JuiceIsLoose

Gotcha. With it supposedly coming out next update I hoped you had a sneak peek lol.

So according to ED "Multi-sensor Integration (MSI) of surveillance-only tracks that can be set as the L&S and DT2 is in testing and is planned for the following update". So do you know if the DCS F/A-18C can launch an AIM-120C on an offboard F/F and/or offboard surveillance track without using the onboard radar to correlate those tracks? And I guess in a related note, can the DCS AIM-120C get midpoint guidance via datalink from the launching aircraft with that launching aircraft having only an offboard F/F and/or offboard surveillance track, again without having a onboard radar contributing to the MSI trackfile.

@BIGNEWY Is there a post providing some more clarification of how this DTC will be programmed or set up? From the newsletter it states "This initial version will offer new interfaces allowing players to create and load DTC settings for radio communications and countermeasures from within the mission editor. This long-awaited functionality is available for both single-player and multiplayer missions. Does this from within the mission editor mean that the mission maker, the person making the miz file, must program DTC settings for individual jets? I'm wondering if there is some miscommunication. Because this means that the player themselves cannot edit the settings of the DTC and that it would have to be set up by the mission maker (person making the miz). This doesn't seem like it makes much sense, which is why I'm curious if there is some miscommunication? Or is this supposed to work like the custom loadouts? Where you can create a custom loadout and save it to that airframe to use on different missions/servers/etc and it is not miz specific?

Lol gotcha. Seems wonky, but at least I know about it now lol. TY

I removed any keyboard binding and bound it to a button on my hotas. But even after removing the num5 keybind and replacing with a bind to my hotas the num5 is still causing the recenter. So are you saying that I must have a keyboard binding regardless of if it is bound with a hotas?

I have this same problem so you are not alone. I cleared any keyboard mapping from "recenter VR" and only have my joystick button bound in DCS. Yet, when I click keypad 5 it still recenters. Have you found a solution?

Any update on providing these additional lights on the underbody?

I want to clarify, this post is not intended for the community managers, NineLine or Bignewy, but rather is targeted at ED Management. This post is not specifically about the bugs in modules or items listed below. But is intended to show a lack of care from Eagle Dynamics Management toward the community that purchases their modules. Eagle Dynamics Management, do you truly care for your customer's who have spent money on your products? If so, PLEASE SHOW IT. There are a number of issues to the CORE of DCS that have not been realized, and even more so have shown no progress in years. There are countless items that could be listed, but some of the larger items that affect DCS in a larger view than just one module are provided. 1. Dynamic Campaign nullAbove is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on January 17,2019. Stating in regards to the dynamic campaign "This is a very high-priority item for us with good progress. However, this is a highly complex undertaking and it will take time, but certainly not "5 years"." As of today, this post is 5 years, 9 months, and 11 days old. And there has been no progress on the DCS Dynamic Campaign. I'm sorry, newsletters with screenshots and saying "we are working on it" and "its a complex task" do not make up for 5 years and 9 months worth of development. Show some sort of progress. Show a video of a developer troubleshooting it, show a video of the buggy version you are trying to debug, show some sort of actual progress to show it has been actually worked on. Showing screenshots of the F10 map and writing a paragraph about how hard and complex it is, is not progress. Does Eagle Dynamics have anything to show it has actually been worked on other than just words at this point? 2. ATC Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on February 9, 2016 discussing that ATC does not currently work and that it "Will resolved with new ATC system". Again, similar points to the Dynamic Campaign. Where has there been any progress shown on ATC? It has been 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days since this post was made, and what progress does Eagle Dynamics show? Newsletters claiming it is being worked on, and is a complex task, again, do not cut it. Show something that shows some sort of actual progress. If it is buggy and doesn't work flawlessly? At least show us that something has been done in the last 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days. 3. Supercarrier Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on April 1, 2020 discussing what features are to come with the Super Carrier Module. There are a number of these items that have not been worked on since this post in April 1, 2020. Ready Room, Interactive LSO Controls, Plane directors, Rendered hanger deck, Emergency barrier net, Deck crew that move to avoid collisions with aircraft, where is the progress on these items? Plane directors and barrier net have been talked about in forum posts and newsletters, but there is nothing Eagle Dynamics can show for progress on these items. The issue with COMMS with the Supercarrier can also be included, as they do not work, but this ties into the point above about ATC. The ATC issue is a core issue that affects ALL modules. When a user purchases a module in early access the intent is that that money is used to further the development of that module and the core game that it lives in. I do not understand how Eagle Dynamics can state that modules are "Out of Early Access" when they cannot even properly communicate with ATC. That is a core element of flight simulation. As far as the supercarrier module, users that are purchasing this module in specific deserve to have their funds paid for Early Access actually go toward development of this module. And where has any progress on the Supercarrier been? Again, actual progress, not words in a newsletter describing how challenging the process is. Finally, the community managers communicate that they "...listen to lots of feedback constantly and pass it on to the team...". Please show the users that Eagle Dynamics Management actually listens to the community. Eagle Dynamics as a company has a history of continuing to send out new modules to sell without finishing old modules. For instance, releasing FC2024 when numerous bug existing in the FC3 planes. Releasing a pre-order for Iraq while Afghanistan still has not received an update since it's release. In the forum post for Afghanistan it is stated plainly "Regions will be release in approximately three-month intervals". Now, we are only told that these regions will be delayed in the forum of a newly released pre-order for the IRAQ map. And this was only after users complained that Eagle Dynamics is pushing new content without providing any updates on previous modules. Eagle Dynamics Management, you are losing the faith in your customer's. People have paid money for you modules, both early access modules and out of Early Access Modules, that do not work within the game, and yet you continue to push only new content without showing any actual progress on the promises you have made the community. I'm sorry, but Newsletters describing how hard something is doesn't show progress. Show us something, that these items are actually being worked on in some way. Have the developers actually share what they are working on, not just having Community Managers state they have talked to the teams. Again, this is not to hate on the community managers, this is to ask Eagle Dynamics Management to do something to show the community you actually care about following through with your promises. Eagle Dynamics Management, I ask that you actually listen to your customers. And show us that you care.

Clock sync was not solved prior to the Situation. Your only hope for this to get fixed is for ED to pay Razbam.

I have done Durandal drops many many times. You have to drop them low, like 200ft AGL and be level and non maneuvering as you release. If you drop them any higher they won't hit because of the chute and wind drifting them off course, then once that rocket fires it will exaggerate any drift (either from wind or from how you approached the runway). The chute makes them retarded, so you want to drop them low, just like you would any other retarded dumb bomb. I would try dropping them at 200-300ft AGL and report back. If you are trying to drop them from anywhere other than low level, then I would say that is not how the ordinance is intended to be used and would not expect them to function as intended. In your different drops what altitudes were you releasing at? Have you tried any at 200ft AGL and level flight? Durandals were designed to be dropped very low level. And the AAA you are discussing is a prime reason they are not used anymore, because in order to use them you must get VERY close to the ground (and AAA) and you basically fly along the runway heading +/- 10 degrees, so you are a big open target. The runway of an airbase is not even the best target for realism. Ideally you would take out hangers, housing, fuel stores, ammo stores. Runways can be repaired relatively easily, even with the concept for the durandal. But if there is nothing to fuel the planes, load on the planes, or even fly the planes, an operating runway is all but useless. Look into the RAF Tornados shot down in the Gulf War, this is a prime example of why trying to go low level over an actively defended airfield isn't the best. I often thought of using Durandals for runway destruction to shut out an airfield. But after discussions with others I have found there are much better tactics. Such as destroying the surronding infrastructure, which can be done with a Low Altitude Pop to Dive Toss delivery with slick MK-82/84s. Or if you really want to destroy the runway, come in with a 4 ship dropping LGB and lase precise intersections of runways/taxi ways.

How are you trying to release them? You are using them in Auto? Normally the best way to use them is to use them in CDIP and change the BOT (BOMB ON TARGET) on the PACS program to 1 (it defaults to center). When BOT is 1 this means that the pipper (when using CDIP) will cause the bombs to release in a string such that the 1st bomb will hit the pipper. Thus you should fly to have the pipper be at the front of the runway and pickle (hold pickle) until all bombs come off the jet. The same could be done in AUTO with having a designation at the front of the runway. If you have a designation at the front of the runway and don't change your BOT in your pacs and it is left to the default CENTER then half of your bombs will go short of that designation point and the other half of your bombs will go long of it. Also another tip is to "cut" the runway at an angle and to not go directly straight down the runway. The bombs have shoot that dispenses as you mention and the wind can affect the trajectory due to the wind causing them to blow off to side and miss. So cutting the runway at an angle will help to ensure bombs will hit the runway regardless of the direction of the wind. Edit: Durandals are dumb bombs with a chute and a rocket, and because you release them so low and want to release them right at the runway typically doing this 200-300ft AGL and in CDIP is the best way I have found to get good hits. You can also leave the PACS in auto and transition to CDIP by taking control of the HUD and then pressing Auto Acq Aft, this will toggle you into CDIP mode from Auto. Pressing Auto Acq Aft again (with the HUD in command) will then bring you back to AUTO mode.

A guy in my squadron is running into this same issue. The mirror is not rendering/displaying. He is looking straight "through" the mirror and seeing the nuts/bolts behind the mirror. Similiar to what Beirut posted above. He is using STEAM, ST, and is using VR.

In the ED discord it was stated that the Radar Cross Section for aircraft are a fixed value. This wishlist item is to alter the Radar Cross Section for aircraft based on their external stores and/or azimuth. This would better reflect radar detection ranges.

When flying the Apache there is an issue with trying to safe the apache arm/safe switch/button after using George AI. If a user takes off and does not use George AI as a CPG to lase then there is no issue. But if the user then uses George AI CPG to lase targets. The user is then not able to safe the apache. It immediately goes back to Armed and George says "Armed". This is true even when the user tells George AI CPG to stop lasing and closes the George AI menu.

@Raptor9 Completely Understand. Apologies for not knowing when you joined the team, but I appreciate you clearing that up. And thank you for the clarification on the datalink in the AH-64D!

I saw on another forum post, that a user from the ED Team stated that it stated there was a system that allowed Apaches and Kiowas to send/receive targets over a "datalink". I have provided that link to this forum post here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/282651-apache-datalink/?do=findComment&comment=4793975 Are there any plans to implement this system into DCS to allow the Apache and Kiowa to send/receive targets between platforms?

Yea, I have only noticed it with player F-15E's. And will do. I'll try to get a group together this week and include a short track.

The TEWS does not indicate that a friendly F-15E is locking you in STT. I have reproduced this in BVR training missions with others. Upon launching AIM-7M, which require an STT track, there is no lock warning, or launch warning from the other F-15E. This makes air to air engagements with friendly F-15E's very difficult as there is no way to detect a buddy lock ,as no TEWS lock warning is indicated when you are locked by a friendly F-15E. In many cases we have also noted that the TEWS does not even show a friendly F-15E on the display detecting its radar emmisions.

OP, I'm running into the same issue you are describing. Its almost like the jet doesn't recognize the input from the castle switch sometimes and you have to do multiple presses for it to register. You aren't crazy....or at least aren't the only crazy one.

You are correct!! The audio book is read by John Pruden. My bad. Great Book! Definitely got me out of the hornet and into the viper for a few weeks.

No additional solution. But is the book "Viper Pilot" by John Pruden? Currently reading/listening to it and just got past that chapter where he did that.