Daemoc

It works the same with all aircraft. After '86(IIRC) and you also need "Unrestricted SATNAV" for Redfor. I am not sure if it is required for the NS430 though. I never tried it. I just tested the P-47 w NS430 and it worked on my end. Edit: It is indeed 1994, I just tested it. I must have been thinking of something else.

This is my understanding as well. I am not sure what the performance impact would be recording both Player Input Data and Multiplayer Unit Data at the same time, if any, but even if we were just left with the option to choose what we record I would be happy.

I am going to second this request. I am sure it's at the very end of a priority list, but I can't imagine it would take that much work to implement the "multiplayer" track recording option for single player. I may be wrong in that assumption, but please consider it. Thanks.

Here you go. https://youtu.be/lbkCCXFW7Qo I am also uploading a quick youtube video of the issue so you can see it happen on my end. I will edit this post and add the link when it is done. The frame time goes haywire when I have the NS430 on terrain mode. I also have had crashes when using the NS430. It seems that manipulating the range of the terrain view is the most common cause, but it will eventually crash even without touching it. Sadly I do not have any current logs because I have since turned it off on all modules, but if I have some free time I will try to reproduce it. It is real hit or miss. Sometimes it crashes 5 minutes in, other times it takes 30+. I can fly the entire sortie without the NS430 which takes about 2 hours. NSTest.miz

Yeah, you need to set the other 3 aircraft as some sort of skill level. That skill level is AI. Client and player are for live people/players.

I am sure that is the case. I did not do much testing. I have a mission with multiple aircraft missions/options and it was having weird performance issues depending on which aircraft I selected. It made no sense to me. Until I saw this thread and realized aircraft with the performance issues were the ones using the NS430. I just turned off the NS in the options menu and everything worked as normal.

Ha! It's really not that bad. I think it's the noise it makes more than anything. It almost sounds like a toy or a model aircraft. Did you see the CC has a "Manual Power Reserve", (MPR), switch that gives it a little more kick? It's easy to miss. It's no afterburner, but it does help a bit.

Thanks for the bump. I just ran into this myself. I was having all kinds of performance issues and I could not figure out what was wrong. Then I noticed it was only with certain aircraft which was really confusing. Then I saw this thread. Turned off the NS430 and all was right as rain. I don't know what it's doin', but it's doin' somethin' it don't like.

Ha! I was using the "waypoint" land function and it just auto snaps to the center of the airbase which only works with parking spots. I did not even think to use the "task" land. Wow, talk about tunnel vision...

Aye, the reason for the FARP is so I can dictate where it lands. If I don't use the FARP it just decides to land wherever. It used to work before, I wonder what has changed? Again, it's not that big of a deal. I can work around it. Thanks for confirming and reporting though. Much appreciated.

I forgot how stable the C-101 was as a ground attack platform. I just did a quick ground attack mission today and even without using it for a long while, it was like using easy mode.

Sometimes things take a while to get used to. I know everyone says it's one of the easiest modules to learn, and for the basics that is probably true, but it takes a while to learn how to fly it well. If you really are interested in flying it, just take your time and get used to the quirks. If not, there is nothing wrong with being disappointed with the F-5. Maybe it's not your jam? Nothing wrong with that. As you noted, it's not very forgiving. At higher speed it's twitchy. At lower speeds and high AoA rudder is essential. It has a high approach speed. And while it has the potential to carry a metric *** ton of ordinance, it's a brick when fully loaded. Personally, I love the f-5. If you look at comparable modules like the MiG-21, I find the F-5 to be the best of the bunch. She is not perfect, but if you learn to treat her right she will show you a good time.

Just checking in, did the attached .trk result in a crash on take off on your end? Not that this is an emergency or game breaking, just curious.

The sound file I ended up using was this one pictured here in the attachment. Just copy the AV8B sound file shown to your C101 sound directory and rename it "TFE731_growl.wav". You can rename the original growl sound to something like Growl_O so you can undo it later if you wish.

Got it, it is the wind that is causing the crash. If I remove the wind it does take off. But this map has had wind for a LONG time. I have been working on this particular map on and off for almost a year. The new "wobbly" ch47 take off is new. I am not sure which update it was, but it never wobbled that bad before now. The wobble + the wind causes it to crash. I have videos on my youtube channel demonstrating both instances if you need to see before and after. ch47.trk

I have been having this weird issue with the CH-47 AI crashing on take off. I have a few custom missions with a few CH-47's and after the last update, I noticed they keep crashing on take off. It's as though the rear rotor is not creating any lift and they just nose up and back flip instantly. I know I am supposed to attach a replay track, but I am not in front of my DCS machine at the moment. I was just wondering if I am the only one experiencing this issue. I will get a replay track when I get a chance.

I have both and like both. A very simple boiled down version of my experience would be the L-39 is a little more nimble and the C-101 is a little more stable. Both have very little combat utility outside of light strike. (Maybe recon or FAC-A if the mission allows? The loiter time of a C-101 is quite impressive.) Both are fun to fly though IMO. The only real negative I would place on the L-39 is the training missions being in Russian. As a non-native speaker it makes learning the aircraft that much harder trying to observe/manipulate the aircraft and read subtitles at the same time. Edit: I almost forgot, the negative I would give the C-101 is the Garrett/Honeywell TFE731 Growl. I get that is a real thing, but the noise it makes in the cockpit makes me want to poke out my eardrums. I replaced the growl sound file with one of the AV8B fan noises and it sounds similar without making my ears bleed. Just something to keep in mind. My vote would be get both though.

I would also check to make sure your toe brake axis is not mapped backwards. Mine were by default.

A pixel at 4k is a 1/4 of the size of a pixel at 1080 assuming the monitors are equal in size. Running 4k without dots is easier to spot aircraft than 1080 without dots. Especially with a larger screen. Your pixel density is higher at 4k so the object can be rendered smaller/farther away. (or 4x the detail at any given range) The dots are easier to see than a single pixel of an object and they are rendered closer at lower resolutions. Looking at a 4k screenshot on a 1080 monitor without a zoom function loses all that fancy pixel density which is probably why the KoN still can't see them. Lastly, the difference between "label dots" and the visual aid "distance dots" is the label dots are always rendered, even when the object is right in your face. You don't have that invisible object range between dot and no dot. The down side is that label dots can be seen through clouds, buildings, trees, and at 100 miles away.

Thanks, that worked like a charm! I can finally move on. I did not know we had access to those mission files. I never bothered to look. Had I known I would have attempted to fix it myself. Thanks again for the quick fix, I appreciate it.

This is honestly my biggest issue with the entire dot mechanic. Your monitor resolution has a direct impact on your visual distance of an object. Once an object can no longer be rendered because of your monitors pixel density, they switch to the dot to compensate. That transition period between the dot an model though, the object just seems to vanish. Then you spend the next few minutes zooming out to find the dot, then zooming in to find the model. I don't know what the fix is to be honest, but the way the dot works now is not ideal. If I could force the basic black "label dots" that were occluded by geometry, distance and clouds I would be happy though.

Thanks for the confirmation. Also thanks for posting the track, that is above and beyond. I probably should have done that myself, but I was so frustrated at the time I did not think about it. At least I know I am not missing something or doing something wrong. Hopefully there is an easy fix/update in the future.

Pretty much what the title said. I have tried this twice and it stops at the same place. It states to move the stick left and right and in never goes to the next step. I have tried the HOTAS obviously as well as the keyboard. I even tried the trim. I would really like to know what this is expecting so I can move on. This is like 30 minutes into the mission. If you look up frustration in the dictionary, this would be there.

Yes, but you will need more than one sound device in Windows. HDMI/GPU sound out On Board Soundcard sound out USB headset sound out If you have a traditional 1/8" TRS/TRRS headset plugged into your onboard soundcard and trying to use your onboard soundcard for speaker output as well, that is a no go. If you have a USB headset, you can change your default "sound" device to the onboard for speakers and default "communication" device to the USB headset in windows.

Agree with all of the above, especially the troops in the back. Although, I would settle with a little AI tweak that would stop troops from running straight for a tail rotor whenever they see one. "Ohhh, look a spinning shiny!" :You have committed fratricide: