Relayer

Evidently you know best in this matter.

He's the author

Noticed an issue with the TF30's nozzle logic on AI aircraft. Essentially the WonW switch seems to be working backwards. On the ground, AI nozzles are in the constricted position at idle thrust when they should be fully open. In the air, AI nozzles appear in the full open position when they should be constricted, and seem to close when afterburner is commanded - the opposite of the correct behaviour. It's a minor issue, but nonetheless one to be aware of. Images showing incorrect nozzle positions on ground and in air attached:

Reproduced above problem. Have set AI flights to start in air, still no joy, carrier flights don't spawn except player flight. Edit - Disregard - Issue was cull range set too low and excluding the carrier.

Night CAS

Has anything been said from HB about *how* Jester will control the LANTIRN pod? Any mockup of the UI or anything? Given that we won't be able to control the pod anymore, we need some way of making sure that Jester is targeting the right thing. Will the UI bring up a list of targets or something and we select from that to tell the AI what to target?

Firstly, I'm really enjoying Liberation so thank you for your hard work in making this happen - it really adds a much needed dimension to DCS. My question / request is - would it be possible somehow to define what skin aircraft should use, in a manner similar to the custom payload? Yes, I can go into the ME and manually change every skin individually, but being able to do it from the Liberation GUI would be much easier from a user standpoint I reckon. Specifically, to be able to either define a skin for each flight, or each...base, or side would be great (something like that). This comes in handy when you have addon skins installed that don't have country codes - for example, if I'm playing as Israel but the F-16 defaults to an addon skin without a country code, it's a pain to have to change it individually for each a/c on each mission.

Thanks very much for releasing this, it looks absolutely superb!

Was this ever released? I can't seem to find it on the ED Files section. The 102 jets were always some of the most stunning out there, and I'd love to fly this one!

Confirming this also

So I'm having some multiplayer issues with the 'map marker x to x' commands. In SP, they seem to work fine, I can place a map marker and tell JESTER to set it as whatever I want. In MP, it seems to not work - I place the marker, give the command, JESTER acknowledges it but does nothing. VA shows the command being recognised, no error messages etc. Everything else seems to work. Any thoughts on what could be causing this? EDIT: I have done a small experiment. If I host my own MP server and run a mission (say, a random TTI mission) AIRIO can input steerpoint data from map markers no problem. On my usual server, which is Hoggit's GAW / PGAW, it cannot. Now, objectives on GAW are marked with map markers, so there's a ton of them around - but they all have really high numbers (usually 100+). If I create a new player-made map marker, it usually has a low number (eg 5), and this is what I've been trying to use. I've attached two screenshots from the GAW server showing the command being confirmed and that a map marker with that number exists.

Double check that you have the MSL PREP button depressed and that the missiles have had sufficient time to cool. Double check that the MASTER ARM switch is set to ON. I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs, but I've been caught out before by forgetting MSL PREP, so it's worth re-stating.

General Dixon (USAF), former commander of Tactical Air Command said that part of the rationale behind giving attack aircraft an 'F' designation within the USAF was to increase the attractiveness of the aircraft to the best performing pilots (those who were likely to get their 'dream sheet' assignments). They'd be much more likely to go for something with an 'F' designation than a 'B' or 'A'.

Gave the mission a few tries so far, it's superb! Pretty much exactly what I've been looking for, well done! As a small request, would it be possible to have new ground tasks also generate a JTAC?

I doubt we'll see it, but DCS - Phantom would be almost as much of a dream come true as DCS - Tomcat. Absolutely love both. The only thing I can see a problem with is the fact that they're two seaters, and then you've got the whole problem of how do you as a player do both roles at once.

I get what you're talking about there, but in this case it appears as if the water is being drawn below the land level. The shadow of my aircraft appears to be hanging in mid air, above the surface of the water. This didn't appear to be an issue with previous versions. As I say, it's very very difficult to explain with screenshots, so I might see about making a short video to demonstrate what I'm talking about. I've attached a dxdiag report to give you a better idea of what I'm running, and will update gfx drivers and report back. DxDiag.txt

Just encountered this in 1.1.0.8, there appears to be a discrepancy between the actual water level and what's being reflected. It's not so easy to see in a screenshot unless you can see the shadow and reflection in one shot, but when it's actually moving it's very disorientating when flying at low level. Essentially what I see is that the water appears to be 'lower' than it really is, so it's easy to drift downwards and end up hitting the water when the surface still appears to be a few feet below you.

I felt pretty much like this - pretty bummed out, and this was the response I got which I was perfectly happy with. You can tinker around with options.lua, but bear in mind it's not in any way 'officially' supported. "I know that as a user it might look strange, but there are non-trivial reasons why 32-bit systems is a problem, and in the specific case of 1.1.0.8 there was completely new stuff introduced that caused further issues. (You might not as a user see it, but just take my word that the software is complex and sometimes a superficially small change requires major changes elsewhere.) The 32-bit address space is just too small, and corners have to be cut to accomodate it. So sadly, in my own personal opinion: just spend the 80 dollars it costs to update to a non-ancient operating system. The 64-bit switch is 5 years overdue for computer games and they need to start taking advantage of what is offered." So essentially, the requirements of running on high between 1.1.0.7 and 1.1.0.8 have changed due to code being changed behind what we (users) see. So...64 bit seems to be the way to go!

Well, that's me told :-p. I'll get around to doing it eventually. As it is, I've modified the options.lua a bit and got settings that don't look too bad that seem to be running stable so far. I'm a tinkerer, what can I say? I wasn't aware that the code for things like textures had been changed between 1.1.0.7 and 1.1.0.8 - as a games dev student I know how much work goes into stuff behind the scenes that the user will never really know about. I'll eventually switch over to 64 bit, it's just such a PITA to have to back so much stuff up and format the drive, but I will get round to it. I usually hold on to technology until it's outdated and only when people actually stop supporting it do I eventually upgrade. A-10 is probably the only game out there that I'd solely buy a new OS for, so take that as a credit to how much I love this sim.

Still on 32 bit here, and I take issue with the new patch. I've seen the previous explanations given for removing functionality from 32-bit systems. I have experienced no such system instability, I have quite literally not had one CTD since Beta 4. Now, I'm forced back to using medium textures etc, no HDR. I wouldn't mind so much if it was simply a matter of 'okay, we won't enable cockpit shadows on 32 bit systems' but to actually *remove the option* of using the sim with high textures is absurd. The difference in visual quality is huge, and the performance gains are very very slight on my system. I'm willing to take the risk of the application being unstable, but at least give me the option to try. I'm not trying to be a dick here, I really appreciate this sim and all of ED's hard work on it - I'm just trying to get my head around why I'm being forced to take a step backwards when there was nothing wrong in the first place.

I'm presuming the real a/c defaults to HARS mode too? I.e this wasn't just done for the hell of it.

Ah, okay. Just so long as I wasn't actually so bad that I could empty the better part of a thousand rounds and a rocket pod at one target and not kill it. :-p That BMP should have more holes in it than the plot of Independence Day!

Encountered this little puzzle in my last mission, a BMP which simply would not die. The vehicle wasn't set to 'invulnerable', and I don't think it was particularly bad piloting on my part. Going from the ACMI log, the BMP (Vehicle 27) took 562x 30mm cannon hits, and 7x Mk.5 rocket hits. Track and ACMI tacview file included in the RAR attached (since .acmi files aren't valid attachments), it might be easiest just looking at the tacview. The events you're looking for start at 05:17:01, where I begin firing on Vehicle 27. BMP Of Doom.rar

Add a navpoint in the editor 'eg Mazda' and the JTAC should list that as the ingress point.

NWS is 'linked' to the rudder controls - so whatever you're using for rudder keys, use those. Also, DCS w/o joystick? Wahh?