Jump to content

Hardcard

Members
  • Posts

    1067
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hardcard

  • Birthday 11/30/1984

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Blinx 21 Aside from what @cfrag mentioned, it might very well be that there's no way to make the static replacement spawn exactly where you left your aircraft (also, it might be removed after a while). DCS has an obscure airbase cleanup routine which removes and relocates client and AI aircraft... it shouldn't affect static replacements, but Murphy's law tends to apply In any case, you'll definitely need a script to do this, there's no way of doing it in Mission Editor. I can give you pointers on how to script this, if you're interested in learning basic Lua and DCS Lua. Regarding MOOSE, think of it as a pre-cooked meal, it makes DCS scripting quicker and easier, but it's not required, you can write your scripts in DCS Lua (which is what MOOSE does under the hood)
  2. @Rudel_chw Hi there, hope everything is well. @Blinx 21 SWAPR isn't what you're looking for, since it'll remove your aircraft when you change slots. However, the feature you're requesting (or at least something similar) should be doable with a script. You won't be able to keep your planes spawned after you switch slots, but you should be able to spawn "clones" at the approximate location / airbase you left them. Do you have scripting experience in DCS?
  3. @Flappie I guess I should've recorded it. Here's what happens: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c3k6tZ9JZkLlMihES3kLttyXgaBgyK0M/view?usp=sharing 1- Open the track posted by @ripper253 2- Go to F10 view once the mission has been loaded 3- Unpause the mission 4- Zoom in You can see in my video how the interface breaks, map markers disappear, toolbar icons disappear. Then, when I exit the replay, you can see how interface buttons and sliders also disappear, module thumbnails in the main menu disappear, Mission Editor buttons disappear, etc. The bug effects are the same we had before, and something in this track triggers it. My main suspects: - Map drawing elements introduced in 2.7 (or some of their settings), which appear when you zoom in. - Map icons/markers introduced in 2.7, which appear when you zoom in. Why is this only happening in BF Syria 90s? I don't know, maybe it's the only mission currently using the problematic markers / drawings.
  4. @Flappie I can confirm that the track posted above breaks the UI of F10 map, DCS buttons/UI elements outside the mission, etc. for me... all I have to do is unpause it, my DCS gets rekt.
  5. I should've kept my mouth shut, shouldn't I? @DD_Fenrir Methinks you should've read previous posts and checked the viper loadouts that are currently allowed before making that comment. If you had, you would've realized that we're allowed to carry 10x cbus, or 6x cbus and 6x mavericks, which seem kind of "Ace Combaty" to me. @Frederf My thoughts exactly when I was taking those screenshots. @Bunny Clark @Falconeer Thanks, I appreciate your replies. But, tbh, some of the currently allowed loadouts totally make the viper look like an A-10.
  6. The most recent example happened this morning. I was flying an F-14A, AI mirage was forced to drop lock to defend my phoenix (which found its mark anyway)... then, some seconds after the mirage was destroyed, I got hit by its 530D without any warning. My jammer was on in this case, but I seem to recall that this kind of thing has also happened to me when flying the viper (I never carry ECM pod in the viper). I did save the track of the tomcat engagement, but, unsurprisingly, it's corrupted... @kotor633 I don't own the mirage, so I have no manual, only the Chuck's guide.
  7. @Flappie A blueflag player on the BuddySpike discord channel says that the issue also happens in other servers, not just Syria 90s. I've already asked that player to try to reproduce the issue elsewhere and then report it to you here. I'll just say that this UI issue was never server-related, I don't see why it should be server-related now.
  8. @Kercheiz This has happened to me when flying different jets, with and without an active jammer. Also, are these missiles supposed to reacquire after radar contact has been regained? EDIT: Ok, I've managed to find a thread related to this from last year (Google searches and ED forum threads don't go along) Looks like Super 530s are closer to fox3s than I thought.
  9. I've been noticing this for a while, when training against AI mirages. Super 530s sometimes still hit me after the AI mirages have either turned beyond gimbal limits or died to my missiles. Also, super 530s sometimes don't give RWR warning when this happens. Should I report this here or on the DCS missile section?
  10. @Flappie I'll try to reach Xcom and the admins on Discord, but, before I do, are we sure it isn't a DCS issue? Are we sure it isn't related to the Syria map?
  11. @Bunny Clark @Falconeer So... gbu-12s fall like any other unguided bomb AND do weird things? What about cbu canisters and dumb bombs with only tail fins? Don't they do weird things in disturbed flows too? Also, if gbu-12s are so dangerous, why are we allowed to carry one on each inner pylon? Seems to me that carrying one is just as dangerous as carrying 2, if this is really the case. Regarding the country-specific loadout books, I'm guessing they're classified, right? Anyway, I just want a couple of extra bombs, to hit whatever my JSOW-As and cbu clusters fail to kill. Also, I could use more than 4x gbu-38s in the viper...
  12. Are you sure you didn't get this backwards? I'd say that gbu-12s are more stable and easier to steer, precisely because they have that extra set of control fins on the nose. I'd expect cbu canisters and mk82s to wobble around a lot more than gbu-12s. Regarding the practicality of multiple gbu-12s on the inner pylons, like I said, that's a separate matter, I'm only concerned about physical reasons.
  13. @Bunny Clark Did you check available armament options for the viper in ME? Notice that, just like gbu-12s, cbu87/97 are also limited to 2 on pylons 3 & 7... yet 3 of them are allowed on the inner pylons (4 & 6), whereas only 1x gbu-12 is allowed. Makes no sense, no matter how you slice it. Here, check these out: Regarding aerodynamic concerns upon release, if those massive cbu canisters don't cause problems, why should gbu-12s? Hell, even 3x dumb mk82s are allowed on the inner pylons, if those don't cause problems, why should gbu-12s? Also, if gbu-12s are so dangerous, why are they so popular? Like you said, extensive testing is performed before clearing these weapons for employment, I would be very surprised if gbu-12s hadn't been thoroughly tested and modified to ensure safe release. Now, whether the USAF adopted that kind of loadout for the inner pylons, that's another matter, I'm talking about physical reasons here... and I see none that would prevent, at least, 2x gbu-12 to be mounted on the inner pylons.
  14. @Frederf @Bunny Clark I think that the problem here is that you haven't scrutinized the armaments currently allowed on the inner pylons of the viper, in Mission Editor. From where I'm standing, you seem to be focusing on the fact that 2x gbu-12s aren't allowed on the inner pylons, therefore assuming that there must be a logical reason for it (physical or otherwise). If you scrutinized the currently allowed armaments on the inner pylons, you'd realize that the reason can't be physical. - Aerodynamic effects / safety of separation: A single gbu-12 or gbu-10 is allowed on the inner pylons. 2x or 3x cbu87/97 or dumb bomb racks are allowed too. Are you willing to claim that 2x gbu-12s have crazier aerodynamic effects on separation than the aforementioned? Just think about it. - Carriage stress: 2x cbu-97 = 2000lbs 3x cbu-97 = 3000lbs 370 gal tank = 3000lbs 2x gbu12s = 1000lbs Are you willing to claim that 2x gbu-12s put more stress on the inner pylons (and the viper in general) than the aforementioned? Just think about it. - Clearance: 3x cbu87/97 take more space than 2x gbu-12s. Just think about it and check it in ME's ordinance viewer. I'll say it again, guys: wouldn't surprise me if devs simply forgot to add the double gbu-12 rack ids for the inner pylons in the loadout tables for the viper.
  15. @Frederf If you're talking about the inner pylons, keep in mind that they currently accept triple racks of dumb bombs and cbus, which are more draggy and take more space than a couple of gbu-12s would.
×
×
  • Create New...