gnomechild

Hello, not sure if this is a known issue already being looked at, but when doing helicopter sling loading online, there is a very high probability for the crate to teleport to a distant location right after its unhooked. It usually ends up underground. I don't have any useful tracks since this only happens online and I haven't set up an online mission short enough to get this in one track. I have lots of videos I will upload as well as some of the output from a script on my server that tracks the cargo location returned from the :getPoint() method on the static object. Here are some examples of the issue: Crate_Teleport.mp4 Crate Vanished.mp4 For that second video, this was the last recorded location of the crate before DCS considered it dead null @NineLine, sorry I appear to have accidentally posted this in the wrong forum section. Could you move this to multiplayer bugs for me?

Also really curious if there's any way to set the area for fog with the weather system in some way? Right now every fog effect is applied to the entire map, and the only way I've found to get fog in the mountains ends up with several thousand feet of fog at sea level. Hoping there's something more I'm missing because it's pretty hard to use anywhere without making the map look very odd

First off, thank you again for the amazing assets included with this pack provided to all of us for free. These are already some of my most used assets and are absolutely invaluable for cold war mission making. The L118 in particular is a huge addition to the game as up to this point there are no towed artillery units available to mission editors. However, there is a small issue with the ammunition provided for the L118. The gun is using the UOF412 shell which belong to the KS-19 AAA gun. It has a very high muzzle velocity, very flat trajectory, and (relatively) tiny warhead compared to an actual artillery shell. I recognize that this is most likely a placeholder ammunition until a 105mm shell is made for the game. But if I might make a recommendation, I would use any other artillery shell for a placeholder until the correct ammunition is available. The flat trajectory of the shell prevents the L118 from working as one would expect an artillery piece to work and the ability to engage units with indirect fire is EXTREMELY limited. For example, here are three different artillery pieces all set to fire at a point 12km away: My suggestion would be to replace the shell with the 122mm shell from the 2S1. It's a little bigger than the 105mm, but the gun functions much more like a real artillery piece when it's in there and the difference between a 122mm and a 105mm is much less than the difference between 105mm arty and 100mm AAA. I have tested it by replacing a line in the SA pack Launchers.lua from GT_t.WS_t.L118.LN[1].PL[1].shell_name = {"UOF412_100HE"}; to GT_t.WS_t.L118.LN[1].PL[1].shell_name = {"2A18_122"}; and it works great. Thanks again!

FYI this is included now. I'm not sure when it was added but it's here now. One of the ground crew dialogue options, not on the arming menu

Another day, another crash dcs.log-20240812-130208.zip

Have had DCS server crash twice in the last two days with the same error 0x000000000088bacf (DCS_server): SW + 0x3A217F 0x0000000000889658 (DCS_server): SW + 0x39FD08 0x0000000000887ad0 (DCS_server): SW + 0x39E180 0x000000000064fed6 (DCS_server): SW + 0x166586 0x00000000005e25ac (DCS_server): SW + 0xF8C5C 0x00000000000045ab (World): wSimTrace::CommandsTraceDiscreteIsOn + 0x3EB 0x0000000000004bc2 (World): wSimCalendar::DoActionsUntil + 0x262 0x0000000000904ff8 (DCS_server): SW + 0x41B6A8 0x0000000000904cd1 (DCS_server): SW + 0x41B381 0x000000000092a0b1 (DCS_server): SW + 0x440761 0x00000000008e4be4 (DCS_server): SW + 0x3FB294 0x00000000008e631d (DCS_server): SW + 0x3FC9CD 0x00000000022699e4 (DCS_server): AmdPowerXpressRequestHighPerformance + 0x11EB9E0 0x0000000000cbff5e (DCS_server): SW + 0x7D660E 0x0000000000017374 (KERNEL32): BaseThreadInitThunk + 0x14 dcs.log-20240810-201208.zip dcs.log-20240811-191742.zip

I think it's pretty clear the "misunderstanding" was the customer reaction and the position this put ED into. I imagine they were rather busy dealing with refund requests they'd rather not have this weekend lol. Hopefully lessons learned

Good decision. Hopefully in the future any internal worries about who models what can be hashed out before selling the product

Don't tell them that we'll lose even more

So Ugra complained about map encroachment a year after the fact, directly to OnReTech, and ORT removed content from the map immediately with no communication with customers. And throughout all of this nobody spoke to the company that actually owns and runs the game or thought that this was a completely terrible idea? Does this game feel like a bad joke to anyone else at times?

Just waiting for the inevitable poor soul to post something like this, "Just got back from a long break away from DCS, can't wait to fly some missions in northern Israel in my F-15E on Sinai!" Please OnReTech. Don't let this happen to your customers!

Yep. So now having a mission using both ends of Israel simply needs you to end your mission and open a new one. That sucks

Especially considering the rather famous history of air wars over both northern and southern Israel. Now instead of having a map with both we have two maps with neither! Great...

This is a terrible decision. Hopefully the map area can be restored. It seems bizarre that anyone would think it was a good idea to remove area and detail from a map that people have already purchased and have been making missions on.

Woohoo! Thanks Flappie!

Whenever you leave a server while controlling a CA unit as the game master (maybe JTAC but I haven't been able to check) the server crashes with no error log or crash report. Looking in the server log, the last entry is 2024-07-17 20:19:29.800 INFO ASYNCNET (Main): disconnecting client[4]: 2024-07-17 20:19:29.800 INFO APP (Main): Skip deleteDynGroupByUnitID, its not dynamic slot unit This is reproducible, I've done it a second time to make sure it wasn't a one-off

It looks kinda cool tbh just make the sun bigger

Yeah. It's very big

I have experienced the same crash on my server. Never seen it before until this patch. dcs.log-20240713-144201.zip

that doesn't change anything in DCS. Also, it's bigger than the sun even when the sun is on the horizon. Something is definitely off

Since the patch, slingloading is not working correctly in multiplayer. Still works fine in singleplayer. When you pick up a crate it bounces around and eventually collides with your aircraft. multiplayer track and video attached. O Slingin - Made With Clipchamp.mp4 nline Slingloading Issues.trk

Hello, I see in the roadmap that the only item for the BF RWR is planned incorporation of new sounds. I wanted to make a report of the discrepancies of how the current RWR functions in DCS by comparison to how it functions in the real work (to the best of my understanding) and see if Aerges is aware of these issues, if the issues are different in the CE than in other variants (my reference is an F1ED which uses the exact same rwr), and what the plans for the future are. Thanks! Radar Bands In real life the BF RWR is only capable of detecting threats in the S (2-4 GHz), C (3.7-4.2GHz), and X (8-12GHz) bands. null In DCS, the BF is capable of detecting every radar no matter what. Here is a screenshot of the RWR displaying directional information for an 1L13 EWR which transmits at a frequency of 180-220 MHz in the VHF band. Nature of Threat Lights Aside from the sounds which are already being adressed by Aerges, the issue with these lights is related to the above situation with radar outside of the S,C, or X bands. According to the usage described in the F1ED manual, when a threat is detected there should always be at least one of these lamps illuminated. Essentially the only threats displayed should be "you are being tracked", "you are being tracked by a radar with TWS", or "you are being illuminated by CW (probably being launched at by a SAM)" Additionally, in DCS the CW light illuminates as a launch warning for air-to-air threats even when being launched on by a radar which does not guide with CWI or from aircraft that do not change radar frequency during/after launch such as the Mirage F1 itself. Locked by Mirage F1: Launched on by Mirage F1: Since the Cyrano IVM does not change PRF or guidance type during launch, there should not be any difference displayed for STT vs Launch. This is true of a number of aircraft in DCS as well. Direction Indication It is also my understanding that just like the threat lights, the directional indicators for the BF should only display direction to the strongest radiation source detected, which should correspond directly to the nature of threat lamp that is currently illuminated. In DCS, the BF displays direction to every radar that it sees, making it effectively useless in a busy environment. Especially because it's displaying search radars which it should not detect. If you made it this far, thanks for reading. If any of my information is incorrect or not applicable to the BF RWR in the CE/EE please let me know.

Yeah. It's currently non-functional and dies when hooked up. But I was referring more to actual units within the game that can be used to fire rounds. Not much point slinging a howitzer around just for it to magically transform in to a self propelled gun

I have faith! That's good to hear, and thanks for the post. I have never succeeded in finding any useful information about the IVM so that's very interesting to read

So, I just realized this would require keybinds and stuff for the catapult hookup. So, that's probably already more effort than its worth. I personally find this very hard to believe. For one, the F-4E wouldn't really be carrier capable and people would probably get over the novelty of collapsing their gear on a carrier deck after 1-2 flights. For another, the only people who would bother doing this or even notice you could would be idiots like me who are so impatient for a Navy Phantom that they can't wait the ~5 years to get one in DCS. HB could even disable it once we had a real one. That said, after looking into it more this request requires a bit of actual development to make work which in my opinion makes this entire request a waste of time and not worth doing. I was really only wanting it as a mod option since right now the F-4E CTDs when you modify the lua to place it on a carrier. Either way these are good points so thanks for taking the time to reply