ShuRugal

bump

Bump. I see we got something which will help along these lines in the form of mass-pasting aircraft settings, but we still really need a better way to allow players in large missions to choose from many different types of aircraft without requiring hundreds of spawns created.

I'm honestly surprised there aren't more people here screaming "It's perfect the way it is! everyone should enjoy what I enjoy!" - the DCS Forums have historically had a very vocal "grump old man yelling 'get off my lawn'" problem.

That's already what we have, though. If you open a multiplayer track in the mission editor, it gives you the mission file. This also isn't what the original poster is asking for, though. The original post appears to be asking for an in-game way to browse through offline missions and campaigns created by other players, without having to go to the Eagle Dynamics website and download them manually (or, presumably, upload them manually). The ask for an in-game function to submit missions for other players to play and to browse through those missions.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Have you verified that the JTAC is giving you the same zone number and grid letters as what you are currently flying in? There are several regions on each game-map which have overlapping MGRS zones. In one of these regions, sometimes the helicopter you are in will decide it's in one map, while JTAC might decide it's in another. For example, see attached. The map 37 T overlaps with 38T near Senaki. Each 2-letter box (often called 'grid square') on an MGRS map is 100x100 km. But notice at the edge of 37 T GG, the Easting grid stops at 4 (whereas it would ordinarily go to 9), and the easting for 38 T KM starts at 5, where it would ordinarily start at zero... Well, if you grab yourself a paper (or PDF) copy of either of those charts, you'll find that they don't stop/start at those locations. a map of 37 T GG will display the full 100x100 km, as will a map of 38 T KM. the F10 Map (and other digital live-map renderings of UTM charts) will draw a cutoff line between those two charts aligned with true north for rendering those charts in a non-cluttered manner, but location designations across that border are still valid for either chart. Now, I would HOPE that all units in DCS are using the same criteria for choosing which grid to reference when near a border, and it would make the most sense if they all respected the lines depicted on the F10 map. However, I have seen cases where this very definitely is not happening. I've seen my Apache say I am on one chart while the F10 map says i am on another, and both were correct when i correlated against a building on the map. There's even a good example in one of the pre-packaged Apache missions where the information on the kneeboard shows a target point which across the border of the chart, but does NOT include the zone information. If you just punch in the grid letters and easting/northing, the target point you input will be 50 km in the wrong direction. (Though i haven't checked in a while, maybe that mission has been fixed?) Anyway, that's my $2 on what's happening. Verify that the full map information the JTAC is giving you matches, not just the 8 digit grid at the end.

*Cackles in AMD*

Came here to post this. An option to have MFD programming read from a config file in saved game directory would be excellent.

with my X55 and X56, i found that setting deadzone to zero, using a curvature of about 5-10, and position the stick so i could rest my wrist on my thigh and and just work the stick with my fingertips gave me very good results. You end up spending 90% of the flight just moving the stick inside the 'sloppy' zone at the center. Once you get used to it, you can fly very precisely, but it does take getting used to.

I'm a bit late to this part, but the #1 Rule, the Holy VR Bible First Commandment, is "Never hijack the camera" - 100% guaranteed to make players sick and hate your game, even for people like myself who ordinarily never get sick in VR

Question for y'all: are the radio navaids in DCS aligned with True or Magnetic north? I'm trying to convert some approach plates for use in DCS, and getting some weird results, even though those plates show the same magnetic declination as the Caucus map.

It would be nice to have an option to edit the kneeboard in the mission editor, to include an option to dump all of the preloaded/default kneeboard pages (or even better, load only selected pages) The current method of having to directly edit the .miz file is clunky, and the ten trillion default pages make it somewhat cumbersome to navigate through pages in flight.

Bump Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

I would like to suggest that an option for a "procedural" player spawn be added to reduce the number of units mission designers must place when designing general-purpose multiplayer missions, and to reduce aircraft selection screen clutter for players in large missions. I would like to see this option behave as follows: When a player selects this slot type to spawn, the following should happen: Present player with a selection screen to choose which aircraft to fly Present player with a loadout screen to set loadout and radio frequencies for the spawn Procedurally generate unit designation based on slot callsign setting (eg, first player is shooter 1-1, second is shooter 1-2, third is shooter 1-3, etc) Depending on spawn type set (parking, runway, air) perform a collision check and: if no collision detected, spawn if collision detected: advance to next parking slot and recheck collision displace left/right on the runway threshold or select next available runway (if applicable) and recheck collision displace air start position left/right/up and recheck collision if collision still detected after all valid start positions selected, notify player and allow player to choose to wait or select different slot mission designer places on the map with the same start options as current aircraft-specific slots (spawn on ground/parking/runway/air) mission designer selects the maximum number of players which may spawn using this slot option for mission designer to allow specific aircraft in this spot options for mission designer to set default loadout and radio frequencies for the allowed aircraft types in the slot Problems this suggestion is meant to solve: designing large persistent missions (caucus pendulum, foothold syria) which give the players many options for how to complete the mission is very cumbersome with the current process of needing to place one aircraft of each type at each potential spawn point for each potential player ramp and runway spawn slots are extremely limited in number, the current method makes it very difficult to strike a balance between allowing a large number of players a large variety of aircraft and making sure people don't spawn on top of each other and explode on the ramp the current method of placing player aircraft results in needing to set the same frequencies and loadouts dozens to hundreds of times if the mission designer wishes to allow for many people to spawn any aircraft from multiple airbases joining a server hosting a mission like Caucus Pendulum or Syria Foothold can be very confusing for players to understand what spawn locations and aircraft are available, with the list potentially ending up hundreds of units long

I've done a few this way from the front seat. put george menu in "combat" mode, align him, then give him right or left flank command. LMC+IAT and start an RF driveby.

This is S-rank quality meme material right here.

Lol. Because "there might be a civilian beside the tank" is definitely the only reason the army would be concerned about missing the intended target with their PGM. Not, you know, the fact that if they miss the tank, they have to fire another missile and wait for it to arrive, during which time the tank might be killing US troops. That's definitely not a concern. Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Ah, this is the part I was missing. I thought he was saying that after doing that dance, RF hellfires were working from the back seat. My mistake. Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

One of us is misunderstanding something. I said that if the OP has found a way to select radar hellfires from the back, that's a bug. Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Are you saying that after you do all of this, you can select RF hellfires from the pilot seat? That's a bug, it should not be possible to select RF hellfires from the pilot seat at all, until we have LINK or Radar working. Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Because in Real Life, there may be <profanity> Which Isn't A Tank inside that 10x10 grid. I can't speak with authority on THIS system, but the US Army tends to Very Much Dislike the possibility of hitting the Wrong Target with PGMs. "throw the missile at a grid and pray the radar picks the correct target" is NOT an attack profile which would ever be approved under anything short of World War Three RoE.

george cant hit <profanity>.trk As the track name suggests, George cannot aim the Radar hellfire. This appears to be caused by his refusal to use the aiming aids and his "loosey goosey" manual tracking "skill". I had george fire 8 missiles, none hit the intended target. When I took over the CPG and had George fly, my missiles hit under the following conditions: 1 - use IAT to keep TADS on target while lasing for "target data?" cue - 100% hit 2 - use LMC to keep TADS on target while lasing - 100% hit 3 - manually track target while lasing - inconsistent hit rate. What I believe is happening is that the TSE is interpreting a drift laser track as a moving target, and sending the missile to the predicted location of the target. If the predicted location is too far away, the missile either misses entirely, or ends up tracking a different target which happens to be within capture basket of that point.

As the title states: It feels like the transition to and from ETL states has become extremely abrupt with the last patch. The torque/pedal load especially feels like it's a binary condition tied to the ASI needle. I noticed this particularly flying one of the "go land on a ship in a storm" instant action missions. Hovering in ground effect with the nose into the wind, the helicopter behaved as if it were in forward flight (as expected with a 30 kt wind), but hovering with the wind behind the 3/9 line, the helicopter suddenly 'switches' and behaves as if it were hovering in calm conditions: about half a boot of left pedal is required (regardless of which side the wind is on), and the wind doesn't seem to push he helicopter across the ground very much, the same 20% aft/left position which works for a calm hover was also holding position in the wind.

I'd go so far as to say real aircraft ESPECIALLY do not adhere closely to the book numbers, especially near the envelope edges. Looking through TM 55-1520-210-10, I can't find a single instance of a procedure calling for an airspeed of below 40 KIAS, and the HV diagram forbids flight at less than 50 KIAS above ground-effect and below traffic-pattern height. You certainly shouldn't be flying that slow attempting an instrument approach, which is the only scenario i can think of where you'd be flying with your eyes glued to the gauges, especially in a helicopter.

Recording app video has never been easier: Using Windows Game Bar: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/record-a-game-clip-on-your-pc-with-xbox-game-bar-2f477001-54d4-1276-9144-b0416a307f3c#ID0EDD=Windows_10 Using GeForce Experience: https://www.trustedreviews.com/how-to/how-to-record-video-with-nvidia-shadowplay-4278309 Using AMD Radeon: https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/dh2-023 as far as hosting it goes, there are dozens of free HD-video hosting websites, YouTube being foremost among them for ease of use and accessibility.