Killshot0597

@Gunfreak @razo+r I recommend this amazing mod to you, it allows you to set up your counter measures via the special options menu. You no longer need to set up your counter measures while on the ground. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3312680/

Were you brought down by an R-27T or R-27ET? The R-27T is the IR-guided R-27, the ET is the same but with extended range. That won't ever give you any launch warning.

Happy that me bumping it up allowed you to notice it! Glad I pointed it out then! Makes me think how many people actually adjust their Barometric pressure Keep up the good work! Enjoying the module so far as I'm learning it!

BigNewey already said it's not happening unfortunately. I don't see any more point keeping this thread going. However, a personal opinion of mine. I think it's poor taste to have "frankenplanes" in DCS. I like that ED is sticking to a specific variant. When it comes to what weapons it can equip. I'm of the opinion that if the wiring exists and software is available to support said weapon (regardless of availability of stock of a particular weapon). It makes it easier for ED to do research on developing the module rather than a mish mash of systems from different variants.

I just noticed this bug too now that I'm picking up on learning the Jeff. It's still around after all this time it seems

AI F-18s and F-16s fire in 120s in TWS

Historical mode currently only works to restrict vehicles, not aircraft loadouts. I believe ED has this planned at the moment. Would also be nice if historical mode covered things like JHMCS. Lastly, as for the F-14A, just wait for Heatblur to release their last US variant with the old RWR. Speaking of Heatblur, notice they are doing it in from new to old as well? We "can't cry over spilled milk" as the saying goes. It's done unfortunately. Hopefully if we ask ED and there is enough interest, they could make a flyable F-18A and other "A"s out there. As it is, honestly, I think it'd be more likely we'll see a F-18E module appear before we see an A.

Honestly, you are looking in the wrong place if you want balance in DCS. The only reason why I even want an F-18A is so my PVE and SP missions have period accurate aircraft. This is why I originally said: You can already achieve the balance that you want by simply restricting weapons that can be used. All of this is done by the mission maker. If you didn't know, all of the servers you play on was made using the mission editor. So the "balance" is decided by that mission designer. My argument for having F-18A and the like is so we can have period accurate aircraft, simple as that. Unfortunately and like I said earlier. People might not want to pay for that and it might not be worth it for ED as developing a variant still costs them money. Money they might not earn a profit from. Edit: It would be nice if ED restricted loadouts automaitcally be setting a mission date, expanding on the historical mode of the Mission Editor.

I might be wrong on this, but the F-18C we have actually has improved engines, so the "A" might not always be faster.

I would love to have multiple variants of an airframe per module. It is unfortunately not very easy to pull off. Devs would need to develop then maintain what is essentially more than 1 module for what is effectively the price of one. It's hard enough to maintain a single airframe per module. When it comes to Heatblur with the F-14 and Aerges with the Mirage F-1, this is a good sign as it sets a precedent for other 3rd parties to follow. Having multiple variants would definitely flesh out DCS even more. With the F-14 and the Mirage F-1 being able to realistically depict certain points in time realistically. Meanwhile if I want to fly an F/A-18A, best I can do as a mission maker is removing data-link, JHMCS and equipping the plane with period accurate ordinance. It still looks like a C Lot 20 on the inside and outside. Would people be fine with modules becoming more expensive to cover the cost of developing variants? I certainly would. Some people might not like it though, it is already pretty costly at 79.99 USD. What about making it an optional purchase? Module development is expensive as it is. What if not enough people opt in for buying the other variants? That could cause ED to have a net loss. As much as it sucks, ED is still a company with employees that need salaries so they can put food on the table.

DLSS might come to DCS.

Polychop Simulations OH-58 Kiowa 4k Picture

I found out that the AI F-15Cs had their jammer on and the R-27ERs were guiding themselves in HOJ mode.

They were equiped with ECM yes. I honestly didn't follow the wreckage of the plane as it was going down but I thought it was crazy how the ER was able to maintain guidance a full 20 seconds after the launching aircraft had already been destroyed. It's possible the launching aircraft's ECM was still active while it was going down though. However it would have surely hit the ocean by then Was the AI also jamming and had an R-27ER?

I'm building this SP mission and was testing out the AI when I noticed the R-27ER was able to guide itself 20 seconds after the Su-33 had already been shot down. I do hope the track file is able to catch it (knowing full well it tends to be unreliable). I also have the ACMI file from my tacview that I was able to record that I'll also provide. I'll also include the mission file so it can be recreated the way I set it up if ever the track doesn't work. I haven't been able test it thoroughly as I've only ran the mission twice and in both occasions the R-27ERs tracked after the destruction of the Su-33 that launched it. Not sure if this bug is exclusive to the Su-33 or the R-27ER or both. Possible R-27ER bug.trk F-18 Marianas Midday 2016 CAP-CV.miz Tacview-20210723-210320-DCS-F-18 Marianas Midday 2016 CAP-CV.zip.acmi

Flying Iron Simulations A-7E Development Pictures:

@DonutIt is being updated, look it has the most recent additions as "WIP" or "WIP 2.7"

Its a map asset, like how we see parked Mi-8s and other planes in Caucasus.

It's things like these that will definitely bring the battlefield to life, I wonder if you could even have some of these defensive positions have camo netting over them to make them harder to spot as is IRL.

Awesome idea, this will bring more life to DCS! I would definitely put the effort to add berms around SAM sites to better protect them! I just thought of this now but I think it would be great if we could also set a height for the berm. Within reasonable limits of course. Now what about the opposite end of the spectrum like anti-tank ditches or trenches for infantry? You could probably use splines to create trenches and ditches of various sizes! Here some examples:

I just recreated with the F-18, exactly the same thing happens. It seems to happen regardless of module.

This warehouse bug seems to break any custom warehouse of an airfield to persist onto any mission. Only fixed after a restarting DCS. So far I've only tested it with F-16s, I will come back and try other aircraft too. Steps to recreate: 1. Have a mission already prepared with custom warhouse and cold-start on any desired airfield on any map. (Provided: Limited Warehouse.miz) 2. Start DCS and run the mission (Limited Warehouse.miz) directly from the main menu via the "Missions" button. 3. Once mission is done loading, check the loadout screen and observe the now limited Ordinance (100x AIM-9L) 4. Now try to load another mission with supposedly Unlimited ordinance (Unlimited Warehouse.miz) 5. Go to the loadout screen and find the 100x AIM-9L to persist. Steps to fix the issue: 1. Exit DCS to desktop and start it again 2. Load any mission with a cold-start and Unlimited ammo enabled (Unlimited Warehouse.miz) 3. Go to loadout screen and see all weapons available again. However if you try to now load "Limited Warehouse.miz" you'll find the Unlimited Weapons will persist there as well. If you follow the steps to recreate above, but reverse with loading "Limited Warehouse.miz" 1st then "Unlimited Warehouse.miz" 2nd. The mission with limited weapons will now be broken and the unlimited ordinance persists there now instead. Limited Warehouse.miz Unlimited Warehouse.miz

A good work around for this is to add a spawn delay for the player. The position you spawn in depends on what slot is currently available at that moment. I think the way it handles it is fine for MP. Forcing a spawn point could create problems for MP. As it is now, you can have an essentially unlimited number of slots on the carrier but only a max of 16 (on initial server start) or 12 aircraft max at any given time after mission start. That being said, a work around for not being able to choose a spawn location in SP. You use late activate on a time delay. Say you want to take postion 16 of the super carrier (at the very back) for your mission. You simply have 15 AI either uncontrolled or active on the deck. After that, with a 1 second delay via trigger. Late activate the player. And you'll be on the 16th parking position. Another example, if you want to be on number 2 elevator and no aircraft parked infront of you in positions 1-4. Late activate the player 1 sec after mission start and on a 2 sec delay afrer mission start to spawn the rest of the aircraft on deck. It's not realistic and you'll start the mission in the F-10 map with a "flight is delayed" message on the top right. But with good trigger usage you can essentially put yourself in any of the parking positions you want. The only position you cant choose is 2-4 as those can only be accessed if you spawn on mission start. I know it sounds clunky but until this becomes a proper feature atleast there is a way to do it.

Yes, great idea! I'll just blow up the static aircraft on the deck of the carrier I took-off from so I can late activate new statics on the bow of the ship instead. Can't wait to land on a smoldering heap of wreckage 10/10

Might be a dumb question, but I assume this will be shipped with a "Deactivate Static" Trigger action?