Night Owl

Thanks for reporting, we will test this out. So in all cases this was without damage before the feathering?

Beautiful screenshots! Looking really great! I have just one point, Creil airfield the way it is designed in your map does not really look like on images from 1944, instead, it looks like maybe after the reconstructions that were finished in 1958.

And again, this time on the slot-selection window dcs.log

All of our players are reporting many DCS crashes since the patch. I get crashes every 5 min of joining a server. Logs from the last crash dcs.log

Fantastic, only good news! This post adressed all the points that I was a bit worried about from a multiplayer mission developer point of view, thank you very much! Looks like you guys are putting a lot of thought into making it easy for us to adapt the missions, that's great! I am also very excited about the addition of Dreux, which was a very important Luftwaffe base which saw multiple raids of fighter-bombers and bombers, as well as Stoney Cross as a USAAF field.

Yes if it's that and one would only have to adjust aircraft slot positions and airfield ground units, that's perfectly understandable and no big deal. From the wording of the FAQs it soundedblike the missions would be completely incompatible, maybe using a different coordinate system, which would be a more severe issue. I am still wondering about the claimed multiplayer compatibility though, if airfields change layout and mission devs adapt their unit placements, will then not people who only own Normandy 1 have the missions bugged?

Yeah, please, please make the map coordinate origin the same as on Normandy 1. DCS needs community missions, surely it cannot be good if there would be weeks or months without any campaigns or missions for the new map.

Yeah, honestly a bit disappointed that the 1000 hours put into making missions for the Normandy map will be for naught if we decide to switch to the new map. I was hoping for the missions to work and only needing little adjustments to the ground unit placements to accomodate new buildings and such. Still looking forward to the map, but this is a bummer..

I have just repeated a similar flight, but being more careful during warm-up and to not over- or under-shoot the desired engine settings. Same outcome, after a couple of minutes cruise at 2700rpm the engine looses all power. I have the feeling the temperatures may be a little too low across the board, maybe it's an issue with over-cooling with the new cooling mechanics?

@Hobel The ambient temperature was 19°C. I found the track file if that helps. Uploaded it to a wetransfer due to it's size https://we.tl/t-fC734GvyKd The engine malfunction occurs around 25 min into the track at mission time 16:41.

I also had this engine malfunction in both of my last flight in the Dora. Settings in my last flight: Warm-up at first 1000rpm till 40 degrees oil temperature Increase rpm to 1800 and warm-up till coolant temperature at 90 degrees Takeoff 3250 rpm Climb to 6000m at 3000rpm Few minutes cruise at 2700rpm level 2min at 3000rpm Reduced back to 2700rpm (shlight undershot to 2600rpm momentarily Few minutes later engine lost power and could not be brought higher than 1500rpm except in a high speed dive Temperatures were in the green all the time. I'll try to create a track next time

Tacview requires object export when run client side, which is why we had it on. That's the only thing which will be lost when the object export is turned off, until we find another solution for tacview.

We will definitely do that, absolutely. It will punish a lot of honest players for a while because they won't have tacview available, but that's what we have to do. Yet this does not excuse in any way the cheating, nor the promotion of cheat software by the questionable player. Take the analogy of you passing by a bank and seing that the doors haven't been locked. The honest and commendable thing to do would be to notify the bank security, or the police. However, no-one would advocate for the honest intentions of someone who would first go into the bank to take money for himself, and then shout out in the street that there is easy money to be taken.

@kablamoman I understand your point, however I do not fully agree. This player has not just brought the issue to our attention, he has employed the cheat, which we do not accept. In addition, he has posted the software in two different forums and enticed people to use it, one of those forums being a Russian-speaking one for which he had no reason to expect us to see it. I agree that making server admins aware of cheats is a very commendable thing to do. However, at no point does this require a player to use the cheats actively himself, and to entice others to do so. This spoils the playing experience for others, which we do not accept. Had he just posted about it or even better, contacted us directly, this whole story would look different. But that you can cheat is no excuse whatsoever for actively cheating. Also consider that we are not talking about something like turning the labels on, this is a dedicated third party cheating software that requires considerable effort to install. I hope I managed to make our point a little bit clearer. Have a good day

Sure mate. I would suggest you just let it be, you are a cheater, you got identified by us, and now you are consequentially banned. As will any other cheater be, should we find some. The claim that others are cheating as well is void of any evidence at this point and seems to be merely you trying to justify your actions. So just move on and go play and cheat somewhere else

@grafspee It should be dealt with now The only confirmed cheater will not be found in our skies any longer, and appropriate server side anti-cheat measures are being implemented.

Well okay, if you truly believe that you valiantly sacrified yourself for a good cause by blatantly cheating and thereby reducing everyone else's gameplay fun, and even more so to promote cheating in the forum, so be it, I will not be able to convince you otherwise. But the concept of cheating for a good cause is one that most people will find difficult to comprehend. I suggest that you contact server admins first next time you will encounter such an issue. Anyways, have fun playing somewhere else, and have a good day.

@-Slayer- One does not exclude the other. As I told you from the beginning, we will both take action to prevent the cheat from happening, and punish you for using it and enticing others to do so. You had ample opportunity to make us aware of the cheat without using it yourself or distributing it and promoting it's use in the forums. Yet you willingly decided to do so, hence we decided that you are not any longer welcome to play on our server. Even today you received a warning of the impending ban and several opportunities to demonstrate your good intentions by discussing the issue with us privately. You decided to ignore those offers and try to hide in anonymity, and thus have to suffer the consequences.

Or honest players...? It's a simulator after all, why people feel the need to cheat in a simulator is beyond me. But yeah I guess the 95 % of honest players will once again have to suffer because of a couple of cheaters. We'll look into doing that, but need to discuss some things first. Once more, your help in our discord, outside of the cover of anonymity would be greatly appreciated

Well you can draw attention without using and distributing the cheat, just saying I for myself have never heard of it before, and I am sure neither have the vast majority of our honest players. But if your aim was indeed to prevent this cheat I do thank you for this, and ask if you could please come into our discord and explain us exacly how the software is working and what we can do about it.

@-Slayer- We are looking into this. However, let me say this very clearly, neither the knowledge of an existing loop hole, nor the yet unsupported claim that others than you are using this cheat as well, justifies you using the cheat and even worse actively distributing it. If you only wanted to make us aware of the loop hole, a simple message would have made a way better image than to actively distribute the cheat and urge others to use it. We will take measures to prevent the cheat, but we will also take measures against you for using and distributing it. Again I urge you to discuss this directly with us in our discord channel if your goal really is to prevent this cheat from being used. Thank you

Hello @-Slayer- Please be aware that cheating will not be tolerated on our server and that you will very likely soon find yourself with a very long ban. If you need cheats to win your fights, I suggest that you stick to single player instead, where your actions don't impact the gaming experience of other players. If you want to talk directly with the server Admins about this issue, please jump onto our discord and open a support ticket.

Since recently (somewhere during the last month), there is an issue with train tracks. They seem to now be interrupted every 1-2nm by road crossings, bridges, sharp corners, etc., and trains can only drive in these short sections. If you place a train waypoint along a longer section of tracks, the train will fail to spawn. This issue is also apparent in the mission editor, train waypoints that could be placed a month ago will now not snap to the track anymore if they go past an intersection. Attached is a mission showing the waypoint snapping behaviour in the ME between train waypoints that are not working anymore, and short sections of train tracks that are still working. As a comparison a screenshot from a train target that we have successfully used in the last months. Train bug.miz

@NineLine Thank you very much Sir! Yes that's very true, but this setup with AI flying straight was the best to test the difference between Allied and Axis heavy AAA in a somewhat standardised manner. Since the change in November I find the 88s perfect, their first burst will normally not hit and then you can start to evade. Qf 3.7's will hit first burst though.

Even if that's true, it does not really affect the point of the bug report. The Allied QF 3.7 in guns at the moment will hit with their first salvo a single fighter target almost always. This is just not realistic at all, the time-fuses should have some degree of variability, as does the initial range calculation before the first salvo. The recently altered behaviour of the 88mm guns is much more realistic, as they take 2-3 salvos to get accurate. As for Clostermann's reports, even if they are true (some of his claims are questionable), those would have occured in squadron- or even wing-sized flights. The effectiveness of heavy AAA on such formations should be way higher than against single planes.