-
Posts
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by MK-82_1_EACH
-
This is not a bug but I would consider an oversight. The A-20G is missing or not included with A/C that support ANTI-SHIP tasking. A-20G was used for shipping attacks in the pacific and should be included with A/C tasking option for ANTI-SHIP IMHO. Seems the rest of WWII A/C can use this tasking role. Thanks...
-
runway start option does not work in multiplayer
MK-82_1_EACH replied to ColonelPanic42's topic in Multiplayer Bugs
Just ran into this... One thing I observed, this will vary by airfield and ramp space. In multiplayer, If an AI group is set to "Takeoff from runway" and there is not enough ramp space for those units, will end up stacked in the middle of the runway (hot) and not do anything. For example, Airfield has 2 spots available to fit 2 C-130. The AI group of C-130 has 4 units (set to Takeoff from runway). 2 of the units will spawn on the runway and just sit there. Depending on the airfield and other aspects of the mission, could lead to stalemate as these A/C are blocking the runway and could impact departures and arrivals. Also considering the above C-130 scenario 2 units of the group will take the 2 ramp spaces even if there are other A/C assigned to those parking spots for example another group of C130 with 2 units (Uncontrolled). This can cause collision scenarios. -
Activation is based on conditions or criteria in the trigger rules in the mission Mission Editor. Late activation just means that the group won't be alive at mission start. You need to define when to activate via trigger. In a nutshell activation can be triggered by different options in conditions criteria of the trigger rules. You also can start via start time if you want something later than Mission Start Time. There are also triggered actions for units that can be uncontrolled. It really depends on what you want to do or scenario you want to achieve. The manual has descriptions for all of these items. Also you can use scripts that can take some of the tedious tasks of using the Mission Editor.
-
You could use triggered actions for weapons hold out of zone and then weapons free when in zone.
-
Capturing an airbase after destroying ground units from the air.
MK-82_1_EACH replied to Coyote_One's topic in Mission Editor
Maybe this well help. https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/dcs-world-topics/mission-editor-discussion-and-questions/227223-is-there-a-way-to-change-airfield-ownership?t=226047 -
I would give it a chance. The old board Vbulletin was pretty much deprecated. This is newer version of Vbulletin. I saw the board upgrade notice and surprised they were sticking with Vbulletin. I was hoping for Xenforo which most Vbulletin users have moved to. It is what is, as since this is a huge forum, just easier to migrate and less things to fall out if going to migrate to a different forum like Xenforo or even IPBoard. In any case hopefully implementation of some different skins as this looks just vanilla default. My only complaint is that the board home is difficult to read for old eyes.
-
-
I don't think there is much involvement other than some levels of support. I think a lot of people have moved on from this module and majority currently buying this module are probably new customers. I may be wrong, but at this point, I think if this module generated a lot of sales like the F-14, then I would think there would be more pressure to do this module some justice as the number of complaints would be on a larger scale. Of course when issues have some ED response for 3rd party Devs, they always point back to the Dev unless it some sort of core issue. I only know that I will not buying anything from this developer, unless there are improvements to numerous areas that we (customers) all have complained about.
-
Sounds like lasing is tied to fusing. Should be independent functions and no relationship to each other. Bombs colliding with each other or the airframe should not cause detonation as well. Now if the bomb collides with the airframe there could be damage to the aircraft. If the bombs collide with each other there is the possibility of damage to G&C or tail assembly which would cause malfunction to track correctly. Side or collision forces should not cause the fuze to detonate. If this was the case then I would doubt any pilot would fly with these munitions. From my experience munition contact with the airframe or other munitions does happen in the real world more than one would think. Fuzes are pretty safe and significant force would be required (such as target impact to detonate the munition - mechanical or electrical fuzing).
-
Laser guided bomb - Nose solenoid is used for the guidance and control to activate the thermal battery in the G&C unit. There is no actual fuze but Mechanical Fuze settings should or when the solenoid is energized, pull the wire for the G&C thermal battery on store release, or it won't guide or track target laser illumination. I don't recall any positive arming configurations for the G&C thermal battery.
-
I have not seen anything stating the case. Hosting a mission clients could not see the searchlights when we deployed them. Only the host could see the search lights.
-
Here are a couple track files. Noticed during some coop play. One with moon and one with no moon. The intensity of reflection is greater when the moon is out. I would expect depending on angle you might get some reflection off of a windshield or maybe a twinkle depending on surface reflection. When the moon is out - looks almost like headlights. Hopefully it helps. GRD_reflection.zip dcs.zip
-
Just depends if your are a purist or not. :) From my personal experience FMU-140 options are ground-selectable, with option to override to time based. Dictated by N/T solenoid. Changing the settings HOB in flight are not possible in IRL as there is no communication with the fuze via the aircraft or use the override. As depicted in the game you can change the HOB via HT. This should match what is set on the weapon at loading. This is just something they added to make weapon utilization or dispersion rates selectable via pilot or just a DCS function for playability or fun factor. (Lack of ground crew options) Of course through-out the community you have purist and you have people that just want to blow stuff up. Either case is fine, but personally I would prefer accurate depictions (visual and functions). At the same time with some of the newer weapons, accurate depictions are not possible do to subject matter and 99.9999% percent of the community would not know the differences anyway.
-
Visually in game the MK-20 is using the Mk 339 and not the FMU-140. In either case settings are set on the ground by appropriate personal and not the pilot. Pilot just confirms during pre-flight. Primary/Option usage are determined by Nose/Tail solenoid. I would agree some sortie planning or configuration options would be great.
-
My nephew. https://www.mcduffieprogress.com/news/motivated-survivor/article_96b3d5b8-52ac-11ea-abb0-8b15c360f9bf.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR3CKa5MTp7gGfHnXtdExQMyZvOuzJH2bKNr6TqjYgu_SjK98SCzsiz_WAc Quoting the link above and all credit to Mcduffie Progress.
-
You would not charge the guns anyway until you were going to use it, but charging the gun while g-loading or maneuvering could bind things up. I'm not sure maintenance had anything to due with it unless it was a different issue. Link chutes and ammo cans were not installed unless the the MK-12 was loaded and not part of 210 day inspections. 210 day inspections the gun was completely pulled and dissembled and test fired with Primer only cartridge. Pretty much the most common issues with the actual gun itself was the firing pin not making proper contact with the primer (electrically primed) or the control box to feed firing voltage to the the firing pin in the breech block. Other issues were related to the gun Nitrogen system or the charging valve. Last crappy ammo. :) Just in general belt fed gun systems are not that reliable as anything could go wrong.
-
In the MK-12 gun system jams were usually in the feed mechanism and not the gun itself. G-loading and maneuvering would bind the belt in the link chute. I have worked on MK-12 gun systems but not on the F-8, I don't know what the ammo can looks like for the F-8, (there are variants of cans) but the feed mechanism or chute into the gun was most likely the same or similar on all A/C using MK-12's. From my experience either the gun would jam when the cannons were charged (1st round) and not fire, else jam up during firing cycle which would render the gun inop. In a nutshell it was a crap shoot whether the guns would fire or not.
-
Just FYI - That 1st picture you quoted as 54's are 38's
-
Mission Editor Top User Requested Features
MK-82_1_EACH replied to NineLine's topic in Community News
1) Designate Airfields and model for FCLP. 2) This is an addition to able to place airfields in another post. Specifically able to place an Expeditionary Airfield (similar to 29 Palms). 3) Able to designate airfield and model for runway arrestor barriers. -
All USN and USMC A-4 variants could carry 100 rounds (max) per ammo can, the only exception would be the "Mike" which uses a different ammo can (200 rounds max per can).
-
MK-12 itself was an ok cannon. The link chute/ammo can was 99 percent of the problems after g loading. When loading the ammo cans with a belt of rounds, we used this lube ( I won't say the nickname) and slathered the belt with this stuff hopefully avoiding jams. It made a mess..
-
Even smaller .. I was in VMA-311. 211 had a small accident where they tested Emergency Salvo handle on one of their A-4's. This was at El Toro and when this jet took off and the gear came up (weight on wheels) a napalm canister and drop tank dropped off of the aircraft dumping it on the runway. They did not stray volt check after testing and the switch remained closed, if I remember correctly. To make a long story short about 2 weeks later or something like that, my NCOIC told me I was going on a trip. I was like "What are you talking about". 211 was going for a 30 day CAX at the stumps and I was volunteered (not by choice) to go. Apparently the scuttlebutt was that were having some issues in the ordnance department which was obviously outlined by the incident noted above. I was a Ordnance CDI so I got to spend a wonderful 30 day vacation with 211 at the stumps. I think this was in 82 but I cannot remember exactly. :)
-
This sort of reminds me of when my unit was at 29 palms for a CAX. At that time the SATS field was configured with the parking ramp on the south side of the runway. The taxiway is on the north side. For dearm at the EOR we had to drive this access road and simply we would tuck in behind the A/C taxing back to the parking ramp which was quicker than the access road and get us across the runway (no radio). This time we recovered a single A/C. After completing dearm and somewhat tucking behind the wing (A-4M) for the taxi back, the pilot kept on looking back at us in the jeep. Then he he blipped the throttle a couple of times speeding up. Ok looks like he wants to drag race. I mashed the throttle on jeep a few times. To keep this short, we played this game all the way down the taxiway. Of course when we got back to the ramp our NCOIC said the tower called and we were banned from using taxiway to get back to the parking ramp and must use the access road.
-
This is more correct -> MK-76. If by rarity - shore based only. BDU-33 aren't approved for shipboard operations. FOD hazzard!!