some1
-
Posts
3444 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by some1
-
Yes, haven't played dcs recently, but that was still bugged a few months ago. Come on guys, with stronger ffb hardware this becomes a real safety hazard.
-
Problem cloning NVME with my DCS install
some1 replied to Beirut's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
It's even simpler than that. Don't touch Steam, just copy the folder from old drive to the new one, turn off PC, replace drives, turn on PC. Last but not least check if Windows assigned the same drive letter to the new drive as was used by the old drive, if not, correct that in Disk Management. That's all. No need to fiddle with 3rd party cloning or partitioning software. -
You can order from amazon.com with shipping to eu for a few extra bucks.
-
That's more of an opportunity cost than straight money loss. Maybe those users won't pay money for the next product, maybe they spend credit on something they would not purchase otherwise.
-
Only for the Eagle. And it does not cost them anything to do so (other than support time), they already have that money. If anything, it frees the money that was put aside for Razbam, to be used by ED freely.
-
There was some talk about it a long time ago, but either that never materialized or Razbam was exempt. It's all hush hush NDA so as customers we know very little about these things. ED barely has the manpower to maintain their own modules, without the burden of handling 3rd party code.
-
Why would they, and where? Razbam probably does not even have the resources to sue a Swiss company across from another continent. ED has little incentive to do so, they already have all the cards, cashing in all the money from Razbam sales for over a year. They can prolong the current situation indefinitely. The only thing ED is loosing is a bit of consumer trust and support. Not a big deal when there is little competition on the market.
-
1. ED does not have the Razbam code. 2. Nothing really prevents VEAO situation from repeating again. Except maybe this time ED will be more careful not to introduce game breaking changes that would render older modules non-functional. I think the arrival of Vulkan rendering will be a big test, in the past such major changes to DCS rendering pipeline usually broke something in every module and required developers to scramble and make fixes.
-
Not only bombs but also 530 missiles are fired in a salvo now.
-
Compared to other DCS aircraft from ED, the dynamic glass reflections on instruments are much too strong. Also, the effect is using a low resolution map of rear headrest area to create "reflections", which gets very jarring once you start moving the head around the cockpit. Default view: Shifted view: The "reflected" area. For reference, here's how this effect looks in ED P-47 and Mi-24 aircraft parked in the same spot. Note the reflection is maybe half as strong (or less), and more blurred, avoiding the very jagged lines we have in F-5.
-
Licensing is one of the issues. You can't just slap the data scraped from Google maps services into your software for free.
-
Good idea, added.
-
Dcs shouldn't have issues with two identical devices as it is, it handles them fine. The only issue may be that it changes the order in which controllers are shown in the menus, so it may not be obvious which is which, but the mappings stay in place once done.
-
Yep, it looks like VOR/DME issues have been fixed at some point in the last few years since I made that post. I checked a VOR/DME station on PG map and DME works there using TACAN radios. So if you have a VOR/DME on a map, you should be able to receive the distance on a Tacan radio if you dial the corresponding channel. Unfortunately a standalone DME like Paphos (108.90) here on Syria map does not seem to work. And we still don't have an ILS/DME navaid type defined in the sim, so most real world approaches can't be flown. Looks like here the map developer attempted to recreate ILS/DME setup by manually placing a DME near the runway threshold, on the same frequency as the Localizer. Except it's only on a single airport, and it doesn't work anyway.
-
In case you experience very long DCS loading times, exclude DCS folder from antivirus scan. That often helps.
-
It is not messy in real life. All the existing navaids with their locations and frequencies are available online for free from the respective AIPs. For example here's Norway (enroute are in part 2 ENR 4, landing navaids are in part 3 of the document, separate for each airport). https://ais.avinor.no/no/AIP/View/136/2025-01-23-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html Obtaining historical data is more difficult, but since the maps in DCS represent modern times, this is not a big problem. The problem is that DCS developers do not know, or do not care about the issue.
-
I'd say the biggest chasm is created by the amount of things we do not know about the current situation. Do you guys really know the nature of that alleged contractual breach, the implications it caused, amount of lost income etc? Because you both sound like it was something that almost brought down DCS, outright stealing and doing intentional hostile actions for monetary gain that required (and still requires) the most drastic actions possible. So I hope you have good sources of that allegations, not just pulling all this from thin air and that single vague sentence from Mr Nick Grey announcement. And if not? That is my main question.
-
Personally, I don't mind having this aircraft added to the sim. It's a very interesting platform that should be quite fun to play in DCS, even if parts of it will be made up. And it's probably the the only way we're getting one for DCS in this decade, or the next. It should sell well and bring good money for ED, even if some hardcore simmers would skip the purchase, and server owners that care for balance will disable it. Maybe it won't even be such a power beast in DCS, given that it probably won't have full sensors integration with other platforms like in real life. Also a lot of combat in DCS focuses on dogfighting, where fat Amy struggles anyway. One problem I see is that DCS currently doesn't really have much of modern AI opponent units. No advanced versions of Sukhois and Migs, no modern Chinese aircraft, no 5th gen aircraft at all. No advanced SAM systems. Even the blufor side is lacking. And the pace at which ED adds new aircraft AI models (or updates the existing ones from the previous century) doesn't inspire much optimism. So quite possibly it will be another cockpit simulator without any battlefield environment to match its timeframe.
-
Seems to me that these "heavy handed actions" (as Nightdare put it) on ED side has also caused a lot of damage to DCS brand. So what's next, is ED going to sue themselves, or just withhold payments to some of their employees? Yeah, but why ED is withholding even more money? Do you think RB is still breaching DCS IP as we speak, or is that a means of coercion so that Razbam would bow down and accept whatever "fine" ED imposes on them without costly legal battle? The former seems unlikely, at least to me, while the latter doesn't sound very... ethical.
-
I see "breach of its contractual obligations towards our company and of our legally protected IP rights, and for which we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims." The rest you're just making up on your own to fit your narrative. In this regard you're no different than Razbam fanboys.
-
Well, some people here certainly think that Razbam getting destroyed is a good thing. Just read the last page or two. Although I'm not sure what kind of destruction Razbam was raging on DCS and other 3rd parties before the thing went public. Care to elaborate? Only official sources please.
-
Thank you Devs for working on mid-mission Save Game feature.
some1 replied to freespirit's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Nope, it's still in the beyondland. -
Pay from what? As far as we know, ED already has this money, and more. Then why are they withholding more money than they demand? To prove a point? To show who's boss? To kill other company? Because their accountant forgot bank logins? At this point I certainly don't want to buy anything more from a company, that likes to hold someone else's money for "ransom".
-
Not at all, that's irrelevant to this question. But if I owe you 60k and you owe me 100k, then who pays whom?
-
Well, unless ED demands from Razbam more than a year worth of sales of all their modules, which would be pretty crazy, we're at an interesting point where it's ED that owes Razbam more money than Razbam owes ED, even assuming that all ED claims are valid and they should be paid in full for that breach of contractual obligations. Of course we do not and will not know the amounts of money involved, and that's fine, but that's interesting thing to think about nonetheless.
