Gunjam

8 months later, and still radio silence. ED have said on discord that they have enough feedback but have given the old "need more free dev time" response. Can they give an actual timeline for an update regarding tweaking spotting, or is this so low in priority that it will be left as is for the foreseeable future?

Very impressive read. Thank you for that. The F-4E already is fantastic, and I am looking forward to multi-thread and further improvements being implemented. It's is generous of you to share your advancement through SDK, and very good news for the simulator community. Bravo!

I am happy for ED to finally have implemented a renewed attempt at improving spotting. I am back playing again now, since this has been a big frustration for me, especially in PvP where the player who ran 1080p had the best spotting, at the cost of making the game look bad visually. As Why485 and others have already touched on more eloquently than I: 1. It's clear that this first implementation has issues. 2. The people with goggles on their heads seem to be affected the most. 3. It's a big shame that the disable option of this new feature doesn't seem to be working for those who want to use it, and I'm sure there would be far fewer posts here if it worked. But hey, this is the latest open beta, people are free to play the stable version if they don't have the patience to wait for a fix. Overall, I'm happy about the new spotting. I find it to be a big improvement from past version. I am looking forward for future iterations and improvements. On another note, I wish the moderators were a bit more present as some people seem to treat this thread/forum as their personal blog.

I'm glad it's being worked on, but I am apprehensive about this reflection/glint talk going on. Spotting range is extremely exaggerated with the dots right now. The last thing we need is some gamey glint/reflection which is guaranteed at all angles and hours of the day and at silly ranges. How much chrome and reflective surfaces do you see on fighter aircraft.. hmmm

An uneven playing field when it came to spotting in multiplayer, due to exploiting the use of low resolution, is one of the main reason I've taken a long break from DCS. I know ED quality of life updates are glacial at best, and seeing those quotes from one of the developers explains a lot, but IMO spotting needs an improvement like this mod, and has needed it for years.

+1

Bump

I get a consistent audio crackle/static when going through Mach 1 in the Mirage. I see others experience it too: https://old.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/n22qe7/audio_crackling_in_the_mirage_in_full_ab_just_me/ crackle.trk

I also experience consistent freezes/crashes when my A-10C is destroyed. It doesn't matter what destroys it, but whenever it takes enough damage and just before it should show me the external "death animation" it freezes. It seems to be about error finding/loading the correct sound files. See my log files in my own bug thread here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4348675&posted=1#post4348675

It seems like I have narrowed it down to when the aircraft takes sufficient damage to be destroyed and it tries to load the sounds for the exterior "death animation" of the aircraft if you will.

I can reproduce this everytime 100%. I setup a Shilka in a custom mission, fly the A-10C right towards it, get hit by some rounds.. instant freeze and then CTD. This is ONLY with the A-10C, I've tried many other aircraft in the same mission. I tried removing and re-installing the module, no change.

I am having consistent game freezes whenever my A-10C gets hit/damaged/destroyed. See two crash logs attached. The last thing happening seems to have to do with sound errors: ERROR SOUND: invalid host_params(woLA-16782082): position velocity ERROR SOUND: invalid source_params(woLA-6782082:aircrafts/planewind): pitch I have run a repair and use no mods except editing the kneeboards in terrain folders and editing the lua for chaff/flare programs. I use the latest nvidia drivers and have not overclocked my PC. dcs-log-1.txt dcs-log2.txt

@ Rainmaker If you set QNH on your altimeter it will read altitude above mean sea level. If you set QFE on your altimeter it will read altitude above field elevation. @ S77th-konkussion Transition levels are different for each country and even regions, they are published in navigation supplements and/or even given in an aerodrome ATIS or by ATC. Transition levels exist purely to separate traffic from each other by means of vertical distance. Above a certain altitude (transition level) everyone should put QNE (standard pressure) on their altimeter and report their altitude in 'Flight Levels' e.g FL090, below a certain Flight Level everyone should put the area/local QNH and report their altitude in thousand of feet eg. 9000 feet. To put it (very) simple: "Above the transition level you are mostly concerned about avoiding other traffic" i.e high altitude, en-route portions of the flight. "Below the transition level you are concerned both with avoiding other traffic as well as terrain/obstacles and want to know your actual altitude above sea level" i.e approach and terminal area. (QFE also is sometimes used here instead of QNH, like in DCS A-10C) This way makes it much easier to separate traffic when you for example have two 747's out in the middle of the Atlantic on opposite head-on tracks. They have both set QNE (standard pressure 29.92) on their altimeters so if one is flying at say FL310 and the other at FL320 then they have an actual vertical separation of 1000'. What their actual altitude above sea level is, is not of much interest to them en-route. Now let's say those two 747's were on QNH pressure with different settings. Say one had a regional QNH setting of 30.02 from New York, and the other 31.02 from London. For ease of explanation, and to make the point clear, let's say that by chance the actual QNH of that part of the Atlantic happened to be the same as the New York regional QNH of 30.01. So the New York 747 "got it right" so to speak. This means his indicated altitude is correctly displaying actual altitude above mean sea level. The New York 747 would still be flying at an indicated altitude of FL310, and the London 747 would still be flying at an indicated altitude of FL320, BUT they would both be flying at the same ACTUAL altitude. Easy? :) Gunjam

Under pressure I believe the ATC programming is incomplete. I tried setting up different pressure in the mission editor, but ATC would still just say QFE '29' It should say four digits for pressure, ex. 29.86 or 30.09 If it gave you four QFE digits, you would set those four digits on your altimeter and the altitude displayed there would then be actual altitude above field elevation, meaning at approximately 0 feet you would touch the runway. QFE = Actual current pressure at field elevation QNH = Actual current pressure at sea level QNE = ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) standard pressure. Always 29.92 inHg or 1013.25 Mbar depending on which system used in the aircraft. (QNE is mostly used to calculate density altitude for aircraft performance calculations, and the pressure level may be below the sea level or above it.) Gunjam