Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About WHOGX5

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, BMS, X-Plane 11
  • Location
  • Interests
    Flight sims and anything that has to do with music. I also enjoy copulation.
  • Occupation
    Student / Disgruntled F-16 Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As I mentioned previously in this thread, if you move your default head position backwards to where a pilots head would be in real life, you won't have any issues seeing the RWR.
  2. Request: Create a DiCE "launcher" which starts the DiCE software and replaces the countermeasure files, then automatically starts DCS as soon as the files has been replaced. This way we could just always launch DCS through DiCE and we'd never have any issues with updates overwriting files or anything.
  3. Yes, you are completely correct but I feel like you've misunderstood me. An official API would be the preferred solution. What I'm saying is that a heterogeneous mess of bespoke solutions is infinitely better than what we have now, which is nothing. We literally have nothing at all. That's why I'd rather have a simple .lua file in saved games where you can setup your avionics with simple true/false statements and integers. They teased the DTC like over a year ago and we've seen ZERO progress since. So until we reach the year or decade when the DTC actually gets released with an official API or
  4. The issue isn't with anything obstructing the RWR per se. The main issue is the same we had in the A-10C where ED had placed the default view position much farther forward than a pilots eyes would be in real life. Hold R-CTRL and R-SHIFT while pressing the zoom/view bindings on the numpad to adjust your head position. There is some way to save a new default view position so you don't have to set it every single flight, but I don't remember how to do that unfortunately. If you place your view about a heads distance from the headrest you won't have any issues seeing the RWR. Doing this you might
  5. Thanks, I'll check things on my end then!
  6. Is it just me or is the github download capped at 100 kb/s?
  7. To be honest, a proper mission planner isn't completely necessary. All we need is a .lua file covering all the editable options that doesn't get removed after every patch, then a third-party software like CombatFlite could allow us to easily edit those options. If we have to wait for an official ED mission planner, I'm afraid that's going to take years until we see it implemented.
  8. That'd be cool, but I was thinking only for multicrew modules where you fly as a single aircraft. IIRC the issue with flying SP Campaigns/Missions in multiplayer is that triggers don't work properly with multiple player controlled aircraft. That's why I was wondering whether it will be possible in the AH-64D where you're in the same aircraft and there won't be any issues with triggers and such.
  9. Will all single player campaigns and missions for the AH-64D be playable as two player co-op with a human pilot and gunner in the same helicopter? It'd be awesome if you could do entire campaigns with a buddy in the front/back seat.
  10. Don't forget cursor bullseye!
  11. Auto Handoff is wildly unreliable in its current state. You're better off using Manual Handoff or simply slewing the mavericks themselves.
  12. Congratulations. Who are you arguing against? Why are you in this subforum making nonsensical statements? Are you under the impression that anyone in this thread have ever propagated for the F-16 being given priority over the F-18? From the beginning of this thread people have been propagating for an end to the complete and utter neglect of the DCS F-16C module. That's it. And your whining about people whining isn't contributing to anything meaningful whatsoever.
  13. No, the problem is that ED lied to us so they could take our money, then leaving us hamstrung and transitioning to a doctrine of gaslighting DCS F-16C customers by going "you knew what you were getting yourself into", "you shouldn't have bought EA if you can't cope with it", yada yada yada., completely ignoring all the assurances they themselves made before launch. Yes, everything is subject to change but I think we can all agree that putting an entire module and its customers on the back burner isn't what's commonly intended by the phrase "subject to change". I mean, ED must have
  14. WHOGX5

    New Flares ?

    Did some ACM training just after the last patch dropped before I even knew that anything in regards to countermeasure effectiveness had been changed. There were several situations where we noted people using proper IR defensive maneuvers and throttle management which have been effective up until now in conjunction with appropriate countermeasure programs which have also been effective up until now, yet the end result was the missile impacting the defending aircraft leaving us leaving us quite baffled. It's worth noting that this training was conducted with AIM-9M's, not the AIM-9X with its inc
  15. It's coming up on three years since last time I posted in this thread. At this point I don't even care about the template. A mere response from Eagle Dynamics would suffice.
  • Create New...