Bankler

Do you cold start? If so, do you start with a few people, let them start up and taxi, and then a new group of people spawns? Or are you able to spawn all your guys so that everyone can startup together? Thanks a lot for the info! Now that you mention it, I remember we had a TCN problem the one time we used multiple carriers. Do you know if this bug happens even if the extra carriers have no TCN at all? Tried having them grouped/ungrouped with the main carrier? Same results? When running your multi carrier setup, how many aircraft do you cold start on each carrier? ED: While not a proper solution to the problems, I think parts of the problem could be quick-fixed by disabling the aircraft-to-aircraft collision (or the damage model) the first 5 seconds after spawn. It seems like many times, the network hit of a spawning aircraft causes aircraft to warp around and each other.

Thanks! That’s very interesting. Would you be willing to share one of your recently made miz files, that you know works? We have never been close to spawning 12 aircraft on ramp start. Didn’t even know that there is 12 spawn points. It would be interesting to see your mission and see if we can isolate the differences. Things coming to mind is if you’re putting aircraft into 4-ship groups or single aircraft flights. I also noticed that there is some issue with missions made a few patches ago (need to put new flights in air, THEN change wp0 to ramp start, otherwise it says no parking slots in the ME), and this could possibly be related.

(This is not a bug report, but a request for solid workarounds for the obvious carrier bugs) Since the launch of the Hornet, the MP functionality for spawning on the carrier is bugged. When spawning, aircraft hit each other, you get "flight delayed" messages even when there are just a few aircraft on deck. It's a complete mess. In our group's case, we are typically 12-ish people that need to spawn in and launch. What usually happens is that after briefing is complete, and people start to spawn, we spend a good 30 minutes trying to get guys in (startup, INS alignment, get killed by someone spawning, repeat 3 times), before getting up in the air. Every time. It's very frustrating. Granted DCS's current navy focus (Hornet etc), I can only assume making carriers work in MP is on ED's top-prio list? Now with that out of the way, with the current bugged carrier, have you guys found any best practices on how to best work around the current issues? Workarounds I thought of so far: * Only spawning in 4-or-so guys at a time, launching them and having them orbit 10-20 minutes waiting for group 2 and 3 to spawn, startup, launch. (Downside, takes a lot of time and wastes fuel) * Putting 3 carriers next to each other, so that each group launches from its own private carrier, then despawn the extra carriers after 15 minutes (so you come home to the same one). (Downside: Looks silly) Any input on this is highly appreciated! If anyone has any good idea, or have found a pattern in what causes aircraft to smash into each other (and how it can be avoided) and so. And ED, please try to solve these issues asap. The larger groups flying coop missions together are among your most dedicated and highly spending customers, so don't forget about them.

By the way, a feature request: If you could implement a box for deadzone setting for each effect (default to 0), that would be amazing! Use case: The G Feeling Effect is cool. I like it when I actually pull significant G:s. However, if I have it on, the motors start to vibrate even on extremely small loads which is just annoying. Since the smallest physical vibration effect is still pretty high (and loud) on the Gametrix mats, it doesn't feel right. If we had a deadzone setting, I could set it up like this: STRENGTH: 75 (lots of vibrations...) DEADZONE: 40 (...but only start the linear increase after say 4G or so) A custom user curve option would give even more freedom, but it seems like a much more fiddly GUI / UX task, and it's probably overkill. Thanks for an outstanding software!

Thanks for the quick reply. Your answer made me realize the problem ("huh, I don't recognize all these values visible in the effect monitor...?"). Turns out I was a complete moron and didn't see that the effect list in the setting view was scrollable. I know... :helpsmilie: Anyway, it was the Buffet/Stall Shudders/Vortex Ring State that I needed to turn off (when I eventually found it.. after scrolling down..). Thanks and sorry! :joystick:

In beta 1.3.6.13, when flying the Tomcat, it seems like the motors are always vibrating more or less, even with no boxes ticked and I'm flying straight and level.

I’m working on getting the Tomcat support in there and hopefully an updated version will be out in a not-too-far future. Will post here as soon as it’s done. I don’t recommend changing the mission on your own. It could possibly work, but it won’t give you a correct score since the target aoa is different and a number of other reasons. Also the trap recognition won’t really work since the wire pullback is different and aircraft altitude on deck is different. In other words it requires quite a bit of scripting to support both Hornets and Cats. Hoped to get preview access to prepare all this stuff before the release but unfortunately Heatblur never replied to any emails.

In version 2.5.4.28090, this is still bugged. NineLine, please confirm that you've seen this bump, as I noticed it's still marked with [missing track] even though a track file was submitted in December. Best regards

Thanks! I haven't made a Case 3 one, at least not yet. :)

The easiest way to force it to release is wiggling your nosewheel/rudder left and right a couple of times. I had huge problems with this a while back, before I found this workaround.

Goggle translate says: "Hello, anyone knows how to modify the photos of the main menu to put some "more realistic" and of Spain? Thank you"

Brun, thanks a lot for the obj files! My buddy just helped me out printing it! And I have bought an Arduino starter kit, so I guess I've commited on this now! =)

It's technically possible, but it'd require the user to edit some files to enable Lua scripts permission to write to the harddrive. In general, people are careful with those kinds of hacks (for good reasons), so I'm not sure if it'd be worth the effort. Though I agree that it'd be pretty neat, I think for now we'll have to just screenshot the result page. Glad to hear! Enjoy!

It's possible, but maintaining two versions isn't ideal as it tends to make things more bug prone during updates. What would be the purpose of having a PG version btw?

Yes, this is exactly my idea as well. It's easy for the end user to download the mission, open it in the mission editor and add turbulence, different time of day, rain, async aircraft weight, low fuel or anything else if they need to make it more challenging. But I admit that even though I've made tons of passes while developing it, I usually don't get 70/70. I think it requires quite a bit of concentration to not make any mistake big enough for a score deduction. Would love to see more of everyone's passes btw, so keep those Youtube traps coming! :pilotfly:

You should try to maintain 800' throughout the break. Reason: If you would start decending during the break, you wouldn't reduce airspeed as much as if you keep your nose high enough and pull G enough to remain on altitude. (Source: Lex and Gregory Brett) That said, personally I usually start decending gradually just before I reach the downwind (10 degrees before or so), since I feel it gives me a smoother transition to the downwind decent. That is just my own technique though, and I don't know if anyone uses it IRL.

After trapping, don't raise hook and taxi right away. Go idle, let the wire pull you back, stand still on the spot it pulls you to and wait for the score. If you don't get it to work, please post a Youtube video (or a .trk) and I'll take a look and see if I can give some advice. Strut>> Thanks!! Glad you like it! Sting57>> Yeah, sometimes you can get a really good score even if you bolter. This script will give you 5 points for a 3-wire though, so to get a perfect score, you'll need the 3-wire as well. Just like Lex said, IRL the wire isn't that important, as long as the approach is great. That said, a bolter is of course not desirable. Still, 65 points is great, since that shows you got the pattern down really nice (probably just over-corrected a little at the ramp?). And the mission is not only about ball flying, but focuses on flying the whole break and pattern in a disciplined way. Great work! :thumbup:

Glad you found the good stuff, EagleWings. Just be adviced that the illustration is for a T-45. You'll need to be a little farther away abeam with the Hornet. Exactly how far differs depending on which pilot or LSO you ask, but the script will give you perfect score for anything between 1.1 and 1.4. My recommendation is 1.2 nm. As for VSI in the final turn, personally I don't think too much about it. I just try to hit the altitude numbers (600 abeam, 450-500 at the 90, 380 at the wake) as close as possible and make sure the descent is "smooth". I know that some other people like to monitor the VSI more closely and use that as a reference, and I guess there's nothing wrong with that technique either. Whatever works for you. Regarding the angle of bank. You're right, you might need to turn a little softer than 30 degrees. Try 25 or something. Experiment a little, and see where you end up on the 90. After the 90 the approach is generally a little less instrument, and more eyeball.

264.00 should be correct. Make sure to contact on the correct radio, I think for the left radio you need to hold down AltGr when you press the radio button for it to know which radio you are using. Thanks! Yeah, it's definitely a little harder now. The LSO calls wasn't in 2.0.0 but was added in 2.1.0. It's Lex talking by the way. Glad to hear it's working for you! Keep it up and don't be shy to post a video of your passes! It would be possible to add the numbers. I'm not sure if it's worth cluttering the summary with it as the "high", "very high" etc are quite granular already, but I'll consider it. Regarding groove time, it's really a thing I want to add. To be honest I'm not sure where the exact point should be when I start the timer. Like, if it should only be a certain offset in degrees from the final bearing, or if wings-level should have anything to do with it, and so on. If you guys have any input on it, I'm all ears! :thumbup:

VERSION 3.0.0 Happy New Year Update!! You can now download version 3.0.0 in the Original Post! This time it's a larger update, in which I have revised the scoring system. Basically, what I have done is that I sent the documentation of my original system over to Lex (former F/A-18 pilot, check out his nice Discord server Speed & Angels). He made small adjustments to it in terms of how much you can deviate from the ideal altitudes, and what score a certain deviation would give you. Based on this feedback, I changed the old system into a brand new 70 point system. Generally, it's a little harder to score a perfect 70 points pass now. In the last parts of the pass (from the 90 and through the groove), it's better to be a little high than a little low. So keep that in mind. CHANGE LOG 3.0.0 * Changed the scoring system into a 70 pts system. The system is quite similar to the old one, but has tweaks in the allowed errors, and what score deductions are given for certain deviations. These new changes are based on feedback from Lex (former F/A-18 pilot and US Navy flight instructor) who has been very helpful. * Made some tweaks to stand-still-on-deck handling, hopefully resulting in that it should be rare that you don't get score after getting pulled back by the wire. * The script now allows you to fly a little wider than the 1.2 nm abeam recommendation (up to 1.4 nm) abeam, still giving a perfect score. Enjoy!

I think it’s visible in the right DDI as well, but not the left, for unknown reason.

Very cool, Miles. Please sign me up! :)

Not sure. Does the same thing happen when you download other .miz files from the forum?

Thanks for the kind words and the feedback. Regarding grades: While it would certainly be cool to get a Navy-style "OK" or similar grade after a pass, I have chosen to not use actual Navy LSO grades. The reason being that if I did that, I'd feel that we all (including myself) would expect the grades to carefully match how a real-life LSO would grade the pass. My gut feeling is that even if I'd increase the number of sample points, you can only do so much with math and algorithms. Unless you're a real-life LSO (which I'm not) I'm hesitant that you can write an algorithm that consistently grades a pass in DCS like a real-life experienced LSO would, with accuracy. I might be wrong (I have no idea how accurate that other script is but I'm sure it's really good, maybe it's even spot-on, maybe it's not, and few of us would be able to tell for sure). I may change my mind about it in the future (any Navy people letting my aboard a carrier to study the LSO procedures maybe?, that'd certainly speed things up! :D ). But for now, this is my preference. The ambition with the mission is to take a DCS hobby pilot from "just starting" (bad score) to "pretty good" (good score, like 190+ every pass). Even if you nail a 200, and even if I made it even harder to do so (by making the accepted offsets smaller, adding groove time and lineup checks and so on), I wouldn't dare to claim that this would be a "really good pass" in the eyes of a real LSO, let alone an "OK". And getting false negatives I guess would be even worse. That said, the mission is at least accurate enough that an actual Hornet driver says that it's "really good". So I guess it's in the ballpark at least. :thumbup:

VERSION 2.2.0 Christmas update time! You can now download version 2.2.0 in the Original Post! Except from the usual guys who always help out (Matt Geders, Lex etc), this time I'd like to give an extra thank you and shoutout to Gregory Brett who have been really helpful and patient with all my never-ending questions. Also, big shoutout to the awesome people in Master Arms who I recently started flying with. Using this mission, we did a CQ event last Tuesday with 20 Hornets in the air. It was magnificent! For the future, I'm looking at tweaking the scoring system a bit after feedback from Lex. The current one is already working pretty good, but might be a little too forgiving in some areas. We'll see what happens. Stay tuned for that! CHANGE LOG 2.2.0 * After a trap, when you cut the power, the summary will now show up much faster than before. * Added hint that you need to stay still for a little while after cutting the power, until the score shows up. * You can now use the F10 radio menu to toggle the LSO feature on and off. For instance, you might want to turn it off if a player acts as the LSO. * Moved the SAR helicopter to the right side of the ship, 1.0 nm away. * Support for 20 players (8 players in Enfield and Ford flight can now start from Batumi in VFA-37 Hornets). * Renamed the player slots to Chevy, Colt, Dodge, Enfield and Ford 1-1 through 1-4. * The feedback will now print the players' names as well as their callsigns (Chevy 1-1 etc) to make it easier to see who's who in multiplayer. * LSO should no longer give you feedback as you cross the wake, but wait until you're actually in the groove. * The carrier's BRC is now 353 MAG (instead of 354MAG / 000 TRUE as before) as a workaround for the spooky DCS bug where you can't connect to some cat shuttles if the carrier is going straight north. * Tanker radio is now on Ch 19 (253.00) as per Gregory Brett's recommendation. * Script will no longer start running if you pass over the trailing ship above 1300 ft (solves the issue where it could trigger when you were flying in the overhead stack). * Pattern will now get aborted if you ever go above 2000 ft. * After the carrier turns south (which is after 4 hrs or so), the new BRC stated as you fly over the trailing ship will now say 173 instead of 353. Enjoy!