Jump to content

Hardcard

Members
  • Posts

    1067
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hardcard

  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.
  16. @Deano87 Who said anything about flying with 8x gbu-12s? I'm talking about a couple of gbu-12s mounted on either inner pylon (or both), to balance mixed loadouts and to carry one or two extra bombs when there's absolutely no reason not to. Besides, inner pylons currently accept triple racks of dumb bombs and cbus, which are more draggy than a couple of gbu-12s would be. Arguments about bomb aerodynamics make no sense either, since anything affecting a rack with 2x gbu-12s would also affect the triple rack bomb combinations that are currently allowed. 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. @Falconeer Like I said, inner pylons are wired (ie ready) for gbu-12 operation. But thanks for stating the obvious anyway
  17. Inner pylons can carry gbu-10 (2000lbs) and TER-9A triple racks with either dumb or cluster bombs. I find it strange that multiple gbu-12 combinations aren't allowed in those pylons... they can obviously take the weight, have enough clearance and are wired for gbu-12 employment.
  18. @Skyrat @Magic Man Homemade headtracking systems are cheap and work well, either get one or build your own. You don't have to buy an expensive TrackIR set in order to overcome the mouse limitation.
  19. @IronMike Ok, I think I've spotted the main problem with my 29nmi shot @30k ft: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz It wasn't a matter of insufficient altitude and speed on my part, I simply took the shot from too close, forcing the phoenix to follow a narrow arc, which isn't efficient, and alerting the bandit with the smoke. Had I taken that same shot from 40-50nmi, the mk60 A would've stayed in thin air for longer, entering terminal phase at higher speed (and probably higher altitude), likely not alerting the bandit before pitbull. There's a chance the bandit would've still been able to defeat the missile, but at least the shot would've been more dangerous. Here's a dangerous mk60 A shot, taken at 56nmi with similar speed and altitude parameters as I had: https://streamable.com/wgvnem Sure, the bandit in this case was flying higher than my bandit, but still, the wider arc given by the longer range makes a big difference, this guy didn't see the smoke from 56nmi and the phoenix reached him in a much better energy state (again, this bandit was pretty high, though). So the key here isn't necessarily to climb to 40+k ft and burn like crazy, it's more a matter of optimizing the phoenix's arc (ie. taking longer shots). Doing that, it's possible to take mk60 A shots that are in line with the official reports I linked... although the energy bleeding above 20k ft seems a tad too much, maybe. The mk47 C, though...shouldn't it perform better than the rest of phoenixes? Don't you think it's underperforming? Cheers.
  20. @IronMike Thanks again for taking the time to reply. I expect DCS phoenixes to be true to official Navy reports, no more, no less. This isn't about personal feelings, it's not even about what either of us would wish, it's about current phoenix performance in DCS not matching official performance reports. From the Navy Air Systems Command: https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=724&Article=2168381 This isn't my opinion, these are not my feelings, these are official test results from the Navy Air Systems Command. Also note that these tests were conducted using early phoenixes, which should perform worse than the mk47C. So, as I hope you'll understand, I notice conflicts between those official reports and some of your statements: I'm not the only customer who has noticed discrepancies between official reports vs DCS performance and HB statements. You can keep telling me that the poor phoenix performance is my noob ass' fault, but official reports like the ones I linked still indicate that DCS phoenixes are underperforming. (I totally accept that my noobness is preventing me from getting more kills, but that was never my point. Like I said, I don't care that people evade my phoenixes, I care that my phoenixes are struggling in situations where they shouldn't, if official reports are to be believed). Anyway, I don't enjoy having to come here to report such issues, much less having to argue about them, when there are publicly available reports backing what I'm saying. Finally, you might find this hard to believe, but the tomcat is my favorite module in many ways, you guys did an awesome job in several respects (that's why I bought it). My only gripes with the module so far have been Jester implementation, lack of AWACS IFF option and phoenix performance (maybe also the inability to remove glove pylons, but that can wait)... the rest is pretty much awesome. It's just odd how hard you seem to be fighting to defend a nerf that goes against official reports and customer satisfaction
  21. @IronMike Thanks again for taking the time to reply. Here's what I see. My first shot was taken at an altitude that allowed the AWG-9 to pick up that viper. I was flying higher, initially, but vipers are tricky to pick up in situations like this, so I had to drop lower. Also, he was 6.7nmi away and notching when I fired, he wasn't cold, watch it again: https://streamable.com/wz43k9 Forget about the viper, just watch the phoenix. It craps itself at 6nmi and can't even reach mach 2... compare it to what his amraam did, reaching mach 2+ in a couple of seconds. I agree that phoenixes should experience more drag than missiles with smaller surface area, but not to the point of rendering the missile useless. Now, the 22nmi shot @23k ft: https://streamable.com/foq7u4 My mk47C barely reached mach 3, even though it was flying at 35k ft, not only that, but, again, the bleeding after the burn was insane. Unless we consider 20nmi to be long range, phoenixes can't be struggling in shots like this and still be considered long range missiles. Amraams and SD-10s are supposed to struggle in this kind of shots, but not the mighty phoenix, reported to be capable of hitting targets at 100nmi. I don't expect my phoenixes to reach 100nmi in this kind of shots, ofc, but I definitely expect more than 20nmi. Finally, the 28.7nmi shot @30k ft: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz Just so you know, the guy from the previous shot is way more aware and dangerous than this guy. The difference is that I gave that guy a smokeless mk47 C and I gave this guy a smokey mk60 A (since the mk47C has such appalling performance that I didn't even want to try). Besides, this guy was outnumbered 3:1, of course he turned. You seem to misunderstand me. I don't care about the fact that he evaded my phoenix, I care about the fact that even the mk60 A is struggling to reach 30nmi when given a trajectory of 50k feet. 30nmi still isn't long range. If your solution is "fly at 40+k feet, close to mach 2 and only expect to hit noobs", I hate to break it to you, but most medium range missiles in DCS become lethal long range missiles when shot in those conditions. Phoenixes aren't behaving like long range missiles, they're behaving like medium range missiles, that's all I'm saying.
  22. @IronMike Hi Mike, thanks for spending the time to reply to us in this thread, I appreciate it. Now, I'm afraid I have negative feedback about the recent phoenix changes. mk47 C doesn't reach bandits within 7nmi or even accelerate to mach 2 at low altitude: https://streamable.com/wz43k9 mk47 C doesn't reach bandits ~20nmi with sufficient energy, regardless of loft angle and 30+k ft trajectory: https://streamable.com/foq7u4 mk60 A doesn't make it to 30nmi with sufficient energy, even when fired at 30k ft with a pretty nice loft angle and 40+k ft trajectory: https://streamable.com/1xzhrz Now, what was that about the phoenix being a long range missile? Did I dream it? As things stand, medium range missiles outperform this supposedly long range missile. You say that this is consistent with your data? Seems to me that either your data is wrong, you're not interpreting it correctly or you're missing something. Medium range missiles can't be putting long range missiles to shame like this. My tomcat will be gathering dust in the hangar, I'm afraid, until the phoenix becomes a long range missile again. I mean, I don't know what you guys expect us to do here... miraculously get within 5nmi of enemy jets armed with amraams, SD-10s, R-27s, etc., cross our fingers and hope that our phoenixes have enough energy to reach them? The current phoenix situation is simply surreal.
  23. @IronMike Could you please share a link to the full tacview track?
  24. @Flappie Happy new year, Flappie! Once again, thanks a million for looking into the issue Will the ability to switch between huey roles (and autopilot) in MP ever come back? Do you know what the devs are planning to do regarding this issue? Should I create a wishlist thread or something? Cheers
  25. Solo players can't switch between the different huey roles in MP, even when "Solo Flight" option has been enabled in ME. Please, fix it. Solo players need to be able to jump to co-pilot and gunner roles in MP. I'd also like to have the autopilot function back, pretty please. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...