statrekmike

Are you firing at a target coming at you are going away from you? That makes a big difference.

It would probably be a good idea to elaborate on the exact conditions immediately before the crashes. What map are you on? Are you on a public server? Are you playing single player via built-in training or instant action missions? Are you using your own missions? Likewise, go into detail (if possible) about what you are doing with the plane? Are you pulling Gs? Are you just casually flying around? If so, what altitude? These kinds of details can enable us to really help Heatblur narrow down the problems and get them fixed quicker.

This really was the right step. The Harrier needs a lot of attention.

I can't imagine a situation where I would want someone to jump in the RIO seat who I don't already know very well. Since the Tomcat relies so heavily on not just good crew cooperation but also good crew competence, it is not (always) going to be in the best interest of the virtual pilot to just arbitrarily trust and hope that the random in the backseat can handle their part of the bargain. Think of this from the perspective of the person in the pilot position. In order for them to do ANYTHING, the RIO needs to understand their role and what they are supposed to be doing. If they get a RIO who can't be bothered to learn, that RIO is (potentially) ruining the experience for all involved. Seriously. Imagine being in the front seat. You are going to intercept some aircraft and suddenly you find that your RIO can't read the radar or doesn't understand the difference between TWS and PD Search. Now you can't do your job and your time has been wasted. I know it sounds harsh but perhaps this is good for the community in the long run. Having a aircraft module with a heavy emphasis on competence may encourage players who might not otherwise hit the figurative books to do so in a effort to be more desirable as a RIO. It is one thing to have someone on your wing who can't handle the basics, you can still (kinda) do your thing. It is entirely another when you rely on someone in the RIO seat to get anything done. At this stage, I think Jester or someone you know and already trust is a better bet.

If the cause can be found, what are the chances for a Friday hotfix?

What were the conditions before the crash? What were you doing? What was Jester doing? What was happening around you?

It would probably help to try to carefully lay out the conditions for the CTD's. How much time elapses from mission start until the crash? What kind of mission were you flying? (instant action, self-made missions, multiplayer on public servers, etc). Have you noticed any consistency in terms of the cause? Do you find that it crashes when you do certain things? I have been trying to test for these crashes and while I have only experienced one, I can't really reproduce it even when trying some of the things laid out in this thread. It might be easier to find the cause if we carefully lay out the conditions when it happened.

You can certainly do something like that but keep in mind that the LANTIRN stick does not actually move in the real cockpit. It really is only there for the various hats and buttons.

Seriously? Chuck's reasons for not writing a guide don't really need to pass ANYONE'S "smell test" on this forum or any other DCS community. If he does not feel comfortable doing one due to his job or security clearance considerations, that is it. There is nothing more for anyone to discuss and no real need to create narratives based on (pretty much) nothing. Getting back on the main topic. At the moment, the DCS F-14 manual is rather slim on details/procedures. Some of the youtube videos help but it is not always the most ideal platform for detailed procedures. So far, the main source I have been using is the F-14B NATOPS. That seems to be the most reliable way to go at the moment.

This does seem like a really nice idea actually. It would be good to have a option that can be ticked in the mission editor aircraft properties that would randomly throw a few switches into incorrect positions.

Not sure how gratifying it would be to fly a airliner considering DCS's map size. The same would go for larger military cargo aircraft. We just don't really have the room on the maps to support satisfying missions with those aircraft types.

Sorry to resurrect this but has there been any movement towards fixing this. Now that we are about to get the Tomcat and its targeting pod, being able to spot and identify placed static objects (used as mission objectives) is going to be quite important. Not being able to spot any static object out past 8 nautical miles is a pretty serious issue to say the least. I don't mean to pester or anything but this is a huge deal and perhaps not a fix that would require a ton of man-hours.

I went ahead and turned wind off on one of my scenarios and did not notice any roll issue. This seems to be very much connected to how the aircraft responds to wind.

Has anyone tried it without wind? Does the roll still persist even then?

In real world BFM training, there are a lot of restrictions put in place that give the F-5 something of a fighting chance against more powerful, more modern, and much faster fighter aircraft. If you were to put even the most skilled aggressor pilot in their DACT focused F-5 in a real-life fight against a dedicated 4th or 5th gen fighter, that F-5 would get killed pretty quick if it tried to pick a fight. In DCS's public servers, this are a bit different because we are seldom dealing with real combat pilots and instead hobbyists who may or may not put a lot of time into learning tactics, procedures, and good pilot skills. This can create a environment where planes like the F-5 can actually thrive. If you were to construct a multiplayer environment that closely models real world doctrine in terms of air defense, AWACS support, realistic tactics, and highly skilled pilots, the F-5 would have a very, very tough time doing much of anything.

People are putting a lot of attention on trolling as a issue and while I have ZERO doubt that it will be a issue, I don't know if it is the larger issue at play when talking about human RIO's on public servers. As elitist as this might sound, I think that when we are talking about a module like the F-14, player competency is going to be a very, very large factor. The player in the pilot's seat is going to be dependent on the player in the RIO's seat in almost every way so having a RIO who never really put a lot of time into learning the radar, the navigation systems, or even how to properly keep a eye out for enemy aircraft is going to be crippling at best and incredibly frustrating at the worst. For some players, this is not going to be a big issue. Some are going to have buddies that they can fly with and reliably count on. This is a nice ideal situation but it is not one that is always feasible at any given time. Those who have a buddy that they trust may want to play on servers when their buddy is not available and in that case, it may be better for them to use Jester rather than hoping and praying that the random RIO they let in the cockpit has actually learned how to do what they NEED to know how to do.

This seems rather extreme considering that we have no idea how Jester will play out in servers as of right now. For all you know, Jester could be slightly worse in all cases when compared to a competent player who has bothered to do some amount of practice in the RIO position. That last part is important. Since there is no set standard for player skill on any given server, anyone who chooses to pilot a F-14 would have to (assuming a option exists to lock Jester out of a server) hope and pray that they get a RIO who has bothered to read the manual, learn how to use the radar systems, understand navigation system interaction, and can keep their head on a swivel the entire time they are doing all that other stuff. I don't know about you but I would rather have Jester than take a gamble on who ends up in the back seat. There is also potential player-count issues on certain servers and at certain times. If you can't get enough players to occupy a flight of F-14's, things are going to get kinda tricky.

Thanks so much!

I am putting together a sort of "training/practice environment" where I can spawn enemy aircraft groups in via the F10 menu. This in itself is not difficult but I wanted to try something a little different. To give you a hypothetical. The F10 menu might have a entry for "fighters" and when you hit that, it then selects one out of five different possible groups to spawn randomly. Is there a way to do this without getting into scripting and just using flags/triggers in the editor? If not, I have no real knowledge of how to do such a thing via scripts so if that is the only option, I would really need to know where I should start on that. I suppose the big issue here is that I can figure out how to get the F10 menu options to select randomly from a set of possible groups but I can't really figure out how to remove the group that spawned from the pool of possible groups when the player hits that button in the F10 menu again.

Are you doing navigation fixes to keep your system aligned? If not, I HIGHLY suggest referring to that section in the manual so you can learn how that works and what the procedures are. Another thing to keep in mind. If you fly low enough, your radar altimeter will work alongside your aircraft's computer to help keep your system properly aligned. If you fly higher than your radar altimeter can read, you will have to do visual fixes. This is part of the deal when flying the Viggen. It is part of what makes it interesting and challenging.

That is what many of us have already been doing for almost a year now. I have had the Harrier collecting virtual dust in my simulated hanger for quite a long time while I wait for it to get the functionality it needs to be used in realistic missions. I am not advocating that RAZBAM put a ton of time into talking directly to the community but at this point, a good, detailed post about where the Harrier is, where it is going to be, and what we should reasonably expect is not really all that extreme a request. Sure, I have other modules I can fly but I did buy the Harrier with the intent to use it in realistic missions. It has been a year and I still can't really do that. I know this stuff is super demanding and I know that some in the community can take things too far but let's not forget that we did pay for a module and many of us have been waiting patiently for quite some time.

I hate to join in on negativity but at considering where the Harrier is at right now and how long it has been since its initial early access release, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that this module is in pretty rough shape to say the least. At this point, it lacks a lot of functionality and even has some pretty serious issues with core systems that directly relate to its intended mission. Out of all the DCS modules that I own, this one is probably the "hanger queen" because I have been waiting just about a year to build a realistic mission for it but as of right now, I can't because the functionality simply is not there. I know you folks are swamped with work and I appreciate that this kind of thing takes a lot of resources and time. That being said, perhaps it might be a good idea (at least from the perspective of a customer) to issue a sort of long-form "statement" about the Harrier. Have the developers really talk about where it is right now and what it will really look like when it is done. If there is a problem with getting the required information or if there are parts that simply won't be implemented, we are at a point where it would be good to know so we can adjust our expectations accordingly. Again, I understand that things are hectic and that you don't have a ton of folks to throw at any one module but the Harrier is in very rough shape and some direct communication about that might help us know what to expect and how to approach the wait going forward.

Is there any news about this? Is this something that the team is working on currently? I know that it is probably annoying to keep hearing about this issue but it is a big one. It makes it pretty much impossible to fly strike missions that involve the targeting pod and any static objects. This kind of thing can really grind otherwise normal missions to a halt until it is fixed. Please, just let us know where we stand on this. It is a pretty huge deal.

Do you mean that this may be a fix in Wednesday's patch or that it might be in a later patch down the line?

I can't help but feel that flying a Hornet straight towards a armed warship with the intent to shoot a few Mavericks at it is kinda a flawed idea from the start. It is the kind of thing that you are certainly free to attempt and that is one of the advantages of doing such things in a sim versus reality but if you are hoping for a result that does not include getting shot down by surface to air missiles, I think you may need to start looking at this scenario from a real-world doctrine point of view. To be blunt, if you want to sink a warship, there is more to it than just strapping some mavericks to a plane. You are going to want to consider the larger picture. You are going to want to think about supporting assets (friendly naval forces), using the correct weapon for the job (probably a Harpoon), and even multiple flights/wing-mates that can also launch their weapons at the same time. At this point, it is probably best to leave Mavericks to smaller, less heavily armed ships and leave the warships to platforms that are actually configured to fight them properly.