Kreutzberg

Definitely! I'm not sure DCS can do anything other than meters, but it would definitely be better to use the correct units.

Building on the topics described here, I noticed that I felt much closer than 400 yards when the 50 mil circle covers the wingtips. I set up something in the mission editor, and at 200 yards, the FW190 wingspan (34.5 feet) doesn't even quite cover the whole 50 mil circle. Doing the math, 1 mil is 3.6 inches at 100 yards, so 50 mils at 200 yards should be right at 30 feet. The reticle probably isn't quite perfectly sized yet, but the 50 mil inner circle is more like 200 yards and the 100 mil outer circle is more like 100 yards. All that highlights the need for some shorter convergence settings. As it stands now, something like a 150-200 meter convergence would be ideal. 150 meters is right about 500 feet as well. If the reticle gets a bit more accurate, I imagine 200 meters would be best, as that's very close to 200 yards.

Big +1 for this. The Corsair's guns are very dependent on convergence.

Thanks for that detailed explanation! I agree that convergence is very important to the whole story (it appears that the convergence setting also affects elevation so that the guns are zeroed for that distance in both horizontal convergence and elevation). One useful feature will be the ability to change and check convergence on the ground, which Magnitude 3 has already confirmed is coming.

The F4U has been my first warbird. Lots of fun, but it seems to take a lot of hits to actually bring down an enemy aircraft. Even against relatively low skill AI, I can only ever get two before running out of ammo, firing only at quite close range to save ammo. Some of that is surely my own lack of aerial gunnery skill, of course, but it does seem like the damage thrown by the Corsair's .50 caliber guns is a bit weak (especially because I usually go down to a single burst of enemy fire). The topic of .50 caliber damage has been discussed before. Here's a somewhat recent and fairly thorough discussion: My question is how the new Zero model will hold up. It should be a little easier to bring one of them down than the FW190s we have now. Hopefully, that can "feel" a bit better.

Given that I'm getting into the PTO WWII stuff, I went ahead and bought the asset pack on sale the other day. It's a cheap enough purchase that it's also a good one to use miles if you have any.

I agree completely! We have a similar topic over in "bugs" as well:

Even if that's their preference, I think a lot of players would at least appreciate a toggle in module settings!

I would agree. The basic included missions shouldn't require extra modules. I may try to snag the pack on sale, though.

In most or all modules in DCS, a right click moves a switch up or a rotary switch clockwise, and a left click moves it down or counterclockwise. It seems that the F4U switches are opposite. I would characterize this as a bug, but it could also be a wish list item to at least add a setting. It looks like this convention is pretty well-recognized. Apparently, ED switched the A-10C back in 2020 to conform: It would be best for the F4U to get that sooner rather than later so we don't build bad habits!

I agree that more binding would be very useful. My personal wish list also includes bindings for each flap position and each fuel selector position. There's a similar topic over in "bugs" as well:

I agree that more binding would be very useful. My personal wish list also includes bindings for each flap position and each fuel selector position. This may be better in the new "wish list" section as well, if any mods want to move it!

I was playing the mission over the weekend, and the SEAD trigger didn't seem to be working (there are two flags with slightly different names). It probably got mixed up in some patch along the way. Here's a fixed version for anyone interested. I also fixed the trigger to display the mission complete/RTB message. AH-64D_SP_SYR_SCUD Busters Fixed triggers.miz

Thanks. I'm really just trying to sort through some badly done default missions on the AH-64D, and was curious what the messages were supposed to be. They use AI Task Push to do multiple things, and I can't just directly play the OGG files from there. The web editor is a reasonable enough workaround.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but didn't want to create a new one. I'm a relative novice in the mission editor, and am unsure how to actually do this. I can use something like this web mission editor to pull out .ogg files (link), but is there a way to get at them directly in the editor?

Agreed that this map should focus on performance over visuals. It sounds like ED is working on that, but the current Marianas map has remarkably poor performance for its size.

Still present in April, 2025! I'm also still having the same issue as Endline where if I fix it, nothing really happens when I get to the waypoint. There are enemies, but I got the impression that there would be some messages.

Syria is my favorite DCS map, for sure. However, PAPI lights at airfields are a little dim, as described here: Link. I'm including my picture from that thread as well. I would love to see really bright PAPI lights on this map, which promises to be outstanding! Thanks!

Thanks for adding the scoring document! Much appreciated.

For what it's worth, I also only got 90 on what felt like a pretty clean run.

I've actually been playing around with this and am only getting hits when using the LTS on the pod. I don't think it should work that way, as the Maverick-L should be able to track on the laser without the pod. If that's a bug, though, the campaign probably recognizes it and compensates by having the player call tally. ETA: Playing around with it more, I got a hit without using the pod out of curiosity. Doing some tests with this weapon, I note that the target needs to be fairly centered in the laser reticle. I was assuming it was more like a sidewinder which will track as long as it sees the target, but the laser mark should really be in the circle to make sure it will pick it up on launching.

Thanks, both! This may be useful for anyone else learning the systems!

I just finished the first mission in this campaign, and am enjoying it so far. However, the grid coordinates came through in an 8-digit format. As I understand it, the Hornet uses either 6-digit coordinates (normal) or 10-digit coordinates (precise). Does that mean that the proper way to input 8-digit coordinates is with trailing zeroes in precise (or cut off the trailing digit in normal)? For some reason, I intuitively wanted to put in leading zeroes, but that doesn't really make sense as I think about it! I also need to get up to speed on the offset system, too, but that's just reading the manuals! One of the really immersive parts of these campaigns is learning these nuances in systems.

Thanks. I didn't actually land, but loaded a different plane spawn. That may cause the same thing.

This bug has occurred a couple of times on larger missions with the F-4E. Sometimes, when in DT mode, Jester will say he is "unable" to capture a ground target, but then does it anyway. I've certainly seen other similar things posted, but this is a little more specific. In this situation, the issue seems to carry through the entire flight, regardless of additional targets. I've tried quite a bit to reproduce the issue, and have managed to do so a couple of times. The attached track file shows it in the second flight after choosing the ground start slot. So far, I think the issue has only occurred when starting on the ground, with a heavy loadout, though I'm not totally sure if those are required to create it. It might also have something to do with the bombing table use, though that's not clear either. I've seen the "unable" both before and after the "capture" call. I've also seen it seem to cause the capture to break after a few seconds, but I think it's all the same issue. Thanks! DT Unable.trk