zerO_crash

Read my original comment closely. You're arguing with yourself here. I am precisely making the statement, that as long as customer's interest is taken care of, everything else is obviously ED's private sphere. If there is uncertainty (based on lack of statements there is), then transparency is necessary to avoid collateral (new customers purchasing modules that "could" get abandoned). At this point, it is going in circles. Adding fuel to fire is unneeded though. I respect Ron's work, but he is not professional with his communication (terms among firms has no place in the official sphere). His posts only add to the speculative narrative, which is counterproductive. Personally, I made the point concerning our interests, and I'm leaving it here until further official notice.

Don't bother posting those. It's an inappropriate way to communiate on the issue within corporate ethics and code of conduct. While ED should be open about the current dangers of buying the Razbam product line, the specifics are strictly ED-Razbam business. Regardless of the situation, Ron handles it wrong. At this point, it becomes a play to aggrevate and pressure ED, by building own narrative and leveraging customers. Let Hoggit deal with drama, while we stick to getting what customers want, and leave everything else to theirs respectively.

This is a wishlist thread, let's not derail. Ask any further questions in main channels.

In light of the upcoming strategic/resource aspect, expanding transport aircraft (UH-1H, Mi-8, CH-47F, C-130, ++) as well as progressing combined arms, I see the ability to construct FARPs inside missions as essential. This could be done in a basic way, where a composition of the required vehicles in a close enough vicinity (e.g. 50m), would allow a ground commander to create a invisible FARP (possibly through the vehicle responsible for communications on the FARP - special keybind or so). That would give a new mission, and usefull one to both utility aircraft, as well as combined arms users. Another example to use it, could be triggering through a specific "code" with a marker on F-10 map. Group the required vehicles close enough, as a ground commander, enter F-10 and add a marker on that spot with correct "code" to create a invisible FARP. Would be neat. Thanks!

Precisely!

It seems like the devs are focused on theirs, just like e.g. MilTech-5, Polychop-Simulations and more. I'm pretty sure they don't plan to build a module for themselves only Patience, good things take time - sometimes even more than 8 years, apparently. Stay put! EDIT: I will also add - the development time, is not any different from others, if a finished module is what Magnitude 3 wants to release. Just notice how many modules have been in a "early access"-state, and how long. There is nothing wrong with either model of releasing modules. Again, let's wait and see.

Synergy: Speculation should be avoided in such instance. It is low to attempt pointing fingers, when the situation is unknown. Further guesstimating, is doing nobody any good. Let's wait and see what comes out of it! With that said, the posture that "continue using your products as before", is obviously a very short-sighted one. We all remember what became of Hawk. Intellectual property rights taken into account, it is never fair to a customer to treat them with "customer agreements" (we never promised anything). I, for one, noticed that in the previous newsletter (12.04.2024), there is a picture of a Mi-24P used as advertising for a new campaign released. The skin on that Mi-24P, is currently not available. I do business, I know my rights. If you wish to slam the "it's all in the customer agreement"-talk, then I will gladly open a legal case for false advertising of a product! I remind, I asked about a position on this, and still haven't recieved an answer. The reason I don't go the legal way, is because I enjoy the work of ED, and always have. Frankly, great company and great people. In a niche industry, however, the key to survival is taking care of your customers. It's perfectly fine that ED doesn't put Razbam modules on hold from sale. They have a business to run - all fair and square. What I do, is question their posture claiming that this is a "private" matter and customers shouldn't worry. When you know what's at stake, you definitely should worry! Those of us who have been here from the start, remember what happened to Hawk! Telling a customer to chose between rolling their DCS-installation back to 1.2 (stoneage) to fly Hawk vs. having access to all the other (newer) modules they bought, is not okay at all! This should not be a either/or. The company, should very clearly inform (especially new) customers about the potential risk that the products might run into (lack of support). This is the concept of "transparency" in business! We don't have any details currently, but that also means that, regardless of plans, ED cannot guarantee the continuation of support for Razbam modules. If they could do it, they would make an official statement avoiding concern! That's why, if anything, during times like these, it's important to not be pre-emptive and too assuming, but at least be informative of the "danger". This, such that someone doesn't shell out for modules that cease working tomorrow. I can guarantee that the community didn't forget the Hawk (I'm nor pointing fingers), we surely won't forget a multitude of other modules stopping to work from the get-go! (If that becomes the case). I am not writing this for myself, but for fresh members and newer customers who might not be as well informed. I personally know what I signed up for. There are however practices, which can damage your reputation beyond repair. I don't mind a plausible appology either, followed by an explanation why modules might not work. What I do mind though, is the mentality of "keeping in the dark"! You have customers, you have an obligation - sentimental most of all. Please be clear, when asked, about you not being able to currently guarantee the longevity of a product, otherwise make a statement about it being covered (positive). In either case, there is a chance to come out of this clean. Thank you!

Confirming that it still freezes. To reproduce: - Start a mission with hot-started aircraft. - Zoom out fully, then in again, on the map on Abris. (You can also start out by zooming in, and then out. The point is, it occurs when big changes are made in zoom (and within short period of time)) - The map will hang, with only the symbology adjusting to the appropriate zoom-level. - After a while, the map will adjust correctly too. It would be a great feature, if it was one. Simulate the slowdown of an Abris processor (on any module really) if realistic. @Flappie if you need a track, tell me, and I'll provide a short one. EDIT: Corrections

"... simulating a proper simulator..." - what? You obviously have no clue what you're writing. I'll decide on the rest!

EDIT: Scratch it, noticed the updated tutorial.

The above mentioned refer to a facebook post which is sourced off Wikipedia. People have a funny concept of what constituates a good source. Can't wait till Tiktok becomes the next best around here. In any case, the ability to supercruise is really dependant on two factors: thrust-to-weight ratio and aircraft layout (aerodynamic properties). It isn't however as simple as stating that an aircraft posessing both will be capable of supercruising. It's more individual than that. Fact is, unless a proper CFD simulation, reliable chart is presented or actual pilot (possibly someone knowing one), it's pure speculation. Checked "Manuel Pilote Mirage 2000 C" (don't ask me how I got it, or to post it) and there is no mention of the capability. That doesn't, however, mean anything. An SME could provide valuable input here (to which Razbam should have access) or a confirmation from Razbam. Eventually, there are French forums, where a user might have a friend of a friend in the French Air Force. Until then, speculation.

Я не перевожу. Не привык к русской номенклатуре. Нет Позвольте мне объяснить просто: Баг - Скорость может быть достигнута разными способами на вертолете. Один из способов - ориентироваться вниз и двигаться вертикально. Таким образом можно уменьшить расход. Подшипники винта могут иметь угол наклона 0° в таком маневре. Здесь они не будут создавать подъем (0° ИШ1-15) и не должны пересекаться. На треке они сталкиваются. Это неправильно. Винт разрушится, да, но подшипники не должны сталкиваться. О скорости вертолета. Мировые рекорды скорости выше 450 км/ч (аналогично автомобилям - X2). Но достаточно об этом. Я упомянул, что в моих старых тестах (реалистичных, но опасных) можно было достичь скорости более 450 км/ч без повреждений. Вот и все. Моя точка зрения - винтовые винты не должны подниматься-опускаться достаточно, чтобы пересекаться, при угле наклона = 0° ИШ1-15. В этом моя диспут. Изучите мой трек. Посмотрите на винт снаружи. Подшипники не слишком близко, но вдруг они повреждаются. Что-то не так. Не поймите меня неправильно - вертолет не выступает хуже.

There is much misinformation around. According to ED, and the extract I linked, what you read on the F-15E forums is plain wrong. It was obviously a qualitative statement coming from a customer (non-official). The main response was towards your statement that ED is hung up on degraded GPS which is a thing of the past. Obviously, my statement was towards that it is not. There are dependencies which make it relevant. (Reread what you wrote, and my response will make sense.) The last paragraph is off. I didn't comment on patches or JF-17 weapons.

You are misunderstanding what "unrestricted satnav" is. It has nothing to do with terrain masking GPS-signal (counter to what it sounds like - degraded GPS is btw. a default feature in DCS which you cannot select/deselect). Here is a an explanation what it is: Simply put, it is about the availability of coalition GPS systems to one another. Example: If the feature is off, then a Ka-50 will not recieve GPS signal from GLONASS (Russian GPS - Redfor) if it is put in the Bluefor. Equally, a F-18C will not have its GPS working, if it is under Redfor. That goes for any unit. Additionally, the GPS will not work if mission date is set to 28/03/1994 or before (there was no GPS before that). As to degraded GPS, let's wait and see about Afghanistan. It was a place notoriously known for poor radio-transmissions (even modern equipment) as well as dark spots (no reception) for even aerial GPSs. For GPSs, it's particularly true where there is much metal in the natural rock composition. Even modern militaries have had problems with basic logistics there. I wouldn't call GPS reception quality as a thing of the past, especially since there are more places around the earth which have less coverage/reception problems. That isn't mentioning e.g. the use of nuclear weapons in space in order to take out satellites with a EMP. This is a very real rehearsal. I was impressed by a recent US Congress hearing on Military posture, specifically air force, where one congressman mentioned the current overreliance on GPS and insufficient training with manual systems (INS and star trackers (mostly a thing of the past)).

Interesting, this thread has pictures of the cockpit with that map type. It's from 2023 and it wasn't apparently picked up... This is exactly how it looks:

The "Alt Map" (special settings) is bugged on the JF-17. Land is shown in bright blue (brighter than ocean), instead of showing green color depending on open area/forest/etc... Essentially, the colors (shading) is off. Tested it today on Caucasus. Might be on other maps as well, so might be worth taking a quick look. To specify: I run newest MT, vanilla (no mods). Everything is replicable, simply chose the "Alt Map"-setting and jump into a JF-17 on Caucasus. No need for trk. Hope you can get it fixed.

Много глупости в интернете ) Не поймите меня неправильно, я не летаю таким образом (уже некоторое время выше 500 км/ч, но с более логичным подходом, а не прямо вниз...). Моя точка зрения не в том, что эти скорости должны быть достижимы (они далеки от реальности). Я указываю на то, что на моем треке лопасти столкнулись, но анимация не показывала их нигде рядом. Кроме того, лопасти с углом 0 создают нулевой подъем (минус вибрация). Таким образом, когда происходит наклон вниз и увеличивается скорость, с углом лопастей 0, еще меньше смысла в том, что они могли бы столкнуться. Вот что я упоминаю. Если бы не то, что я посмотрел анимацию ротора и проверил производительность, я даже не нашел бы этого. Мне пришлось привязать внешний вид, потому что я даже не использую его... Я представляю, что выполнение на видео невозможно с разрушением, с сегодняшней моделью полета.

Это должно быть смесь обоих. Обратите внимание, как коллективная палка опущена (угол атаки 0 градусов). В этом состоянии лопасти теоретически не поднимутся и не опустятся с ростом скорости. На практике будет наблюдаться некоторое колебание, но не достаточное, чтобы столкнуть лопасти. Вертолет должен быть способен развивать скорость более 350 км/ч IAS с нагруженным ротором при угле атаки (лопастей) ниже 15 градусов. В этом отношении высота не должна иметь большого значения.

As much as I like the JF-17, especially since I see Russian tech mixed with Chinese, I miss a pilot body in VR. I must admit, it feels a bit empty, without the "feeling" of sitting inside the cockpit. I hope you can dedicate some time to this, as it's a real gamechanger. Otherwise, fantastic stuff!

Странно, Ka-50 должен быть видимым. Я загрузил новый. Ka-50.trk

Я проверял производительность DCS в VR после последних обновлений движка. Очень доволен, спасибо! Однако, я обратил внимание на анимацию роторов, в частности на Ka-50, и специально поставил его в режим столкновения (смешно и нереалистично). Что-то здесь не так. Трек предоставлен ниже. В принципе, я нарушаю предельные значения IAS на высоте и угле тангажа, чтобы посмотреть, как отображается анимация. Замечаю, что визуально роторы никогда не кажутся достаточно близкими для пересечения, однако столкновение происходит и повреждения наносятся. Вопрос заключается в том, правильны ли расчеты физики и неправильна ли анимация, или наоборот? (Одно буду баг). Спасибо! server-20240419-201829.trk

@Graphics I'd appreciate an answer on this.

Обсуждение в основном касается использования Шквала БЕЗ использования лазерного дальномера. С лазерным дальномером вам даже не нужно знать высоту автомобиля над землей или цели. Тригонометрия позволит рассчитать все необходимое с помощью лазерного дальномера, ориентации автомобиля (крена) и ориентации Шквала (крена). Теперь перейдем к вопросу вычисления решения по стрельбе без использования лазерного дальномера. То, что я сказал, полностью верно, и вот почему шведы встроили его в Viggen. С вашим методом меня интересует, почему QNH, когда можно использовать QFE. Я также любопытен по поводу "вычисления остального". Как QNH приближает вас к знанию расстояния и высоты цели? Разъясните. Факт, подтвержденный компанией ED, которая имеет полную документацию от ОАО "Камов". С вашим заявлением мне нужны источники, чтобы отнестись к нему серьезно. Повторяю - не логичный подход, ИСТОЧНИКИ. Пожалуйста.

Requesting more realistic smoke/dust effects, esp. post explosion/shock. At the moment, such effects clear too fast. This is particularly true for dusty maps (hot climates). The dust should disperse into a mist-like cloud, before thinning out with air completely. Thanks!

Все было понято. Вместо абстрактного я предпочитаю логическое обсуждение. Я полностью осознаю разницу между концепцией и реальностью, здесь не ошибайтесь. Я поддерживаю вежливость и ясность. Таким образом, можно достичь большего.