Robo76

Mi-24 needs most to complete the functionality of a functional Ai Petrovich

Would it be possible to extend the graphical markers placed by players in multiplayer game ? Right now there is only a universal marker - a circle that you have to click on and read what it means from the text, which is very impractical with multiple markers for both sides on the map. It would help to be able to place and delete markers online for localized EWR, Stinger, SAM, etc. and in the blue/red color scheme as used on the map when objects are visible, but these markers would be in bold style for example. Then one quick glance at the map would be enough to determine the situation on the battlefield. Also, a different label for the marker deletion function would be useful, as new players (but also experienced ones) are still confused by the cross (like a cross in windows), which does not close the marker but deletes it (usually by mistake).

I tried, but the result is the same as with DCS BIOSBridge, see video

After the last update, the damage model does not work. Missiles fly through the command vehicle and you can drive through it.

I installed DCS-Bios (Skunkworks) and Arduino Uno + LCD (16x2) with USB COM3 connection using i-tec USB 3.0 Charging HUB 13 port. If there is no communication with DCS, everything works properly, LCD is lit and displays what I enter. As soon as I connect communication with DCS using DCS BiosBridge (defaut communication settings), the LCD displays the correct value (Heading), but then it flashes about 2 times and goes out. When I turn off communication with DCS, the LCD works again. Anyone know what is the fault ? Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator #define DCSBIOS_IRQ_SERIAL #include "DcsBios.h" #include <Wire.h> #include <LiquidCrystal_I2C.h> LiquidCrystal_I2C lcd(0x27,16,2); // set the LCD address to 0x27 for a 16 chars and 2 line display int TRUEheading = 0; void screen0() { lcd.setCursor(0,0); lcd.print("Heading: "); lcd.setCursor(9,0); lcd.print(TRUEheading); } /* paste code snippets from the reference documentation here */ void onHdgDegChange(unsigned int newValue) { TRUEheading = newValue; screen0(); } DcsBios::IntegerBuffer hdgDegBuffer(0x0436, 0x01ff, 0, onHdgDegChange); void setup() { DcsBios::setup(); lcd.init(); // zapnutí LCD lcd.clear(); lcd.backlight(); // zapne podsvícení LCD screen0(); } void loop() { DcsBios::loop(); }

The F10 map does not remember icon settings (e.g. Show MGRS grid). I turn off MGRS when I call up the map, and the next time I go back in game on the MP server, MGRS is back on again. Previously, the F10 map remembered the user settings. It hasn't worked for about half a year now.

I don't really understand ED's decisions lately on the F-35, MiG-29A, Su-25 A. I expect there will be more of these odd decisions as time goes on. I get the feeling from them that these are the decisions of some crisis manager who has no viable vision. Just trial and error. If ED wants to focus (finally) on online multiplayer (since existing players have pretty much everything already purchased), the decision to make the Su-25 free doesn't make sense for new MP players. Logically, it should be the A-1O A to be a free attack aircraft for both sides of MP, if the new player hasn't decided which side suits him. For MP, the Su-25 A only makes sense in 60 scenarios, and new young players aren't looking for those. On the more modern 80-90 scenarios, the existing Su-25 T is clearly the better choice, as the Shkval allows it to attack from a safer distance and the Fantasmagoria easily detects SAMs and EWRs. Yes, it's harder to maneuver, but only when loaded to the max, which can be said of all modules. For new players, the Su-25 A makes a lot less sense in MP than the current Su-25 T. It seems to me that ED doesn't know much about MP play in DCS yet, and what is needed for 2 teams to compete in DCS. If there continues to be a lack of machines on the red side for MP to match the blue ones from the 80-90's, DCS MP player numbers will not grow. The red side's players won't increase due to the lack of competitive machines, and the blue team won't have anyone to play against, so it will consequently demotivate them. I see this trend currently on online MP , and the latest ED news announcement will only exacerbate this situation. The announced FF MiG-29A will not improve this situation, as performance wise it will still be the same machine as the current FC3. Again, the differences in capabilities between the blue and red sides will not be reduced, but instead will be magnified over time by the F-35. ED may promise themselves better sales, but it will only hurt the mission and balance of the MP sides. Maybe the F-35 will make money for ED, but it will be useless to blue players who want to fly MP missions with them because not many red players will want to fly against them. ED is gradually backing itself into a corner over the long term with these "well thought out" steps until eventually it will have neither a large paying MP community nor the revenue to cover development and operating costs. And that will eventually please no one at all. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

It doesn't seem fair to me that some people bought the Su-25A module and now others will have it for free. Will you refund the money to the current owners or give them the choice of another FC3 module for free ?

I Petrovitch has been absolutely tragic since the "improvements". If the infantry is near a forest, Ai searches all the trees in the vicinity. Even if the infantry is not covered by trees, it takes Ai the same amount of time to find it as if it were in the middle of the forest. It's absolutely tragic when infantry near a forest is marked by smoke from a Reaper. Ai ignores the smoke though, even when the troops are shooting at the helicopter. Ai doesn't have priority detection that something is firing at her, and you can see the light trails of the shots. If the firing units are between the trucks, Ai can see the trucks but not the Bofors firing at her. I don't have the nerve. Get it right finally, or better yet, bring back the original Ai search. If you want footage again, sit in your creation on the MP server at least once and you'll be amazed at how unrealistic it is. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

I wouldn't be too surprised if it's possible for the F-35.

Okay, multiple species would probably be very difficult to program. How about coloring the wheels red and blue?

Probably since update 2.9.7.58923, DCS do not remember the player's icon settings for the F10 map display functions. If he enters or jumps out of a new machine in MP, the map icons are set by default and it's annoying to e.g. repeatedly turn off the grid display and so on.

Robo76

Hello. Would it be possible to add support for AJS-37 Viggen ?

In normal peacetime operations, these aircraft also take off on concrete airfields to minimize wear and tear. But in combat deployment, they can operate on grass airfields.Landing and taking off on the grass was not just a test to see if the landing gear would hold up. It was a direct design requirement that these aircraft be able to take off and land on highways and grass airfields in combat conditions. The Warsaw Pact reckoned that within the first few hours most of their airfields would be destroyed by nuclear weapons, just as NATO airfields would be destroyed with some Harriers and Swedish planes left in underground hangars. NATO's analysts calculated that they would be left with about 5% of the aircraft in Europe after a nuclear first strike, since 98% of Europe's combat aircraft were concentrated at just 69 airfields (there were thousands during WWII). There was no low-cost way to prevent that, so they made the 5% into 89% and pretended it wasn't a problem and continued to produce mostly planes that needed quality runways. Note: I don't see the details of the program. But something tells me that it would only be enough to modify the chassis resistance parameters, which affect whether the chassis gets "stuck" in the grass or not. Maybe just ask the F-16 module authors how complex their "fix" was that suddenly its landing gear has no problem with any terrain. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Record of a ten-ton F-16 landing in a meadow. Sci-fi. F-16 10tons landing in a meadow.trk

The example of the F-16 taking off from the grass proves that the problem is not in the terrain map but in the setup of the module's landing gear operation and durability. If one wanted to fix it according to real machines, it can be done. If it remains in DCS in this state, it looks like an effort to purposely degrade or improve the performance of some aircraft-modules. If an F-16 takes off from a runway-less field base in multiplayer combat, lands there, refuels, rearms, and shoots you down after takeoff, you wonder if you're still playing DCS or if you're already playing War of Warplanes. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

The example of the F-16 taking off from the grass proves that the problem is not in the terrain map but in the setup of the module's landing gear operation and durability. If one wanted to fix it according to real machines, it can be done. If it remains in DCS in this state, it looks like an effort to purposely degrade or improve the performance of some aircraft-modules. If an F-16 takes off from a runway-less field base in multiplayer combat, lands there, refuels, rearms, and shoots you down after takeoff, you wonder if you're still playing DCS or if you're already playing War of Warplanes. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Probably since this update I've started seeing F-16s in multiplayer missions taxiing and taking off on grass.

Thanks to the authors for the correction. Mi-24 engines are now safe to extinguish.

recordings L-39 ZA take-off grass.trk F-16 take-off grass.trk

Attached is a recording of a fully loaded DCS F-16 C taking off from the grass. Prior to update 2.9.5.55300, the F-16 landing gear broke down outside the concrete area like the other modules. F-16 take-off grass.trk I couldn't find a video of a real F-16 taking off from a grass airfield on the internet. If the creator of the module has it, I'd be happy to watch it. Thank you

It's clear from the videos. The F-16 is supposed to break the landing gear when taking off on grass (as it used to be). The L-39 is supposed to drive on grass and take off without any problems without destroying its undercarriage, and this is still not the case.