from working @Geant or Cogent.

Yes, it's generated in the CTLD script. Having it force 1688 is probably some lines of code in it.

AFAIK these libs are protected in DCS. In this file : <DCS main directory>/Scripts/MissionScripting.lua there are calls to a SanitizeModule function which prohibits the use of these libs. You need to comment out the corresponding line to be able to use the lib.

I did like Zeus, because I found Saitek software to be rather unreliable in some instances. Sticky keys, or lag in input, to name a few. I only have a generic very simple profile for all DCS aircraft, with mapping for VoIP PTT and OpenTrack centering function, and the throttle "ministick" (which is not one) mapped to the usual TDC keys in DCS. That way I don't need to change profile when I change aircraft. My own setup is a real nightmare without any proper order, I gonna take some inspiration from yours, Zeus, thanks for posting EDIT : I don't know for you, but I also find the TGL1 and SW5 & 6 on throttle to be reachable enough for quick functions, if needed. You didn't list your mapping on these, Zeus, do you actually use these switches?

Rudder won't be enough at low speed, differential braking is there to do the job at the end of the landing run. You don't need extreme winds for this, because in case of xwinds, you won't have a perfect alignment during the landing run, you are trying to keep centered with rudders until that runs out of authority, at which point you probably won't be centered perfectly either, necessiting correction via differential braking. If the xwind is creating issues at rudder authority speed, there's a good chance you'll have to keep centering at braking speed Before getting my own rudder pedals, I used the 2 buttons on the back of my X-55 throttle for left & right brakes. Works really fine.

That's it, entering VRS may not be the issue , but the way to get out of it seems overly easy.

Module is in beta. Buy only if you accept the beta state and help in development. That means coping with bugs and sometimes non functionnal features. If you want something functionnal & finished, I'd urge to postpone your buy.

Thanks, sir! Strange that SeatID should be dependant on a "mission". That, or I totally not understood what you meant. Like, totally :)

Hello, I'm looking for a way, if possible, to have differentiated visibility options for different slots of a mission. Like, CA slots being under "Fog of War" settings, as could a few other airplanes, some other slot being able to only see their own aircraft on map, or nothing, even. Is that actually possible? If not, can we change the "map visibility" of a specific unit through scripting, during mission?

Not sure it's been reported : in multicrew Gazelle, the copilot player cannot use the chat server command (-re, -ag, etc... ) as he is flagged as "outside of aircraft", apparently. Not sure if this can be solved, but that would help :)

Errrr.. that looks interesting , bug not being english native I've a hard time figuring out the setup :) . Would you have a picture?

Same here, the springless X-55 is really good for heli flying, but as you pointed out it's unpracticable in the long run. I did simply cut the biggest spring (that I'll never use, I guess) so that it has the exact height than the stick plate-to-base height. That way, it's very light on the friction, and comes back naturally to center. Somewhat of a compromise, even though it's not ideal in jets, it's rather nice for choppers and props. Really interested in the dampeners, didn't think about that. I'm wondering where these can be found

Set up your menagerie as client slots, you can switch between these slots in single player

Not that again.... people that can't avoid being "touchy" for beta testing (paying or not) should simply not be beta testing. Simple. You perfectly know that the product will be bugged and unfinished, if this is too much for people, waiting for full release status is the answer. In current case, perceived response from Ploychop ("all is fine is the FM") has triggered the "whole thing". Now we have the actual stance from Poly on the subject, case closed. Back to beta testing, and that mean bug/issues reporting, without the negativity.

Where the hell did I say that???

When a certain group of people spam these boards every day with the repetition of how the FM is bad and requesting immediate dev answers every day, in nearly every topic about the Gazelle, yes, some think about dev bashing. There has been asknowlegment that Poly doesn't consider FM as finished, ie they are still working on it, can we please move one?

we got it

Good news for what is more and more becoming my favorite bird (and out of the collection I have, that was really unexpected for me!) Keep it up, BST (and with the comms, too)

And if you actually read said discussions, you'd see RAZBAM already answered. Hence the replies you get here.

I'm not saying the Gaz' FM is bad or only up to AFM standard. Just that Polychop stated that they had the FM nailed... well, I don't remember the exact terms, but it was along the line "to the best of our possibilities". Perhaps not having access to PFM model and only using their own tool to extend from AFM into what we have here prevent them to simulated everything, and that could explain the discrepencies seen between the Gaz' and the other choppers. Yes, that's reading really much into words, I agree :) It's just that there may be more into some of the FM issues than just Poly being stubborn, happy with it , etc... They may be hitting a limitation.

They don't announce updates in the news thread

Something of a very little topic, but would be interesting for CSAR types mission, I guess. AFAIK, Beacon types of radio emitters (the ones that can be placed with "activateBeacon" command) can only be placed on airborn units , otherwise you get an error. For ground based radio emitters, the current solution is to use the "radioTransmission" function. It kind of works, but (maybe there's something I missed), I noted that the "frequency width" of these signals (ie, the range between the lower freq and upper freq between which signal is detectable) is really pretty large (around 20 kHz width), making precise radio homing tuning useless. Beacons are actually much narrower. I don't get why they would need to be limited to airborn objects only. Would it be possible to remove the object type check and allow the command "activateBeacon" to be issued for any type of units?

And that's where Penshoon original post makes sense : if Polychop indeed use AFM as advertised, and no method of their own (making it an EFM), then they are limited to a set of parameters for their FM. AFAIK no other chopper in DCS uses AFM. Actually, looking into it, no other chopper even use EFM, unless Polychop doesn't use AFM as advertised but internal tools to build an EFM. ED (obviously) and BST (if I'm not mistaken they have access to tools other third party do not, thus use PFM) use PFM for their chopper. AFM may have limitations for choppers that do not allow certain features for Polychop.