phantom0gritz

Just lost a couple hours of ME work. (yes I should probably save more often) Anyway, I was checking which missile did what in the encyclopedia from the ME and went to close back to the ME. In doing so I accidentally double-clicked the close/'X' button. This closed the Encyclopedia and the ME without the normal "Changes have been made. Would you like to save?" window prompt appearing. In effect it closed straight to the main menu without saving, nor did it ask if I wanted to save first. I thought maybe I otherwise muffed it somehow so I tried it again and sure enough double-clicking the close or 'X' button will close the Encyclopedia and ME without a save prompt contrary to any other time you go to close the ME.

It is my humble opinion that the AI needs to be named Donovin Allen Peters. (If you don't know why ask somebody.)

I can sort of see how, since my buddy and I would never have noticed if we weren't trying to force it to do the long shots. We thought AI skill level, approach angle, type of target, and whatever else we could think of. And if we hadn't been sitting there watching them duke it out from the F10 map we might never have noticed. Just chucking it up to mixtures of whatnots as to why F-14's weren't just kicking but in kills where AI is concerned.

As far as I can find this is the only thread talking about it.

Did not know that. Good to know. Hopefully it will get fixed soon. The whole draw of the 54 is its range, regardless of a hit. If the AI won't utilize it then the F-14 is, not pointless, but severely limited.

I think I get what you're trying to say but from what I understand the missile's capabilities are the same where it's shot from the HB F-14 or the ED one. All the missiles have their own flight model and guidance profile specific to that missile. That way they behave the same regardless of airframe onto which they are loaded. In this way the missiles behavior is separate from the aircraft in its function. The aircraft simply relays targeting information and the shot fails/succeeds based on that missile's capabilities versus the target's capabilities. The problem is that the AI aircraft will not engage with 54's until they are closer than what you would do for a 120 shot on another airframe. As it stands there is no point in putting 54's on a HB F-14 because you almost might as well have it use sparrows with how close the AI gets to the target.

While doing some work on a campaign the question came up of which AI aircraft is best for CAP. We assumed F-14 with 54's. Set a pair of 14's against a pair of 16's as a starting point to test this. The 14's lost every time because they would not fire until they were within 20'ish NM of the target. By that time the 16's had long since turned and launch 120's. We tried both of the Heatblur A and B 14's against said the 16's multiple times with different approaches and target reaction settings with no change. Then tried against something something bigger just to be sure (B-52's to be exact). The result was the same, AIM-54's at about 20NM. Just to be extra sure we set up the original DCS F-14A to see what would happen. AIM-54 shot at around 75NM for a kill. Almost forgot to mention that we tried all three 54 models. Also I posted this in Heatblur’s bug report section as well.

While doing some work on a campaign the question came up of which AI aircraft is best for CAP. We assumed F-14 with 54's. Set a pair of 14's against a pair of 16's as a starting point to test this. The 14's lost every time because they would not fire until they were within 20'ish NM of the target. By that time the 16's had long since turned and launch 120's. We tried both of the Heatblur A and B 14's against said the 16's multiple times with different approaches and target reaction settings with no change. Then tried against something something bigger just to be sure (B-52's to be exact). The result was the same, AIM-54's at about 20NM. Just to be extra sure we set up the original DCS F-14A to see what would happen. AIM-54 shot at around 75NM for a kill.

Last is a picture of one of the air borne subs. Two of the five subs were doing this and it made them susceptible to anti-ship missiles. The two floaters were sunk during the mission. However, this was not the case during a review of the track file. They neither floated nor were they sunk.

Haven't tried it with other vehicle yet because it. However telling a Type 093 Attack Submarine to attack another naval group caused the UI to freak out. Also a couple of subs started floating in the air but wasn't visible from the track file. I will post some photos further down to showcase what I am talking about. I tested this twice and had the same UI bug. Only way to get it to go away was to reset the game. First is the UI: Top is main screen middle is F10 map from within map shortly after the bug presented bottom is the mission editor Order they were taken was middle bottom top.

I personally would love to have this aircraft as full module as it is my favorite WWII aircraft. However, I will not accept() a Pacific Theater without them as at least AI assets. Appreciate all the hard work ED and I am greatly looking forward to this becoming a thing.

The cursor for the MPD's. It lets the pilot use the MPD's without taking your hands off the controls. I thought it was already mentioned somewhere but I can't remember where. And it is something I would assume is already there or being implemented but I thought I would mention it.

I am onboard with this. Never saw them used out side ferry flights personally but I agree that the adding them would be great as I can see their utility value. Being able to go this route and use the flat pack for ammo could be quite the useful option.

The addition of having to do this would be a great, "Good jobs devs!! I hate you." kind of moment. Something that is great for the system/game or what have you, and you love the that its there. But you curse the devs every time in a tongue-in-cheek kind of manner.

Hell ED, This is something that has been bugging me for a while but just kind of put up with for the most part. The tooltip is a great thing when learning aircraft and also if you are a more casual player. I think being able to map the both the tooltip toggle as well as the brightness setting for said message window would be a great addition. As it stands fight now, if you are in VR, for night missions in most aircraft you either need to fumble in the dark while look for the correct switches or get blinded by the notification window with NVGs. I personally try use NVGs where appropriate but the tooltip makes doing anything in the cockpit a literal pain as it attempts to permanently seer itself onto my retinas. Again the idea is to be able to adjust the tooltip brightness as well as toggle it all together from in the game. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Phantom0Gritz PS: I have attached screenshots in a pdf file showing the AV-8B, A-10C II, F-14B, and F/A-18C. Please note that this is with the NVGs brightness turned all the way down. It gets exponentially worse as the NVG's brightness goes up. NVG VR.pdf

I was having trouble with this but managed to figure it out. The mist script line you need is as follows mist.ground.patrol('group_name', way point type, formation type, speed) as an example mist.ground.patrol('Naval-1', turning, default, 25) The speed parameter can accept either a hard value as above or "default". The same should be for formation type (for ships this is the template drop down?) But I am not sure so I am using default for now. Ship only get the turning for the way point type so that is hard set. In the group name it has to match exactly and you need the apostrophes at the start and end of the name. (<- for the people who are fledglings like me) Tested it on a speed boat with time accel. Hope this helps.

Raptor9 you are right I, misspoke. I thought that the early capabilities had been de-classified with the latest iterations having much better capabilities put it was mistaken, so thanks for the correction.

Just putting it out there that the AGM-114 with laser tracking is perfectly capable of tagging any of the larger helicopters out of the air. Obviously not with 100% accuracy even without counter measures, I mean it is an AGM.

I think it would be best to have the Dero unit being permanent and the FCR itself as an option from the load out page. But this just my opinion as someone who has installed and removed IRL. Yes you would lose the weight of the Dero unit but I think making a permanent part of the 3D model would be easier on the DCS systems. I understand that its a delicate balancing act between realism and it being a game. But installing and removing a Dero unit requires some fairly in-depth maintenance where as installing the FCR is much simpler and take far less time. Again this simply mine own opinion. The only other option would be that you would have to choose which configuration to load within the mission editor before hand, but that would mean 2-3 3D models for one module and it seems somewhat excessive and not something I see the developers wanting or needing to do. Then again my understanding of how the models are made and the coding involved being called rudimentary would be kind so it might be a "relatively" simple thing to make all three configurations. Its ultimately up to the Dev team so we will have to wait and see.

That is good info because was curious myself. The K series will be more than enough for early access bug finding. Especially when trying out the buddy lase and hand offs. It will help when finishing the radar targeting for the L.

OP is right in his wanting this. The apaches load out is extremely versatile. You would often see multiples mixed load outs in the rocket pods. A combination of Illumes, flechette, and HE among others. The different hellfire loads are the same in that different missiles were leaded based on the mission. Also it's not uncommon to see one using the outboard pylons only with a rocket pod on one side and a hellfire rack on the other. Controlling and managing all this on the weapons page is an integral part of flying this aircraft. So yeah I support this idea whole heartedly.

The early iteration CMWS systems, which are what we would find on this block of aircraft, aren't classified as far as their operational capabilities go. But that wasn't really why I was asking. It more because of what you mentioned about the EWAR state of DCS as a whole. I was just wondering if it would be was going to be there or not. The LWR/RWR systems are probably plenty for the current state of DCS. I just added it as a bit of curiosity.

Hello ED, I am only writing this as a wish list for things to break on the knew AH-64D. I worked as a 15Y for 15yrs which means I as a repair and maintainer on the weapons, avionics, and electrical systems. So this module is very near and dear to my heart. Some if not all of these things would most likely be a pain(sleep depriving nightmare) to code but would make the aircraft much more fun (for me at least). -Having the redundancy systems kick on after certain amounts of damage. Specifically the display systems. Your Army liaison should be able to tell you if you don't already know. - Be able to break the gun by short changing the bursts. Its actually the ammo handling that breaks but the end result is that the gun doesn't work anymore. If the ammo handling system isn't allowed to spool all the way up and down during gun bursts the system will eventually if not right then and there snap the carriers apart. Thus depriving the gun of it's ammo. -ROBI tanks vs flat packs. Making the use of the Robinson Auxiliary Fuel/Ammo Combo pack and the 1200 round flat pack a load out option would be awesome. - I didn't see a CMWS panel in the photos so I was wondering if we are simply getting an early model or none at all. Best of wishes with the project and can't wait to fly it.

This aircraft is going to be awesome. It is much more complex than any of the current ones in it's operation. Learning both the front and back seats in how they work is going to be almost essential in order to get proficient. And once you fly with a real person in the opposite seat you will never want to do otherwise again. This aircraft keeps both seats busy all the time.

I creates an overlay/HUD type of vision. It is a bit weird at first. But once you a used to it, it is very useful.