Dscross

I had a double shot a Mig-23's today. I got them on TWS at 110 miles. I was 40,000 and Mach 1.1 They were around 450 knots @ 31,000. I fired at when lead was at 42 miles, trail was at 45 miles. Both missiles...missed. But that being said. After fighting all sorts of stupid things on the tomcat today, and yesterday, and yeah... I think it's Jester not the missiles. He clicked something in the back, and I think he screwed up the track. He's been not imputing waypoints from map marks correctly, and yes, I've checked the alignment. He is losing tracks, can't hold a lock or get a lock. I end up doing it all myself because Jester is so badly screwing things up. So. I don't think it's just the AIM-54 (part of it certainly is) But I think jester is the problem. Something is VERY broken with him. He is messing up alignments, messing up waypoints, can't run the radar. I had resigned myself to only using jester for TWS shots at medium range, running the targeting pod, and inputting waypoints. But now Jester can' t do any of those things except see through clouds with the targeting pod.

we're going to do some testing.

I was flying on a server with turbulence and jetwash enabled. I was in an F-14 running the VX4 skin. My buddy was in a JF17 sitting in parking doing a rearm. He opened his canopy for me to do a supersonic low altitude pass. I came in at Mach 1.1 about 50 or less over his canopy. THen...he died. The server didn't ding me for a team kill, but he blew up just as I passed. (there were no enemy forces nearby, kill feed said "crashed"). I flew back over and got this screenshot. First jetwash kill? Anyone had this happen before? I'm assume that there was some desync, jetwash slapped his wing or something into the ramp? any other ideas?

I got the same. Here is the log. 00054.089 STATUS: Removing obsolete files... 00054.332 ERROR: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00054.332 INFO : Sleeping for 0.100000 seconds... 00054.437 ERROR: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00074.592 STATUS: Got RETRY when asked to retry: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00074.592 ERROR: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00075.891 STATUS: Got RETRY when asked to retry: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00075.892 ERROR: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00076.759 STATUS: Got RETRY when asked to retry: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00076.759 ERROR: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00077.755 STATUS: Got RETRY when asked to retry: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00077.756 ERROR: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00078.238 STATUS: Got RETRY when asked to retry: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00078.238 ERROR: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00078.671 STATUS: Got RETRY when asked to retry: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00078.671 ERROR: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00079.410 STATUS: Got CANCEL when asked to retry: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00079.981 STATUS: Can't delete E:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\CoreMods/aircraft/C-101/bin/C101Core.dll: (5) Access is denied. 00081.823 === Log closed. FYI I haven't' upgraded any computer parts recently or changed drives in at least 4 patches. Also, I do run this as admin, it's my computer no one else touches, etc. Just so we can rule out people pointing out stuff that isn't relevant. I'm going to delete the C-101 and try again. @comcat are you running the C-101 as well? Just trying to track down the issue.

Hey at least you replied, As to number 1, I don't know what resources ED has or doesn't' have, nor do I know what such a simulation would entail. However, I do know that Combined Arms, and the overall general dismal quality of damage models of ground and Naval units is a blemish on the overall reputation of Eagle Dynamics. You produced a product which implied it was of a standard. However, it fails in every way of meeting the overall stellar simulations of aircraft in DCS world. As to number 2, When John Rockefeller was in starting standard oil, he didn't wait for people to knock on his door, he pulled every string, lobbied to make whaling illegal, (whale oil being a then competitor of kerosine, gasoline was a byproduct.), I.E., he turned a waste product (gasoline) into a business, Henry Ford did the same thing with wood shavings, starting Kingsford charcoal made from the shavings of wooden wheel spokes. Seems sort of like ED treats CA like a byproduct or waste with the lack of support, lack of updates, and abysmal damage modeling. Point 2 "No base for such a simulation". Isn't there? Do other games, simulations, etc. not have more realistic damage models for ground vehicles? Again, I hate to bring it up, but go watch a kill camera of a tank from war thunder. It's shameful that CA isn't even close to that level. Furthermore, most modern Armed Forces own, use, train on, and sponsor simulators for armor. There are rows and rows of M1 tank simulators for training American tankers. I'm sure other nations do as well. Therefore, I would disagree that there is no basis or foundation to begin with. Sounds like no one is looking for a solution. Combined arms, at least in my opinion, is a stain on Eagle Dynamics. It doesn't get fixed, or even marginally improved. It's still sold. Again, it's not just people who want a tank simulator who are being short changed. Anyone who has ever dropped a bomb on a tank, missed by 5 or 10 feet, and the tank is still in perfect condition. Let me ask you, have you ever fired a Harpoon into a ship in DCS? Damage models. Those unworkable damage models of ships, ground units, and might I ad... trees, bring down the whole emersion factor of the sim for everyone. And here's the kicker. Eagle Dynamics made this product. So... when the company has more interest in... say allowing a 3rd party developer to hold exclusive rights to develop a module for over 10 years and never finish it, than fixing what you've already made, and people have reasonable complaints about? That's not reassuring from a consumer point of view. (How and in what universe was that not a breach of contract? You guys need new lawyers, like really bad.) Here's my advice, start with something small, that will directly relate to combined arms, while also benefiting the customer base as a whole. Perhaps separating a MBT into 3 sections, hull, turret, tracks/wheels. Give these three separate systems differing levels of damage resistance. This would allow pilots to knock the tracks off an MBT, or blow the tires on a Stryker, something I experienced firsthand when my unit would hit an IED. (Which were usually much smaller than a Mk82...) Tires would blow, a fuse would pop, everyone inside was usually fine. A tank could get its turret knocked off the rollers by a near miss from a large bomb, then the ammo truck could fix it in a set amount of time. (Just spit balling here) Now that to me sounds like expanding what you've done already and wouldn't be reinventing the wheel so to speak. It would also show me as a costumer that you are attempting to keep your product up to date and give costumers results instead of ignoring our requests and complaints with excuses that don't hold water. You're telling me you don't have the staff or resources when 3-4 new maps, and how many modules are in development announced recently? Sure, those are third party, but ED staff needs to test every module for release. Someone has to read the proposals, check how the modeling will be done, check the code... Does ED not have a team to correct faults? make fixes? Write improved code? Develop better damage models? Perhaps task them with doing the job of making a fix for CA... you know like it's their job or something. Don't tell me you don't have the staff. You aren't using the staff or recourses you have to correct your past mistakes. You're making new ones, like allowing a third-party developer to put an advertising object in static objects? That was just shamefully tacky. How many modelers did it take to make that mechanical billboard? Why don't you task each of the third-party developers with making a small improvement to Combined Arms, you know, as the price of doing business? Heat blur did the Forrestal? why not an armored recovery vehicle? Razbam made the excavator, the stupid orca I'd like to turn into jet fuel (whale oil...kerosine... standard oil...) and the shameless billboard, I bet they can model a tank tread with a damage model. (Indestructible like the castle class... Seriously, what the hell is wrong with that ship? It made out of unobatanium?) Recently, ED has announced work on "Black Shark 3". You are honestly telling me that ED staff is spending time to remodel and retextured a prototype helicopter that never got weapons certified, rather than give the community of nerds who read NATOPS manuals (myself included) a correct tank, or even marginally better ones? What's next, a UFO simulator? I guess it's easier to model vehicles that aren't real as there's no one to tell you that it's wrong. (Me imagining all the Combat Veteran KA-50 pilots and ground crews explaining things to ED coders...) Clearly Combined Arms isn't a priority, that much is very clear. And that's a shame because I think ED's business could really expand if some work was directed at this. If you lack the resources, ask for help. Like half the people I meet in DCS have a military background of some sort. Then there are coders, tank museums, and half the VFW halls in the United States have an M48 or M60 in front of them. And it isn't just the USA, there are military veterans from probably every armed force on earth that play DCS. You can't find anyone to help? I guess I'll put it this way; I'm interested in putting together a team to make full fidelity ground vehicles for DCS world. What do I need to do? Who wants to help? Ground vehicles and ships are a critical part of DCS. They are the targets we get to attack; they are the ground forces we want to help move towards and objective. Air Forces exist to support ground forces, because ground forces win wars and being pain and destruction to the enemy on a very personal level. If you're targets aren't even remotely realistic, then the immersion is destroyed, and it's just a hit points video game. Come on, show me a blown off track or a magazine detonation with a turret flying off. My name on Discord is Dscross#3705. I can give you a list however many pages long you want of small, medium, and large improvements you could make to improve Combined Arms.

@e32lover Yes you can have ships not fire at specific units. If a unit it invisible, the AI on the opposing team won't see it, therefor won't engage it. When you make a unit, go to the advanced waypoint options menu, perform command, "invisible" (make sure the box is checked.) Then if later you want the unit to be engaged, or say you want the ship to start shooting at a very specific range you can go to "triggered actions" and put "invisible off" (uncheck the box). Then set a trigger such as "unit inside moving zone" and set the moving trigger zone of your chosen size and hook it to the ship. That way when the aircraft gets to, let's say 5 miles, the ship will start shooting at it. Furthermore you can also set a minimum / max height for the ship to engage targets. Let's say only target between 10,000-20,000 feet, then have you aircraft fly outsize that altitude range. You could also set your triggered actions to a specific altitude, for example triggered when unit is above 1000 AGL, or above a specific speed. There's a few ways to do it I guess is my point. Oh, and FYI the AI is broken as all get out. Even at the lowest level ground units will still pilot snipe you if given half a chance. Real soldiers sleep, take bathroom breaks, and can't stay on alter 24/7. The AI can. Keep that in mind. I personally tend to restrict the ranges on the air defense systems in my missions based on how the unit performs. I want them to perform more realistically, so I usually limit them to about 60-65% almost always as this baseline gives good performance and still enables them to shoot. I hope that helps you out. Feel free to message me either on these forums or on discord if you have any more questions that I might be able to help with. Dscross#3705 on discord.

@HC_Official One of the guys in my squadron got to jump from one in the army. 4-6 paratroopers, sometimes almost sitting on one another's laps could (barely) fit in the back. The height of the cargo area and the vertical stabilizer was designed so that a 1ton truck could back up to it and load straight across. A Broncho could also carry all it's own ground support equipment and tools in the back. I want to say that the cargo bay could carry about 3600 pounds Maybe 2 tons but I'm not 100% on that. I asked the guy in my squadron about the jumps, he said it was just like the rumor, pilot pulled the nose up hard and everyone falls out... Anyway there are a number of good (mostly correct) documentaries out there on Youtube, pilot interviews, observers, etc.

@icuham Thank you. I am on split air discord. Thanks again for the scripts, I think it'll be great fun for the squadron.

Thanks Badass1982 Why wouldn't it be useful in CSAR? You can land it anywhere. We've been flying it into farps, feilds, Tarawa, Carriers, etc. Obviously it's not going to work for water rescue stuff, but anything on land and it can probably get close

I've been loving the OV10, so have the guys in my squadron. We've set up a few little multiplayer missions. They're passworded, but if they are up the discord link for the password and all that is in the mission/ server description. We'll warmly welcome OV10 pilots. (A4's as well...) Search "AIN_" or and you should find our stuff. Now then. If you have NS430 and the OV10 crashes your game when you eject, disable NS430. It seems to be a known bug and happens to (according to their discord) 4%. The rough field/ STOL performance is very good. According to some pilot interviews I watched, the OV10 can land, with full reverse thrust, in about 200 feet. My testing supports that for the mod. The same pilots said 800 feet for a takeoff roll, making take offs on the Tarawa a bit tight, but doable. (Put the Tarawa at 20 knots in mission editor and you shouldn't have a problem) While the OV10 mod manual says lifting off at 100 knots, and I've done as slow as 90, the IRL pilots said 110 knots because of the possibility to lose and engine and losing an engine on takeoff at under 110 knots will cause lots of yaw, and result in a departure from controlled flight. It's a difficult aircraft to spin, as it probably is IRL. However, it is possible it just requires lots of work. Spin recovery is easy, and usually the aircraft will self-recover from a spin. The stall performance is docile and there is a nice bit of buffeting to warn you of a stall onset. Again, push the nose down and she'll recover without a problem. The guns are fun, but be warned, they don't act like an M60 does IRL. now this isn't the mod's fault, it's DCS damage models. I've fired a lot of 7.62 IRL and I've fired M60's. (I've fired much more ammo from M240's but that's another story) These don't damage like an M60, and the accuracy seems a bit too much for me. The M60 isn't an accurate gun, even by GP machine gun standards. I think the guns are too accurate. Personally, I'd double the dispersion factor from what it is now and that would seem about right, but again that's just the solider part of me. According to the research I've done, the current weapons are limited. It should be able to carry GBU12's (same mounting points as a MK82...) and laser rockets. Now it can't self-designate, but they fit in the same pod. there's no reason why and OV10 A couldn't carry them, and it would give mission makers more leeway. The OV10 a could carry (according to IRL pilots who flew if) any NATO standard free fall bomb or rocket. Furthermore, currently drop tanks are limited to the center station, but in actual use the outboard wing stations could also carry drop tanks. And again, A sidewinder is a sidewinder, it should be able to carry at least up to the "AIM-9M" or "AIM-9L" as the L was in service at the same time as the OV10 before the first retirement in the early 90's. If possible, I'd also like to see an option for Night vision for the pilot. Already in mission editor are the early Vietnam ear targeting pods for the F4, which the Ov10 A could and did also use in Vietnam. I understand coding a targeting pod, even an early on might not be possible, but the OV10 should be able to carry a the F4 targeting pod. As far as navigation goes...well it's got a compass. (2 actually). However, the tacan won't pick up a portable TACAN beacon. this is a known issue and probably something about the way DCS models them. (I'm not sure.) But the OV10 doesn't have working ADF/ NDB radios which it should. I understand the radios are still a WIP so I'm excited to see which way that goes in the future. Overall, it's a very good first release. The flight model is good, with some room for improvement. (As with most DCS flight models). Most importantly, it's FUN! and more fun if you get a buddy to fly one as well. sections or flights of OV10's are just fun. Lastly, it's easier to fly and taxi the OV10 if you have rudder pedals with toe brakes and a split throttle. Steering and ground taxi is done with toe brakes and differantial engine power. possible to fly it without, but if you have the option, use your split throttle.

I'm wanting to make CTLD / CSAR work with the new OV10 mod. Has anyone done this yet? I haven't yet tried it but I figured I'd ask here first to see if I'm going to run into any problems or there is anything critical, I need to know. We're having a bunch of fun with the OV10 in my squadron and the enabling CSAR/ CTLD would be icing on the cake. So if anyone has tried this, or has any tips or pointers I'd be happy to hear them. Thanks guys.

From XSAF server while I was in the RIO seat.

I 100% agree with Cypher11. I'd love the "video export toggle" command for any and all aircraft. okay, I probably wouldn't find a use for it in the warbirds, MiG21, F5 and such. But anything with a targeting pod, the Viggen of course. I'd use it daily if it was on the F/A-18, F16, A10, Harrier, etc. Kind of hoping the F15 E has it when it comes out two weeks from 2050. Once I found out how to use it, I'm now using it all the time. I'd like this feature in more aircraft. Who won't want it?

Thanks for answering about if there are plans to limit. Nip that rumor right away, lol. And I did notice the difference when using STT. I clearly only posted one brief part of the testing i''m doing, and I'm not even close to having tested everything. I like to make myself a cheat sheet of different parameters I can expect from my weapons and aircraft when I fly. It's usually a line of ballpark figures to get me close, then I'll extrapolate during my flight based on the threats, etc. Which is what I'm doing here, and sharing, just the results I'm getting.

Yeah, I'm happy with it. Is my tone coming across as something else? I like, I think it's a major improvement over what we've been dealing with over the last few months. However, your comment brings up a question in my mind. Is it planned, at some point in the future, to limit the AIm-54 C variants to the F14B? I might be reading into things, but that's what I drew from your comment. I wouldn't be opposed to that, just wondering.

This is the new AIM-54 MK 60-C, seeker, and such. I edited the video down. I think I included the correct track file, which may or may not work. (I was having trouble with it.) Anyway, I don't like the AIM-54 A seeker, but I'm sure I'll find a place for it as I do more testing. And Overall, I think this is a big correction for the tomcat, as the C's seem to be what at least I was looking for. Sure, I can still miss with them, but feels like the tomcat is back. AIm54 Mk60 c testing track. .trk

Yes, I meant target beaming, not me. Sorry for any confusion. So far I'm impressed with the C, as for the A, while it might be possible in theory for a 110NM shot if everything is perfect, I don't think it's going to happen. I'm shoot at non maneuvering Tu22's on a straight-line course and the A's are flying past them or not getting anywhere near them. The C however, those are working much better than I hoped when I saw this update announcement. I'll try the A's again with PAL and ACM cover, at various ranges, but I've been a fan of ACM mad dog Lauches for a long time. I've never seen any AIM-54 miss that shot. And in the last test I just few like 5 mins ago, I saw a CMk60 do a 90 degree turn. It was the craziest turn I've ever seen a FOX 3 missile do. It was like a JDAM I waited too long to drop, turned around (from loft) and smashed the TU22. The shot was about 80-85 miles. I'm shooting all of these from about 30,000 feet FYI. When I edit the video of that AIM-54 turning around I'll make sure and get it to you. it was a crazy turn.

I'm still testing. however, the seeker on the AIM-54 Mk60 -A is certainly different. From my testing so far here are some guidelines. Hot target, 30,000+ feet Mach 1+, max range where I'm getting hits is 60 NM. (TU-22) The mad dog launch is... strange. I had a missile completely ignore a TU22 directly in front of me, 6 NM, PAL with ACM cover open. Missile flew directly past with the aircraft well within the seeker field of view. when I shot at targets I was chasing, and having jester STT them, all shots over 8 NM missed. Beaming shots, 16 NM seems to be max range with the AIM-54 MK60-A. Again, targets were TU22's at 30,000. Nose on. 60 NM Beaming. 16 NM Tail chase STT NM PAL and ACM mad dog didn't score any hits so far. I'm still testing. EDIT: Use one of the C versions. Yeah, they are impressive, at least so far. You can clearly see the improvements to the seeker head.

Thanks! I know sometimes people get all defensive "they're working on go away!" Type stuff. My take is that developers cant give us fixes, and such if we don't give feedback. So I want to thank you and the whole development team for the work on the Mirage F1. I love the jet. So while this threat has descended into lord of the flies and people critzing the expertise of others based on numbers of forum posts...() I'm glad to hear that there are fixes in the works. Keep up the good work, we do appreciate it. Edit: can someone please lock this post. I think we've covered everything well past the point where the horse is dead.

Go to your module manager, (top left corner in the main menu of dcs) Uninstall the module, close dcs, open dcs, back to module manager in dcs, install module. Running a repair won't always fix things in the saved games part if there isn't a conflict with dcs. Uninstall and reinstall via the dcs module manager will get you a clean install of the specific module in question. It also allows you to save some hard drive space and Uninstaller maps or aircraft you might not use much.

If you know target elevation, and the Radar you know when to release to follow a bombing table. You can do it with slant ranges and height above ground to make drops that don't fall within the bombing tables. For example during the Vietnam War US warplanes would sometimes bomb from higher altitude using a known speed, altitude above ground, and (the best part) a tacan offset. F105s in flight would sometimes drop this way. The whole flight releasing bombs at once based on their distance and bearing from a tacan station. Oh, and the known factors you put into a bombing plan, the closer you can get your bombs to target. I've been working on and off on gathering bomb fall data while doing level-tacan offset bombing. So the more information I can put in, the more accurate my bombs will be. As you can imagine, high altitude tacan offset-level bombing isn't terribly accurate, but it's also not as inaccurate as you might imagine. And it's both a flight and navigation challenge, flying a perfect profile and releasing when the stopwatch or tacan says. It's fun. For me, some people just want a ccip/ccrp bomb fall line. Which is fun as well. Fly it how you want type of thing.

While the F1 CE doesn't have a radar altimeter...it does have a radar, if you catch my drift. Just like in the F5 or the A4, point the nose at the ground and wait until you get a return, thus, radar measuring the distance to the ground. Know the elevation of your target, and your own altitude above sea level. Anyway, there are lots of way's to do it, and everyone kind of has their own formula. Keep working with it, think a bit outside the box, and practice and you'll develop your own way of doing things that works for you. Or, like in the Redkite video, you can set one altimeter to read zero at target elevation, then use your backup altimeter for general flight. Personally, I really don't like doing it that way, as I want my altimeter to always read my altitude above sea level, but that's me. (or just wing it, it's not like if you miss, you'll really bomb an orphaned puppy shelter / children's hospital.)

Just a question, but do you have the radar turned on? the screen will look like it's on when its in standby mode, but it won't emit. But honestly I haven't had a problem with the radar, like at all. I use it to map the ground, find ships, and detect and lock onto air targets, all of which it does fine. I personally usually narrow the azimuth and range to get that refresh rate up a bit. For the era, I think it's a very good radar.

Is there a manual or document that explains in depth the uses and situations, criteria, etc., for the fuses on these bombs. Sometimes some and I of the guys in my squadron are having problems with the bombs detonating. I think it's related to drop height for the spin arming system, but I'm not sure. So I'm looking for a paper, document, manual or whatever that explains how long it takes a bomb to arm with 160 revs or whatever. Is this available anywhere?

I run a training squadron. We've got a few guys who fly the Mirage F1, Including myself. I'll be glad to teach you the basics, or whatever I know. Just drop by the discord and anyone online will likely help you with any questions you have. I'm on at random times due to my schedule, and the squadron has people from all over. Anyway you're welcome to come by and fly, ask questions, or hang out. See you in the skies. https://discord.gg/JuBydbsfDn