Bankler

I can confirm this. At ~20000 ft, you need to be flying at aprox 420 kts IAS for the JDAM to have enough energy to reach its target. If you fly slow (~300) the bomb will miss. When testing this in PG, the target wp elevation was roughly 4500 ft (so the bomb had around 15500 ft to fall). You'd expect the circles' size and the IN RNG cue to account for speed, which it does to a certain extent, but not enough. I assume this is a bug. The workaround is to turn on the afterburner 30-ish seconds before the drop to make sure you're fast enough.

Have you tried tweaking the font size? It's a new option they added a month ago or so. Unfortunately I don't have a CV1 to test with (only O+). Let me know if it helps. A screenshot could also be helpful.

Thanks for the feedback. I made the tanker track a little smaller for this update, since it was flying like 70 nm tracks or so before. I obviously failed in testing how well it worked, sorry for this. I'll try to fix it for the next update. Until then, feel free to open the miz in the editor and pull those tanker waypoints apart a bit. It should help.

VERSION 4.2.0 SUMMER UPDATE!! :clap: You can now download version 4.2.0 in the Original Post! This is a small update correcting two bugs. One is that the score board sometimes didn't show up when running in high res VR. The other bug fix covers an edge case where feedback was wrong for extremely short groove times. Finally, I removed several of the static aircraft on the deck. They look nice, but they often caused problems in MP not showing up for some players and so on. If you're only running the mission in SP, I suggest you open it in the editor and decorate the carrier in a way that you like! :) I enjoy the feedback you guys provide a lot, with screenshots of your score and so on! Now have a great summer, with lots of time spent indoors in front of the computer! :thumbup: CHANGE LOG 4.2.0 * Fixed bug where groove time score was wrong if you had an extremely short groove (less than 6 seconds). * Fixed bug where the summary wasn't always shown when running hi-res VR like Odyssey+. * Removed some of the static aircraft from the deck to increase performance, and since they don't sync that well in MP. Enjoy!

I am unsure why this is being ignored and not even commented on. :unsure: To me, it sounds like: 1) A fundamentally important thing to fix as the Hornet is the current flagship module. It's the first thing that happens, in every mp mission, and it's 100% reproducable. 2) Something that shouldn't be that hard to fix. Sure, MP stuff is always complicated. But if we can spawn 5-6 aircraft on parking spaces today, why couldn't that be increased to any number? The current system seems to make things much more complicated than they need to be. I don't understand why cold client aircraft are being spawned on cats at all? There's lots of room on the deck! It would be great if a dev could shed some light over what's happening with this!

Good question. Absolutely! If it's a really good approach will solid ball flying, the LSO will give you an OK regardless of which wire you caught. The 3-wire is (usually) the result of a great approach, rather than the goal itself. A safe approach is the goal. I assume pilots get OK 2 and 4 wires all the time. In my script, you get score for wire, which is a little misleading to be honest. However, it gives an approximation of how well you handled the throttle the last few seconds (I can't really measure that in another way). If you cut off power, you tend to fall down on the 1-wire, and will get a score deduction for that. But in reality, the 1-wire itself is not the bad thing really. It's what generated it that is the problem (poor throttle handling, or low/red ball at the ramp for instance). In the same way, I'm sure pilots have ended up getting both no-grade and cut scores after catching 3-wires. Slamming down early, hook skip over the first two wires and catching the third one is a DCS classic! :music_whistling: Forgetting to go full power on touchdown is another (I believe they would give you a cut score for that regardless of how beautiful your approach was).

Some notes from extensive testing. This can be reproduced even with one player only on the server (you can delay your own flight). * First six spawns will get spots depending on spawn order (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Delayed/6). It doesn't matter who is spawning. * Additional spawns will put you in "cat spawn state" and get spots depending on flight number, and will spawn on cats (1, 3, 2, 4) or (1, 2, 3, 4). Regarding changing of slots, when we are in "cat spawn state": * If you successfully spawn (or have never spawned), and then change to a slot in any other flight, you will get delayed. * If you successfully spawn in one slot, you may change to another slot in that same flight without getting delayed. * If you successfully spawn in one flight, and want to change to another flight, you must first try spawning in one slot in that flight, then another (or attempt one slot, then go spectator and try again). (In other words, to change from one flight to another, you need to attempt twice)

Wags, NineLine, ED: Any comment on this? (see first post) Can we expect a fix at some point, or is the carrier finalized?

Thanks for the report! Are you using VR? I noticed a problem where I didn't always see the score summary in VR (Odyssey+). This has been fixed and will be available in next update. Judging from Matthew's screenshot here, it looks like AOA feedback is indeed visible in the summary (it says "On speed" in his case). 4 of the points are for altitude, 3 is for AOA (adds up to 7). If it's not like that for you, make sure you have the latest version. And yes, it would be nice with a "quick mode" where you just practice the pattern over and over instead of always doing the full break. I haven't prioritized this as I saw so many people having problem with the full break+pattern, that I put the focus there. I might add such a mode later on though. Thanks for the feedback!

TWC_Alamo: In the current implementation, the score cannot be directly converted into an actual LSO grade. Those grades only grade the last part of the pattern, while my system looks at the whole thing from break entry to touchdown. The scoring system is "accurate" in the sense that it rewards you for accurate flying. But if it'd generate an actual LSO score, I'd not be happy with it unless it gave you a correct score (which can now suddenly be verfied) at least 99% of the time. And that would require quite a bunch of additional checks. If you're not worried about that level of realism, you could possibly look at the last few steps in the scoring sheet (from "Groove start" to "Ramp" or "Wire") and setup score limits for what you think should be a cut, no-grade, fair and an OK. It wouldn't be accurate, but it might be accurate enough for the purpose (which I guess is to enourage your buddies to fly slick, and get rewarded for it on the website in some greenie board style, which sounds awesome). Regardless, it won't be an automated process. Mission scripts don't have the authority to write to your disk. (Unless you as an end-user open certain stuff up, but I haven't looked into that) IAS2424: That's awesome. With the Tomcat, I've never come close to that score. Great job! AMVI_Grape: I've gotten the request several times. I haven't started anything, but it could be fun with a CASE 3 trainer. Checking your how far you are from your optimal position at a certain commence time, checking rate-of-descent before and after platform etc. No promises, but I'll keep it in mind if I get time for it.

Can confirm this is broken.

I’m using the standalone dedicated server on my server machine. I see my server, with the name I specified in serversettings, on the ED page. But when clicking it and opening the web GUI it says Server not responding. Both the game port (tcp/udp) and web port (tcp) have been forwarded. Same result when opening the local web GUI with the desktop icon. What could be wrong? Grateful for any help! EDIT: Okay, it seems to be dead for everyone. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242513

While Ramsay explains it very well, I recommend double checking the mag/true thingy (see my post above). I appreciate the fact that I might be wrong or missing something here (god forbid... being wrong on teh internet! :music_whistling:), but I think the boat gives you BRC in MAG (making the calculations a little easier).

I'm not sure... I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the boat indeed gives BRC in MAG? * HSI set to MAG HDG * Boat says BRC 353 * Compass in HUD says 353 * F10 Map says 359 (which would be the true heading)

While I agree with every word you say, here are some workaround advice The multiple carrier approach is quite solid (yet looks a bit silly). However, I suggest you only put TCN and ILS on one of the carriers (the main one) and everyone in your package recovers on that one carrier. For the other carriers (the” spawn carriers”), you can set their route so that they go 30 minutes straight forward, then turn in a different direction away from your recovery carrier, so it looks neat when you get back. Or you can have an F10 command to despawn them (deactivate group). Another approach is to have the spawn carriers not moving at all. This might actually be the most practical way since it reduces the risk of rubberband taxi accidents. Please ping me on Discord if you want to discuss details on this stuff.

Actually, in ...\DCS World\CoreMods\tech\USS John C Stennis\USS_John_C_Stennis_RunwaysAndRoutes.lua there are 16 parking shots/taxiways defined (actually 20, but the last 4 have been commented out). This leads me to think the code (i.e on the C++ side) is written in a way that it only uses some of them. But sure, one could always try fiddling around with those numbers and see what happens! :)

Noticed the thread was moved from the Hornet forum to the Bugs and Problems/Object Errors forum, without any comment. It wasn't really meant as a bug report (I assume the issues are already well known), but as a request to ED for confirmation if this is something they agree needs fixing at all, or if you're happy with the current implementation? Sorry for being persistent, but I have already spent such an insane amount of time and energy trying to find workarounds (involving time after time gathering 8+ people for trying different spawn strategies), that I at the very least expect ED to tell us if you intend to work on it or not.

I see you point, but I don't agree. Since we're talking about client aircraft, they could open up any number of spawn points, as long as there is physical room on the deck. It should be up to the players to understand that it's a bad idea to land on parked aircraft or launch cat 1/2 if there are aircraft parked on the bow. That said, obviously I wouldn't mind if the system prioritized in a way keeping the places you mention as clean if possible. The attached picture isn't meant to illustrate a perfect spawn position priority, but at least gives a picture of how much more room there is.

Maybe. But I try to not get too cynical about it. Somewhere I believe ED realizes that this is a quite crucial flaw, since it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that their flagship module (i.e the Hornet) should operate from a carrier (which is... kind of its thing) even in MP. Expecting ED to release the new carrier with the incentive "pay to get a carrier with less bugs" (in contrast to "more functionality")... well, maybe. But I honestly think better of them. :thumbup: Again, what's most interesting for me is getting word from ED on their stance; if they have the ambition to fix it or not.

My pleasure! Enjoy! :)

Dear ED, currently, there is a limit where you can only spawn 6 cold client aircraft on the deck. To spawn more, you need to have the first 6 aircraft taxi around to clear spaces, and then you can spawn in more people (who will spawn cold on cat 3/4 for whatever reason). While it's possible to work around in this manner, it takes A LOT of time, and with the poor network position synchronization of aircraft on a moving deck (which I can certainly understand is quite a technical challenge), it often results in aircraft bumping into each other, delayed flights and so on. Question: Is it reasonable to expect that you will fix these problems anytime soon, or is the Stennis considered "working as intended"? (It's an honest question. If it's considered done, then at least we know that we need to keep looking for workarounds on our own, instead of hoping for a fix) Our use-case: We are a larger group, fans of carrier ops, loving the Hornet module, flying weekly missions with 12-20 players. We want to cold start together from Stennis, launching as a package. My specific requests: Prio 1) Open up at least 16 spawn points for client aircraft on the carrier deck in MP, where players can consistently spawn, without getting "flight delayed" messages or spawning into someone else. Prio 2) Upon spawning, disable aircraft collision with other aircraft for 10 seconds or so. This should solve most of the problems with spawn related rubberbanding, killing aircraft (each time, making ~15 other people sit around and wait for that guy's respawn/startup).

If your hook gets stuck in the wire (this happens every now and then for unknown reasons), wiggle your rudder/nosewheel left and right a few times and it usually detaches quickly.

Sorry for the delay. Here's my picture. Doesn't cover all of it, but at least the front panel.

I have documented several of these and put them in an image for quick reference. At work now, but will post it here when I'm home. Please PM me if I forget! :)

That's amazing. Since I added the groove time and all that, I have never gotten a perfect score myself. Great work! Find the trk file and make a video! :)