Bukkwild

Repair worked, not the quick one , but the complete one. damaged file or something from the update or something else, either way it is resolved.

Sorry, realize I didnt try without mods installed, didnt occur at first because it works in MT. but here is the log without mods dcs.logand it still doesnt work in ST

I have been in a mission building frenzy and didnt get to try to fly VR since the patch until today, but when I try I have a consistent problem with loading VR in Singe Thread ( I use it sometimes when I am checking missions because its *supposedly* more stable ) and it locks up every time, showing the nose wheel gear of the background jet on the mirror view on my monitor, and nothing but two different beige colors on the headset. I try the Multi-threading client and its fine. Not ready to call this a bug or anything yet but if someone could take a look at the log files and tell me if I am doing something wrong or if anyone knows what difference in MT and ST since the patch would cause it, it would be much appreciated. In the meantime I will continue troubleshooting.dcs_multithread.logdcs_singlethread.log

ty

I am sure I am doing something wrong, but when I try using the hud repeater on one of the MFDs it doesnt show symbology, even though I can see the N-F and Cam modes. Is there something I am not enabling or turning on to have the hud actually repeat?

+1 needed for campaigns desperately. Thanks

There is no option that appears in modelviewer to switch seats, I have seen the option in the Mi-24 to switch seats but that is missing from the 15E. I was able to keep playing with the views until the back came into view, but still not able to quite see what I am looking for. Is there a way to 'anchor' the camera to a specific seat?

I am setting a mission up using the 'Cockpit perform clickable action' and I was looking in the files for the model and unlike other airframes, you cant just click on the second seat in modelviewer2. Is there a second model coming , more to the first model or not at all? I am trying to verify a few switches values in different positions, and they are the values I have expected thus far, so I need to double check.

well said, the intention of this post is not to beat you over it, but to offer a correction of course for future modules to avoid this situation. hopefully you have taken it for what it is. I would hate to see a repeat of this type of history on something else we have been waiting for like the F 15E I have pre-purchased. take all the time to get the weapon loadout right, because it will make for a better, more accurate product we can all be happy with, not more wishful hindsight. If its worth doing right at all, do it right the first time.

how rude, keep your comments to yourself....oh wait....point is try not to be a turd, anyone can obviously make any comment they want

at the end of the day is it better to do the proper amount of research and only release the intended loadout to avoid having to take away our toys. Being committed to improvement is what any good developer should, refine flight performance and such, but something as fundamental as weapon loadouts should be FULLY researched and basically set in stone before any of us consumers has the chance to even touch it, even us 'beta' testers. Because if the argument will remain "we want ultimate realism" then we do too, meaning that these things sorted out before it reaches pilots hands. The idea of this post, in its entirety, is that to avoid negative feelings towards anyone or anything ,its better to have this fundamental stuff figured out. There is no excuse for this, sorry AJ, this s*** should have been done before the harrier was released at all instead of multiple years into development, then we wouldn't have had someone take away something we shouldn't have had.

Well I appreciate the OPTION for realism, or the option for fun. Either way I appreciate WAY more the forethought to avoid this situation altogether. Something I hope they avoid on the 15E.

Are we here to simulate a specific plane or a plane ordered by a specific party ,loaded and FLOWN to their specifications? I think you should stop updates until you get all relevant information and make it correctly the first time instead of constantly having to say sorry we got that completely wrong for what we are trying to simulate, instead here is something completely different that we think will work for the next month. You would have a lot less confusion and a better overall product. Constant dramatic changes to loadouts to conform to the rules someone flew by seems like a silly thing get ppl riled up with. Stop making changes to loadouts piecemeal, do your research, completely. Only then do one last final update to weapon loadouts and then let your product speak for itself, good or bad.

not to beat a dead horse but great job guys!

Good Stuff!

Not sure if its been asked for or is even sim worthy but a hotas command to increase and decrease waypoints would be superhelpful in rippling things.

please delete as it is not right

Homeland security monitors everyone, and they have been reading your email for years. Thin excuse to 'protect' supposedly public sources? And trust us cause we have been doing this a long time, doesnt address issues that you have had a long time.

I disagree, do you have any logs for deleted posts in the last 24 hours? cross reference that with me and you will find at least 2 topics I didnt create,but posted on, that were 'moderated' that didnt appear to break any of your rules, and since we will be on the subject since we are restricting the viper's harm loadout when will we be restricting the hornet to more realistic loadouts

HOW can I, the posts that you are being accused of overmoderating disappear. Stop cherry picking one frustration post when thats not the one I am talking about. how about the dozen or so posts about unrealistic loadouts on the hornet versus the viper, or of closing ongoing discussions. anyone can search my posts and see I am not a sore tooth and this is a REAL problem. this is a pointless roundabout as your only defense is that they somehow broke your rules, close it or dont but you still have the problem

yup, can't place on any vessels, there is a post discussing it on the wish list

1. What rule did I break? The post in the should I buy it thread? can't be this line. 2. I normally enjoy the viper, I don't enjoy your moderation 3. Of FREAKING COURSE the rules apply to me, noone said they didnt. See number 1 This thread is about overmoderation, not the product I was posting about

because I am sure you have a topic elsewhere on this. You want to continue, we can. There have been several critical posts just in the f16 forum I have witnessed getting 'moderated', even when they and myself included in at least one case you didnt mention have valid concerns about the direction and decisions you have made. As we have all paid for an unfinished product, we are funding its development. This forum exists for our feedback's sake, yet our feedback keeps disappearing. You have any idea what that feels like? Frustrating to say the least. There is also the concern that you are sitting in a bubble listening to your own feedback loop, only hearing what you want to instead of what some in the community are concerned with. "never buy it, never believe ED's hype, they will continue to remove features before implementing them" This statement shows my frustration. You removed items from the viper's development, quietly. You keep dialing back from the expectations you sold us on. As your faithful consumers (I own 34 modules) I feel bamboozled, like a bait and switch happened. hiding behind "early access" and "development" doesnt do one thing for consumer frustration

close this topic. there are more posts of mine to cherry pick from.