Yurgon

This was caused by a change to the way DCS handles radio transmissions. DCS now adds static on top of whatever effects mission designers already put in the audio files. As I understand it, there will be a way for mission designers to deselect this effect, but it's not ready yet. Are you sure it's the AM? When I last tested it, AM and UHF were fine, but FM was really hard to understand through all the static.

Wenn ich es richtig sehe, kann die JTAC-Einheit das Ziel nicht sehen und ist deshalb nicht in der Lage, es mit dem eigenen Laser zu beleuchten. Als Folge davon wird vor der 9-Line ein "Type 3" Tasking gegeben, bei dem ein Lasern durch den JTAC auch eher ungewöhnlich wäre. Ich habe in deiner Testmission ziemlich viel den JTAC und das Ziel hin- und hergeschoben. So richtig zuverlässig klappt das mit dem Lasern durch den JTAC nur, wenn JTAC und Ziel unter 1.000 Fuß voneinander entfernt stehen - auch wenn ich die Einheiten so platziere, dass der JTAC das Ziel auf 6.000 Fuß mit bloßem Auge sehen können müsste, und mit Fernglas und Laserzielbeleuchter erst recht. Der Indikator ist im JTAC-Dialog immer, ob der JTAC ein "Type 2" oder ein "Type 3" gibt. Bei Type 2 klappt es mit dem Lasern, bei Type 3 nicht (in DCS 2.9.7 - mit der Realität hat das wenig zu tun). Spontan habe ich erstmal keinen Weg gefunden, dass der JTAC konsistent Type 2 gibt und das Ziel selbst lasert - scheint, dass man das immer ausprobieren muss. Und viel Spaß, wenn sich eine der Einheiten später mal bewegen soll, dann lässt sich gar nicht mehr vorhersagen, was der JTAC macht. Eine Idee könnte sonst noch sein, eine MQ-1 oder MQ-9 zu verwenden, die sollten wenigstens gute Sicht auf das Ziel haben (und Wolken sind denen im Moment meines Wissens noch komplett egal ).

Since it seems neither of us is sure what exactly is optimized in the ORP solution, I retain that it's possible this might refer to the bomb's ballistic properties, and how the bang-bang guidance is certainly not improving upon the trajectory. I think I tested BAL and ORP with a dozen or so drops in DCS after a similar discussion and couldn't find a conclusive pattern of either of these falling consistently longer or shorter than the other. Barring input from real life pilots, I guess it remains guesswork.

Definitely the more comprehensive answer! What I find a bit odd - and it happens every now and then - is when people are given a perfect answer, they respond "Thank you" and then mark that "Thank you" as the solution. To each their own, I guess... Interesting! I tend to believe that the A-10's IFFCC drops LGBs a bit long to give them more energy than a purely ballistic trajectory. However I've also heard that they might be dropped a bit short to allow the laser more time to "see the basket" of the laser illumination. Looks like it's the latter. Isn't that the "ORP" solution, the "Optimal Release Point"? (I half cheated. Typed it, and then confirmed it in the DCS manual ).

We'd need to see a few short tracks to make any definitive statement. It sounds like that's on the edge of the envelope. In CCRP, the bomb will start to fall on a ballistic trajectory, meaning the seeker can't pick up the laser reflection right away. When you do a high altitude drop and switch to the F6 camera, you can see the exact moment the bomb picks up the laser and starts to guide. From low altitude drops, there's a risk that the seeker takes too long to pick up the laser reflection and by that time the bomb might no longer be able to guide to the target. Only a track can tell what's happening there. I agree that a well executed CCIP release with pipper on target should be fairly accurate. On the other hand, maybe it's not CCIP that's too inaccurate - maybe it's CCRP with dumb bombs that's too accurate? Interesting. The seeker should pick up the laser spot right away. But maybe the bomb needs a little time to stabilize before it starts guiding? Or it just can stabilize fast enough and is still in the phase of overcorrecting and thus misses the target? Or maybe there's a seeker activation delay after release? Maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in.

The best way is to prevent it from developing in the first place. Fly really smooth. Absolutely no sudden changes in any direction. Everything needs to be super chilled. Barring issues with the way DCS handles external loads, they will only start to swing when given an impulse, and this impulse is almost always caused by pilot input. When the load starts to swing, you can simply fly straight and level and wait for the load to stop swinging. With "side to side 10", that should take no more than maybe 15 to 30 seconds of straight flight where the load is not given any additional impulse. You can also try to anticipate where the load is swinging and try to actively give it a counter-impulse. Of course if you do it wrong, the oscillations might get even worse. Another idea would be to enter a level turn with maybe 15° or 20° angle of bank. I'd say it's probably the centrifugal force that has the biggest impact in stabilizing the external load then, but don't quote me on it, I'm a layman at best when it comes to physics. If all else fails, you might want to map the hook emergency release - it's there for a reason, and I guess you'd rather drop whatever is hanging under your helicopter than be ripped apart by it. If you can recreate the issue in a short track, we might be able to give more specific advice - the video doesn't show how the load started to swing.

So als Theorie, könnte es sein, dass du die Maussicht ein- oder ausgeschaltet hast, was bei Verwendung von TrackIR oder VR aber sonst nicht auffällt? Wenn das wieder passiert, einmal LAlt + c drücken oder einen Doppelklick auf die mittlere Maustaste. Klappt es dann wieder mit dem Umschauen?

What I've read so far is that the cockpit textures are relatively large. Players have had performance improvements by manually reducing texture size using a variety of tools. You might want to search this forum for some ideas in this regard. I think ED are aware and are looking at performance improvements down the road as well.

Thanks! Yeah, seeing the same. There have been similar reports, but I'll have to double-check whether this is already known or maybe a slightly new issue.

If that means that everything works without hassle, it's probably worth it.

Looks like I'll get a chance to see Gutalax again next month, that's gonna be one big party!

Like I said, it's kind of a gut feeling. I don't have the first version of the Chinook available and can't cross check. Maybe my muscle memory has just caught up? It used to feel like a sudden, random, uncommanded pitch change that required immediate and heavy counter-cyclic. Now I'm seeing a gradual pitch change that can be countered with fairly moderate cyclic. Maybe it's just a placebo and the flight model is still the same, I can't say for sure.

This has been an issue from day 1 on. However, purely from feel I'd say it's actually been tackled with one of the previous patches, at least to a certain extent. The Chinook used to nose dive or nose climb from straight and level for absolutely no apparent reason. What I see in your track is the helicopter either accelerating or decelerating, and changing its pitch. I'm about as far from an expert on tandem rotor physics as it gets, but my understanding thus far is that because of the tilt difference between the fore and aft rotor heads, it's actually correct that pitch will change with airspeed, in turn requiring pilots to adjust cyclic pitch (pull for acceleration, push for deceleration, IIRC). And now I'm venturing into an almost undiscovered country: if I understand correctly, there's a thing called longitudinal cyclic trim (LCT) which will take care of this pitch change and make sure that pilots won't have to pull/push cyclic manually when they go through a certain speed regime. And, you've probably guessed it: LCT is not yet implemented. With a couple hours under my belt, I do find it fairly straightforward to anticipate the pitch change that'll happen somewhere between 80ish to maybe 120ish knots airspeed or so, and adjust cyclic pitch (and trim) accordingly. Long story short and tl;dr: WIP

Can you show that in a short track?

Dem Smiley nach zu urteilen bin ich mir recht sicher, dass razo+r das schon klar war. Ich glaube wir können uns alle drauf einigen, dass der ATC in DCS bislang etwas arg rudimentär ist.

Gute Frage! Ich wüsste erstmal keinen Weg; das einzige was mir einfällt wäre mittels getVelocity die Geschwindigkeitsvektoren zu holen und über deren zeitliche Veränderung die Beschleunigung abzuleiten. Kann aber sein, dass die zeitliche Auflösung zu gering ist, um da sinnvolle Werte zu bekommen. Ich drücke die Daumen dass sich jemand besser auskennt. Vielleicht @funkyfranky? Sonst würde es sich lohnen, im englischsprachigen Teil zu fragen und beispielsweise Grimes anzupingen.

That's odd. I don't see a folder called "avionics" in the mission file that you uploaded in the first post. I can also say with certainty that I was able to recreate the issue you described with that mission file, and that the issue was gone as soon as I had deleted the "DSMS" folder from a copy of the mission and then ran that mission-copy, without changing anything else. Anyway, good to know it's working now, even though I don't understand why.

Haha, das ist wirklich Ansichtssache. Wenn der ATC wenigstens nur Advisories geben würde (Windrichtung, QFE/QNH, vorgeschlagene Runway, Vektoren zum Flughafen), dann wäre das ja okay. Aber wenn mir die Startfreigabe für komplett freie Runways verweigert wird oder ich eine Freigabe kriege, während andere Maschinen im Endanflug sind, dann ist das nicht nur nutzlos, sondern direkt gefährlich, und damit finde ich es besser, gar keinen ATC zu verwenden.

No, why would I? I created a copy of the mission, edited the copy in 7Zip, and then ran the copied mission. Errr... Please upload a track.

Can you upload a track? I just ran your mission (and installed the Herc mod because otherwise I couldn't load the mission...), confirmed the issue, went ahead and deleted only the DSMS folder from the mission, ran it again and this time I could rearm entirely new weapons, reload DSMS, everything was peachy.

Ich konnte das Problem reproduzieren und hab gleich noch eins in Zusammenhang mit MP-Servern gefunden. Ist jetzt intern berichtet.

Sehr löblich. Ich hab das gerade mal auf einem eigenen Server ausprobiert und sehe da das gleiche Problem. Werde nochmal schauen, dass ich auch wirklich nichts verkehrt gemacht habe, und dann einen Bugreport einreichen.

Es ist inzwischen für Missionsdesigner möglich, den ATC komplett stumm zu schalten. Ohne zu wissen, um welche Server es geht, kann man das also nicht beurteilen. Wenn du noch weißt, auf welcher Map und auf welchem Flughafen du gestartet bist, können wir zumindest mal überprüfen, ob es komplett kaputt ist oder im Prinzip funktioniert. Wobei ich mich frage, warum man im Multiplayer mit dem In-Game ATC spricht; aus meiner Sicht trägt der nicht zur Immersion bei, und außerdem ist er so rudimentär, dass es keinerlei Deconfliction zwischen rollenden, startenden und landenden Flugzeugen gibt, oder?

Short. Please provide a short track. I ran a quick test mission and can't confirm your observation. In this mission, I set up 6 BTR-80. Killed 2 of them with Maverick (2 * Score + 10), had my wingman kill 2 with Maverick (Score unchanged because it only counts vehicles killed by the player), and then mopped up the last two with gun (CM). The first +10 was awarded right away, the last one took a minute or so to die completely. Ultimately, my score was 40, which is perfectly in line with my 4 vehicle kills.