Fishbreath

Nope, it was quite a shock to me when I tried to restore my profiles the first time, too.

I'm going to be away for the weekend, but I might try it on Sunday night.

The KMGU setting starts releasing the next KMGU or multiple ejector rack as soon as the previous one has finished. The fixed delays start the next one after the delay. I seem to recall that's how I always thought it worked (source: the training videos on Youtube).

Okay, thanks. That's the last piece I needed for the fighter range component of my most recent project—it's a little dull if the targets all come from exactly the same place every time.

Dedicated early warning radars only do air target datalinking in DCS. SAM types with separate search radar units have those in the game—make a group with a command post, search and tracking radars (which have the suffixes 'SR' and 'TR'), and launchers, and they'll all work together correctly.

The external model and 6DoF cockpit were finished a while back, but the flight model hadn't been updated. They've been pretty coy on predicting dates, so we don't know when it'll be. For myself, I'm thinking a month or two, but that's not based on anything concrete.

Is there any way to combine the cloneGroup(group, boolean task) and cloneInZone(group, randomZoneTable...) mechanisms for aircraft? I tried cloneGroup first and passing the spawned group name to teleportInZone, but the AI pilots uniformly ejected after they were teleported.

The Su-25 and A-10A are already available. The F-15C and the Su-27 are only waiting on advanced flight models for separate releases, and those are both in progress. (Belsimtek is doing the F-15, and ED is doing the Su-27.)

After several years of putting it off, the fact that the guys at Apex DCS are running this mission got me to finish the rewrite I've been planning for a long time, so here's an update. Basic Instructions To spawn targets, use the F10 radio menu. Some ranges have parameters you can change, under the Range Options... menu item. To view the current options or repeat target callouts (for ranges which support them), use the Utilities... menu item. Flyables Not actually sure offhand; I started with the version off of the Apex server for carriers and tankers, so whatever they have there. Planned Features Possibly a remove-destroyed-units feature, if available Possibly other cleanup features; i.e. clearing target areas completely Open-source the whole thing Target Areas Airfield Target Area Located SW of Kobuleti at the abandoned airfield. Hard targets: 6 Leopard 1A3, 6 M113, 6 Marder II Soft targets: 40 infantry, 12 trucks AAA: 2 M163s IR SHORADS: 1 Strela-1 Radar SHORADS: 1 Osa [*]SEAD Range SAM battery spawns create a launcher, search and tracking radars (where applicable), and a command post (where applicable). SHORADS spawns an Osa, a Strela-1, a Strela-10M, and a Shilka. [*]BVR Range Provides highly configurable spawns of enemy aircraft, with options suitable for every A2A-capable flyable. Currently available: Mustang, Dora, Saber, F-4E, F-5E, F-16C, Tu-95, Tu-22, C-130. [*]Locations: West Far: ~150km west of Kobuleti West Close: ~75km west of Kobuleti South: around Batumi [*]Altitudes: about 25,000 feet for High, about 5,000 feet for Low. [*]Armament: for aircraft without access to certain kinds of weapons, categories for those weapons mean 'fully armed'. (e.g. P-51D IR Missiles is just gun-armed.) [*]EWR is available to provide vectors. [*]North Target-Spotting Range Spawns targets randomly in one of thirteen spots north of Kobuleti. Targets are platoon, company, or battalion-sized formations of armored units, with optional air defenses. Spawned units will be marked with a smoke marker, and a mission message will indicate location relative to landmarks and towns. [*]COIN Range Spawns units either stationary in a town, or moving on or off roads through it. Low-intensity targets (topping out at IFVs, truck-mounted ZU-23s) moving through civilian traffic. Known Issues None That's not to say that it's bug-free, merely that I'm not presently aware of any issues Changelog v6.0.0 (05/27/19): full-on rewrite of everything for ease of use and porting to other maps, with an eye toward open-sourcing the script; COIN range implemented v5.0.1 (08/14/16): bugfix for recent versions of DCS, do most ranges with scripts instead of triggers v4.1.1 (10/3/14): bugfix (BVR range spawned all targets at near spawn point) v4.1 (10/3/14): New BVR range first release. v4.0 (TEST VERSION): New BVR range first pass, using scripts and some fancier options. May break things or cause script errors. v3.3 (09/17/14): MiG-21 slots! (n.b. the attached file without a version number is v3.3) v3.2 (09/13/14): fixed KC-135 bug, added slots for more flyables, added in-progress COIN range, split airfield target range targets into soft and hard spawns, moved fast movers to Senaki Airbase to free up room at Kobuleti, moved transport helos to FARPs SW of Kobuleti for the same reason v3.1 (09/09/14): fixed menu bug, changed Ka-50 skin to something less parade-ground v3 (09/08/14): switched player coalition to blue for future JTAC v2.1 (2/6/14): added tankers, removed 4x Phantom BVR range spawn v2 (2/3/14): added random target range, BVR range, many more aircraft slots v1: initial version with Su-25T and Su-25 slots and Kobuleti abandoned airfield range Edit: for now, use Home Fries' version toward the end of the thread, which has better support for Tomcats and Viggens. I'll roll those into the next release. Super Multiplayer Range Blue v6.0 Unbranded.miz

No, it absolutely does not. If the flight dynamics, the system modeling, and the weapons delivery are accurate, my wingmen could be speaking Martian for all I care. Putting someone down because he wants simulated radio communications to be in a language he speaks is moronic. It ought to be an option that can be set in the game. Saying 'no' to that is indefensible.

I'm up to mission two, and I'm kind of curious if anyone has some advice here. The target is a column of artillery protected by four man-portable Stingers, and they can apparently reload those pretty darned fast—if I get anywhere near the target below 3000 meters, they fire off several missiles at me and my wingman both (more than four). I had some success killing some of the launcher infantry with S-8 rockets fired at long range, but that's not ideal for killing the targets. It mostly seems to me like the speed of re-engagement and the number of rounds carried for the infantry is a little high, but ignoring that, is the best way to keep out of trouble just to stay high up and far out? Even a floor of 2500 meters was too low for delivering bombs.

The only one you really need to know and love is 'SAM launch' and the numbers for o'clock. :P

You're still a lucky bum. :P

As I understand it, the reason the unchain-rudder-trim mod is popular is because people remove the centering springs from their rudder pedals. There are three behaviors here: 1. With rudder centering springs and rudder trimmed: Press/release trimmer. New center points set. You have to move your feet back to the rudder center position, but the rudder isn't centered anymore, so your feet no longer correspond to the rudder position. On the upside, the pedals have a centering force, which strikes me as probably correct when the helicopter is at a decent speed, and possibly not correct when the helicopter is slow. 2. With rudder centering springs removed and rudder untrimmed: Press/release trimmer. New center points set, but not for rudder. You just leave your feet where they were. This is more nearly how an actual helicopter works (or at least one with trimmable yaw?). 3. With rudder centering springs and rudder untrimmed: Wrong, IMO; you have rudder pedals which don't behave like helicopter rudder pedals, and you aren't using the game's recenter-controls modes to help mitigate the disconnect, either.

Cluster bombs in general seem a little underwhelming right now, both the American ones and the ones off of the Su-25 series. Hitting a truck with multiple PTAB-1Ms, or the bomblets out of the CBU-87, and failing to kill it seems a little off to me.

I approve of the engine fire. That seems apropos.

I hopped on for a little while earlier, and flew on (well, near; my formation flying is not a fully developed skill) Vedexent's wing for a run at the Abramses. After taking a Chaparral to the tail and mistaking my 'unlock target' button for my push to talk button twice in a row (not my finest hour), I ended up making a belly landing at Mineralnye Vody with no hydraulics. Not a bad afternoon, all told.

I'd like to see this fixed, too. I'm planning on introducing two friends to DCS via the Su-25T, and it's much harder to work on bombs with CCIP being so hard to get to.

ARMs do benefit from launch authorization override if launched high and fast. They have a little more range than the -25T's computer thinks they do.

One thing about the Su-25 vs. the Su-25T is that the Su-25, while having 1000kg less fuel, is so much better on thrust to weight that the fuel it has lasts longer. Normal flight for me in the Su-25 is about 80-90% engine RPM, which yields a reasonable cruise and enough power for maneuvering in a target area. The -25T needs north of 90% engine RPM in most circumstances, I find.

Not as far as I know (limitation of FC3-level aircraft).

I might hop on a little after work today. I was going to join in last night, but a few of my college pals roped me into Planetside for a while.

I'm not sure if there's a real process. I occasionally see references to a bug tracking system, but I'm not sure if that's for testers only. If it is, keep bumping the thread, or maybe start a new one with a more descriptive title and link back here for the previous discussion/research; someone will see it eventually. There's not generally a ton of acknowledgement when they do. Alternatively, one of these upcoming patches is supposed to be the start of open betas before the final release, so that might open up a ticket tracking system to the general public.

That last part is definitely true, and I don't claim to have any particular insight into the codebase, either. In general, I tend to come down on the conceptually simpler, 95% solution for just about any problem, so that's some of it.

Calling a probabilistic system a 'hack' is mischaracterizing it. It's a perfectly suitable system for simulating fragmentation. What people call a 'proper system' is what I, as a software engineer, would call a hack—it's cool, but it's vastly overcomplicated and very likely underperformant compared to the alternatives. If it does turn out that they almost have a full mathematical simulation done, fine. It gets us to the same place, and that's all I really care about in the end. I still think it's sandblasting a soup cracker, and that the effort would have been better spent elsewhere. I'm not trying to demonize the devs. I'm definitely railing against a certain class of people on this forum who refuse to accept anything that isn't a completely perfect one-to-one simulation when that's never what we're actually going to end up with.