Recluse

I am pretty sure I can hot refuel FC modules (Flankers/Eagle), just get the CANNOT COMPLY on Re-arming. I haven't tried the F-86 or the MIg-15 to see if the "Toned Down FF modules can Hot Rearm" holds true for all of them. EDIT: YES, IT APPEARS TO HOLD TRUE! F-86 FC AND MIG-15BIS FC CAN REARM HOT.

Also check to see if NVG are installed. I was having an issue where the AA/AG/NAV/INST lights were barely visible and turned out that the time of day (though light out) was just on the edge and NVG's were added automatically rendering everything in the cockpit for NVG compatibility. In my case, I saw no difference in the MFD brightness with or without NVG, only the Mode lights and the UFC, but YMMV.

Interestingly, I found recently I can Rearm the F-5E FC with the engines running!!

Just adding my similar experience. Persian Gulf map (multiplayer) Quest 2, Nice smooth 50 fps until going to the F10 map, upon returning to the cockpit, stuttery 24 fps or less. In the past I could sometimes go BACK to the F10 map, do an Alt Tab til frames came back, then go back to the cockpit for a resumption of smooth play. Now that generally leads to additional frame rate loss and usually DCS crash. Seems LESS pronounced in Single Player, but still seems present.

Question: Does this apply to the Harrier? I did see the option in the payload editor on the Harrier to change the code, but the Kneeboard setting doesn't update. Does the payload screen or the kneeboard take precedence? I will try to test it and report back but I thought I would ask. EDIT: Did a quick test and it appears that for the Harrier, the Kneeboard is still the way to set the code for APKWS even though it CAN be set in the payload screen.

The Mig-29 does, (maybe SU-25 as well) but the Flankers do not any longer (if they ever did), or I am not looking in the right place (neither on the HUD nor the MFD have numbers like Waypoints do). The Flankers are the only Russian aircraft I generally fly, so limited to the "cheats" you point out with them as well as the A-10A, F-15C. Was hoping there was something better. LOL, I have trouble with distinguishing Tblisi-Lochini/Soganlug/Vaziani even in full fidelity aircraft

Unless I am missing something obvious, my pet peeve with the FC "LANDING" submode of the NAVIGATION mode is that there is NO indication of WHICH airfield you are pointing at. This "simplified" mode is actually less useful than it would appear. In the Flankers, there is at least a Visual representation of the positions of the airfields/carriers in the MFD, but, e.g. in the A-10A there doesn't seem to be any way to tell. I saw a chart/kneeboard with the numbering of the airfields, but that does not seem to correspond to what is shown in the HUD for A-10A, at least. Am I missing something, or do you just have to use the F10 map or kneeboard Map to ball park the bearing and distance to the desired airbase and then cycle through until to find it?

@cfrag this must truly be a labor of love because your dedication and support is nothing short of phenomenal! THANK YOU.. P.S. I have been going through your A-10A flight school missions (again). Also a GREAT resource for a largely overlooked platform. Overlooked both by PLAYERS and by ED who have yet to fix MANY little bugs I have seen reported in OLD threads on the Flaming Cliffs/A-10A forums. The A-10C was one of the First Full Fidelity Modules I purchased, but it and its big sister the A-10C-2 have pretty much been Hangar queens, so my Hawg itch tends to get scratched by the -A model.

No, I mean in your post it says "nm" ;looks like 20 nautical miles or nanometers

@Muchocracker Should this be 20m burst height?

Should I be seeing that Overlay in VR? I don't see it. But I am using OXRTK and I see THAT overlay. Never mind... I do see the overlay in 2D, so I guess that is better to not clutter up my VR view any more.

Hey @Draken35: Does your current Full replacement include the UH-60L support that someone else did? I think I did a compare on both .lua files and hacked it into one of your recent versions that fixed the Apache bug and was the last fix for the Strike Eagle..

If this is the same thing, I reported this a year ago. Never saw it get fixed and it still occurs for me. In the reported case, it is the HUD that shows target information for locked (TWS) air targets when in AG mode. Don't know if the posted track still works with the latest build. If needed I can generate another one.

Not sure its a Tucano thing. Seems to happen to us in Multiplayer almost all the time with AWACS comms in just about all aircraft. Sometimes it's fine, sometimes static. Haven't noticed it in SP.

ASW is OFF in OTT.... In the Menus, I get 72 FPS (and got 90 when set to 90 Hz). In the mission I used for Testing... Various aircraft taking of from Melez on the Sinai map, I get about 50-60 FPS at the default, about 25-35 at Preset F and about 35-45 with Preset E. Everything else remains the same. Using OTT and OXRTK, so there is room for tweaking, but for the purposes of the test the DLSS preset was the only variable. ASW should not be kicking in at all, but when it was on, indeed I get about 50% of the set Hz (at max).

Thanks for this. Just going to give my experience for what it is worth. I tried forcing Profile E and F. Couldn't really tell much difference graphically, but I did seem to see a decrease in Frame Rate with both E and F. For now, I'm sticking with the default as the best compromise. I got rid of most of my ghosting (and got a lot more stability) by moving from 90 Hz to 72 Hz (Quest 2, RTX 3070) so thankfully that was no longer an issue. Of course there are endless things to tweak and it is nice to have this additional option. Using DLSS Quality in DCS, currently so maybe moving down to BALANCED and changing DLSS profiles is something I am going to try.

Have to think about it, but off the top of my head, i think there is always an ownedBy or similar flag that has a value based on the Ownership? (RED, BLUE, NEUTRAL) some combination of the ownedby flag value and a list of the "random" selections might work. Could be a lot of work to account for every possiblity... but maybe there is a way to do the randomization more elegantly only when only those bases with an ownedBy with an instantaneous certain value are considered. One example from the manual picked at ....errrrr....RANDOM

@cfrag Thanks.. I did quote the manual in my post It was clear to me as is, but I was confused when @DD_Friar mentioned SSBClient Zones, and then I read further in the manual and saw they were available for use. I was keying on the part that said SSBClient did basic slot blocking AUTOMATICALLY.

@cfrag Based on @DD_Friar's comment above on having an SSBClient zone. can you comment on/confirm the use of SSBClient for general slot blocking (without using OPEN or CLOSE flags and the like). Is it sufficient to just have it loaded and running without any zones created (unless other than default config options are needed)? I have been following the advice to load slotty for SP slot blocking and have SSB running whenever I host, and advise other hosts to run it as well when a DML slot blocking mission is in use. Maybe in this case SSBClient isn't even necessary, but doesn't hurt to run?

Thanks for this! Along with the other diagrams in the download. LOL I didn't realize the AOA indexers FAST/SLOW indications were opposite for Russian and Western aircraft.

LOL... I just tried it, but jumped in for a quick 2D instead of VR. I crashed the UH-60L short of the troop pickup!! It is quite possible I abandoned the mission when they wouldn't get picked up, but I have a recollection of flying it in the UH-60L. The mission will be much better with a DML re-write!! Troops In Contact is flown in a Player APACHE and the AI UH-60A does the troop transport. Troops in Contact_UH60L was meant to be a Mulitplayer mission where humans flew the APACHE and the UH-60L for troop transport. PRETTY sure I tested the UH-60L troop transport in Single Player, but maybe it never worked and I dropped it. Also happy to stand corrected on this! Both versions probably need some polishing... EDIT: JUST TRIED IT... I AM WRONG, YOU ARE RIGHT.. UH-60L DOESN'T SEEM TO BE RECOGNIZED. I landed really close and no Embarkation and no Menu Item for it either. Now that I look at the missions, I could not get the UH-60L to pick up the troops, so I created the little TEST pickup, which, ultimately failed. Rewriting now with DML to allow UH-60L to do the CASEVAC...

As you know I am also a big Proponent of DML, but I have gotten the standard DCS troop embarking/disembarking working with the UH-60L with no problem (other than the usual problems getting everything setup right!) (At least I think so! Have to go fly that mission and double check) OOPS, no.. see below

Thanks, guys! (BTW I confirmed the SU-33 got SuperCarrier Comms with one of the BLUE Super Carriers, so I figured it was a KUZ limitation not an FC3/2024 limitation)

..which should be FAQ's but I just cannot find the answers anywhere: - Which Kuznetsov is the SuperCarrier Kuznetsov. Thinking it is the 2017 one. -Neither Kuznetsov seems to give SuperCarrier COMMS. Granted I was trying with an SU-33 (as one would expect for the Kuz). Is this the current state of things? New Kuznetsov model came with the SuperCarrier package, but does not communicate like a SuperCarrier? Thanks... Sorry if I couldn't find this in my FORUM searches.

I have seen this quoted many times (LITENING not cleared for Carrier operations) but have never seen any OFFICIAL indication that this is a true limitation, while it is true that the Navy does use ATFLIR for Carrier Ops, it doesn't seem like a technical issue, just a procurement preference. And reading this, it seems like outfitting carrier based aircraft with LITENING would have been a possibility. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA498288.pdf