J-man

Hi, in the Nav Training Mission, when following the instructions and engaging the route mode, instead of flying to WP1 as intended, the Ka-50 flys to a different location that is not marked as as WP on the ABRIS and then switches to WP2. When setting the take-off Airfield as a Nav Target on the PVI, the helo misses the airfield by a similarly large distance. I assume the nav alignment is not set correctly at the hot start of the mission... Here is the Track: https://www.dropbox.com/s/q3n1tn5p8k7nyp2/BS3_En-Route_Navigation_Training.miz_23122022_15-03.trk?dl=0

The outside does look nicer I think, but the inside gets over-exposed. This is an issues when modeling Eye Exposure as if the whole image is beeing looked at by the player. In your screenshots, the helo is off, but the landing gear lights appear as bright and washed out as they do in my 2.8 Screenshot where 3 of them are supposed to be lit and 3 dark. In any RL images of the Ka-50 I can find on google, the lights look as they did in 2.7, distinctly colored green or red, even when off. I also have a suggestion for improving the new exposure effect: In real live, the eyes adapt to the brightness of what ever you are looking at directly but in a video game, the exposure is based on everything on screen, even if the player is not looking out of the window but on the instruments, leading to an overexposed instrument panel. In RL, if the pilot looks on the instruments, the pilots eyes would apapt to the low brightness of the instrument panel and the out-of-focus outside in the pilots peripheral vision would become very bright and vice versa. This difference between exposure for what is on the whole screen v.s. exposure for what the player is looking at is a major issue for people without headtracking, as they usually don´t limit the screen content to just the instrument panel by leaning forward (or zooming in) but usually have a more static view that covers the panel + the outside. There will almost always be a huge light intensity difference between the outside and the inside of the cockpit (at least if you use correct PBR Values for the sun). Based on the 2.8 Screenshots,it appears you have only one global exposure value for the entiere image, you will likely always either underexpose the outside to have realistic inside lighting OR overexpose the inside of the cockpit to have good brightness values on the outside. In the Unreal Engine, there is a relativly new post processing setting called "local exposure". This allows subsections of the screen to havet smoothed independent exposure. This compensates for not knowing at what part of the screen the player is actually looking (outside or inside), keeping every part properly exposed, even in scenes with high brightness variance like an aircraft cockpit. Take a look at an example here: https://forums.unrealengine.com/t/local-exposure-is-in-ue5-main/274274

Agreed, at my end, even in the default 8:00 am, clear sky setting for weather and time, the cockpit looks washed out and it is hard to even tell wich of the landing gear lights are lit when the display is not in shadow since they are a foggy white now. The cockpit lighting certainly looks worse and his harder to read than before. I can also confirm that the hud is thicker or blurry compared to how it looked before. Can you tell, without looking at the lever itself, if my gear is up or down: Compared to how it used to look in similar conditions (older screenshot, pre-syria release, but still representative of how it was before 2.8): nullnull

Depends, how many new bugs are we going to get then? I wouldn´t mind a bit of Halloween fun, if the rest of the game wasn´t outright broken. As you very well know, I´m not the only one reporting these Easter Eggs as bugs because it´s hard to tell intentional changes from the accidental ones if you release a new major version right before adding seasonal easter eggs. As it stands right now, I spend more time testing and reporting issues than actually enjoing the game.

Considering how many real bugs you added with this update, for adding such intrusive changes, clear communicating that they are Halloween Eastereggs and not bugs would have been very much appreciated. Like many others, I thought the constant green tint was a bug, you know, like the broken reflections and double language buttons in the KA-50... At least add a one-click option to disable such changes next time around and maybe don´t release them together with a buggy major version update...

Funny, I never saw any of the easter eggs, I only got the green tint. Who the <profanity> releases such intrusive changes "for fun" at the same time as a major version change that comes with plenty of real bugs?! And to disable them I have to edit the game files? Why is this not an option in the menu or at least clearly communicated? Whats the point of tinting the image green during the day anyway?? This would be ok if it was a special event that has to be triggered by the player, like flying at midnight upside down or something like this. But a permanent change that is annoying at best during daytime missions? Is the concept of [green] considered a funny reference now or something? I assume the other issues like lightbleeding, terrible reflections, broken AI, broken missiles, broken button labels and broken Autopilot are also some clever joke?

Hi, since the change of the Shkval from B/W to green, many elements of the cockpit have a green/yellow glow/tint: Even the blue button glow green: The windows seem to add a green glow: In addition there are two more graphical issues: 1. The lights of the landing gear indicator are creating a wierdly focused/sharp highlight on the doorframe... ...and the reflections are very blocky and totally missplaced/aligned wrong, you can see cockpit instruments in the reflection that could not possibly reflect there:

Hi, it is my understanding that in reality the Shkval is a B/W TV picture with optional color filters including green and amber. Instead of making the Shkval green permanently, could you not add the missing color filter functionality so we can select what filter to apply? After all, the switch is already there and animated, it just does not do anything to the picture.

On a separate note: The real Skhval aiming direction and the indicated location on the map do not line up, the distance is often different, with the Abris representation overshooting the real aim point by miles and the angle does not match when the helo is unstable, a slight wobble can result in the abris displaying the aim line with an angle error of about 15°! On the image, the Skhval is aiming at the center of the blue units, but the abris display the aim point behind the SE end of the train station.

In addition to most of the other issues with the latest update, like english and russion writing at the same time, I also noticed a significant decline in the Vikhr reliability. Before the 2.8 Update, sometimes missiles fired by my AI winman would wobble and crash in the ground. Now both my own and AI missiles have this issue. They wobble and start flipping around widly, then crash in the ground or do not track the laser at all and fly horizontally towards infinity. This happens with about 40-60% of missiles fired in some missions!! Here are some images, the TacView file and a track from a simple demonstration mission: Normally the missiles are accurate enought to shoot between multiple obstacles: But the very next shot wobbles until it flies 90° to the intended target (Smoke) and then hits the ground: And some just don´t care and fly waaaaay past the target: Here is the TacView File, you will notice that many missiles act wierd and also the helo drifts in hover mode and the AI Pilot tries to desert mid-mission: Tacview-20221031-182922-DCS-Trainstation Raid.zip.acmi Finally, here is a track file that shows the issue + the TacView file of the demonstration: VikhrIssuesDemo.trk VikhrIssueDemo.zip.acmi Note: Everything looks as it should until 10:30 then the AI fails multiple times to have good guidance. The missile just goes into the ground or flies way to far and to the side.

Thats what I ended up doing. I had already completed the campaigns (ironically there was a bug that spawned me on land and not on the carrier in one mission...) In the end it´s not a big issue to just replace the carrier, but I wish ED would do that themselfs and offer an official non-SC version...

Update: The spawn works only if the carrier is exchanged for the old version (pre 2017). Otherwise it appears impossible for the player spawn to happen on the parking position. It is correctly set in the editor, but displayed as on the launch ramp, rather than the parking zone but spawns the player above the ship anyway. If the carrier is using the old model, the player can at least spawn on the start ramp. I just made a new mission featuring the new model of the carrier and I see the same result. Spawning a player-controlled SU-33 on the post 2017 Version of the carrier is not possible. Im playing on the latest OB without any mods btw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update: I figured out that I need to own the Super Carrier DLC to use the 2017 Version. My question then is, where is the non-SC Version of this mission?! Are you really trying to force people to buy this stupid DLC by advertising the SU-33 as capable of operating from the russian carrier on the steam page, only to then not offer mission variants that use the base games version of the carrier?? I paid for the SU-33 and the Syria map, and you are telling me you went out of your way to replace the carrier that works for everyone with the DLC version just to get even more money out of me?! Why is there no automatic mechanism that replaces the carrier with the SC version ONLY IF the SC DLC is owned?! Or at least offer a separate version of the mission using the old carrier! Why would I spend 30$ on a DLC that adds US Carriers only to restore functionality to my SU-33 that existed and worked before you CHOSE to kneecap that?! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The player is supposed to spawn on the russian carrier but instead spawns above it in mid-flight. Track can not be attached because apparently the 20 sec. of gameplay are over the 5 MB limit, you can grab it here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xoeorbktissnyfh/SU-33_Tricolor_SpawnBugged.trk?dl=0

yup, same issue, after multiple retries. The mission is just broken.

It is important to have a decent virtual memory budget. The game does not actually need 30GB in RAM to run the mission, it appears to preload the entiere map but only needs the data for the local area. So to avoid running out of memory, rather than having more than 16GB RAM, make sure your pagefile size is set to ~32GB. I had frequent crashes even with 32GB RAM because I ran out of memory, but increasing my virtual memory budget to 32GB fixed them and improved the performance.

Update: The Task is no problem anymore, now it worked on the first try. I just took a look at the Track file and noticed something REALLY MINOR that you might still want to know about, idk. When the center convoy spawns, they engage the hostile bmps the player is supposed to deal with for a short time. In my experience they usually take care of at least one bmp before holding fire, which may make the radio message talking of "3 bmps to kill" a little confusing. I assume that the 2 seperate Warriors are supposed to get killed and represent the casualties that are mentioned in the radio call and the main convoy is supposed to hold its position. However, the 2 seperate Warriors survive the bmp encounter and just drive past, while the convoy enages the bmps from a distance. Not sure if you count this as a bug or if it´s working as intended.

Thanks again, I appreciate the link to the updated files.

Thanks, I think I´ll wait until this gets fixed before continuing the campaign. It has been one of the best I´ve played in DCS so far. Also, is Ronnie compensating for something?

Here is another Track: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xts4m3uauu0zgn/Tacview-20220128-044016-DCS-Persian Freedom TK 8 FINAL.zip.acmi?dl=0 Once again, the enemy respawns when I am near the IP and wipes the friendlies out before I am in range. They take down ~70% of the convoy in mere seconds!!! Check 11:41:27 I played this attempt with markers enabled to see when they respawn, but even knowing about the damadge spike, it is just impossible to avoid loosing the convoy to newly spawned troops!

EDIT: I´ve just read the update post from yesterdays update and found this: "M14 - Altered engagement on task 1 to compensate for AI ground troops accuracy improvement" If the infantery got more accurate, that might explain why they are now able to destroy the convoy in the time it takes to line up for the next gun run... In that case you should probably adjust the amount of enemys here aswell. And maybe split the large waves into multiple smaller waves, to avoid these Damadge Spikes that occur now if a large wave spawns while the player is over the IP... Original Post: I retried Mission 08 3 times now, and it always fails the CAS Task where the player is supposed to do gun runs east of hammers position. Even if I literally nuke the area, the enemys just respawn by the time I lined up over the tower for the next run. I wiped out everyone on the ground, but the 30 seconds until I can fire again are enought for them to respawn and kill the convoy! As you can see on the screenshots and the track, I killed everyone and still failed the task because they respawned and killed the friendlies before I was cleared hot again... Track: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gxpqx7clxyfc187/Tacview-20220128-003756-DCS-Persian Freedom TK 8 FINAL.zip.acmi?dl=0 Please let me know what is expected of the player here or if this is unintended and will be changed.

Playing the TankKiller Version on latest OB without mods, so far I found 2 Bugs: In Mission 4, giving the F10 Command to the wingman to attack the Launchers causes him to attack EVERYTHING except the launchers. He attacks the other Island and even fights over the city and airfield in the north, and kills a truck on the Mission-relevant Island, but does never attack the launchers. In Mission 5, the Gunman1-1 flight does not follow the path to WP 2 and 3, but rather ocilates left to right along the route. Maybe something with the time of arrival?? I reach WP 4 when the ai is still at WP 2. Mono keeps up with me. If you need any more info I can upload a track file for you.

I have tested the Aim-120C with the F-15C, and sometimes the missile keeps going up in a straight line if it is launched in TWS mode if the lock is broken shortly after launch. This behaviour seems highly erratic, sometimes multiple missiles follow this behaviour, sometimes they track fine and sometimes only one of the missiles does not track properly. Images and Trackfiles attached. As you can see, sometimes the missile just keeps going up, instead of tracking the target, even if all 3 missiles were fired the exact same way and in direct succession. 120C_TWS_InfiniteLoft_01.trk 120C_TWS_InfiniteLoft_02.trk