Eagle7907

This feature was briefly released then taken away. Will this ever come to our viper? No word about it and a very basic necessity for flying in instrument conditions, now that we have the new wx in the sim. I remember it was released in an update, but was implemented incorrectly. Not sure why its been dropped.

From what I understand the Cat switch just dampens roll rates, you can still over G stores regardless of switch position.

I've been getting freezes at times during the mission loading. It actually locks up not just DCS World but also Windows as well. When the freeze occurs, I bring up the windows task manager, and it does show DCS World is unresponsive, but I can't even end the task nor select anything thing from the menus of the task manager. (grayed out) My only option is to Ctrl+Alt+Del, then have my PC restart. I have AV but all ED folders are exempt from my AV. Is there a log I should post?

I can try to, it’s a ramp start hence why I posted the mission. It will be a lengthy track if I do. @BIGNEWY https://www.dropbox.com/s/krtesblep553ao0/CCIP Maverick bug.trk?dl=0 Note: This track 50% of them behaved correctly. First missed. Second and third hit. Fourth a miss again. All designated with the delay cue. Still not sure why it is happening? Maybe speed related? IDK. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Thanks. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hmm... well as far as I can see, you did the alignment correctly, because that is a requirement for DL to work as well. I see L16 is selected. Yeah, I can’t see your panels for some reason. Ah, wait. That was my fault! Gotta start over. Okay on your track, you’re doing stored heading, I’m not familiar with that one, but I think you don’t have to confirm the coordinates, since they are already stored? Normal alignment you do. I also noticed that RDY didn’t flash before selecting NAV on INS panel. Again, not very familiar with stored HDG. Also I see there are two AWACS. It could be possible that one is programmed correctly and the other isn’t, hence why it’s spotty? Again, I’m not sure the distance is between the two, but I know one has smaller radar coverage than the other. Now that I think about it more, it should still work without AWACS. Because the fighters broadcasting Link 16 should still show up and provide their own surveillance to you. Granted everyone is programmed correctly. Sounds like a bug to me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Okay. I’m about to view your track now. I’m not sure why, but this is difficult for me to see what you’re doing during startup. Are you using a simpit? When you look left and right I don’t see the camera angle down to the panels. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

And its only on this particular server? Or more than one?

Hmm...I see this is on a server, was other F-16 players able to get DL data from AWACS or other fighters? Could be a problem with the AWACS AI commands being duplicated or just not set. Addendum: I would try this on a single player mission to see if the result is the same or different. If its the same, then that would mean it's something you're doing wrong. If different, then its a problem with the server.

Is the XMT option on HSD set to L16?

I created a mission to practice bore-sighting and firing Mavericks. I have 4 -65Ds and 4 -97s loaded. I am able to get the Mavericks bore-sighted and successfully kill the AD at the target area, but I am not able to get one successful release from the CBUs afterwards. They all fall short when designating by CCIP with the delay cue visible. They seem to immediately release during post designate without the release cue no where close to the FPM. Here's the mission I created. I've flown this three times and still can't figure out why they are doing this. I have no wind set, and it's the default weather and day. At steerpoint 3 is the trusty abandoned field with a truck to bore-sight the Mavericks. Steerpoint 4 is the live targets, all armor with both AAA and SAM cover. F16 Maverick practice2.miz

If the moderator knows of the correct thread, please relocate because I can’t find exactly where to post this feedback. First, I really like this campaign and how it’s implemented extra procedures and comms into the missions for the extra immersion. More to look forward to when ED revamps the ATC among other things. Very nice. My question, or more of a comment, is on the second combat mission against the F-16C, the mission explicitly states, “No shots before the merge will count”. Well, my opponent just did and it still counted. I realize you can’t really control AI completely, but this seems like a cheap shot against the player. The result was the opponent shot before the merge with a sidewinder, I was hit, the negative outcome “showtime, you’re dead, blah, blah, blah”. I almost pressed escape and exited the mission until I remembered that he shot before the merge! So I then turned around and closed in and shot him down with a sidewinder. Then the outcome was positive, like nothing happened. Continued and landed normally. At the end sure enough the mission score was 50! What? I guess maybe there should be a bit more consistency with what happens for one. Maybe state that the opponent may shoot before the merge, so that the player knows that the opponent has the upper hand and still for the player to attempt rear aspect kills. Otherwise, I do find the campaign fun, but just this problem does disappoint a bit. With all the procedures and rules of engagement present and you get this is very confusing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Deleted.... incorrect thread

If you’re referring to in VMC for a visual approach, a simple way is if it’s a modern fighter that has a velocity vector indicator/flight path marker on the HUD is to be aligned with the runway and have the aircraft symbol be overlapping the runway touchdown point and around -3 degrees on the pitch ladder. A simple way to know if you are to shallow or steep is to put the symbol over the touchdown point, what angle are you at? 2 degrees? A bit shallow, arrest your descent a bit. 4 degrees? Increase rate of descent a bit. Of course you would be on speed as well with the gear and flaps down. You can use this technique with any jet that has this tech on board. Also like someone else mentioned, I think you’re referring to the three to one rule. Another way to think of it, if you have the DME from the airport, for every mile, you should be 300’. For example, 5 mile final would be roughly 1500’ above field elevation. 3 miles= 900’, etc. There will be some variation though, since most distance measuring isn’t right at the runway in DCS, unless you place a waypoint right at the runway. [emoji6] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I appreciate your response, and I understand your concerns. I too would appreciate something that is well tested as well. If that came across to you differently, I didn’t mean to. I wouldn’t want a broken OB pushed to Stable. My point was IF OB was/is in a good working order, that it would be a good strategy to push the OB to Stable before any large/core updates like the clouds/wx or previously like the 2.5.6 lighting. If something in the large update simply makes the OB unplayable then the loss of features (which have been tested) in the previous updates are not such a setback. What ED just did is exactly what I was getting at. There haven’t been any blocking bugs from the last two OB updates. Anyways, with the rules of the internet, no one is completely happy with any improvements. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

To the ED team: Thank you for the stable update. I am much more confident that IF something goes wrong with the OB 2.7 update, those will have something more current to use. I really think this is a wise strategy, again, thank you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I respectfully disagree. Even with what I've laid out above, there has been plenty of time to deliver a Stable update. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. Yes it wouldn't probably be the latest OB, depending on how vast the update is, but still there was time for testing for any one of those previous updates rightly back to beginning of November. That still doesn't explain why a stable update wasn't done sooner than 12/25. Again, though I'm not an ED employee. Whatever. Just trying to bring more balance to the force with huge updates to the core game and breaking OB which ED very heavily relies on. Worthless customer, out.

OB dated 12/23/2020 (copy and paste) MP. Barrage Balloon does not show for clients - fixed. AIM-120. Midcourse guidance - fixed unwanted target id reset, fixed seeker los rotation in midcourse phase and restored protection from LOS rate surge. AIM-7. Loft trajectory initialization corrected. After ejecting player can still control aircraft - fixed. net.lua2json generates error if table indexed numerically has missing index - fixed. GBU-24 does not explode on impact - fixed. DCS F-16C Viper by ED Update of the Taxi and Take-Off Mission. HARM POS/RUK does not track SA-2 track radar - fixed. No TOT in CCRP mode after firing off 2 Harms - fixed. Post-release CCIP point is no longer there with the weapon release button still held down - fixed. F/A-18C Hornet by ED Not losing lock on STT When turning off the radar, Guides missile all the way. Still an issue if radar set to standby - fixed GBU-24 does not explode on impact - fixed AIM-7MH not lofting when LOFT is turned on - fixed DCS P-47D by ED Aircraft will continue to climb on dead engine - fixed. Updated PG, Caucasus and Channel IA Missions. DCS Bf 109 K-4 by ED Updated Channel IA Missions DCS Spitfire IX by ED Updated Spitfire Channel and Caucasus IA Missions DCS P-51D Mustang by ED Updated Channel, PG and Caucasus IA Missions DCS Fw 190 D-9 by ED Updated Channel and Caucasus IA Missions DCS Fw 190 A-8 by ED Updated Channel IA Missions DCS SA342 Gazelle by Polychop Added possibility to enable/disable NS430 in mission (additional tab in SA342 properties in ME) DCS F-14A/B Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations NEW! Added F-14B Campaign “Operation Reforger - The Iron Heel” Fixed TWS tracks clashing with datalink in multicrew. Added TGTS size keybinds for RIO. Updated AIM-7 to parity with ED’s AIM-7. Fixed AIM-7 dogfight LTE to 0.7s (was accidentally immediate). Prevent AIM-54 continuing to track target if TWS track was deleted and later re-acquired (new track technically). Fix: ensure that AIM-54 active command is only sent while radar is transmitting. Livery fixes for VF-102 and 103 Hi Vis. Small fixes to A liveries. Added hog to VF-11 droptank on B version. Fixed mirroring issues on Last Ride and Grim Reapers liveries. Fix for engine fire at continued M1.1. Adjusted transonic drag for F-14A. DCS MiG-21bis by Magnitude 3 Fixed radar causing a huge FPS loss when turned on. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stable dated 12/25/2020 (selected copy and paste to show my point) DCS World MP. Barrage Balloon does not show for clients - fixed. AIM-120 Midcourse guidance - fixed unwanted target id reset, fixed seeker los rotation in midcourse phase and restored protection from LOS rate surge. AIM-7. Loft trajectory initialization corrected. After ejecting player can still control aircraft - fixed. net.lua2json generates error if table indexed numerically has missing index - fixed. GBU-24 does not explode on impact - fixed. (I found this under the Hornet fixes) F-16C Update of the Taxi and Take-Off Mission. HARM POS/RUK does not track SA-2 track radar - fixed No TOT in CCRP mode after firing off 2 Harms - fixed Post-release CCIP point is no longer there with the weapon release button still held down - fixed F/A-18C Not losing lock on STT When turning off the radar, Guides missile all the way. - fixed GBU-24 does not explode on impact - fixed AIM-7MH not lofting when LOFT is turned on - fixed P-47D Aircraft will continue to climb on dead engine under certain conditions - fixed. Updated PG, Caucasus and Channel IA Missions. Bf-109 Updated Channel IA Missions. Spitfire Updated Spitfire Channel and Caucasus IA Missions. P-51D Updated Channel, PG and Caucasus IA Missions. Fw-109 D-9 Updated Channel and Caucasus IA Missions. Fw-109 A-8 (This wasn't completely the same text but....) Added and updated IA missions. SA342 Added possibility to enable/disable NS430 in mission (additional tab in SA342 properties in ME) F-14A/B NEW! Added F-14B Campaign “Operation Reforger - The Iron Heel” Fixed TWS tracks clashing with datalink in multicrew Added TGTS size keybinds for RIO Updated AIM-7 to parity with ED’s AIM-7 Fixed AIM-7 dogfight LTE to 0.7s (was accidentally immediate) Prevent AIM-54 continuing to track target if TWS track was deleted and later re-acquired (new track technically) Fix: ensure that AIM-54 active command is only sent while radar is transmitting Livery fixes for VF-102 and 103 Hi Vis Small fixes to A liveries Added hog to VF-11 droptank on B version Fixed mirroring issues on Last Ride and Grim Reapers liveries Fix for engine fire at continued M1.1 Adjusted transonic drag for F-14A Mig21 Fixed radar causing a huge FPS loss when turned on -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, I understand what OB is for and what Stable is for, but again why is it on this particular week, they immediately decide to push an OB update to Stable after two days? Sure, you can say it was tested, right! However, did the OB update prior on 12/17 need as much time? What about the one on 11/23 or 11/18? The previous stable update to 12/25 was 10/9. More than two months. But yet, ED decides they push over OB to stable without any cadence and I ask myself why? I mean if they say we should fall back to stable when OB just simply doesn't run, but then that could force us into playing something that's over two months old, when alternatively they update stable at a more frequent rate. They just did in December, why not make it a usual thing? I'm sorry, I just don't get the large vasts of time then suddenly two days 'yeah its good'. Another thought: I really do feel sorry for ED though. I mean, they do try to cater to so many demands from a swath of many different users. Ha! I find it humorous when someone brings up a political topic either here or discord and everyone (rightly) discourages it. But DCS World itself has created its own political realm of SP vs MP, OB vs Stable, Steam vs Standalone, Hornet vs Viper, etc. Anyways, I think it would be wise if maybe they spruce up the Stable updates more, then perhaps people who like OB and people who use Stable, might be happier with any situation that a major update kills the OB branch and still can keep the most up to date gameplay.

Hey@Bignewy. I understand what you’re saying and I think the two branches work quite well. However, it doesn’t work as well as it should when all the newest stuff is on one branch and not pushed to the other for an extensive amount of time. Let’s put it into perspective. The last time stable was updated was Dec 2020. Not too long ago, but we’ve had at least two updates to OB since then full of new content and fixes across many modules. Now before Dec 2020, when was stable updated again? October? How many OB updates were there then? My point is yes, we can fall back on stable when OB just simply gives out. However, now we are using a version that has content that’s missing lots of newly implemented features and fixes. This would be much better utilized if stable was more frequently updated is where I am getting at, or like I originally posted, to spread the risk when ED tries to plan big updates like the 2.7 update. I’m excited like any other guy here, and I look forward to new stuff, but when things don’t work out as planned, do we have to be pushed back so much? Addendum: Also when you say the OB is used for testing, I agree it should be used for testing and to find bugs, however I don’t really see how a time span of 2-3 months of a stable update when an OB update was released two days prior? Saying it’s used for testing but then turn around and push OB to stable in a fraction of the time raises eyebrows. I don’t know, I mean I admit I don’t have the big picture, but from looking at it on our end of the looking glass, it doesn’t seem very consistent. Perhaps maybe it would be a good idea to have ED do an OB push to stable just before an update like 2.7? I mean like everyone says, stable still has bugs as OB normally does. At least our insurance policy is more recent. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That’s a good point. I know ATFLIR was mentioned for being pushed into development, but I’m not sure if that means ready for 2.7. Makes you wonder if that is the mysterious 2.6 that the public didn’t get? Yeah, the mini-update thread says planned for 2.7, along with a whole bunch of other stuff. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This thought just came to me recently. I remember back when the 2.5.6 lighting update came out and all the headaches that came with it and I’m thinking about the lessons learned from that. My question (or suggestion) is wouldn’t it be better to release new module features in one update, then release the new core stuff, like cloud stuff in 2.7? That way if the new core features causes bugs that are beta killing, then we can still go back and fall on the previous version with the latest fixes/newly implemented things for the modules. Yeah, that may add a bit more of a wait for the clouds, but at least it won’t put all the eggs in one basket. I’ve noticed that when something core related to the sim is changed, a lot of problems stir up and think isolating those updates may prove more beneficial than slamming a whole bunch of new stuff at once. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You should dive more than 10 degrees. The successful hits I've found are around 25 degrees at least with a speed of about 400-500 knots. If you stay within that profile, your chances are good. I remember seeing this in a video Wags made that mentions this profile. As to being done? I made a post about how the sound is very weak and not even sounds like the real thing. More like a 'swish' than a 'boom' or 'multiple booms'. I think either Nineline or Wags mentioned that they were looking into improving the explosion sound. However, that was said a few years ago. That may have been prioritized way down the list or just forgotten. View at 2:55 for the profile. Edit: Just noticed this was in regards to F-14. It's still the same release parameters. I've have Harrier, Hornet, and Tomcat. They all release the same way and require the same profile.

When did ED hint at making a FF 15C? My understanding was they wouldn’t because the USAF didn’t want them to or had no desire for one made. If ED did announce it, I completely missed it. Still, I wouldn’t get my hopes up. Until there is a solid announcement that ED is doing it, then there is hope. But I haven’t heard a peep about it anywhere. Also, I’m not against one being made(before you light up those torches). I’ve been asking ever since I got FC3 when it was first released. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This has been talked about time and time again. Everyone wants a FF F-15C and ED knows it. If they could do it, it would have been done a decade ago. I wouldn’t get my hopes up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think this module is dead (again). Clearly if RAZBAM thought of the F15E to its potential, then the Mig19 would be the module “on hold”. Why on earth did they make this choice is beyond me. I’ve been waiting since 2010 for this module to drop. My faith has evaporated into a pipe dream at the moment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro