StevanJ

Double checked, no awacs, lots of Russian ewr lots of Russians sams, all that happens here is I fly over a farm where two neutral harriers take off. then the awacs goes crazy despite their no awacs in the game.

Really ? Wow, Heatblur and AvioDev were really helpful and said that 'they'd look towards getting it done', But i think it was more than a year away from the sounds of things.. Minority were not.. I work away, and myself and two others fly daily from laptops as its not practical to take the HOTAS when we travel. Plus, there are alot of guys on VTOL VR who jump into DCS, In my squad alone 9 out of 11 of us just stick with the VR controllers. If you look up Tactical Pascales video on 'DCS WORLD | Oculus Quest 2 : Touch Controls' You can see just how many people in the comments box are doing it too. I mean why would you buy a HOTAS for nearly £300 when you can get a quest 2 for the same money and play in 3D? Yeah, I end up having to go back to my HOTAS for Il2, But thats for different reasons. Maybe we need a new section in the forums to see what numbers we could muster? Alot of these kids who play on quests, arent the type to come chat in the forums..

Anyone know why this happens? Or where its coming from, there is no AWACS in the mission. All that happens, is two planes take off.. Im looking to stop the Radio chatter/spamming, but i need the aircrafts radio on for later on so i cant just turn it off..

Does anyone know if Wake Island is going on the map?

Any movement on this?

Have you tried sending a PM over to Razbam and the others to see if its going to happen? Ive tried to raise this in the forums, but it always gets ignored. No one i fly with uses a HOTAS anymore..

You mean like this? The second video shows the small FW190D cant take off in time because its too far forward on the runway.. You have to make the plane lighter by lowering the fuel load (i lowered it to 10% and it just makes it, but obviously it ends up coming back to land, as its out of fuel on takeoff). Otherwise, if you feel its not correct, you could always report it as a bug if you can can showcase your issues with videos and a track?

Its a cool plane huh? Love that thing.

Thanks for this, but i dont play missions with the WW2 Asset Pack.

bounce.trk Track, This wasnt the mission, i ended up scrapping it as it couldnt work.. This was just something i made that i know causes the bounce. The bounce also happens the longer the mission goes on, If im flying in a '4', by the end of the mission, my wingman are all dead from crashing into each other or they are quite literally spinning and bouncing around my cockpit like theyre laser beams. Its that bad. This was the mission i was trying to recreate 'Following a lead', but it doesnt work as the AI bounces if you get too close. Its as if the AI doesnt see me on his wing, despite him turning his head every two seconds, and gets an 'Altitude!' Warning and pulls up, despite me being on his 4 o'clock in formation..

Can confirm, ive been trying to make a formation flight mission, where you 'follow your lead', but if you go near him he takes off into the air like he's on a bungee, if he was pulling away, id get it. But its like someones hiking the AI up with a string. Keep an eye on the F15 at the end, As he pushes his nose down, he flies straight and true. then continues to bounce around..

So you were trolling us?!

Youre title is 'Please make rough ground traversable (taxiable) for planes close to FARP'.. And your opening statement was; "Currently, most planes can't drive on rough ground ('grass'): once they stop, they remain stuck. Some planes (e.g. Hornet, Falcon, Su-27) can taxi on grass, but they are the exception, and that is fine. With one exception: Close to a FARP we should be able to taxi on rough ground, as we should assume that the ground was prepared for plane traversal by the field engineers. I'd like to see an option (as radius around the FARP in feet/meters) where planes can taxi on any terrain just like they would on a runway." SO- When i said; "He wants the 'taxi on grass' scenario extended to the A10.. " Was i mistaken? Are you okay?

Yeah, ive seen that- Ive also seen this thread from my understanding, @cfrag wants to land his A10C in a grass field, load it up with munitions, and then take off again. Thats all he wants, his argument, is that he can do it in the F-18, Mig etc. He wants the 'taxi on grass' scenario extended to the A10..

We have that, its called the invisible FARP. Ive just made a mission in Syria, where i take off, land at a Makeshift highway strip, and take off.. It took me two minutes.. Everything you can imagine, landing in the middle of nowhere.. Repair, rearm, refuel.. All in a little southern Syrian Village north of the Iraq border. Do i want the ability to myself or allow others to taxi straight through grass, onto the runway and full burn into the air? No. Play multiplayer and youll understand. I think your 'want' to taxi on grass is extrememly far fetched, Im with those that want the grass to 'stop' any aircraft that goes into it.. I would however like a concrete tile, which is where i hope youd go with this, but it appears you arent. Check this out.. Then when you read more about the possibility of 'aircraft taking off from unprepared strips' 'Soft ground trials at Pensacola in June 1961: the second Freedom Fighter prototype with larger tires on the main and two-wheels on the front landing gear, later removed. Trials included landing in 1300 ft/396m on grass and taking off with a maximum load in less than 2'500 ft/762m. USAF inscription was replaced by "Army" in September 1961 for additional tests at Pensacola NAS.' It failed tests and trials, it just wasnt feasible. Do i want to introduce 'unfeasible ideas into DCS?' -No, because where do we stop? Flyable carpets? Burrito missiles? An anti air boomerang thrown by an insurgent 76 miles away? Theres a reason, why you arent able to bring proof of concept to the forum, and not to be negative, but its because it just couldnt happen and theres proof it never has. Thats why the harrier stopped existing. Missiles can now travel further than any airplane. Even during World War 2 bombers werent able to takeoff off from unsuitable airfields, never mind runways. There is no event realistic, or unrealistic, where an aircraft 'should' takeoff from grass outside World War 2, Watch what happens when a eurofighter 'touches grass' by accident on a prepared runway, and airfield. Now look at the damage to the grass, if that was a runway, youd now be expected to turn the jet around and take off even though that grass landing area was damaged. The risk of damaging the aircraft has increased dramatically. The aircraft will now sit on the grass while the 'damage' is repaired, and the £20million jet is now a target that sits and sinks on the grass. What youre asking for is a 'landing area', and every map has these areas scattered around. You just need to find one, and work with them. Ill agree that a concrete tile is wanted, an ability 'to land on grass for fun' isnt.. And yet you still have that ability with all the jets that have an afterburner. Id love another opinion, but unless you can strengthen your opinion, or back up the idea with proof of concept, im against it, But that doesnt mean that everyone else is. Someone else might think it be a good idea..

Well there you go, all you have to do is share pictures of these planes taking off and landing on unprepared airfields, and we'll have an argument. However, from my search- every single time a plane 'operates' from anywhere, there is a line of 'preperation', and thats your problem. A while back an SU27 landed on a road, and actually hit a road sign, despite all the preparation involved (cleaning and blocking off the road); "The roadway had been prepared for the tactical exercise in advance by removing some road signs and lamp posts in the planned landing area. Police also blocked access to the roadway. Pyrotechnics were also set off to scare birds away from the area to prevent bird-strike." After the first SU hit the sign, the other SU's waved off, because `if theres a risk to damage' its not worth doing. While FARPS exist, they are extremely well prepared areas, that come with an huge amount of forward thinking, I seriously doubt any of them would ever allow any jet aircraft to 'taxi on grass'.. This is what happens when a harrier actually lands on grass..

Ive looked over the maps, there are plenty of places in every single map (especially Syria, and Persian Gulf), that fill your needs. Try making the mission youre talking about, floating it on the user files page, and then gauging the feedback through the forum. If the feedback is good, youll probably gain more leverage in your argument.

So i made a mission that ran upto 3 hours long, You take off at dusk and join up with your lead, find a boat- while 2nd element goes off and defends you. Depending on how how you destroy that boat, opens up an alternative mission where you have an option to fly over to the tanker, refuel and get some situational awareness back before following your Lead over to a JTAC and finish mission beyone enemy lines, You even take on a squad if youre 'seen' by enemy radar. No one liked it, they found it boring.. Their argument 'It seemed like a job'. No matter what i did to make that mission exciting through the 3 hours, nothing made it fun.. Instead of the whole squad loving that mission, one person liked it. And so i realised, everyone wants to have fun, but not everyone wants to actually be a pilot, they just want the escape.. If i fly online, with others, then yeah a long mission can sometimes be fun, but if your on your own, you get bored really quick.. Dont be put off, just make sure you cover the problems that i experienced.

So ive just spent some time looking into this in terms of it actually being feasible. And no matter which way i try and find a solution, its just not going to happen. And its down to risk of damage to engine. Youre looking at this wrong. Concrete tiles added maybe, but to taxi on grass would be a massive safety risk to the pilot.. Many years ago (late 90's), i attended a two day airshow at Elvington. There were two harriers flying display. They landed once then took off. The next day, they weren't allowed to land. Because their engines had sucked up and damaged the runway (genuinely- If you saw elvington, youd understand). The problem with this set up is that it would never happen. And there is no proof that is has ever happened (with the exception of lighter prop aircraft, or those specifically designed to land on rougher strips- ie Maybe the c130 at a push). Even the Swiss- who operate F5's from mountain hangers and extra wide 'Roadstrips', go to extreme precautions just to make sure there is 0 risk of damage to an engine. They block traffic and clean the highways in preperation. My understanding from small amounts of research, is that in the event that a fighter accidentaly taxis over grass, the first instant is to power down as the engine would just suck up dirt and debris. Its a fun idea, but so are UFO interceptions, and as the proof for either of them is near 0, i think were better playing the odds. Even having a cow near a £50 million FA18, would be a seriously bad idea because of the preference of manure. I would however like 'concrete tiles' in so that i could create and make farps more easily. But the current system with grass is more than fine. Im 100% sure no Airforce in the world would allow, any aircraft over £20 million to 'taxi on grass', even a hardened grass runway is a no for sophisticated jet planes.. However, a 'concrete tile' is a very good idea, that would allow us to expand on farps for the occasional 'Highway strip' mission. Even so, those missions are more rare than unicorn poop.

You should try the Yak-52

Any feature that makes light work of a heavy feature is welcomed, especially if it helps new players get into the action quicker. Your request might be a welcome one, you should definitely add it to the ME Feature request, make sure you add plenty of pictures of road bases and videos to back up your request. Alot of people are on your side with regards to the FARP, thats why we had an invisible FARP added to the ME.

While it has an abilitity to lift off from an unpaved runway, there is no realistic or semi-realistic moment where it can taxi through grass. The same even applies to the FA18, the FA18 is your compromise. The ground is fine. If you feel like something isnt represented very well in game, all you need to do is bring a picture or video to back you up on subject, and argue that it should be in game. You wont ever find a video or picture of an A10C operating in grass, unless its an RC Model. You might and probably will find pictures of many differing aircraft stuck in grass.

Thanks, If youd ever like another- Just let us know using the link in the Campaign..

Can we have some kind of feedback in regards to VR touch control- and flying with them in the game, im aware the FA18, F16, among others are enabled, but I fly with 9 other people that use them, instead of a HOTAS (as we play on laptops when working away). And we dont really know what the plans are for them towards the future, epecially 3rd party modules. Theres also no validation for us, when buying new ED modules wether or not, they have the VR touch controls enabled, and that prevents us from buying them until 'Free to play' events are on and we can see for ourselves. Their seems to be a big demand, and yet we've not really got any direction towards them with DCS.

You can add scenery destruction in the mission editor, just assign it to a mission start trigger, and away you go..