Nealius

The only sure way to have statics and avoid handler/director issues is to use uncontrolled AI spawning on the slots. The drawbacks to this are that you have little to no control over where they spawn, you get jets spawned where there should be helo parking, you can't add cranes or tugs, and the spawn slot sizing issues online causes "delayed to start" issues with Tomcat clients. Who then, once spawned in, have their fuel weight doubled from an unsquashable bug that's been around for the better part of 5 years now, severely degrading their flight performance.

We've only got 62nm with which to utilize a carrier group, which is disappointing.

Given the original mission parameters of low cloud cover, I'm curious, does our Hornet currently model the GBU-24's unguided CCIP-esque delivery profile that uses the FPM as a pipper?

NOSE for an LGB should dud the bomb. The nose fuse well is taken up by the battery for the guidance system. NSTL or TAIL has worked with 100% reliability for me.

Recent news seems to indicate that the release will only include the Essex and 8 IJA ground units with the release. What exactly are we supposed to do air-to-air combat with in this thing if there's no AI IJA/IJN assets being released with it?

I'm surprised anyone is using dynamic weather as it's no longer officially supported since we got the volumentric clouds. Even before that support was de facto nonexistent on account of having zero method to generate or read localized weather reports, and no way to generate clouds without extensive lua edits that also caused 30kt surface winds. As a weather model it's fundamentally broken.

I set mission wind to 180 "to." Will test with other wind directions. My question is, though, how is wind changing mid-mission? To my knowledge there is no way to change wind direction/speed mid-mission.

People are overthinking the math on the angle of wind. "No crosswind" means natural wind straight down the angled deck's axis. That's it. As long as the carrier is moving there will be axial winds going from right-to-left. This is normal, and is not meant to be canceled out by any fancy math like that calculator on github (or even the airboss script). In fact at lower natural wind speeds those calculators will totally f--k up your groove turn. There are axial wind (crosswind relative the angled deck) allowances up to 7kts, but under normal operations natural wind goes straight down the angled deck[1][2][3] As to the rest, here you can see the headings on the Airboss displays appear to be True, not Magnetic. Wind is showing as "to" instead of "from," like in the mission editor wind settings. I suspect this is an error as Western convention for wind is always "from" regardless of aviation or simple civil meteorology. If the mission wind changes and it is not reflected in the briefing, then note the "wind bearing," find the reciprocal, add 9. That is the bearing you must set the carrier for recoveries. The "crosswind" display appears to be crosswind relative to BRC, not to the angled deck, though I need to test again to be sure. Depending on natural wind speed you will have a crosswind indicated on that display due to the axial winds caused by the ship's movement, but those should be less than 7kts. [1] CNATRA P-1211 [2] The Burble Effect: Superstructure and Flight Deck Effects on Carrier Air Wake [3] Aircraft Carrier Operating Procedures For DCS World 2.5 (which uses CNATRA and NATOPS sources)

Natural wind direction would be 298. US Navy procedure is to put wind straight down the angled deck, so BRC would be (natural wind direction)+9. Therefore 307 would be the correct BRC. Advanced math not required.

In the map select "MAP" mode and look for rectangular shaped restricted airspace and that's where they usually are. There's one about equadistant between Fulda airfield and Giebelstadt airfield.

Yes, but does that mean that DDR only had SA-3s and SA-5s? Were there no SA-2s or other systems in the DDR?

The thickness I can deal with, the tallness though is an issue, particularly on grass strips that should be cut much, much shorter.

I imagined that would be the case, especially for SA-2s, but all I can find are SA-3 style setups with the four pads fanning out from a central track radar position.

Looking through all the SAM site infrastructure I can't really identify what type of SAM system they are supposed to represent. The West German side only appears to have a single type of setup: Two raised berms for radar and 3 launch pads connected to each radar berm. It looks similar to a Hawk site to me, but the Hawk system has four radars yet we only get two raised berms? The East German side seems to have two types. One is fairly obviously SA-5, but the rest appear to be SA-3 in design. But again we only get one raised berm for the radar when there should be two. Where are the SA-2 sites? AAA/Fire Cans? Surely there were other SAMs and AAA sites particularly in East Germany.

Why do we even have spawnable points on gliderports/grass areas anyway? Those shouldn't be available for anything other than WW2 props and it isn't a WW2 map.

Each blade of grass is about as thick as my thigh too.

Did no one test this or think this through? Having them scale smaller as the user zooms in and/or giving the layer transparency so the user can actually see what's under it is common sense...

Did you get signal charlie?

What are your delivery parameters? Last week I did multiple bombing practice sessions dropping Mk82s in DT mode. Dropping in pairs, 6 passes (12 bombs). Run in from about 20,000ft above the target, 3-4G pull down, 20-30deg dive angle, 5-6ish G safe escape. My CEP was within 50m on all drops.

I'm not getting the bloom affect but I haven't been able to pinpoint why. The only thing I can think of is the "darker and less glossy" texture mod I'm using, because the bloom is still there on Forrestal, just not the CVNs for me.

Even at 1.2nm can be dicey. It's kind of weird because 1.2nm (IIRC) is within the prescribed procedure yet if you follow prescribed procedure of max 30 AoB in the groove turn while on-speed in DCS you will overshoot the LA every single time (WoD 27kts down the angle). I always need a more aggressive 35-40 AoB during the first 90 then I can settle into 30 in the last half of the groove to avoid a "wings" grade.

Yes, I downloaded and installed those luas on 11JAN25. The fix was posted 05JAN25 (at least according to the User Files date). I can try again though. I can't tell where those "US NAVY" ones are as they aren't in my Saved Games nor are they in any campaigns.

Definitely one of the more challenging aircraft in the entire DCS ecosystem. Usually after 20 hours I’ve mastered stick-and-rudder on something like the Bf109 or Spitfire but this beast is something else with the unique trim system and extremely laggy VVI. Without any inner-ear feedback it’s quite difficult to fly given its instability in pitch. Going heads down for five seconds to set the weapons panel or turn off exterior lights often ends with the nose pointing anywhere but where I left it when I thought I had her trimmed out. Good practice for recovering from unusual attitudes. Landing feels a lot better, though on-speed AoA has a much higher pitch angle than what I’m used to. My brain hasn’t caught up with that yet.

Found an old video on Yo-yo’s Youtube showing a rewind feature and it indeed was a new WIP system for replays. My point about them being mostly fixed in 2023 until recent “end of track fiber” issues still remains true.

Yep, using that fix, and copy-pasted the "updated" VS-24 skins from the recent patch to double check it wasn't my Saved Games liveries overriding the campaign liveries. A coulple of yours appear to be fixed but there are quite a few that aren't: VS-24 AJ hi-vis and lo-vis are both showing default gray 727. VS-21 NH lo-vis has missing textures on the rudder and horizontal stab VS-28 hi-vis and lo-vis are both showing default gray 727. VS-38 NE lo-vis has missing texture on the whole thing except the engine nacelles VS-38 NE (no lo-vis or hi-vis naming) is showing default gray 727 Baltic Dragon's Bloodhounds 700 and 702 are also showing default gray 727, and his 701 is missing a default.lua file entirely.