Shadow KT

Less spamming (less Daniel), more profficiency

Well, I think it has been happening for a quite a long time, I just now got it again and had the bright idea to check it out in external views. I've definitely had such cockpit wobbles in the past.

Just a funny situation we had the other day 2TxUfGs2FgI I really hope tomorrow is AI's patch and we don't have to deal with this anymore

On the start of a mission, with no wind, no input from my side, in SP, a noticeable jerk occurs in the cockpit. Checked out the external views and behold, the A-10 is being pushed sideways, as if someone was trying to push its nose to rotate it. 4cPVAQ7Rvis A-10 rotating on the ground.trk

Thank you, I will check it out... It used to be an option, don't know why it got removed (or hidden/disabled)

Embarking Troops Crash: dcs.log-20200609-131114.zip

Yep, it only goes OPR for couple of seconds in MAN

It definitely wasn't in the past and the manual also says there should be that option. Only Flaming Cliffs planes, didn't have that option. (which honestly, they should have)

Video describing and explaining the inconsistencies which occur when using dynamic weather VsUhf6Rk5bY

As the tittle says, the option on the ME editor to manually set where a client or AI starts from the ground using the "Takeoff from the ground (hot)" is missing. It used to be there and allowed you to actually use all park spaces on an airfield. It is still there for helicopters, but not for at least all full fidelity aeroplanes I have

Hey, made a quick video demonstrating the issues. Easiest way of showing the problem with context. fw9tkOZxojQ

With the latest update and the neutral coalition introduced, the change coalition button is on top of the neutral coalition task box. Also, moving unit from neutral to a side doesn't work. Except for the first unit you place, everything else is shown neutral.

I've got new logs both form server and client with the same crash on the latest open beta as of 08/06/2020 Logs are in google drive as the server tacview is too big to upload. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KziR1EqEEWVkY1ToxOSl31CgKtXGABL3/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lear4HmCAdPrspBJXvjJnafQqMeKUfkk/view?usp=sharing

Well, it is stupid, do you fly head first into your enemy waiting for his missile to go pitbull to react ? I made this argument, because no one was proposing a solution.... But, you gave one yourself, which is a reasonable one (the quoted part). You can see how all of a sudden this problem gets a lot of ifs and buts in its solution, it is definitely not an easy task and there is no single, universal solution (behavior) which can solve it

I mean, you saw the title, you read the post and you wrote a response, nobody made you do that. So, if you have any issues, I would say, blame only yourself :thumbup:. If you think I broke a rule, make sure you report me

Well, you guys are in luck today it seems. There is so much more potential to be had if both maps were together, but it is going to be missed....

Hello, I was just wanted to share my view and opinion on the upcoming channel map, based on what I (We?) know so far. I know this map is ED's WWII baby and they've put a lot of work into it, but I believe this to be a massive missed opportunity, for all parties involved. Not combining the Channel Map with the Normandy map is a let down for me and a short term prospect. Yes I know, different locations, different levels of detail. The Channel Map ends roughly where the Normandy map starts. If they are to be combined this would benefit all parties involved. ED will benefit from good PR (positive reputation and good marketing), more revenue and they will make their first small step to global map. The creators of the Normandy map will benefit from revenue and most importantly, the users will benefit the most out of everyone, having the opportunity to use this huge map, create heaps of scenarios and have the access to a map a lot of other games can only envy for. In my opinion, even if they just get combined and the difference in level of detail between the two areas stays the same, people will still be happy to have them under one map. Both Maps could still be sold separately (at their full price). If you have none of the two maps, you can buy them combined with a discount (so not full price of both together). You can have the combined map as the primary terrain, but have the option to create missions for only one of the two sections, if you want only people with a certain map to be able to play. Think of it as having sub terrain with limited size (something like the limited size of the free weekends which included PG). In the future, using joint effort both sides of the terrain can be equalized. So for the near future, I will now be investing into this, but I will be looking forward to the P-47. Hopefully my message seems reasonable and give you food for thought. Thank you for the effort you put into DCS.

Well, I made the post as now both airfield approach projectors as well as the Super Carrier do illuminate aircraft on the outside, with performance being good

As much as I appreciate the opportunity given, I kinda wished that it wasn't in our "full" control... Reasoning being the misinformation of a lot of people of the capabilities of the ground radar and moving other objectively more important features down the list. Hopefully, after the initial release of the AG radar, people will be shook a bit and put back into reality about what the capabilities and use of the AG radar are. Everything else is good, thanks for sharing and giving the opportunity.

Interestingly enough, watching phli's P-47s video.... The nav lights on it are quite bright

Again another trend that has somehow started occurring all over DCS, with ground units and aircraft... all of sudden stuff does no damage (most time being a bug) or a lot less damage and the answer we are given is either none (ignored) or some really low effort answer like, if it doesn't have enough penetration it won't do damage.... well duh. You can also see it in other aspects, for example radar ranges as mentioned here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=272340

I am only displaying both sides, not taking one and as far as I see in this thread, I don't see anyone suggesting a solution, except "AI no defend"

Although they don't illuminate your cockpit, The Supper Carrier island lights, as well as landing lights (big projectors you can find at the end/start of runways on Caucasus) cast a light on the aircraft. Can this be done to Airfield apron lights ?

I don't know if this is still subject to change, but the light right now, I would even argue are worse than pre 2.5.6 They are way too dim, you cannot see aircraft half a mile away from you, unless you zoom in all the way. You can see the anti-collision lights on airliners flash even in low sun in the morning or noon from a good distance. Right now you can barely even see them flash from half a mile away, at night and even in a moonless night. I believe, that the intensity of the lights after the initial 2.5.6 release were in a pretty good spot, their issue was not power, but that they showed light trough objects. Their intensity was in an alright-ish spot. Sadly my clips from that point of time have been deleted. Can we get initial 2.5.6 nav light intensity ? I've attached couple of tracks as to show how low they are right now. Huey Lights.trk A-10 Lights.trk Lights No Moon.trk

There are two sides to the coin, when you think about it.... If you make em react only to missile launches when they get an RWR warning you will be making them pretty stupid and easy targets. On the other side you have them reacting as they do now, which could lead to ridiculous situations There needs to be a balance, a smart AI of some sort, which I don't know if we have available