Richrach

Green? I have not seen green in the DCS A-4. The A-6E radar of that era was yellows and oranges, as was its big sister, the EA-6B. The A-4 radar was not meant for the kind of fine-grain work done by an A-6 BN. That radar was capable of breaking out a surprising amount of detail in the right hands. Now days the computer does all the processing. Back in that period, the BN did the work. To be honest I have only used the DCS A-4E radar for the rudimentary ground work. It just was not intended for heavier missions like night precision bombing. Single seat + head down fiddling with a radar = Dead plane and crew. That was outside the scope of the plane itself. Wish I had more to offer.

99, Doing further testing, my original results were not accurate. I did all the normal things as described in the thread. Drawings and the large amount of smoke I had in the scenario along with the updated Massuns92 pack seemed to be the problem. Further testing revealed the problem is triggers / starting units after the beginning of the mission. The Syria map does not like units starting after the beginning of the mission. I had 150 units to start and another ~100 begin at later times. Crashes ALL corresponded to the later start times. I removed units starting later and began them all at the beginning. Problem solved. I even boosted the numbers up to 400+ units, all starting at the beginning of the mission without problem. For some reason, triggers and later activations are a bug in Syria. I hope this helps someone out there who builds larger missions. Richrach *** BELOW IS NOT VALID*** Additional testing completed. See above Actually, what I am finding is it is not the drawings and static objects, but the triggers at the beginning of the mission to get rid of the wall. I set the triggers for a 1 ONCE / TIME MORE THAN 1. When I set them to MISSION START / ALL COALITION OUT OF ZONE the mission worked withall the drawings. The static objects were updated to Massuns92-Asset Pack 3.0 All worky-goody now. Thank you for the help in knowing where to look and what to try! Richrach

I have done likewise. I also removed the Obstacle destruction zone. Not sure which one did the trick, if it is actuall fixed or not. More testing and experimenting. Will know by the end of the weekend and post my findings.

Flappie, THANK YOU for working with me. I was oging to start a new mission, but I will delete items until I/we find the reason for the problem. Will let you know. I feel like such a nerd...

Flappie, went and deleted the file you listed above. No joy. Same problem. Here is the mission file: OCT 6 1973 Golan Heights war breaks out .miz

Just ran the cleanup and repair as you suggested. Loaded a mission I had built and it crashed as it did before. Is it possible the mission is somehow corrupted? I can start a clean mission with just an A-4E in Syria and it will run. Ugh... it would really stink to have to go back and recreate the mission I built... Richrach dcs.log

Copy all. THANK YOU for the incredibly FAST response! Will try now. Report back.

I have made numerous missions in Syria and Sinai and all have worked fine. I spent a few months in Sinai building missions and flying, no problem. Going back to Syria, the game crashes after loading. It is semi-random, meaning the crash box shows up, but sometimes units continue to move or appear to be operating correctly for periods of time. Other times, nothing moves and all is just frozen. Running: DCS 2.9.3.51704 Not familiar enough with the logs to know what I am looking at, but I did find this error: 2024-03-23 14:29:08.707 ERROR EDCORE (Main): No suitable driver found to mount mods/terrains/syria/assets/assetstextures.zip There are a ton of other errors also appearing in the log, but not sure what to make of them as a whole. I run VR with Pimax 8KX and it works quite well in Sinai, no problems. In Syria, neither flatscreen or VR work correctly now. The game runs fine with all the settings turned up higher than they are for Syria. Log files attached. Any help finding the problem is much appreciated. Other things I have tried: NVIDIA 4070 - Rolled back driver to one I know worked in the Syria map, no effect No OC on CPU (everything worked with a mild overclock prior to this problem, all maps) No XMP (has worked with XMP prior to this) Removed VSN aircraft and mods (all worked in other maps) The second log file attached is from the Sinai map. I just loaded a mission with identical parameters for the computer and DCS and it works. It seems to have just as many errors, if not more, but why does it work and Syria does not? dcs.log dcs.log

Trying to be part of the solution, I am attaching my latest log file here. Note: Sinai missions are fine as are all other parts of DCS as far as I can tell. The problem, whatever it is, is in both 2D and VR. My settings work just fine in Sinai. I hope this helpdcs.logs.

I am having similar problems. Prior to the current release I had missions that worked just fine on the Syria map. Now I cannot get anything to work except missions without any hostile forces. I can fly in over Syria, but as soon as hostile units are put in play the crash is immediate on start. Disabling VR and going 2D does not help. Something appears to be amiss. Last thought, I was playing MT Beta when everything was working.

Tippis, if I understand you correctly, you are saying set FLAG SET RANDOM VALUE at the beginning of the mission or fairly close to that? I have two periods of randomization, a flag one, and later a flag 2. They are set as follows: ONCE / TIME MORE (510) / FLAG SET RANDOM VALUE ("1", 1, 10) ONCE / TIME MORE (1021) / FLAG SET RANDOM VALUE ("2", 21, 30) Interestingly, the second flag seems to be more random than the first. It does take a while to get through both flags, so I do not get to run a repeated test. The first flag has definitely gone to a specific pair of targets most of the time, which is a bit irritating as one of them is the most heavily defended. Getting whacked on that target happens pretty frequently. Thank you for your insight! Grimes, what you are seeing is about what I have been experiencing. The "random" is not truly random, but play favorites to a certain extent. Many years ago this was a problem in Microsoft EXCEL formulas. It was based on how the random seed was chosen. Good to know I am in good company and not losing my mind or doing something wrong! Richrach

Twistking, thank you for the reply. I have a trigger set right before the triggers I want to randomize. It is ONCE / TIME MORE (510) / FLAG SET RANDOM VALUE ("1", 1, 10) From there I have the triggers set to randomize 9-lines to an aircraft. There are two sets six possible targets, separated by time. The mission should randomly pick from the first set. Once that is complete, another FAC takes over and has a different set of targets to choose from. The randomization has gotten better with time. It still picks one of the targets a disproportionate amount of the time.

Mongo no no eniwon name speel...

Well, none of you are Nostradamus...

Max, good question, with a good answer. Did you know some military aircraft actually have "dead zones" in their sticks in the real jet? Grumman aircraft were known for this, and it was designed into the platforms. Fly-by-wire-plastic lawn darts (I am thinking the F-16, of which I am not a fanboy) do not. This is one of the reasons all the real pilots I know and have flown with in Vipers hated flying it in IFR conditions. One has little, if any, tactile feeling for what the plane is doing. It certainly is doing things you did not command. Just watch a video of a Viper taxiing. The stab is moving all over the place because the computer just cannot leave well enough alone. Interesting anecdotal tidbits for a Tuesday morning before orange juice. Have a great day! Richrach

For those of you lamenting the lack of a representative for the SA-7, here is a temporary work around until DCS can make one. I have tested this and it works for the most part against jets. I am not a helo bubba so the jury will have to be out on that until someone else looks at it. STARTING POINT: MANPADS SA-18 Ilga "Grouse" (***NOTE: NOT the "Ilga-S"***) Set Advanced (Waypoint Actions): 1. Interception range = 33%, 2. ALARM STATE = RED state Create Trigger Zone = Circular, 6000 feet (for this example, called "Strela Zone") over threat In Triggers: 4 MISSION START (Start condition) / [Conditions] ALL OF COALITION OUT OF ZONE (Side, Strela Zone, ALL) / [Actions] UNIT AI OFF (Ilga unit) 1 ONCE (Activate, NO EVENT) / [Conditions] UNIT INSIDE ZONE (Friendly unit, Strela zone), UNIT'S AGL ALTITUDE LOWER THAN (Friendly unit, 4000), UNIT'S SPEED LOWER THAN (Friendly unit, 154.166 {300 KTS), UNIT'S AGL ALTITUDE HIGHER THAN (Friendly unit, 500) / [Actions] UNIT AI ON (Ilga unit) _____ This should result in the following: 1. Forward hemisphere shots will still happen. However, a) they will be later, and b) almost always be unguided (very wide shots) 2. Trailing aspect shots will be initiated later, giving the chance to use flares (which seem to work better with these parameters. Why is unknown) 3. Overflight is possible above 4000 AGL (reality, especially for fast movers) 4. The delay time built into the AI OFF command replicates the time to get ready, acquire, and fire missile. These missiles take time to prepare. They just do not sit there, waiting to shoot. _____ NOTES: 1. For rear aspect shots, the missile will still follow you out of the actual range of an SA-18. I have no way to fix this other than to reduce the overall Trigger Zone. 2. Yes, 300 KTS is well lower than the SA-7's actual intercept capability. This number was used to shape the envelope better. Using the published intercept speeds results in an unrealistic threat, the whole reason for this exercise. Why this number works and others do not? I do not know. 3. Red state negates accurate forward quarter shots with the 6000 foot trigger zone. 3. There seems to be a sweet spot between 350-400 KIAS on the targeted aircraft. Going faster or slower than this invites the SA-7 to shoot sooner and with more accuracy. Above 430 KIAS you will be back into Ilga forward quarter shot parameters. I have run this set-up in my missions now and it is pretty close. Pre-emptive flares seem to work much better and often will keep the missile in the tube. Your mileage may vary. This is the best I can do given what we have to work with. Perhaps another enterprising sim pilot can improve on my efforts?

Flappie, thank you for the attention. I respectfully disagree with the "wish" vs "bug" issue. When the only system provided to model a basic threat that is real but counterable (SA-7) has a Pk well over 90%... that is a bug. That bug spans from the early 70's to today. In my opinion that makes it a bug the size of a pickup truck. Since it has been reported for years it is apparent treating it as a "wish" will never get it addressed. It is more important to get grass that flows and bends in rotor wash than have a realistic model of something the helo simmer guy may have to contend with in a realistic scenario? How much programmer time went into that or dozens of other nice-to-haves? This akin to polishing the car and never changing the oil. One makes the car look good, the other is what makes it a car instead of a shiny obelisk that does not move. People buy a car to have a car. I pre-bought the F-4 Phantom because the claim is it will be a high fidelity model. One cannot call it a sim if it does not at least attempt to accurately represent the world it is trying to simulate. So, since accuracy and fidelity are lower priorities to DCS, I am working on solving the problem the US Navy way. Trivia: A standard government issue pen is 200 NM flight distance on the standard nav chart found in mission planning at every US base in the world. This applies to Grumman Aircraft (E-2, F-14, A-6, EA-6). We used to do flight range planning at air force bases by putting a pen up to the chart and dot, dot, dot, we can get there from here. It drove the USAF guys nuts because they would calculate down to the pound their fuel burns like the silly guys they were. Grummies, of which I am one, never ran a jet out of gas doing this. I/we-the-community, are not asking for a mega high fidelity model. Honestly there are VERY few out there who would see the difference. We are asking for reasonable accuracy in replicating a historical threat that is the most proliferated MANPAD on the planet. Copy Ilga basic and give it the parameters I listed in an earlier post. Thank you if you have read this in its entirety. Have a superb weekend! Richrach

Northstar, love the callsign. So, as I read your post and others, this issue has been going on for YEARS, and DCS does nothing about it. THAT is worth the stream of fluid that comes out the relief tube of a Grumman Ironworks F-14. So, they can spend inordinate amounts of time to work on and add a whole string of air to air missiles, some of which have NEVER seen actual combat. These can be defeated by maneuver and countermeasures. But they cannot even add a primitive system some of us have actually had to defend against in favor of a system they created that is unbeatable? Ilga has a Pk higher than Iron Dome and SA-20. More fluid coming from the relief tube. I like the idea of posting your modules. Here are mine: Modules: A-4E, F-4E (pre-order), SU-33, T-45, Sinai, Syria, Supercarrier I have flown or crewed in 12 of the military aircraft modeled in DCS in addition to another 7 that are not. This includes actual combat time with junk getting shot at me. I will not be buying another module until they fix this. Richrach

When making a trigger to randomize the selection of an event in DCS 2.9, the FLAG SET RANDOM VALUE function will not randomize. My settings: FLAG SET RANDOM VALUE ("1", 1,10) Conditions settings for the random event: Event 1 FLAG IS MORE ("1", 0) FLAG IS LESS ("1", 3) Event 2 FLAG IS MORE ("1",2) FLAG IS LESS ("1",5) Event 3 FLAG IS MORE ("1", 4) FLAG IS LESS ("1", 7) Event 4 FLAG IS MORE ("1",6) FLAG IS LESS ("1",8) Event 5 FLAG IS MORE ("1", 7) FLAG IS LESS ("1", 10) Event 6 FLAG IS MORE ("1",9) FLAG IS LESS ("1",11) As I understand the logic, this should randomly produce Event 1 20%, Event 2 20%, Event 3 20%, Event 4 10%, Event 5 20%, and Event 6 10%. The computer assigns Event 1 or 2 100% of the time. Thoughts? Richrach

The visual presentation is not really relevant if I understand your post. The lack of any fix for a problem that impacts such a high percentage of DCS patrons is amazing. The solution I outlined above is not difficult. It will go a long way to giving credibility to the idea DCS holds out that it is a simulation instead of an eye-candy game. Simulation is in their name, for heaven's sake! So, get to simulating. If DCS does not address issues of fidelity of their modeling, eventually they will be usurped by someone else who will. Either stay at the forefront or be overtaken by someone else who will. Richrach

Respectfully, there is no rank in the debrief of a flight/mission. Time to debrief. It is beyond time to fix this. SA-7 (Strela-2) and its generation of shoulder fired SAMs is a blight on DCS. It has been for a long time and it needs to be fixed. ***The reality is this threat (the early versions of the SA-7) are still viable in the world because so many were made and there was a time they were handed out like candy to all manner of bad actors (countries and terrorist vermin).*** Modern jets still have to contend with them as a potential threat due to their proliferation. It is accepted their accuracy, lethality, and performance may well be questionable, but a slightly damaged 5th generation aircraft from one of these is just as worthless as one shot down. The threat remains because the missiles still exist. Obviously, those of us who prefer to fly earlier aircraft (MiG-15, 19, 21, F-4, A-4, Mirage, Huey, Hind, etc.) are highly interested in this part of the game being accurate. ***16 of the 36 fixed wing modules offered for DCS and 5 of 7 helo modules have a vested interest in this part of the game being accurate. This affects EVERYONE who is paying to fly these modules.*** In reading the threads it appears exactly zero has been done about this for some time. Lots of lip service, no action. We are about to get a new module, the F-4 Phantom. I have pre-purchased it because I am excited about flying a plane I have very personal and ongoing ties to. The lack of motivation to fix a glaring problem in the threat library this aircraft will face is not good. What value is there in having these great models of aircraft and helos that are meticulously researched and built, only to put them in fantasyland environments? The claims DCS is realistic is laughable without fixing the underlying issue(s) in the game code. It is not about the new-oh-I-have-to-have-it-modules with wonderful graphics and fancy cockpits if the world one puts them in is so bad. Fix the field before signing up an all-star team to play on your pitch. I have personal experience with SAMs, on the receiving end. I have also operated many of them from the ground. The unclas fixes are simple. So fix them. Dedicate a programmer or two to this and do the following. Steps to fix this problem. For SA-7: - Clone "MANPADS Ilga - Shooter". Call it "Generic First Generation MANPAD", "Strela-2", "Redeye", or all three. Actually, all three names make sense. Make it available to all countries. - Reduce effective range by 50%, elevation and horizontally - Reduce damage by 50% (There is plenty of data on this out there. Very few fixed wing aircraft were ever brought down by a single SA-7. The vast majority were damaged and limped home. Airliners have been hit by one of these and it could not bring them down. - Prohibit lock-ons from front hemisphere - No shots within 45 degree cone of the Sun - Individual flare effectiveness set 33% (by the second flare, Pk = 10%, by three flares Pk = 4%). This is not at all unreasonable for IR SAMs of that era. This also reinforces the reality that preemptive flares work and even flaring a locked-on missile of this generation was highly effective. This is a very simple solution, based on unclas data, literature, and historical engagements. C'mon guys. Richrach

VZ, yes, finesse is the key. If you watch video of guys landing at the boat, you see them making many, many corrections. Put a correction in, immediately take it out the opposite direction. Same with power. You are trying to move the plane inches, or maybe feet, and that cannot be done ham-fisted. The first plane I built was very much like that. VERY responsive. Some would say "twitchy", but I loved it. Tiny, tiny corrections, and many of them. I enjoy the model the guys have put together of the A-4. It is what I remember except for approaches. Sim pilots and even actual pilots who have spent their lives in fly-by-wire birds may just not have the knack for it. We used to mock the F/A-18 guys because it seemed they lost about half their brain cells when they stepped into that community. All that fancy gizmo stuff at their fingertips and they could not fly precision navigation a fraction as good as the Grumman Ironworks guys (A-6, EA-6, E-2, F-14). Even in degraded nav we could out-fly them. Oh, the good old days... Richrach

Roobarbjapan, where do I find this group online? I usually stay out of social media and such, so I am not up to speed on Discord. I spoke to an old friend who also flew the TA-4J in flight school yesterday. He thought it was great there is a sim out there for the A-4. If he were not an airline pilot he would probably fly it as well. His wife was a plane captain in his squadron when they met. Ah, romance in tactical aviation. Thank you for the encouragement. Always welcome, always appreciated. Richrach

Nocke, thank you for your kind words. It is not opinion but physics in play here. Me Mongo. Mongo not a mart chimp. But, physics is physics. Physics no care Mongo mart or dumb. Even Mongo can figr out things after seeing tens of thousands of times... lots of finger and toe counting! Analog jets, those that had almost no computer enhancement to flight controls other than rudimentary AFCS, are just a different beast in the digital world. I flew a helicopter in the 80's with and without AFCS and it was astounding the difference. Different side of the same coin here. Digital systems and fly-by-wire can be replicated easily on a computer because there is little translation required. Code is code at the end of the day. Imitating 3D analog actions in digital format is a real gift. In simple terms, when a Navy jet is trimmed on-speed for approach addition or subtraction to power makes an immediate impact on VSI (vertical speed). There is zero time lag (other than the spool time of turbofan engines. Useless trivia: Jets of the A-4's era had much less spool lag, being turbojet engines. It was still there but much smaller.) Reduce power plane go down. Increase power plane go up. There are many videos out there these days of pilots flying at the boat. Watch the amount of changes and the speed of those changes in throttle position. Two things to notice. First, the nose pitch/attitude relative to the horizon, does not change at all. Second, the pilot is controlling the glide slope entirely with power, not nose. Watch the stick in those videos. The pilots almost never make a movement of the stick forward/back, only side to side. Power = glideslope. Stick = lineup. This is not the case in the A-4E model. The first thing to happen in the game is speed changes. Then the AoA and pitch follow. VSI lags these responses. In reality it is just the opposite. Actually, power changes instantly affect VSI, airspeed follows, slowly. AOA lags both these. Its physics. Lineup, meatball, AoA is how one flies at the boat. Airspeed is not even in the scan. I confess I have not flown with the APC on in DCS. In all my time doing what I did I can count the number of times on two hands I have seen that system in use, and only once at the boat. That approach ended up a waveoff because the APC system did not work as advertised and behind the boat is a really stupid place to experiment. Modern day Hornet and Growler guys apparently love flying approaches with APC (they did in the baby Hornet in the Airwings I flew in). Today? Well, their mileage may vary. Maybe it works in DCS. I do not know. I had too few hours in the A-4 in real life. I wish I had 100 times more. It was so much fun to fly, even more so now that I am not a youngin' anymore. Good simming! Richrach

Roobarbjapan, I do not know. Is it worth it? It does not seem to be an issue for anyone else. Perhaps it is a Carrier Aviation thing and those who do not fly like they are at the boat could care less. I still fly light civilian planes. Just as I was taught I fly real approaches with power on and control glideslope as we did at the boat with throttle/power. It makes total sense to me, but I am only one guy. How serious do you think they are about the fidelity of the flight model in this one area? I have to say the rest of the modeling is fantastic, so it is the juice worth the squeeze? Richrach