SonofEil

I was a 20 year old instrument rated private pilot, working towards my multi-engine and commercial, at the same time I was an A-10A mechanic. I was crew chief and engine-run qualified on that plane and was absolutely sure that given the chance I could successfully fly it. Still am, honestly. The one thing I don’t possess that that Marine did is a massive set of brass balls. I’m glad it worked out ok for him. But yeah, the zero-real-world-hours sim guys that think they can just hop in a real F-18 now? You’re out of your damn minds. There is no. friggin. way.

Yeah I’d buy a cargo or transport module because ED would of course make it amazing. My hesitation to suggest they spend the resources developing such a module lies in the fact that DCS maps really don’t support the kind of flying I’d want to do with those planes. The maps are almost perfectly tailored for combat ops (go figure), not so much heavy logistics. There’s barely enough space to reach cruising altitude in a large aircraft, much less anywhere to cruise to once you’re up there. An AC-130 would be badass and useful, but again, this post is really talking about the big haulers. Like I said though, if they made it I’d buy it.

This is brought up and requested pretty frequently and for good reason. It wouldn't be hard to implement either since runway lights (at least in the USA and Europe) are governed by strict numbers. If it's daytime and any of the ME weather parameters (specifically ceiling and visibility) fall within MVFR or less, then runway lights should be on. They're required to be on in reality at controlled airports. Another problem with DCS though is that it's not rendering an overcast day correctly (among many other lighting deficiencies). In sim a high overcast of ~10,000 ft. and 20 miles vis at midday often causes a hug loss of ground detail, to the point that runway lights are necessary even on short final. Real world runway lights would remain off at 10k/20mi. In reality your eyes can still resolve unlit runways from many miles away. You'll lose contrast in overcast conditions but it's usually plenty light enough to see the ground. Overcast day in DCS is much too dark. (Again, generally speaking.)

I'm all in on a Middle Earth terrain as long as we get an official DCS: Enterprise -D. I can swoop down in my galaxy class starship and perform some polite diplomacy and possibly grant provisional membership to the Federation! … I'm not kidding. :) (especially now that Stage 9 is dead.:cry:)

Yep, this is a big item I've wanted addressed since Hornet day one. You should absolutely be able to program your countermeasures while on the ground.

Mod dudes. That was not wish list content. That was legit feedback that Wags specifically created this thread for. My feedback is that the JHMCS is illegibly washed out when looking towards the horizon. That's all it is. Feedback. If JHMCS brightness is realistic then leave it as is. If it's not, you know, do whatever. Jesus.

Awesome, thanks! There are definitely significant stutters when new units activate, I’d never thought of starting with statics on the map to preload the model. I always assumed it was the trigger itself that caused the stutter. Excellent advice, thanks again!

After doing a little testing it looks like blackout occurs at around 44k pounds. Interesting though is that I actually had a mild REDout at 42k pounds. Here's your tracks: BLACKOUT2.trk REDOUT.trk

AI Wingman is broken again, only attempting to use AIM-9's as medium range weapons. ForED.trk

I know you've closed a half dozen JHMCS threads but this may be different. On the loadout screen I picked six 9X's. Yes, the JHMCS shows them as 9M's but we all just assume it's mislabeled in the helmet view. You can look at your wings and see that they're X's. But then when engaging bandits I can't get a tone outside of ~30-40 degrees. Also in TacView the missiles I'm shooting are labeled 9M's there too. Point being, are you guys sure we don't actually have 9M's in X skins?

I've never blacked out on a cat shot before, clean wings or overloaded, until today. Definite bug. Shot off with a 13k fuel, 2 7M's, 2 120C's, 6 9X's. Roughly 3 second blackout. EDIT: Attached a track. Normal launch caused blackout. BLACKOUT.trk

Just noticed that myself.

Ah, that makes sense too. No worries here, I’m a patient guy.

I’d recommend waiting until a hotfix in the next day or two (check here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3694813#post3694813 ). It looks like ED sent out the wrong F-18 development branch in todays Open Beta update. Also, search the forums. There are no shortage of threads about Stable vs. Open Beta and how to switch between the two. You’re hijacking this thread.

I don't have any experience on F-18's, but if you hop in a real life A-10C you won't get very far in the startup procedure using DCS knowledge. At least one crucial step was omitted, or can probably just be assumed to have already been performed by the time you're sitting in the cockpit. You'll need a hand with the ladder there too. :thumbup:

Ah that’s true, most of the problems occur in multiplayer. I’ll have to look again when I get home but last I checked I had 150-200 units. You’re saying I shouldn’t be anywhere close to requiring unit maintenance for performance? Man, I just haven’t had any luck at all with scripts. I don’t have coding experience and I’ve been at a total loss with my meager attempts. Even the YouTube tutorials have left me scratching my head. : (

I’ve built a mission with quite a few red and blue “civilian” aircraft on different routes, mostly for the purpose of providing some radar clutter and uncertainty. Is it better to let these non-players taxi to parking and sit all mission as ‘active’ units or trigger their deactivation to reduce unit count? I know high unit counts are still a big problem in DCS, but at the same time there is the potential for the dreaded trigger stutter whenever a unit blinks out of existence. Are there best practices for something like this that the veteran mission builders follow?

Yep, that did it. I used Alarm State Green/Red, but it worked like a charm. I can fly in and out of the zone, turning the unit off and on, all day long. Thanks for the help, and for opening up a new mission editing capability that had long eluded me! Edit: My triggers are such, with hostile unit placed on map in Alarm State Green: Trigger: Switched Condition Condition: Part of Coalition in Zone Action: AI Task Set-Alarm State Red and Trigger: Swtiched Condition Condition: All of Coalition Out of Zone Action: AI Task Set-Alarm State Green I didn’t use any ROE conditions.

Whoa I’ve never used a unit’s Triggered Actions tab before. Could never figure out what it did. I’ll report back shortly.

Good info, thanks. AI Task Push and AI Task Set don’t do anything. The sub menus are empty. Always have been for me at least.

I’m trying to make an SA group repeatedly turn on and off via trigger zone. I’ve been able to turn an SA group on/off once—I enter the zone, unit turns on, I leave the zone, unit turns off, I enter the zone, unit stays off. I can’t make it repeatable. If I enter the zone a second time the unit stays off. Currently I use Trigger: Switched Condition Condition: Part of Coalition in Zone Action: Group Activate and then Trigger: Switched Condition Condition: All of Coalition out of Zone Action: Group Deactivate I’ve tried different types of triggers, ‘once’ and ‘continuous action’, without luck. The above two triggers is the closest I’ve gotten to success. Any suggestions?

Hm, there are some pretty strong arguments that Star Trek in general and TNG specifically was at its best when Roddenberry’s influence was not necessarily marginalized, but counterbalanced by other creative forces. Season 1 was very much GR’s baby and he was largely sidelined by the other producers and writers from season 2 onwards because of it. I respect the hell out of TOS and there are some really great episodes in its catalog. But yeah, I never could fall in love with it. It’s just soooo dated. Even young 1984 me couldn’t accept those plywood sets, shiny skittles uniforms and that plastic toy ship were actually in space. Man I don’t know about that. From everything I’ve heard and the small amount I’ve seen of DS9 I doubt we’re going to be in agreement. Voyager...yeah I have no plans to subject myself to that again. Oh I agree there’s something to be said for suffering through Yar and Pulaski, beardless Riker and asshole Picard. And Wesley episodes *shudder*. Watching the show repeatedly stumble does make the later successes that much more enjoyable. The problem is when recommending the show to the truly uninitiated. When the seasons are 26 friggin episodes long it’s hard to ask someone to start at the beginning and watch 40+ hours of bad tv just for a gem here and there. (“Measure of a Man” is very much one of those gems.) Better to start them on 3 and let them come back to the beginning after they’re already comfortable. I haven’t heard of Chaos on the Bridge but I’m looking it up right now. Thanks!

Looking for some opinions. I just finished watching all of The Next Generation for the first time since it originally aired. There was more mediocrity than I remembered but the good stuff is still some of my favorite tv ever. My question is, how should I start DS9? I generally agree with the advice given to noobs to start TNG on season 2 or even 3 and avoid season 1 at all costs. I also know DS9 had a much stronger, more confident start than TNG, but is there still similar advice for DS9? EDIT: Btw, I’m not totally new to the show. I’ve seen quite a few episodes from the early seasons back when they originally aired, and since then a couple of the stand-outs like the brilliant DS9/TOS crossover, I’m just curious if there’s a generally accepted starting point to DS9.

Ha, yeah. They’ve been given the benefit of the doubt on a lot of things for a really long time from me. And it’s fair to say that I suffer from a non-zero sum of jadedness with the unpredictable and unreliable development of DCS. Here’s the problem though. DCS is, bar none, the best consumer flight simulator available. It’s an antiquated, incomplete, buggy patchwork of a combat simulator, but goddamn can they capture that feeling of flight. And that’s why I’m here: flight simulation. For better or worse, that’s why they keep earning my money.

Are you? I'd bet serious money they're not. Tracks have been broken since I started playing a decade ago with Black Shark 1. No one on the ED side even addresses these posts anymore - they haven't for years - and I don't remember them ever saying they were working on it to begin with. Honestly if tracks weren't mildly entertaining in their ridiculousness and very occasionally useful, I'd argue to have the "feature" removed completely as it's a major source of frustration and confusion for any new players.