Bankler

Representing Master Arms DCS community. I can verify these issues. We are typically around 10-14 client Hornets on a missions. No AI planes on the carrier. Almost every single time, there's an issue with the ground crew not reacting when someone approaches the catapult, and the "Request launch" command does nothing. It's sometimes resolved when another jet that is already hooked up takes off. Example: Cat 3 doesn't react. Aircraft on Cat 1 takes off, and suddenly Cat 3 dudes start waving you forward. As it appears in mp with lots of players, it requires lots of organization to record a trk, that is also small enough. Also, I haven't found an exact pattern when it happens. However, it's so easy to reproduce, that you should easily be able to do it internally, as long as you have around 10+ players available. Just spawn everybody, cold start, decide on a time when to start taxiing and take off, use various cats, and see what happens. If you already know what you need, that's awesome. But if a trk would be of actual use, I could try to organize a session and record it. If that's the case, do you want the server or a client trk file? @NineLine

Hmm. I had a look, and to me it looks like it's the CVN-74, which I imagine is the legacy carrier? Maybe I'm missing something (early morning here), but can you please take a look just to make sure you didn't download the SC / T-45 version or something? Just there, in this case. I think in other missions, they have positioned the ship as reference points. Imho this isn't a great way of getting a feel for the break, as you will make yourself dependent on where those are. So think of them as decoration, nothing else. Except from the one at the carrier's 6 o'clock. That is a reference point to where to fly over to start the script.

With the Sinai map out, it would be nice with the quite unique looking Egypt liverie for the Viper. Just like we got the nice IAF ones when the Syria map came out, I think this would make a lot of sense. I realize it's available as a user file download, which I appreciate. This request is to have an official one, not requiring extra downloads (which is quite a hassle for big communities).

Already located in the top of this thread.

Ok, good, then we are on the same page. As described in the bug report above, and as showcased in the tracks I provided, that's not how it currently works.

If you do that, in DCS (currently), your first bomb will hit vehicle 3. Is that correct or not?

I'm not sure then what you mean by "group"? Are you referring to the group of bombs? Let's say you set QTY to 3, and interval to 500. You put the CCIP reticle on a tank and hold pickle. Should bomb #1 or bomb #2 hit the tank?

Ok, nice research! Then that means it's currently bugged (at least for CCIP), unless I'm mistaken.

Just to clarify. I don't think this is an AUTO exclusive issue, but goes for CCIP as well. But I'm certainly not sure by any means. It's just the way I remember it working after ED fixed/adjusted it last time. In some ways it's confusing how this is even possible to implement for CCIP. But I guess by extrapolating the currently calculated aimpoint by, ehm, (QTY setting * Intervall setting) / 2, in the direction you're flying, and drawing the reticle there, would get it right. Would be nice if a Hornet guy could chip in on how it works. Weapons questions are always tricky, but could very well be such a trivial thing that it's not a confidentiality issue. And then again, the way it works now (aimpoint always on the first bomb's estimated placement) is absolutely fine and makes just as much sense. Just not sure if it's correct compared to IRL Hornet. Have a nice weekend!

Okay, here goes! Three tracks, though all show the same results. CCIP, AUTO (explicitly set) and AUTO (automatically set by being in CCIP when pressing WPDSG). Note that I'm aiming on the middle building of the five. That's where the first bomb go. I'm not sure what's correct, but AFAIK it was like this when the Hornet came out. Then it was changed so that the bombs did bracket the aimpoint (i.e number 3 out of five bombs on the aimpoint, two before and two after), but now it's back to the original implementation, and I'm curious if that is intended or not? Hornet_Interval_Bug_CCIP_to_AUTO.trkHornet_Interval_Bug_CCIP.trkHornet_Interval_Bug_AUTO.trk

@BIGNEWY Do you happen to know anything about this? Cheers!

Yes. I can confirm, that at least around a year ago, and at least when dropping in CCIP (I'm quite certain it was the same for AUTO though, since it would make sense), if you dropped 5 bombs with a interval of say 500', it would put bomb number 3 on the aimpoint. Doing the exact same thing today, will put bomb number 1 on the aimpoint. I don't know what's correct. In my world both make sense and are just about equally functional. As long as you know what to expect. Not sure if this change was intended or not.

It is most likely (I'm speculating, but I'm approx 80% sure) because Wake turbulence is enabled in the missions where you're struggling. I suggest you disable it for now. While some aspects of the effect are really nice, there are a couple of massive problems with it. One is the thing you're experiencing. Another one is the extreme amount of time it takes to fade away, even making ordinary (multiple aircraft) overhead breaks dangerous. Hopefully ED solves the carrier issues, and implements two sliders for wake turbulence intensity and duration.

VERSION 7.3.0 You can now download version 7.3.0 in the Original Post! Fixing what's broken! Due to some DCS scripting changes, all missions using Moose stopped working a while back. The guys over at Moose were quick to find the problems and publish a new version. Thanks to them, and thanks to you who helped out testing the little test mission I posted in the thread, we are now back on track. Thank you so much! Happy landings! Have a nice holiday later this month! //Bankler CHANGE LOG 7.3.0 * Updated Moose, in order to get the mission working again after ED's scripting changes. * Changed overhead tanker TACAN band to Y. Enjoy!

Here's a very quick test version with updated Moose. I haven't tested it more than confirmed that the score starts tracking and I don't get any weird warnings in the log. Please test it if you have the time, and let me know if anything seems off. @zildac @captain_dalan @japagi @speed-of-heat @Richard Lim @Cobalt135 @Mad_Taz @Iriya @Cepheus76 @marcoy Thanks a lot for the reports. Much appreciated! TrapTraining_MP_SC_2_7_3_TEST.miz