Flagrum

"WX"?

Hrm. In the user profile settings, there is an option "Message Editor Interface" where you can select Basic Editor / Simple Text Box Standard Editor / Extra Formatting Controls Enhanced Interface / Full WYSIWYG Editor After switching from "Enhanced" to "Standard", it seems to work now again ...? I never deliberately selected "Enhanced" - or if I did, it was years ago ... but as I can see any diference in functionality between the two variants, I guess, I am fine with this now. :D edit: ok, the difference is, that "Standard" shows all formatting with those [xxx]...[/xxx] formatting codes instead of actually doing the formatting- Hrmph.

No idea what the cause might be - all I know is that it changed not too long ago. Before, I too, never had this issue. Maybe the browser ... could be. When was the last update of Firefox? Anyway, I'll try the preview here now. edit after preview: Ok, preview already shows the doubled line feeds. Also the edit field now contains them as well. I could edit them out now ... but ... nah ... edit after posting: funny thing: although I had now doubled line feeds in the edit window, THOSE where NOT doubled (again). Once the forum made two empty lines out of one, it stays that way ... only manually typed line feeds seem to be affected. In fact, in the edit window, I entered only one blank line between the original text and my "edit after preview" line - and THAT was doubled again. Weired.

"reconstruction of the bonus system"? :huh:

Ok.

Huh? DCS "stable": https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/stable/

I would think that the missile just continues to fly in the direction where it last saw the laser spot. But in reality, without any course corrections, I would expect a significant deviation from the original course - more pronounced the further out the laser was turned off. There seems to be some sort of random factor missing in DCS - i.e. the flight model of the missile needs some work.

Wind has nothing to do with anything here, I think. When flying level, the ASL actually overlays the target point perfectly in the AV-8B, even with crosswind. Also, the ASL does not disappear, but can move to the very edge of the HUD FoV. Depending on your baning angle, that can mean that you onls see a small bit of it, clamped in some corner of the HUD. In the A-10C this effect is much reduced, as the total displacement of the ASL has a maximum which is a good way inside the HUD FoV.

... wrong forum.

When flying inverted and you drop bombs, they fall trough the wings without damaging the aircraft. The bomb might not go off as the fuze might not be activated yet, but at least some sort of damage should occur when a 2000 lb object collides with the fuselage. ;-)

I tried it out in the A-10C: There the ASL is also not fixated at the designated target point and actually behaves similar to the ASL of the AV-8B! That includes also the dependance on the bank angle! Larger angle results in a larger displacement of the ASL, up to the point where it is show on the opposite side of the velocity vector (i.e. tgt - VV - ASL). So my assumptions that a) the ASL location may be depending on the bank angle, and b) the ASL should always be located between target and velocity vector are seemingly wrong / not necessarily feasible. One thing I did notice though where the AV-8B ASL behaviour still seem to differ significantly from that of the A-10C. The ASL displacement related to the bank angle seems to be limited. It never happened that the ASL swayed to the edge of the HUD just because of the bank angle. It always stayed within maybe 20% of the HUD width away from the designated target point. This limited displacement then was also responsible for a way smoother and easier trackable movement speed of the ASL. Maneuvering did not cause so much swaying left and right and left and right of the ASL.

... to play? I AM SIMULATING! :)

To designate a target, you put the velocity vector over it and depress TDC Action. Currently, this is bound to the ghost VV and not to the VV. I have no proof (yet!), but that must be wrong. The ghost VV is meant to provide additional information regarding the aircraft attitude, but for all other means the Velocity Vector is there. And I would assume, this is also true for target designations. The VV is more stable and predictable and thus far better suited for this task. Additional: I witnessed this now two times (consciously) that the ghost VV disappears after once a ground target was designated - which makes it even more unpredictable as of where the actual designation will take place! ;-)

AH-64E

Since a couple of days all my postings are getting formatted weiredly .. If I separate two paragraphs by an empty line, the forum doubles that, resulting in two empty lines. For long...ish postings this is really annoying. For example, this is now the third paragraph. The screen shot shows what I actually typed in. Disclaimer: no editing, just posting this as I typed it.

After the 2.5.2 patch it seems, as if the ASL behaving a bit better now. It is not so finicky anymore to line up properly. [edit: take my follow up posting below into account when reading this ... seems that I am wrong in this posting!] But ... still ... it seems that there is a dependence on the banking angle of the a/c. The position of the ASL is different at different angles of bank: the steeper the bank, the bigger the distance ASL - Target point. And that relation seems not to be linear - small bank angles produce only tiny derivations, but anything greater than 10°...15° and the ASL is hundreds of meters off and swaying even to the opposite side of the VV (should always be between designated target and VV, no?) I am not sure, if the ASL shall work as a flight director that leads you smoothly to the desired azimuth, which would allow the ASL and designated target to separate (until getting closer). Or if it just points you where the designated target is - i.e. the ASL stays connected to the desig. target all the time. But anyhow,the dependence on the banking angle seems wrong.

Not sure how it is in BMS, but yes, in DCS each faction have a bullseye set. The bullseye has a position in the world and each aircraft and every other unit in the world has a position, too. In that regard, DCS "keeps track". But there is no magic function to get your relative position to the bullseye displayed somewhere. You need to keep track of that by yourself - maybe your aircraft NAV system assists you with that ... or you call AWACS and ask for nav assistance.

All sensors have a feature where some sort of visual cue is displayed to show where the sensor is looking at. If the TPOD is looking behind you, you see a small square dot at the bottom of the screen. Is the target abeam, the dot is shown left or right of the cross on the screen. And so on. The IRMAV has a similar dot and the TPOD displays an arrow at the velocity vector on the hud, pointing towards the designated target point. This is supposed to aid the situational awarnes and to help to line up the aircraft - you know where your sensor is looking and you can turn accordingly. But something is off - with all three variants, imo (I assume, all sensors share the same code here). I often have the "feeling" that the cue is leading me wrong. Maybe it is that the cue is (too?) sensitive to the aircraft's bank angle? It behaves odd when banking - the cue is moving AWAY from the direction I intent to turn to until it hits 180° and then continues again the other way around - up to 0° when I am lined up. Banking alone makes the TPOD cue move around the cross a bit. But that is not how it is supposed to be, right? The cue should only give a direction in a horizontal plane (parallel to the ground, NOT parallel to the aircraft wings), I would think?

A thin black outline of the characters might also help.

Jetzt bin ich schon für die Stimmung in der Community verantwortlich!? Ich pöbele!? WTF? Und WAS habe ich gepushed? Ich schrieb, ich wäre enttäuscht, meinetwegen sogar ein wenig ärgerlich, über eine verpasste Update-Gelegenheit. IHR wollt mir ständig in die Schuhe schieben, dass ich nicht mit Bugs umgehen kann und legt mir nahe, dass DCS Beta Versionen für mich nicht geeignet sind (wie soll ich bugs reporten, wenn ich keine betas nutze?). Ok, ich habe vielleicht den Zusatz "preiset ED, Halleluja" vergessen und damit evtl. die Gefühle von ein oder zwei Threadbeteiligten verletzt. Da der Thread hier wohl bald eh geclosed wird und meine Ignore List um zwei Einträge erweitert ist ... schöne Pfingsten noch! btw, rant (gleicher Link) = eine Triade loslassen, leeres Geschwätz ;-) ED sei gepriesen, HALELUJA! :D

I am not very good at statistics, but predictions based on a sample size of 1 seems to be a bit ... far fetched?

Ich gebs auf. Wer Beta kauft, hat die Fresse zu halten. Verstanden. Alles gut in DCS Land, ED&Co. machen alles richtig - so lange ein Flieger das Fahrwerk vom Boden hoch bekommt ist ja alles in Butter. Ihr pustet meinen kleinen Rant im 1. Posting ganz schön auf und macht es größer als notwendig. Was mich aber vielmehr tatsächlich ärgert sind manche der Reaktionen hier. I get it, das moderne DCS ist nix für mich - ich sollte besser bei A-10C und Ka-50 bleiben (wo man die Buttons nicht lesen kann, dank Lighting-Bug (Yay!) ). "Beta Version" als Totschlagargument. Ok, bin ich halt still - also auch keine Bug reports mehr von mir ... lol.

Ich rege mich ja nicht jede Woche auf, dass es ein Bug fix nicht in den Patch geschafft hat. Diesmal war es aber (nicht zum ersten Mal) so, dass mehrere Termine ohne Updates von ED vergangen sind, sich aber tatsächlich (was hier leider auch keine Regelmäßigkeit ist) bug fixes "angesammelt" haben. Das finde ich halt "schade" - ich rette mich von Mittwoch zu Freitag zu Mittwoch zu Freitag ... wer weiß, vielleicht ja DIESE woche? Und dann - wieder nix. Klar, wie schon gesagt, es wird gute Gründe haben - ED bereitet SoH und die FA-18 vor. Zwei Releases kurz aufeinander, da kann ich mir schon vorstellen, dass die Jungs (und Mädels /stupiddisclaimer) von ED in diesen Tagen da alle gut unter Dampf stehen. Aber muss ich das deswegen gut finden? Oder darf ich deswegen auch mal ein bisserl Dampf ablassen?

Ich bin lediglich enttäuscht, das zum 3.? 4.? Mal in Reihe, zu "üblichen" Terminen kein Update verfügbar ist, obwohl mittlerweile diverse Bugs gefixed sind. Klar wird es dafür "gute Gründe" geben. Aber soll ich mich deswegen freuen? "Ach menno, kein Update! Aber, phew, zum Glück gibts gute Gründe dafür! :)))"? :doh:

Für's Protokoll: der Termin für die FA-18 und die Map sind 100% ok für mich. Alles im Plan, alles gut. Hier gehts mir mehr um den Harrier. Ich finds halt ärgerlich, wenn z.B. Razbam es verpeilt (ob ursächlich oder nicht), ihre Änderungen an ED zu übermitteln und dann wieder im Schnitt eine Woche ins Land geht, bis man mit dem Harrier weiterexperimentieren kann. Naja, oder halt eben auch nicht, wenn dann ED doch kein Update rausbringt. Ok, dann halt die Woche drauf - dann gleich mit noch mehr bug fixes! Yay! Ach nee, doch nicht. Usw. Mich NERVT es einfach, dass - gefühlt - NICHTS mal FERTIG wird. Dabei ist mir egal, wer "Schuld" hat. Es nervt halt. Aber ist ok. Ich werde mich im "Ja, ED, danke ED" weiter üben - versprochen.