mondo

This is the issue, my positioning is good. I'll record a track next time I can be essentially I'm flying a climbing intercept course towards 4 Mig 21s on the Afghanistan map, they are 30k ft and on a 45 degree course diagonally across my flight path. There's nothing behind them and the sun isnt a factor. Im nose onto them from outside the radars range until they are on top of me. I can see the Migs on the radar myself once they are within about 25 miles but jester is seemingly unable to see them. I can however hit them using the boresight but that's not the issue.

With a real WSO would can say to them "point the radar 1 o'clock angles 21" or similar. With jester I have to navigate menus and all that's involved in those.

Yeah, a look here is what I need. All too often I can get aircraft 10 miles in front with zero background but clear sky and the guy can't see anything. I'm aware of things like boresight mode but this is for visual targets outside of that range. As I understand that's limited to 5 miles. I'm aware of the various radar modes and uses but this is to simply tell jester to point the radar to a location, the same as I would say to a real WSO without having to go through a series of menus.

Could we get a feature like that in the Tomcat where you can use head tracking to direct jester to point the radar? I can get visuals.on targets from below and away from any background noise and the poor guy just can't seem to even see planes half the time. By the time I've managed to get him to move the radar I've gone passed the point of needing him.

There's some info on the ED discord and it. If you go to the bugs channel and search for shrikes there's a few issues and one of them has a table. But it's not something that ED has updated so the test information is just what players have figured out.

Shrikes are currently a bit buggy but they do work in same instances. Personally I take mavericks in most instances.

Is thre a complete list of Shrikes that do and don't work at the moment? This bug is super frustrating given how Shrikes work anyway.

This is awesome. Thanks!

Turns out you are that talented person

Are you posting updates to this anywhere? It's great work.

Sounds as if the bombers turn on their Jammer upon being locked, breaking your lock and then turn it off again so you cant do HOJ. That would make sense but I can easily lock them from behind. I'll make a track. #edit - I'm thinking you're right. i'll test this out som emore.

I'm getting something similar but I don't know if it's an issue or a quirk with the radar and jester. I've setup a training mission with 4 flights of 4 H-6 bombers on Sinai. They are incoming at 26kft at 350kts from North to South over a flat bit of desert. The F4 is 50 miles away at 30kft and 400kts head on. As they come into radar Jester is identifying them successfully and I'm able to command him to cycle through all aircraft on the scope. I then perform the action for him to lock, which he does then immediately loses all contacts and the lock. I'm not issuing any additional commands to him as the first few times I tried this he almost got stuck in a loop of responding to inputs.

How did you build your unit tests for this? Or did you go another route? Is this something that can be used on your existing aircraft?

It's a different build that will go to a different environment with possibly a different distribution layer. It's very possible that it's not possible to test absolutely everything until it hits that environment as well because having test environments that are identical to your live ones isn't always possible for numerous reasons. It's not a simple as developer writes code, compiles code, puts on server and you download. While I agree theres always room for improvement I've sat in the seat where ED is right now and what is working is their pre deployment process caught something which is great and shouldn't be ignored.

Probably the best DCS trailer to date.

Yeah, go before that mate.

Context is everything. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about another conversation you've cherry picked from.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. That wasn't the conversation that was happening.

That still isn't a reason to hold content back so some YouTubers can drum up interest. Honestly though, Heatblurs cinematic trailers are a league above any YouTuber content. I was on a DCS break around the time the F14 came out. It wasn't a YouTuber content creator that brought me back, it was the F14 video produced by HB. The biggest DCS YouTube channel is sadly GR and they do almost zero promotional content and it they do it's stuck between 2000 videos of hypothetical comedy situations using dodgy mods.

MLYP. HB trailers are the best marketing they can do. They are always stellar. I don't think many valued viewers will buy something that doesn't win at air quake either.

The whole content creators getting it I feel is just frustrating, as it was with the F15E. I can muddle my way through a start up myself instead of watching some guy named potato banger or something, as always, muddle through it all even worse. If it's good enough for a content creator, it's good enough for customers.

Yeah, thats what they stated. Players are making out like them not delivering in April, when they said it could be May as some kind of misleading communication, then making up a June date. It's ridiculous drama over nothing.

HB never said April, they said latest May 31st back in March. The only people saying June are players making things up.

Speaking from experience, I'd be genuinely surprised if HB and ED didn't have shared repositories and the Phantom hasn't been tested as a module within internal versions of DCS for some months, possibly as soon as they had code available to integrate over a year back. ED obviously have a way of putting in placeholder aircraft and an SDK that allows functionality of modules to be mixed and matched as we've seen that in other modules under development. We haven't lived in a world of alpha, beta and gold versions of software for literally decades at this point. We just have incrementally higher version numbers with flags to denote what works and to what level.

I was going to quote and reply to that message but you beat me to it. The only issue I've encountered with E cores themselves was with DCS MT and that got fixed.