Adrian858

One of the biggest questions I have regarding the F-14 using the Super Carrier DLC is the RIO position... What if the pilot has the DLC, but the RIO does not? I'm sure this is something that'll be considered, hopefully sooner rather than later. :thumbup:

I started to work on doing that, but ran into a bit of an issue where I would switch from one profile to the next, and it would sometimes give some odd bugs, like loading the stick bindings into the throttle, or just removing all stick bindings, in these cases I had to restart the game (pain in the @$$ in VR). I've started to use the F/A-18 stick for pretty much all aircraft except the A-10. When the F-16 comes out, I should probably have a new base to slap the Warthog on to.

Yeah, when I can get some money together (and perhaps get a bigger house), I think I want to try Virpil out. I hear outstanding things! Then I won't have to worry about it, already started thinking of the damage that could be done over time switching the grip back and forth on the TM base.

I tinkered around with it a bit tonight, making two separate profiles that I could switch between. It works, until it doesn't... :lol: This is why I usually don't create profiles for mapping in DCS, just bind what I need for each module, and backup the config folder. Half the time it was erasing bindings until I restarted the game, or it would load the profile buttons and overwrite the throttle... I think the easiest solution will be to use the Warthog Stick for the A-10 and F-16, and use the F/A-18 stick for everything else and just keep them separate. Was on the hook about Target, but couldn't bring myself to using it, just feels like another added step and another program running in the background that I need to remember to turn on, but that's a personal preference, and sadly starting with Saitek/Madcatz years ago and using their "software" scarred me for life. I have to admit though, I am really quite satisfied with this Thrustmaster product, pricey, but definitely worth it! Closely matches the AV-8B which I had a blast in tonight, and it actually works really well when I tried it in the Huey. Now where's that F-15E? Thanks for the responses and input, Drakoz!

Hey Drakoz, Firmware was the first thing I did, but after I had already put the F18 Grip on the base, did a reinstall with the A10 stick back on it, same thing. Similar to what imacken mentioned in his post here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3993473&postcount=31 I find that regardless of which stick is on the base, they utilize the exact same keybinds as per button number. This would become problematic if I wanted to use two different stick bindings for one aircraft, rather than constantly switching out the stick to avoid unnecessary wear and tear. I'm mainly playing around with some ideas, and seeing what other methods people are using to adapt. The easiest way I could think of would just be to buy an additional base.

Hey folks, Tried to do some searching, but sadly there's not too much material on it yet. I just got my TM F/A-18 grip last night (so exciting!), and put it on the TM base today and I thought it would register as another stick entirely. So I have a couple questions for those that will be swapping between the F/A-18 and A-10 grip for flying certain modules. Realizing that the already binded controls in DCS are from my A-10 stick, if I switch over to the F/A-18 grip and rebind some things, I'm going to assume the original bindings if I put the A-10 stick back on are going to require changing again (since it doesn't create a new identifier / stick that can be modified in the controls). So first question of the day! Are you using a separate base to switch between the two? Or are you using the TARGET software to create a new profile that you can swap? Second question, if you are swapping the stick using TARGET, would DCS require a restart to recognize the change? Or maybe someone has thought of another solution to this predicament that they're willing to share! In TARGET, when I put the F/A-18 grip on, it still states that the F18 grip is "disconnected" but everything works fine. Highlighted in green above is where I thought it would create a new identifier in DCS.

This. Is. Heavenly! Now to wait for the F-14 to come along with a Pilot. :D

No problem, and here I was thinking I'm all of the sudden bad at bombing in a 12nm wind! :lol: I just finished testing it from Hot Start on the Carrier, same results and worked as intended, glad I could help though! :D

Yeah, that looks to be about the same results I was having when I airstarted. That actually just jogged my memory too. I've made / played a few missions in the past (more than a month ago) where wind was also a factor, but manageable. It was only this last update where I noticed it as I incorporated more wind than I usually do. I'll pop in to DCS and take a look at a Hoststart from the boat, the mission I'm currently on has been attached. Operation Winter Harvest TEST.miz

Alright, gave it a go with airstart. Surprisingly more accurate results compared to taking off from the Carrier, then flying over to the Objective... The bomb fall line shifted minimally on run ins. I also noticed that the INS was far more accurate. I previously noticed that MK-20's were still fairly accurate despite the Mk-20's before I tested the mission in an airstarted F-14B, not sure if that matters much, but forgot to include it in the OP. When taking off from the Carrier, letting Jester do all the necessary starting in the back until he's ready to taxi, then flying 86nm to target, I found halfway there, without pulling any hard G's, that Waypoint 1 would show 10nm away or so when I'm flying right over it. The bombs were missing as posted originally, except the MK-20's which were almost spot on. When airstarting at 10,000ft, INS accurately showed that I was flying over WP1, and the bomb line actually seemed to be adjusting better, allowing me to hit targets with decent precision. Felt like the bomb line was trying stay centered, attempting to match the wind when I started to drop bombs below 6,000ft where it's windy. Then I tried pulling some hard G's on a few runs with no real change. INS and bombs dropping still seemed sufficient. In comparing the two, the INS seemed to degrade a bit faster when cold started on the Carrier, then flying 86nm to target at around 12,000ft. It's as if the bomb line hugged the HUD opposite of the wind direction. Air start above 10,000ft then descending into the wind seemed to impact the INS, and bomb line, but nowhere near from when I launched from the boat. If you'd like, I can send you the Mission to test out, maybe you'll have different results?

Hmm, very interesting indeed! I knew that the wind would affect the bomb fall line, but thought there might be a way to set it manually adjusting for wind. Also, played the mission a few times with the same results, always taking off from the Carrier, and I started to wonder if that may have had anything to do with it. I think you're right though, considering that the F-14 (as amazing as she is) didn't stick around long enough for JDAM's that would have been better suited to adverse weather. Laser guided it is! Thanks for the response!

Alright folks, for the last couple of days, I've been trying to figure out the best way to hit targets in somewhat windy conditions with Dumb Bombs, primarily MK-82's. Below is a rundown of the mission in particular. 12c Snow (Cloud Density 9) Windspeed: -12kts at 33ft -25kts at 1600ft -0kts higher than 6600ft Direction bearing 120 Turbulence 2 Fog Visibility 4000ft Fog Thickness 1200 First target area elevation 430ft I'm finding the bomb fall line has a tendency to shift right when the wind is coming in from the left (which is normal), but makes getting the bomb pipper difficult to get on target as a result. Bombs are landing about 100 meters away when putting the pipper directly on the target. Bombing into the wind seems to help a little bit, but still not the accuracy I'm looking to achieve with dumb bombs in such weather. I doubt that the HUD can be caged or uncaged similar to the F/A-18C, but is there a way to correct the bomb fall line based on wind? Any helpful advice is appreciated!

Hmm, it all makes sense now! If I recall correctly the first time it happened, I had a bad run in and to avoid ground fire so I pulled a hard turn to evade. On the second mission I was working through, especially being at a higher altitude, I wasn't paying the best attention to my airspeed and ended up getting caught in a flat spin, I would presume the GBU's were unaffected as the LANTIRN is giving me directional cues, then when I switched over to the Mk-82's, I noticed something went awry. Conclusion: Be a little nicer to the Cat! :megalol:

I've run into a strange issue twice now, and I initially thought that it was the result of damage to the aircraft after taking some hits from Anti Air guns a few nights ago, which led the Hud Bomb Drop Line to become diagonal. But last night, I had the same problem after no damage had been done to my aircraft and I had used the LANTIRN Pod to drop 2 GBU-16's and 2 GBU-12's (no problems with those). After I dropped the GBU's taking out a couple of targets from around 40,000 FT, I switched over to a couple of Mk-82's, switched to the RIO Seat and turned off the LANIRN Pod and put the TV back on. When I went back to the pilot seat, dropped my altitude and went to set up the master arm on with A/G mode, I looked up to find the Bomb Drop Line had gone slanted diagonally again... I tried turning the Hud on and off, going from Computer Target to Pilot, a few other things like turning off and on the camera, then when I gave up and started flying home, I set the Hud Mode to Landing, and now the pitch ladder was tilted sideways too... The Stby/backup Attitude indicator still appeared to be working fine. Sadly I didn't take any screenshots of it, but the only thing I could potentially link an issue to would be using the LANTIRN Pod, then switching to dumb bombs. When the Hud does this, the pitch ladder and bomb line appear to be the only things that are affected, as the heading tape is still where it should be. Hopefully I'm not the only one noticing this, as I haven't seen anyone else post anything regarding this. To try and remedy the issue, I did a repair after the first time I had the issue (as the alignment wasn't working properly either when done with assisted startup, or auto-start), but no joy.

Definitely read my mind! ++1

I'm having the same problems, response to a thread in the Mission Editor Issues posted here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3838376&postcount=4

I'm unfortunately plagued by the same issues and trying to find a work-around. I went to update a lot of missions (30+) yesterday to include the F-14B and it appears that any missions previously made prior to February with a Carrier already placed suffer from this issue. It's frustrating as a large majority of my missions have a template that I built before this issue with various statics already on the Stennis, and an escort of ships (including the Tarawa with the Harrier / Huey's, etc). The only temporary work around was to move 4 F/A-18's from Ramp to Runway, create 4 F-14B's to Air start beside the Carrier, then move those 4 to the Ramp. The thing that I hate about this most, is that because the F/A-18's are on the Runway (Cats), they're hot started, which is not exactly ideal for the missions I have. Now, any missions that I built from scratch last month by building a new template, it worked as it did months back, where you can put 8+ in the Ramp positions. One mission in the Persian Gulf has 4 F/A-18's, 2 Huey's, and 4 F-14B's in the Ramp positions without any issues. I've been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to make it work again with 'older' missions with the Stennis already placed... I've tried the following: -Create 4 F-14B's separately OR in the same group starting in the air, when moving any of them to the Stennis, they get placed at the nearest airport / base if 4 F/A-18's are on the Ramp. Even with a temporary Waypoint placed down as suggested in another post. -Change F/A-18's to F-14's, moved all static objects (set to offset fixation and linked to Stennis) to the middle of the boat. Still couldn't put any other Client aircraft on the Ramp. -Remove 2 F/A-18's from the Group in the Ramp or Runway, place 1 F-14B in the air, then move to Ramp, fine, then when attempting to increase the F-14B group, I get an error stating "no parking for this aircraft." -Move the 4 F/A-18's to Runway, create a group of 4 F-14B's and place them to Ramp. This works, but now I'm stuck with F/A-18's Hot starting on the Runway / Cats which I'm really hoping to avoid, especially when a couple of my missions have AI aircraft taking off from the Stennis at mission start. -Create new Aircraft Carrier, move or create F/A-18's and place them on the Ramp, no issues, move or create F-14's and place them on the Ramp with the F/A-18's no issues. Even went to put 4 AV-8B's on the Ramp without any problems, 12 aircraft in total on the Ramp (highest I've checked). -Also attempted changing the Stennis in the group to another ship type, then back, but the issue is the same (was hoping it would be like the E-2 when the SA update came out). I'd rather not spend a full day re-creating the Battlegroup in each of my missions in the hopes that this bug will be resolved, or unless someone has found a more feasible way of making a previously placed Stennis work as a newly created one that allows for more than 4 aircraft on the Ramp. ED, please make the Stennis great again!

Just tested a previously made mission and it's doing it for me as well, even with it linked to the Stennis and offset fixation ticked.

You guys are genius, I'd kiss you if I could! Fixed the issue and works perfectly now, thanks a bunch!

Hey folks, I'm having an issue with a mission for the UH-1H that I made back when it first came out... It's a training mission, and the .miz used to be much smaller, until I added an Ogg. file to spruce things up a bit that added some nice Vietnam Era music. I did this a while back, and ever since, the mission is 46.0 MB and the load time for friends or even myself if someone else hosts the mission is brutal. Since then I've removed the script leading to the Ogg. file, but the mission size remains the same, as do the load times... Any mission that I have previously put that Ogg. file into, has been leading to excessive load times for friends. I've removed the transmitting vehicles, but is there a way to remove the Ogg. file entirely from the mission, or any other fixes that may work? Thanks in advance!

Sometimes after creating a mission that red box comes up by default until I disable it myself, any idea what might be causing that, or if there is a permanent way or option to disable it?