shagrat

This happened even before wake turbulence was a thing. As you said, reproducing this phenomenon or tracking it down is horribly difficult. My theory is that the transition over different terrain types or the switch from "normal ground" to "runway" messes with the ground effect calculation, in some weird way. I had this very sporadic in the A-10C, the Huey and the Bf.109 back when we flew Caucasus only, but had it at least once on the Persian Gulf map.

Maybe, but I guess it still won't work as a way to change a mindset. People that look for casual game style, or air-quake won't see a benefit to learn the startup procedure, same as they won't bother to understand the aircraft systems or learn navigation, beyond what's necessary to shoot stuff. The other group that is interested in aviation, wants to understand the aircraft, learn how it is done in real life and enjoy the study part of study-sim, won't need filters or controls, but help and support while learning. That's where the hand holding and DCS' multiplayer community shines. If there is someone who wants to learn he can with the training and reading, asking, but also join a dedicated group that will help induce him into DCS just fine and he'll quickly learn (and understand why) taxiway take-offs are a no-no unless explicitly ordered. As for the rest, they usually don't stick around long.

Best option to achieve this in my opinion is a Discord to get to know each other and use a private server. I would try communicating agreed upon rules. I don't know how many casual players would actually join a server where you do a briefing, everybody else goes through startup manually and taxies , while they still wait for alignment, but honestly, if this is really a problem and you get lots of air-quakers, this could indeed discourage even more. Still from my point of view locking the server is maybe a better solution. Or what Zeagle said: crank the realism options up to full. Though I think birdstrikes without birds are not for me and the random failures can be very frustrating, as not every module had them, yet, and if you are the poor sod that's in the only module getting hit by failures that make you abort mission and divert... Maybe fun once or twice in a row, but it gets old pretty quick.

I explained the reasons in the post you cited. The great thing about the included campaigns is, you can simply copy those to your Saved Games/User/DCS World/Missions/Campaigns folder and then set the player aircraft to "Start from ramp cold" in the Mission Editor. The argument was, if missions don't use cold start, ED will start to remove cold starts ( "use it or lose it" )... Though I don't really understand how this would work, as you need to remove the switchology AND system modelling on so many levels, that is basically the core of every DCS module. Given the influx of FC3 level modules during the last 15 years, I doubt there is trend to "simplify" the system modeling on any level. Looking at the modules delivered, in development or announced it looks like we get more detailed and in depth flight, system and cockpit modeling, more multicrew, more weapon systems, more integration of Datalink, IFF, complex comms and even things like briefing room on the carrier etc. so the trend is definitely "more realism" than less. Thus I don't think your "use it or lose it" message of doom holds any merit...

Not even this, because autostart isn't faster than a manual cold start, if you at least know what you are doing. The cold versus hot start is already a decision made by the mission builder (he can force all slots cold, hot, ready on runway or even a mix of slots, for example add hot starts for respawns, if he sees a need for it). As I said, I can't see a real benefit for a denial option for autostarts, other than a way to micromanage other players and worst case drive them away, but if this is a popular request and an option, ok. Though a waste of development time, in my eyes.

"Rising Squall" isn't... And funny enough, though I am not really fond of this kind of gameplay, I really enjoyed the couple missions. Lot's of nostalgia and so much 80ies/90ies vibes. But I know what you mean and "Rising Squall" is of course a very special exception. For people new to DCS the included trainings, missions and campaigns are usually the first point of contact after trying a Quickstart "Free flight" mission. Especially with the 14-days trial options and over a dozen modules it is paramount to give newbies something to do AND enjoy, apart from multiplayer, as still a majority isn't doing multiplayer a lot or at all Thus it is important to not "weed" out customers before they even had a chance to get airborne and see a major part of what DCS missions are like. That's the hand holding part, where you can actually start into DCS without multiple years experience in other hardcore flight simulators, or a professional aviation/military background. The other issue is, that the mission designer sets a start time for the mission that influences time of daylight available/reaching the target in twilight, darkness or after dawn etc. that's influenced by the mission start time and take off/time to target. The aircraft starting and setting up CAP, CAS, maybe SEAD, have a TOT defined in the flight plan (waypoints) and this difficult concert (unlike MP where you can simply ask your buddies flying SEAD to wait at the tanker or whatever) the mission designer needs to ensure the player is in the target area in a certain time window. If the player manages startup very quick, he ends up waiting for his T/O time, or if he just starts and ignores this detail, he is early to the party. If he takes longer, he will fall behind the schedule and may arrive on target after dawn and faces overwhelming odds, his CAP is refueling or RTB etc. So many mission ensure the planned outcome and kinda "balance" the environment, by making sure you can take off in time to have the mission work as intended. It's certainly not to ensure players don't do cold starts... The stuff coming with the modules is by design more accessible. The paid campaigns in cooperation with ex-military pilots, that try recreation of real world procedures, realistic scenarios and advertise as sporting most realistic procedures including radio operations, navigation etc. is a different thing. That's where the customer decides "Rising Squall" vs. "Zone 5" based on his preference, same as with the game settings. The important part is, that ED is very clear about their own stance. They want(!) to create realistic and as complete as possible (restrictions, classified stuff, public available material) military flight simulations and not compete with "casual flight games". This isn't driven by customer demands, but what they and the 3rd party developers want and can create. That's why module choices sometimes seem detached from the customer wishlist and despite a constant request for better "balancing" we still have faithfully created aircraft and weapon systems that try to resemble their real world counterparts as best as possible, instead of a class matching system with simplified performance parameters to even the playing field...

They actually did! ...and an Ak-47 on the passenger seat.

I can guarantee, the missing cold starts in the included missions, have nothing(!) to do with what you think. It's as I said before, the missions require to start/get airborne in a certain time, to play out as deigned. The trainings, very obviously focus on the aspect of training a particular task or weapon type, not in training a complete mission. I personally do cold start all the time, as I am way faster than with autostart, about 99% of the players I know, do the same... What we regularly do is, after disconnects, taxi warping fails etc. use hotstart slots or autostart to don't go crazy. But that's getting rare, as DCS netcode is pretty stable since quite some time. As for the games, these were designed as spin-offs or separate/new games. Not changed. If a company decides to stop investing into development intense simulation software and produce "chicken shoot 7", I am pretty sure it is not because a couple customers did not use every feature of the former product. And if you read closely what Nick & Co. said about the motivation and why they do what they do, you will realize it does not remotely matter to them if people do puristic cold starts or hot starts. People that put a dangling(!) air-refresher tree in the cabin of a KAMAZ truck that isn't even remotely visible from any plane attacking said truck, just because they can and want(!) to do this kind of detail, don't care about the usage of a feature. If that would be a valid concern, we would have seen "balanced" gameplay, perks, respawn points, etc. a long time ago.

I can't. The last two actual milsims I know of were Falcon 4.0 and IL-2 for WWII settings. Then came LOMAC with the Flaming Cliffs updates, FC2 and DCS: Ka-50 Blackshark, then FC3 and DCS: A-10C Warthog, which all more or less merged into DCS World. The only other actual flight simulators were the civilian focused stuff. Everything else I noticed was a flight combat game with some options to set a more "realistic controls feel", but focused by design on accessible and balanced PvP gameplay and not flight simulation. What did I miss here?

Actually the whole "hand holding" and being "adjustable for newcomers", rather than intimidating, is a selling point. That's why ED is putting that into the description. As for "OMG if we don't force everyone to play iron man mode in ultra realism, with no quality of life 'cheats' available, they may turn it into an arcade game", just look at the server browser and try to find the ones who have game mode/arcade avionics and flight model enabled... I really doubt the few optional quality of life cheats, like auto rudder, take off assist, autostart/stop or easy comms are a threat to us flying hardcore simulation mode with all of them deactivated, especially as I would not know to figure out, if one or more of the other guys use them or not. For me it has no impact, at all. I would need them to tell me, that they just used take off assist or autostart...

Well, then they don't use it? Who cares? What if 90% of Assetto Corsa Players had never raced on the Nürburgring? It's up to them to decide if they want to miss out... Or maybe they don't like it, or want to save it for later. Anyway the only part relevant to me is, if I (!) can do a complete cold start, from a dark pit, with the original manual as close as possible to the real thing. As long as I can chose, whenever I want, to enjoy the full realism study part of the brilliant DCS modules, I am a happy man. But at times even though I enjoy to go through the cold start and configure the navigation system, setup my route, etc. I enjoy the option to just plug in the Jetseat, sip a coffee, while letting the autostart work it's magic. I never, ever heard a complaint from my fellow players over the comms, when I did that. The argument "Autostart is faster" is only true, when you are really new to the aircraft and hadn't had time yet to train the procedure a couple of times. As soon as you've memorized the switch positions in the cockpit and understand what you are doing, you usually are faster than the script, especially if alignment is involved. So what else would a server based option to block "Autostart" achieve, other than enforcing something, that does not affect other players, does not affect the gameplay (aka provide an advantage) or is even noticable, at all? It's like asking for an option to enforce "correct environmental controls settings" to ensure realism... I mean if server admins really see a need to micromanage every remote aspect of the personal experience for other players and think they get a crowd of masochistic fans, happy to get micromanaged by someone else, why not. But my guess is, most Jetpilots and most DCS players are mature and more alpha personalities that won't react favorably to this and just omit public servers who enforce this... As for private servers in closed groups, there should not be the need to enforce anything, as you play with friends that share the same mindset and if you set the rules by asking nicely, just play along.

It's an ego problem with him. He does this all the time DCS diverts from his personal view on "how it should be done". Then he claims "it is because ED goes for full realism", claiming ED's goals and intentions, blatantly ignoring the actual statements from ED about the targeted customer groups, intended ways to customize DCS for your personal enjoyment. For example this advertising for DCS World: (...)"DCS World is fundamentally a deep, authentic and realistic simulation designed also to offer a more relaxed gameplay to suit the user and his particular level of experience and training. The ambition is to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator of such complex weapons systems as the A-10C Warthog or the F/A-18C Hornet."(...) Source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/stable/

Well said. And that's one of the elements many DCS players actually enjoy, learning the plane and not the button sequence. The cool thing in a simulator is, you can adapt to enjoying the thorough start-up, setting up routes manually, etc., but there is also the option to skip that if necessary, check the equipment, connect and set Jetseat, Headtracker and stuff, if your time is limited and you just had to take care about real life, before joining the buddies for a DCS session. Sure I do miss out on some of the fun, if I do an autostart, right away. Worse, I often miss some setting, configuration in the complex modules that I would set different than the auto sequence. Still if I have gone through the startup two times, already, because of a disconnect or crash, I find it comforting to have that robot monkey press the buttons and take a leak instead. So options are fine, though I don't understand the impact that would have on the other players, as I for the life of it, wouldn't know if my buddy used autostart or did it manually...

We had this argument multiple times, already. You make assumptions of EDs intentions that support your narrative, instead of acknowledging that in the very basic description(!) that is advertising "DCS World" as an experience you (as in each individual) can customize from arcade game to a hardcore study simulation, ED says differently. So despite your personal goals and implications, ED is very clear, why they have ways to enable newcomers, casual players and flight sim nerds, alike, to enjoy their products. There simply is no contradiction. By the way, most if not all missions for the AH-64D module currently are cold start, just saying. The reason, why most "missions" start with a plane hot on the ramp, etc. is because of the limitations of the Mission Editor. To trigger actions, setup environment, or have convoys in the right place in the past, there was mostly "time since" in use, so there was a tendency to make sure players could actually take off in time...

Basically the most valid argument. If you "disable" autostarts on the server, there will be people who build there own "autostart"... or more likely, just leave the server, resulting in the usual "we can't find enough players to fill a proper mission package". But hey, in the end it's up to the server admin. I don't see the point, as already pointed out. If people use autostarts to get airborne faster, they usually are in for a nasty surprise. Plus I have had the occasional crash/disconnect/mess up with someone spawning into my plane... Usually after 20 min startup, prepping Waypoints etc. and blame me, I tend to use autostart, as well, after the second or third f... up, I had no part in, to not waste all my precious playtime with repeating the startup sequence, watching the sun setting in the west. But that's just me.

Stimmt schon, war auch mehr als "Erklärung" gedacht. Beispielsweise wäre eine "Spendenaktion" vermutlich der Todesstoß für das Projekt, da sie dann sicher zeitnah Post von Boeings Anwälten bekommen. Ohne kommerziellen Aspekt ist das deutlich weniger riskant. Der Tod von Eric "Gospadin" Mudama ist auch ein Punkt, da er das "forever free" wohl von Anfang an so gewollt hat und ich Heklac so verstanden habe, dass das A-4E community mod ihm gewidmet wurde. Es ist also sehr unwahrscheinlich, dass sie sich dagegen entscheiden und versuchen ein offizielles DCS Modul, als 3rd Party daraus zu machen. Vielleicht entscheiden sich aber irgendwann einige des Teams ein "neues" A-4 Modul zu entwickeln... Man weiß nie, was die Zukunft bringt. Die Fähigkeiten sollten sie mit dem Mod erworben haben.

Es ist auch sehr hilfreich, sich mit den Fähigkeiten, Waffen und Sensoren/Radartypen der gegnerischen Maschinen auseinanderzusetzen. So haben die MiG-29 und Su-27 (Su-33) das gleiche Radar verbaut. Auf dem RWR wird der "erkannte" Radar-Emitter angezeigt, also kann eine (29) auch eine Su-27 sein. Die haben regelmäßig Mittelstrecken IR-Lenkflugkörper dabei und die werden eben nicht von deinen Sensoren erfasst, bis es anklopft. Hier hilft dann nur im Briefing zu schauen, welche Bedrohungen erwartet werden. Siehst du ein (29) auf dem RWR und/oder klassifiziert dein Radar den Gegner als Su-27 etc. sollte man davon ausgehen, dass die eine R-27ET (IR-Suchkopf) auf einen feuert, sobald man nahe genug ist. Man versucht also, pro-aktiv eine eigene AMRAAM zu feiern, um den Gegner "zu beschäftigen" und vermeidet ihm frontal in die Arme zu fliegen. Auch aktiv Radargelenkte Flugkörper melden nicht direkt, dass sie "unterwegs" sind. Ein "Lock" (didel-didel) bedeutet in der Regel ab jetzt kann jederzeit ein Fox 3 (Radargelenkter Flugkörper mit eigenem, aktiven Sucher) unterwegs sein und erst wenn der Suchkopf sein Radar anschaltet, meldet dein RWR mit (M) die anfliegende Missile und deren Anflugrichtung. Dann ist es höchste Zeit hart abzudrehen und Gegenmaßnahmen zu werfen... Eine aktive Missile ist schwierig abzuwehren. Auch wichtig: der RWR zeigt nur die Richtung und "Gefährlichkeit" des Radar-Emitters! Die Ringe haben NICHTS mit Entfernung zu tun!

Die "wollen" nicht nur nicht, die können auch nicht einfach so. Die Details dazu haben sie auch klar und deutlich kommuniziert. Hat auch mit dem Tod des Hauptentwicklers zu tun, aber eben nicht nur...

Yes, DCS makes a check on config.lua files before it adds them, so any syntax errors do not crash the game itself. If it does not show in the list 99% chance there is a syntax error.

The tables with the values are separated with a semicolon ( ; ) not a comma ( , ) and you need to add a semicolon to the last line in each table, as well. Like this: LEFT_MFCD = { x = 75; y = 1519; width = 500; height = 500; }

Do you need any more input (track file)?

Another year and still no luck... It's really a shame if you fly with the MPD/F10 Flight maps and there is a mark an d city name, but outside the canopy there isn't so much, as a single building. Again, not asking for individual landmark buildings, but simply a cluster of the generic city blocks and maybe the main streets.

To fix it, it is good practice to supply feedback and test results. That's why I do bother to help the team narrow it down. The effect of switching shots between target and waterline hasn't been reported AFAIK and I am very aware that it is WIP. That's why we have the Openbeta, to catch these things and provide input, data and feedback to help getting it fixed.

Das hier ist der Thread für Diskussionen nur(!) über die News (also nicht "wo finde ich bei der Mirage Schalter XY"). Was du suchst ist dieser gepinnte Thread: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/73178-offizielle-ankundigungen/?do=findComment&comment=5036378

I tried to have George engage troops as CP/G, after friday's patch. It seems he still has a hard time to actually engage. I noticed some things though, that may be helpful to find the cause of the issue. When you command a search and he detects enemy troops (infantry), you have him "lock" a guy, he says "Lased & stored". Actually he has the target in the cross hair, but is not lasing it (did that before some patches ago) and you get no ranging information on the TADS. If you command him to switch to Hellfire he lases and the distance is maybe 2,000 m, have him switch back to gun and he stops lasing. If you command "Engage" he says "Firing", but actually won't. Neither would he lases to range the distance. Even if ROE set to Free Fire (George Interface green) he won't engage with the TADS and laser ranging. It seems(!), as if he actually starts shooting only if a) you are in Free Fire and b) you are closer than the range set in manual ranging or closer, of cause you need to check for constraints. When he finally fires, it isn't the set burst, but a couple sputtering, sporadic shurt bursts. Last week (before the last patch) we had a TacView, where it looked like George (after finally engaging a couple insurgents in a treeline) distributing his shots between the original locked target and the "fixed" waterline position straight ahead. This maybe just a glitch with TacView, but it could be a hint to George shifting between target and look ahead position? As this worked pretty well at Early Access release, there's definitely something going wrong currently. Hope this can help to figure it out. I'll try to get a short track, but this seems pretty consistent. Added: TacView Screenshot