Wizard1393

Just had this also. A2G Gun was hitting way, way above the pipper. I had just released my last JSOW and switched over to Gun. Hit nothing but dirt.

A properly modeled contrast locking system would be really cool, but I honestly think that is years and years away, simply because it probably would be very taxing performance wise. It's already a very fine balance between realism/eyecandy and FPS for the absolute majority of us.

Hi all, So trying out the new ATFLIR, I'm thinking it seems a bit wonky with slewing when coming from HMCS designation. Whats the correct workflow here? I go HUD/HMCS SOI -> Look at ground target -> TDC Depress -> TGP SOI -> Cant slew -> Whats the correct next step, change TGP mode with SCS? Also seem to be getting some wonky behavior overall with the ATFLIR when changing modes, it sometimes comes into a "fixed angle mode" where its not locked to the ground anymore, like an SP mode, and I lose my target.

Got a small performance hit (around 5fps) with my 2080. Still in the OK region, FPS wise...

This. Already on a fine line between performance and visuals on a GTX 2080 in VR. I hope the impact won't be like 10 FPS less, that would be catastrophic.

The smaller hardened shelter parking spots are too small for the F-14 resulting in explosion on mission start. You should not be able to place the F-14 in those spots.

+1 on the Reverb G2

Man I remember back in the 1.2.6 days-ish when the KMGU dispensers where da bomb. Very effective and cool effects. Somewhere along the lines they changed the weapon, removing the cool visuals and completely nerfing it to the point of uselessness. IIRC it caused performance issues as it was, and thats why they changed it. However, they could have skipped the nerf imo.

Ok well, still, ED should be able to fix it as other steam vr games does not have this issue?

Tried the tool. Making it symmetric and then swapping up down made it better. But not 100%. Still have a weird feeling, but just not as bad. How come DCS have a problem with "alignment" when other games do not? Why should I as a customer be having to fiddle with this? Please fix it ED. Also, if anyone have managed to get a 100% feel good alignment for the G2, please post the settings file.

Wow I thought something was off. Why did I feel crosseyed in DCS only with my new Reverb G2??? So there's definately an issue with the G2 and DCS then? EDIT: Tried the tool. Making it symmetric and then swapping up down made it better. But not 100%. Still have a weird feeling, but just not as bad. How come DCS have a problem with "alignment" when other games do not? Why should I as a customer be having to fiddle with this? Please fix it ED! Also, if anyone have managed to get a 100% feel good alignment for the G2, please post the settings file.

F-15 for me is the hardest, being that the refueling port is behind the canopy. Never tried in the F-16.

I'll have a cheap HP Reverb G1 for sale pretty soon...

Yes, exactly that, except I also had the elevation caret visibly moving left to right in the top. Interesting. I know I used ACM Guns in this flight. But I also know I've done the steps you're describing and not have the radar end up in a faulty state. I usually STT lock target, switch to guns, kill target, then to exit ACM Gun mode i usually select AIM-120 and then Undesignate. Perhaps the step that breaks it is in the step how you EXIT the Gun mode rather than enter it? If I have time later I'll test and produce the exact steps to reproduce...

Yesterday I had a weird occurrance with the radar. The azimuth caret was moved to the left side where the elevation caret normally is, and the elevation caret was moved to the top of the DDI. It was not like this from the start, happened somewhere during flight. Anyone else happened upon this bug?

Yup. Nice catch @captain_dalan

I'm thinking it must not be common that people are popping chaffs if you can't detect anything locking you (TWS)? I'd agree though that you would activate your ECM Jammer if equipped when in a hostile environment. Maybe thats what you mean by "reacting"? If STT locked thats another story though, that you react to.

I'm not sure about all this, but I'm curious. Imho, regarding the default CAP task when no parameters are given, fighters should prioritize engagements according to threat level. So if you have a BLUE bomber group and an escort fighter group, RED fighters should engage the fighter escorts first, again, if no parameters are given. And offcourse, if the player/client is in the fighter escort group, it should not matter, AI should not prioritize player/client more than any other fighters in the escort group.

Yes, I've heard this mentioned before, however honestly it should be reviewed and changed. It's an OK solution when SARH/IR missiles are fired. But it is severely needed to change the behavior regarding reaction or ARH missiles. AI should only react when ARH missile gone Pitbull as this will trigger a RWR launch warning.

Cool! Np! I should have posted that this was the cause. I'mma change the thread subject now... EDIT: Couldn't change old post subject. Updating first post.

Cool. Yeah I've fiddled some with Moose some year ago and it's a powerful framework. I just never got around to getting myself really into it and learning it's functions. Also, like Grimes kind of said, when your result (e.g. AI behavior) is not what you intended, it's so much harder to know if it's the wrapper code (e.g. Moose) or the SSE itself not doing what you expect. The native SSE I understand and know my way around. Thats why I keep using it in conjuction with the excellent MIST library. Force of habit I guess :)

Yes. I'm going to try this as well, although with scripting, and see what the result will be, if they rush from 100+miles away to engage something that's in the engagement zone. I'm also wondering what the engagement distance is. I'm thinking there must be one, under the hood somewhere, concealed from scripting. I mean, otherwise any AI CAP flight with AWACS support would fly hundreds of miles to engage any enemy aircraft...

I just want to say that the cause of this for me turned out to be modded viewdistance preset lua files (Extreme.lua, Ultra.lua etc.). I had done this to get even longer ranges etc. Reverting to original files removed this "bug" for me.

You are absolutely right. I get it now. You need to checks, one that checks MaxDist from route so they won't stray for too far, and also one for checking MaxDist from self. That way you can say "Go max 60 miles away from route, but also only engage targets within 30 miles from self.

@Grimes Wow, just wow. I applaud you. Grimes the script ninja strikes again. That is it, tested now with the red cap point 55 miles away from the blue awacs orbit point (MaxDist set to 45nm) and they do not engage. Wow this bug is bad. That removes the use (for me) of the MaxDist setting almost entirely. I like dynamic and unpredictable content. This bug makes my mission more static :( EDIT: So wait. The spawned red AI MiG's in this case can only have this MaxDist bug "apply" on ME created assets then right? I have a few ME placed flight such as AWACS and tankers, if I made all blue flights spawned the bug is not there you think? EDIT2: And you say that it's a "known behavior"? So it's not a bug? Thats weird. This is so far from what you think the MaxDist setting would do. You easily assume if at any time during the flight, an enemy aircraft comes within MaxDist setting, it will engage. Not "if blue flight wpt/leg is closer than MaxDist to red flight wpt/leg" engage at any distance... how'd did they even come up with this?