Lights in the Editor?

[Logite]

I'm trying to concoct a mission of grand proportions here, and I'm set back by that all too annoying thing of matter called "light".

 

I'm on a FARP in the middle of nowhere. Is there some sort of building or other object in the editor I could possibly use to be able to see my cockpit?

[Speed]

I'm trying to concoct a mission of grand proportions here, and I'm set back by that all too annoying thing of matter called "light".

 

I'm on a FARP in the middle of nowhere. Is there some sort of building or other object in the editor I could possibly use to be able to see my cockpit?

 

Well, you could launch an illumination flare, on a trigger, the "illuminating bomb" or w/e it's called. Also, isn't there some way of making the FARP ATC turn on the lights around the pads? If you call for takeoff don't they turn them on? I donno, I never contact them, it's useless usually to do so.

 

Also, even on very dark nights in DCS, you can still vaguely see the cockpit switches, unless your room is too bright and/or your monitor is too dark. You can fumble around till you manage to hit one of the batteries on, and then activate the cockpit light over your left shoulder, or hit the NVG lighting on. I have a youtube video where I do this:

[url=

][/url]
Edited May 17, 2010 by Speed

[Logite]

Sorry, I don't want to fumble around in the dark to try to start up the KA-50.

 

I guess now would be a good time to complain about how dumb it was to leave such an obvious feature out...that on top of the numerous spelling errors and the horrible lack of fluidity in the manual really make it hard to enjoy this.

[Speed]

I guess now would be a good time to complain about how dumb it was to leave such an obvious feature out...

No it's NOT time. You SHOULD be able to see in your cockpit well enough to get a light on, the Ka-50 has numerous internal lights, and near a combat area at night, you can bet they are not going to light the FARP up like a Christmas tree. Secondly, as I suggested, you COULD use an illuminating bomb. You might also be able to call out a radio call out the open door to the FARP that you are "inbound" and they may turn on their lights. I haven't experimented much with this, perhaps you could?

 

that on top of the numerous spelling errors and the horrible lack of fluidity in the manual really make it hard to enjoy this.

 

I've got to agree with you on the manual. But it really doesn't do much help to complain, ED is aware of all the myriad deficiencies of DCS and really has no plans to address most of them until the next module (if ever). In my experience, complaining or offering suggestions about the many deficiencies of DCS gets you nowhere it seems, and seeing as how the developers are Russian, I would think that complaints and suggestions would get you even less with ED than other developers due to the language barrier. Just enjoy what DCS is right now- easily the best combat flight sim since Falcon 4.

[Waldo_II]

1. Move your cursor over the general region of the battery switches until you get the "Battery 1" tooltip to appear.

2. Move your cursor over the panel to your back left until the "Cockpit Light" tooltip appears.

3. ????????

4. Profit!

Edited May 17, 2010 by Waldo_II

[CAT_101st]

if you change your gama setings a little it will alow you to see just enough to flit the baterys and light switch. After that you are golden...

[Robin_Hood]

:lol:

 

- What is phase 3 ?

- Errr... phase 4, profit !

 

On a serious note, I use tooltips to "see" the batteries and lighting. It's a bit tedious, however

[Frogfoot1606687865]

keyboard shortcuts

W - LCtrl - LShift - LAlt is the battery 2 cover

W - LCtrl - LShift is the Electrical power battery 2

K is the Lighting cockpit interior lamp switch

[Vympel]

I guess now would be a good time to complain about how dumb it was to leave such an obvious feature out...that on top of the numerous spelling errors and the horrible lack of fluidity in the manual really make it hard to enjoy this.

 

I've got to agree with you on the manual. But it really doesn't do much help to complain, ED is aware of all the myriad deficiencies of DCS and really has no plans to address most of them until the next module (if ever). In my experience, complaining or offering suggestions about the many deficiencies of DCS gets you nowhere it seems, and seeing as how the developers are Russian, I would think that complaints and suggestions would get you even less with ED than other developers due to the language barrier. Just enjoy what DCS is right now- easily the best combat flight sim since Falcon 4.

 

As a native (Queen's) English speaker, I have to disagree. Generally, I think the manual does a decent job - and I find complaining about a few minor spelling errors rather petty.

 

The Ka-50 is a pretty complex aircraft, and most of that complexity is captured in the simulation. Writing a manual for such a thing is a much larger effort than I think most of us realize.

 

ED's products aren't perfect, but they are by far the most sophisticated and realistic combat flight simulators on the market. And - more importantly - ED has shown an ongoing, long-term commitment to developing the platform further.

 

I have difficulty understanding why anybody should believe that ED is unresponsive to sensible and constructive criticism. Alledging that this is because they are Russian is also pretty egregious.

 

Gents, think about it. You are getting a state-of-the-art flight simulator for the price of a couple of pizzas - and then complaining about trivial problems.

[Logite]

As a native (Queen's) English speaker, I have to disagree. Generally, I think the manual does a decent job - and I find complaining about a few minor spelling errors rather petty.

 

The Ka-50 is a pretty complex aircraft, and most of that complexity is captured in the simulation. Writing a manual for such a thing is a much larger effort than I think most of us realize.

 

ED's products aren't perfect, but they are by far the most sophisticated and realistic combat flight simulators on the market. And - more importantly - ED has shown an ongoing, long-term commitment to developing the platform further.

 

I have difficulty understanding why anybody should believe that ED is unresponsive to sensible and constructive criticism. Alledging that this is because they are Russian is also pretty egregious.

 

Gents, think about it. You are getting a state-of-the-art flight simulator for the price of a couple of pizzas - and then complaining about trivial problems.

 

Okay!-

 

Well hey, since you have zero regard whatsoever for other player's feelings and opinions, there is perhaps no chance you will hear this at all. Let alone care enough about your fellow players (to which there are very few in this genre). But I digress! Let me state there have been MULTIPLE, and I mean MULTIPLE examples (that are much more inhibiting than "petty" as you so inaccurately state. This is the lack of polish that tarnish Black Shark's name. Errors, such as complete inaccuracies along with small misspellings in not only the Pilots Manual, but the GUI Manual as well. Providing reference screenshots as well as dedicating sections to things that aren't even THERE in your game's manual it's more notable than you seem to realize. It's something that is inhibiting enough to block learning. Don't try to say learning in this game isn't important because when you do I will call you out on it flat. I won't say that I haven't got a fantastic value for the $40 I spent on this. It was worth my money. Yet, when you fail to spend money for someone to spell-check the manual for the price of "a couple of pizzas", how can you expect someone to not state that flaw? Even misspelling "astounding" wouldn't be meritorious enough to garner criticism from me - it is the simple failure to remove a few paragraphs here and there that describe objects or elements that _do not exist_ anymore.

 

Your criticism falls flat on it's face when you analyze both the fact that: You're using excuses of "difficulty" to cover up a developer's fault (I'm sorry boss, but I didn't do the job you're paying me for because it was just a little bit too hard for me). Not to mention the ridiculous idea that I garner some sort of prejudice against Russians makes me wonder why you're so touchy about that notion. Could you point out please what part of my discussion made you come to that conclusion? Right. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.

 

Don't get on your high horse by thinking you're doing some sort of justice to the "Eagle Dynamics" or "Black Shark" name by defending things that make the game and developers look bad. What you seem intent on doing has the opposite effect. You not only make yourself and the person you're defending look incompetent but prevent progress of the contributing parties as a whole. I'm utterly stupefied to actually see this sort of knee-jerk defense reaction from anybody on these forums.

To Eagle Dynamics: I would gladly spend some of my free time editing out those portions of your manual and spell-checking it if you would be willing to distribute it.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Logite

[Bucic]

keyboard shortcuts

W - LCtrl - LShift - LAlt is the battery 2 cover

W - LCtrl - LShift is the Electrical power battery 2

K is the Lighting cockpit interior lamp switch

There you go, night rider :thumbup:

[Vympel]

You're entitled to your opinion, but, I stand by what I wrote.

 

Pointing out bugs, inaccuracies or errors in the simulation or documentation is fair comment - but I think it's grossly unfair to claim that the quality of the products are unreasonably shoddy, or that we are somehow being short-changed by ED regarding support.

[2GvSAP_Dart]

Hmmm, maybe you need to put some power on the FARP?

 

I built a night mission with all the FARP support stuff around it and it lights up at the start with lights on the corners of the pad. Darned thing about FARPs - accessories sold seperately.

 

On return, oddly enough, I had to place a helicopter taking off to get them to re-illuminate after I left.

[PhoenixBvo]

They should do that when you get landing clearance...

[Speed]

I have difficulty understanding why anybody should believe that ED is unresponsive to sensible and constructive criticism. Alledging that this is because they are Russian is also pretty egregious.

It's not because they are Russian, it's because:

1) Maybe I've missed it, but I can't say I remember seeing anyone who codes the game or makes the decisions about what to code posting on these forums

2) They speak a foreign language, and perhaps this is helps to explain their absence? I don't care that it's Russian, it might as well be Chinese, German, Spanish- but the point is, this is an English forum. It's totally a guess, so I may be completely wrong.

 

Secondly, everytime someone suggests stuff like collidable trees, better AI, or multicore support, we are told ED is already aware of the issues and that the solutions are really hard to implement, and often, not to expect it till after A-10 at earliest. I just get the feeling that ED is already aware of anything we could suggest that needs improvement, and our suggestions really make no difference.

 

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE THIS GAME. It should be sold for twice as much. But so far, I just think ED could have done more to support DCS. Some of the mission editor improvements, for example, would be relatively easy or even very basic to implement.

[winz]

1) Maybe I've missed it, but I can't say I remember seeing anyone who codes the game or makes the decisions about what to code posting on these forums

Those kind of people rarely post on forum in any company. It just isn't their job, and those people rarely have the competence to decide what can be made public and what not. On the other hand, you have here some quite active ED member posting daily, explaining how and what is simulated and answering to many questions.

[Cornbread]

Okay!-

 

Well hey, since you have zero regard whatsoever for other player's feelings and opinions, there is perhaps no chance you will hear this at all - let alone care enough about your fellow players (to which there are very few in this genre). But I disgress! Let me state there have been MULTIPLE, and I mean MULTIPLE examples (that are much more inhibiting than "petty" as you so inaccurately state), of lack of polish that tarnish Black Shark's name. Errors, such as complete inaccuracies along with small misspellings, in not only the Pilots Manual but the GUI Manual as well. When you provide reference screenshots as well as dedicate sections to things that aren't even THERE in your game's manual it's a little bit more than "petty". It's something that is inhibiting enough to block learning. Don't try to say learning in this game isn't important because when you do I will call you out on it flat. I won't say that I haven't got a fantastic value for the $40 I spent on this. It was worth my money. Yet, when you fail to spend money on someone to spellcheck the manual for the price "of a couple of pizzas", how can you expect someone to not state that flaw? Even misspelling "astounding" wouldn't be meritous enough to garner criticism from me - it is the simple failure to remove a few paragraphs here and there that describe objects or elements that _do not exist_ anymore.

 

Your criticism falls flat on it's face when you analyze both the fact that: You're using excuses of "difficulty" to cover up a developer's fault (I'm sorry boss, but I didn't do the job you're paying me for because it was just a little bit too hard for me). Not to mention the ridiculous notion that I garner some sort of prejudice against Russians makes me wonder why you're so touchy about that notion. Could you point out please what part of my discussion made you come to that conclusion? Right. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.

 

Don't get on your high horse by thinking you're doing some sort of justice to the "Eagle Dynamic" or "Black Shark" name by defending things that make the game and developers look bad. You not only make yourself and the person you're defending look incompetent but prevent progress of the contributing parties as a whole. I'm utterly stupified to actually see this sort of knee-jerk defense reaction from anybody on these forums.

 

To Eagle Dynamics: I would gladly spend some of my free time editing out those portions of your manual and spellchecking it if you would be willing to distribute it.

 

 

Logite, you've got enough grammatical errors, poor usage, and misspellings in this post to keep me busy for the next fifteen minutes. A word to the wise: if you're going offer yourself up as an editor, you might want to check your subject-verb agreement and make sure you're clear on "its" vs. "it's".

 

Furthermore, this is not the complaints department. You should not be "stupified" when people are annoyed by your provocative use of words like "dumb" when talking about the developer.

[Speed]

Logite, you've got enough grammatical errors, poor usage, and misspellings in this post to keep me busy for the next fifteen minutes. A word to the wise: if you're going offer yourself up as an editor, you might want to check your subject-verb agreement and make sure you're clear on "its" vs. "it's".

 

Furthermore, this is not the complaints department. You should not be "stupified" when people are annoyed by your provocative use of words like "dumb" when talking about the developer.

 

 

Haha, agreed. I agree, it annoyed me that he called the devs "dumb" for not including lights at FARPs for night operations. I will grant (and granted) that DCS needs lots of improvements, and I am unsatisified with the rate of improvement so far (though the 1.0.2 patch was a huge step in the right direction), but to make such a fuss over such a minor quibble- THAT is dumb.

 

Also, I am personally a believer that demanding a better product- even of a product that is already good- helps to bring about a better product :) So I always think there should be SOME complaints, at the very least.

[2GvSAP_Dart]

The incredible thing is that I'm Joe Nobody and had my questions regarding campaign structure and how to make a mission tree answered by devs directly, including the man himself, Matt Wagner.

 

Maybe it's because I didn't start off my questions with "Hey, listen here, jerks..." and they were clearly defined in purpose and open ended for solutions.

 

As Bugs Bunny would say, "what a maroon."

 

And btw, you're missing something in the mission build. Populate the FARP with all the goodies and you'll get this:

 

Edited May 18, 2010 by 2GvSAP_Dart
Picture worth a thousand trolls.

[Sarge55]

Disgress????

[PhoenixBvo]

Maybe he meant distress? He makes a bit of a psychologically unstable impression...

[Bucic]

http://www.darts-page.com/images/nite_shark.jpg

 

That looks good, Dart. Makes me want to play a little with the ME.

[EtherealN]

A small note to the OP about this whole night thing:

 

You know the Kamov Ka-50 is not made to operate at night, right? The one and only concession made for night operation is the fact that you can slap on a set of NVG's (and then lose your HMS). Night flying simply isn't something that Ka-50 pilots do. ;)

[kam]

 

Thats the view from the cockpit even with all the lights outside though.

 

So those lights are as much use as a chimney on a dog ;)

[PhoenixBvo]

Well, I can see the switches in that screenshot...