Jump to content

DracoLlasa

Members
  • Posts

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DracoLlasa

  1. If you read back a few posts you will see JSGME will not work with the newer versions of DCS. Search for OvGME and you will find the thread and the download for that tool which will still work. Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  2. Thank you, confirming based on the first post list, that this is the AI Su-34, correct?
  3. DCS now contains many files with the base install that are larger than 4GB. You may be able to click the button to install a mod, but you will fail any attempt run the main function to capture all of the original files which is really important if you need to have the tool restore things. So it may be said that it still works but it cant, not all of the functions can possibly work. A 32bit app cannot handle files larger than 4gb. Ovgme is 64bit and is a lot more flexible, its development has went cold and thats a shame, but you can still get it on the forums here. Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  4. As i recall JSGME has to have the _MOD folder in the root of the game install location... That said, as mentioned previously, JSGME will no longer fully work correctly as its a 32 bit application and cannot handle the larger files that are now part of the 64 bit DCS package Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  5. yea i will add about the same as what Art-J said... which i think just support the fact that the ED 'new user experince" needs a lot of help. there never was 2 separate models of the mustang under different development. The notes about Belsimtek can be confusing if you read to far into them. BST (Belsimtek) has been working very closely with ED for many years now, so much that they have actually merged for all intents and purposes. The Mustang was never part of FC3, but the Su-25 was.. it was part of FC, FC1 and FC2. a lot changed with FC3 including BST doing almost all of the updated flight models for all of the FC3 planes. When you load up the TF-51D module to fly it.. you are in the exact same module as the P-51D for any reason that matters. the cockpit it missing a few things as there are no weapons. but everything else is the same, and as i recall the actual player flyable TF-51D does not have a 2nd seat. From what i recall, when DCS:W started the free base sim, they included the Su-25T as an example of a simplified Flaming Cliffs Style module, and for the full fidelity module, they took the existing P-51D and use that without the weapons as the TF-51D. im sure the exact details are different, but point is they are the same... so using the P-51D manual is perfectly fine and accurate for the TF-51. That said, going again back to the New User Experience, its confusing, it makes no sense and well again as shown by this thread.. is REALLY confusing. If they renamed the document and the title page tp clarify that it was for the P-51D/TF-51D, and put a copy in the correct folder with the corresponding name it would help, but as you pointed out the document locations and outdated base documents and so many other things really need some attention. Its very easy for a company to think they have let the community know cause it was in a newsletter and on the forums, but i would be amazed if 10% of the DCS user base actually looks at the forums on anything resembling a regular basis. so putting out proper documentation and guides that are very obviously found is important as is keeping them up to date. As for the forum, being part of the base/free DCSW a sub forum for the Su-25T and TF-51 might make sense.. maybe.. but i would think just clarifying the P-51D forum was also for the TF-51 would be enough to solve the problem as they really are the same thing from the perspective of the 'sim/game' module perspective.
  6. While the details could be debated endlessly either way, i do think there is value in the clarifying that a lot of these stuff may seem so obvious to those that have been around the product a while, and a new user wouldnt likely know their are manuals buried in the install directory, nvm where they might be. I am not sure how much effort ED put in to it overall, but i can agree with the basic point of you post, which i think may be that with the extreme high level of complexity that is DCS, there should always be more improvement to the "new user experience". I would say it definitely needs some work right now, and its something that can always be made better. Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  7. First i would say that this probably belongs in one of the module or DCS world forums, as its not really news for the community. That said, i would clarify that the Su-25 and Su-25T technical were both part of Flaming cliffs until DCS started giving the one away for free with the base DCS World sim. At that point it was just free, and no longer part of the FC Product that is purchased. the T model is probably discussed more as it is likely more used as its a bit more advanced and may appeal to more/most. For the TF-51D, as i recall the TF-51D is literally the same as the P-51D with no weapons systems.. so all of the manuals/documentation and i would think forum would apply to both. I suspect that as the Su-25T and the TF-51D are intended to be 'gateway' aircraft to new players it might make sense for ED to make it more clear where the questions and stuff should be posted and that the TF-51D/P-51D docs are the same thing, but for the purposes of at least answering you in this case i would say that should cover it.
  8. Yea, sedenion did get it posted again, i have it downloaded and I can setup a site for it and a new github repo and whatnot, but if you want to take care of that, you are welcome too.. i just dont want it lost in the ether, its a really important tool to much of the community. Regarding the code details, Sedenion said it "was developed for GNU g++ compiler. You will need to adapt some details to compile it using Visual Studio" If you want to work with me on it, just PM me and we can take it offline and see what we can do. or if you think you got it covered that is cool to, just let me know so i dont waste time setting stuff up :-)
  9. i will keep an eye on this thread, if i don't see anything or hear from anyone that they are going to take over at least the basic hosting of this tool and its source, then i will do my best to get something up and running for it. Again i am not a coder so i cant actually work on it, but i can at least make sure its available and stuff.
  10. sedenion thanks for responding so promptly to my PM's and helping to make this available to the community to pick up. To the community, i have downloaded both of the files, and i do have the ability to host a website. i am not a developer so i cant take ownership of the product but, i would be happy to work with anyone that needs help.. or if there is someone that has the desire and ability to pick it up and run that is great too.
  11. I have sent him a PM, i will update here if i get any response or feedback worth reporting.
  12. Yea i have it, i linked to it above in post #6.. i just wanted to clarify in case someone tried to make use of that github repo that its from an older build.
  13. you mean "Su-34 AI on autumn" right? as in Su-34 may be available this Autumn as an AI asset?
  14. lol i thought the same thing at first.. its like an ASCII image to write out "real war" see attached image, if you see it on the actual website it shows, Tapatalk just doesnt display it right.
  15. Nice! you have a clone of the repo.. BUT you should note that the clone you have is from the 1.6 version, the last released version was 1.7.4 which i dont see in the repo you have, i guess it wasnt updated recently @Abburo, i doubt DCS would take this on any time soon, and also i think most people including me would rather they focus on their primary work. however if one of them were to do it as a pet project that was then able to be rolled in.. then yea maybe... until then, i think we, as the community should do our best to keep things like this alive
  16. here is the executable: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nq0q3iyn2ylc0p6/ovgme_1_7_4_setup_64.exe?dl=0 and an md5 https://www.dropbox.com/s/4k4wnny1kfjubd1/ovgme_1_7_4_setup_64.md5?dl=0
  17. Yea kinda wishing i had a clone of the repo about now. Anyways, glad you got it, hopefully the person gets there stuff sorted and the site is updated Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  18. I am not sure, it looks like that persons entire github repository and accou t is gone. I have the latest exe file, i could probably post/share it.. but i am not sure why the main github stuff is gone. It also contained the location for contacting amd getting help Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  19. Im very much interested in the Falcon, its my all time fav.. but i think the Hornet will give me much of the game play of the falcon, so as much as i would love the F-16 to be next, i would agree that the hind might be preferred for DCS overall. Another real assault helo, like the Black Shark, i think will be very welcome.. Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  20. Very much looking forward to this great work Subbed and along for the ride Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  21. So i guess i go back to my original question... Is there a flight model difference or is it cosmetic. Maybe someone will be able to comfirm it o e way or another. I know, its DCS.. everything should be hyper real... But as also noted, maybe the effect was so minor that there is nothing or no point in trying to model the difference.. Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  22. not really, Wags mentions it occasionally during Q&A sessions as it does come up frequently. one of the hornet Q&A videos a couple months back he clarified that is still something they are working on and want to get completed. But he didn't really say much more, so for all we know there could be a team working 1 day a week on it, or 1 guy who works on it in his free time.
  23. All mods i used before with JSGME work fine, and its an overall better to for mods Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
  24. ok i think i understand, thanks for the feedback, will be interesting to see the differences in the FM
  25. so your implying that, they might have the flight model ready now, which is why the feature is being added?
×
×
  • Create New...