All Activity

Everyone in the squadron is training right now. If you’d like more information, I will give you the invite to the 77th black cat training squadron and we can meet there and have an interview. https://discord.gg/NaHwZf3Dp4

What we need to find evidence of is not the 9th document saying “it has a radar blanker!” Becuase ED agrees with. ED’s premise is that the radar blanker can’t sufficiently deal with MPRF/HPRF from the factory. That’s what we need to find evidence for if we want things to change. Or otherwise some bulletproof SME evidence.

FONTE https://forum.dcs.world/topic/378749-dc ... nt=5704212 Bye Phant

Thanks, I'll give it go. I've seen this comms issue with the UH-60L and A-4 before but cant remember what i did to solve it. Pretty sure its a mod conflict...

@shadowborn, The problem is complicated to say the least. I've been reporting issues with GeorgeAI for a while. Despite my best efforts to provide the requisite information it never seems be be "enough". The problems with GeorgeAI really start to manifest after flying for a while. I'd say after 30min of flying. That defeats the purpose of providing a short track file for review. I'm not sure if this may help you but after all the recent updates to GeorgeAI, I follow these steps: 1. Maintain a loadout of 1-Kilo and 3-Lima Hellfire per rack. 2. Keep him de-WAS'ed until within range. 3. GeorgeAI can lase to obtain range data while de-WAS'ed (short right). 4. Once in-range, switch GeorgeAI to RF MSL or SAL MSL (short left, then long left to cycle between MSL types). 5. He should activate the laser for range data (so the data can be automatically transferred to the Hellfire) 6. If he has a hard time lasing the target, switch between RF MSL and SAL MSL. This is why I keep at least 1 Kilo Hellfire per rack. 7. You should be no closer than 1,100 meters to fire the MSL. Otherwise, GeorgeAI will not comply after consent is given. 8. Frequently have George AI de-WAS'ed when you are not actively shooting at a target. My rule of thumb is de WAS him after 1 minute from the last target hit. Note: I've had many times where I had to cycle GeorgeAI 3+ times to get compliance and fire a missile. I also had to slow down my button movements to be more deliberate. This can be very challenging especially when you get caught up in some intense battle sequences. GeorgeAI is still far from perfect. As you noted after crashing, I too get the repeating "Aircraft armed" callout. That is normally caused when the helo is wobbling/tilted/fallen on its side, or there is damage to the weight on wheel switch (however the game calculates that logic). Lately, I will see and hear GeorgeAI stuck in a target lasing loop. I'll hear him call out "lasing" to infinity and also see a notification window that says "lasing" scroll down the right side of my screen to infinity. I have to undesignate the target and reacquire it for the problem to go away. I know this may sound silly to ask: Have you verified there are no keybinding conflicts when you experience GeorgeAI safing the helo? @BIGNEWY, I ask for consideration to short track file requirement. Based on my experience in multiplayer environments, which is were many of us experience these bugs, it takes at least 30 minutes of flight time to encounter an issue with GeorgeAI. Furthermore, it is a huge PITA to stop my entertainment and exit the server just so I can immediately preserve my DCS log and multiplayer track file. Then get criticism for it being too long/large and not be reviewed; or suggest to provide more data. Trust me when I say that I have better things to do than to complain about a DCS module (or modules). If I'm complaining about a problem, then I'm pretty fed up about it. You are welcome to come into my server and experience the issues hurting my head. You may collect all the data you wish at that point.

Ich weiß auch nichts Genaueres. Im Moment kann man mit dem Modul sehr viel Spaß haben. Wie es künftig aussieht hängt für mich ein bisschen davon ab, ob die zuletzt gemeldeten Kleinigkeiten irgendwann gefixed werden: die Endurance und die geschätzte Dauer bis zum nächsten Wegpunkt zählen im Moment immer nur volle Stunden bzw. 10-Minuten-Intervalle. Das ist glaube ich nicht im Sinne des Erfinders, und das auf Minuten-Präzision zu ändern sollte trivial sein - wenn es Entwickler gibt und die mit dem Code und der Umgebung einigermaßen vertraut sind. Ob und wann diese Winzigkeiten gefixed werden, kann man also evtl. als Gradmesser nehmen, wie es um die Weiterentwicklung steht.

PACAF standard load notation makes a bit more sense tbh. For example: 4A 2W x2 = 4 AMRAAM, 2 Sidewinder, 2 wing tanks.

I can't wait to hear more info on the Late Cold War Vessels project. Will it be 1980's, or Desert Storm era? More generalized 70' & 80's? Vietnam era is great, but I am an 80's kid. I guess I'm not so much of a kid anymore......... -Woog

Roger. I'll probably remove that script. It's a nice feature, but for some people it gives an error. For some it doesn't. Weird. As for the AI not dropping: ED recently updated the way the AI attacks targets, and it resulted in a mess. I'm seeing more dry runs than actual drops. Not just this campaign and not just the P-51. I've been bombarding them with tracks, to no avail so far. Please next time you see this save a track and post it in the general AI bugs thread. @[ED]Ben FYI

Sounds amazing! How many custom made missions can your graduates expect to participate in your pacific combat squadrons per week, one or two? What days/nights of the week are regularly scheduled squadron coordinated missions?

Actually, such changes should be entirely their own settings in "special options". You are altering the information the pilot receives based on the language selected. This doesn't even remotely make sense. It has to be considered, that someone might run English cockpits, for the pure reason that a different module (Mirages - French), become more reasonable to use. Yet, it affects this module as well, then. This setting has to be disconnected, and be its own selectable. Especially in this case, the original gauge is the only one that shows TAS.

SU-24 also has a MPRF attack radar suite that seems to work fine with it as well, in case anyone wants to go down that rabbit hole.

Respectfully man, that doesn't make any sense. The cable from the N019 is sending the synch signal, thats all it needs to do, be it HPRF, or MPRF or LPRF. its a couple of of Khz PRF... Thats not a problem to blank or synch anything for 70's electronics at all. The SU-24 attack radar is MPRF and there are no reports of that not working. Plus Cartridges 51 and 54 are "modular" its a cartridge. So its not going to be the same for each jet, each jet has different systems/radios that need to get blanked. Be that IFF, Radios, navigation gear, or different radars. We also have a excerpt from a 29 manual now that says its ONLY blanked during TX. specifically in a mig29 manual. ALL the blanking circuit does is tell the SPO when the radar is in TX, thats the entire purpose of that circuit. При включении изделия H0I9 на излучение происходит блокировка изделия Л006 (первого диапазона передней полусферы) для исключения его срабатывания от изделия H0I9. When the N0I9 product is switched on for radiation , the L006 product (the first range of the front hemisphere) is blocked to prevent it from being triggered by the NOI9 product. Can this go out of synch? possibly, or more than likely probably, which then screws up the SPO in terms of spurious signals which is certainly possible with 3 microsecond TX 3 microsecond RX. if you are off by a fraction of a microsecond the TX signal will start to flood the SPO. Which is where the various warnings of "spurious" signals come from. Most likely if hits some power threshold there is a protection circuit to shut it off entirely. Yeah a central oscillator is how its generally done in western designs. Not surprised the Soviets are doing it too, cuz its the smart way to do anything like this requiring a master synch. Yeah, because respectfully the HPRF thing makes no sense. And is provided with no actual proof. And there is mounting evidence to the contrary.

I align it in CAD when I design it, so it's pretty close to correct locations, I've found it does not need to be exact, it does have some adjustability, but being close works just fine. Currently the F6F will be next.

Thank you @Thamiel, @AeriaGloria, @Flanker for responding to my questions regarding the difficulty. I bought it and have tried it out. I think Flanker probably was right that it's one of the easier ones. I have almost no experience in FC3, so the ease of flying really really surprised me. The plane I've been flying lately is the C-101 trainer, and this aircraft, flying-wise, is about as easy as that. On my first flight after mapping essential controls, I just took it around the pattern for 6 touch and goes, and all of them were decent, by the third and fourth I was greasing the landings, and by the actual full-stop landing I was airbraking, nose wheel off. By contrast, no matter how much time I spend in the Phantom, or even the F-5E, my landings are almost always like dropping a sack of bricks on the pavement. It's especially easy, because unlike some of the others, you have so much power and acceleration that even when you get behind the power curve, you can get yourself right back in front of it again. Was a little bit weirded out that in the English cockpit labels version, the units were in Imperial not Metric. Not used to that, but it's intuitive because those are my units. I still don't know whether the Variometer is in ft/min or m/s. I just completed the startup tutorial, and it reminded me a lot like the MiG-21, which I think is on the gentler end of the learning curves of DCS modules. This seems like a 3rd gen cockpit, but with some impressive 4th gen capabilities. So, this is just about the right thing for me to learn right now. Fourth landing approach, no sweat at all, and what a beautiful airplane. I couldn't have done it better if I'd had a Fly-By-Wire aircraft and a Velocity Vector on the HUD.

Well, IPD is supposed to work best when it's your actual IPD, which is personal information, albeit of a rather inconsequential sort. That said, the IPD value in DCS is actually world scale, which is not quite the same as the actual IPD setting that physically adjusts the lens on your headset to match your eyes. World scale can be thought of as the size of your virtual head (and hence your "virtual" IPD), but it's not exactly that.

There are problems with quite a lot of WW2 Landing Gear graphics. The Mozzie, Mustang and Thunderbolt are three bad ones. ALL sorts of things happen in 'replays' making recordings of said three when trying to do a video practically impossible. I've posted all three of these issues out in Bug Reports, ALL without any joy. I really don't know what the issue is with sorting them out because it's the 'updates' that seemed to have caused them all.

Agree, but the developer has released a patch on Discord that fixes this, I'm attaching it here if you want to try it. save it on the bin folder of the mod, overwriting the prior file. I have not tried comms on multiplayer, but I can contact the ATC once in the air with no difficulty, see my video above. VSN_F104C_EFM_wip_Update_x.x.099a.zip

Any news to share yet?

As the title says - a dialogue box at the bottom of the ME that let you enter coordinates then jump to the point would make going to RL places of interest much easier. (For instance to find the Kokari-Sharshari fortified area) Watching the long/lat numbers change as you move the cursor is not a user-friendly approach.

Hey guys try turning on AP/AJ anti jamming switch. It makes a huge difference or I have just been very very lucky in recent shots. Perhaps when they chaff or roll around causing glint it helps the radar keep the illumination on target.

first digit are number of ARH missiles, second digit is SARH, third is IR missiles. 4 120C and 2 IR means 4,0,2. Do you get it.

The number you put in the option is personal?, ok I respect it.