Quaggles

Here is my reproduction ${1} Target was a 4 ship of MiG-29A flying at 4000m at Mach 0.8 in Line Abreast 2743m x 0m, no chaff was given to them and their task was set to 'Nothing' and they were forced to not react. Started by swapping to Pulse Search to make sure the TID was cleared, then swapped to TWS. It seems like in certain target formations the AWG-9 needs to decide which cluster of returns to group as a track, as it flip flops between choices it can seem like the target is doing an erratic instant movement which can cause the track to disassociate from the returns at a high velocity, in this case targets were flying at Mach 0.8 and ghost targets were around Mach 4. Unsure of the real capabilities of the AWG-9 but maybe something like a velocity filter for tracks would fix it, ignore anything over ~Mach 3 to 3.5 for example? Ideally an acceleration filter or at least a velocity delta from the last TWS scan frame filter would be added but it sounds like from an above message the AWG-9 doesn't have that capability. F-14 Ghost Tracks.miz F-14 Ghost Tracks.trk

I have all the old sound files (For DCS core sounds and ED module sounds) backed up but I'm not sure on the legality of sharing them, clarification from c0ff would be nice. They are freely available to download by people that don't own the modules though by using the DCS updater to revert to the version before they were encrypted and then installing the modules manually though so it's not like they are only available to paying customers, it's just a pain to do.

That should be correct, I've used that method to install sound mods before and they work https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=190778

You'll need to create an empty .ogg file and place it in the "Saved Games\DCS\Mods" folder with the same relative path, for example if the file used to be: "Mods\aircraft\F-16C\Sounds\Effects\Aircrafts\F-16\Cockpit\Betty\Example.ogg" Then your empty file would need to be in: "C:\Users\YOUR_USERNAME\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\aircraft\F-16C\Sounds\Effects\Aircrafts\F-16\Cockpit\Betty\Example.ogg" You could try creating an empty txt file and renaming it to .ogg but if that doesn't work try using something like Audacity to create a 1 second silent audio clip, exporting it as .ogg and using that.

Well lets compare those two: Ka-50 after an engine upgrade in 2018 now needs the properties of some materials/textures updated to match the new lighting model. They announced soon after that they are working on a cockpit overhaul to resolve this, in the meantime any functional issues can be resolved by a user mod. Gazelle since 2016 has had fundamental flight model, damage model, systems modelling and weapons modelling bugs, issues and inaccuracies that have remained largely unaddressed since release. Doesn't sound exactly comparable to me.

The priorities I refer to aren't which bugs are looked at first, it's the priorities between the amount of developers on the Viper/MAC/Carrier DLC/(Insert various other future paid module here) and the number of developers that focus on the core issues. I understand that now that these products like the Viper are in development ED is not going to shift around each engineers focus on a week to week basis. But at some point months/years ago the decision has been made that X amount of developers work on core issues and X amount work on the Viper. It seems we probably won't agree that the balance of development time between core issues and new modules is off kilter but from the flood of response to this thread I think it's clear many of your users do.

I don't see anyone contesting that they are complex and take time to fix. The issue I see is prioritisation, we all understand that money needs to come in to keep the lights on but ED is at a point where the underlying sim itself has so many issues it's turning many people away from buying any new modules from ED. Why should I buy the F-16 when it might be in an environment where the AI won't shoot back for 2 months? Why should I buy any new module when the AI flight models are fundamentally broken and MP is falling apart from unresolved issues? These are the questions ED needs to ask themselves. There are plenty of friends I would like to introduce to the sim but I can't because I know it will be a buggy frustrating mess. Ultimately the issues don't lie with community managers or the developers themselves, I have the greatest respect for them and the hard work they do. But the management at ED needs to learn that their current balance of new paid content vs bugfixes and QOL improvements is giving the sim a negative reputation.

There is a difference between entering them a bug tracker to be lost for years and actually prioritising fixing these issues. Sure it's not technically ignoring them but it certainly doesn't get them fixed any time soon. We're in a situation now where AI units (Like IR SAMs and some AAA and tanks) are completely blind on dedicated servers. This issue has existed for going on 7 weeks now I believe and it was just pushed to the STABLE branch. It's clear the ED has no interest in actually maintaining their base simulation while server owners have to spend time picking up the pieces and coming up with solutions and workarounds for them.

I saw you were asking for links to old bug reports so hopefully this helps, the following are all over a year old, some have large implications for Multiplayer and server performance, the oldest being from 2016: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=199712 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207083 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209552 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=212793 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=211832 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209551 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209553 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=226289 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=224866 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200837 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209555 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=215619 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=177969 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=225748 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171586 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202455 And here are some ones within the last year, some of these issues are massively breaking like missile desync or AI not working with dedicated servers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247474 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229689 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247968 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=248077 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=244680 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242981 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=236668 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=237232 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=235628 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=238973 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241406 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=236578 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=230578 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=231488 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=231489

He made a video about how to use the AGM-154C, the AGM-154A I assume has a few different options for the fusing of the cluster munitions and release altitude.

Most confusing for me was when I asked him to punch the tanks and he said "Can't do that boss". I wondered if I was flying too low for him to safely eject them or something until I remembered I needed to enable the Master Arm first.

That's not a valid loadout, if you are carrying any Phoenix's in the tunnel you need to populate the forward 2 first. This had something to do with the cooling system and how the plumbing worked. If you want to carry 2 x AIM-54 and 4 x AIM-7 you'll have to carry the Phoenix on stations 1B and 8B (Below the sidewinders).

Gyrovague from Heatblur says "Need to visually acquire on the HUD now, this was changed after Jabbers filmed unfortunately." Might have been adjusted because the Tomcat didn't end up having this ability in real life?

It didn't help that in the MiG-19 status thread the following items were marked as **done** at the end of last year RP-5 Izumrud radar RP-5 Izumrud radar search antenna degradation due to ground return RP-5 Izumrud radar search antenna degradation due to jammers RP-5 Izumrud radar anti-jamming function RP-5 Izumrud radar tracking antenna limitations due to ground return RP-5 Izumrud radar Low altitude (below 2000 meters AGL) telemetry mode. RP-5 Izumrud radar ground return in scope Then 1 month after that youtube previews came out showing the radar using the static texture, a mere 1 week before the scheduled full release. Is it honestly surprising that people were concerned?

I do agree that a video posted 2 months ago is likely not a fair representation of the state the aircraft will release in. However ED have said that the MiG-19 is releasing this month which means if the patches follow the usual schedule it will be coming out next Wednesday. In all 3 of the recent MiG-19 videos featuring the radar (Some released as recently as yesterday) so far have all used the exact same mountain texture, some of those videos were even on entirely different maps. When a fundamental and complex system such as the radar is shown by YouTuber's in this state a mere 7 days before a full release (Not even launching in early access) it does raise questions. Edit: 3 different videos, 2 different maps, 1 radar texture: https://imgur.com/a/GcGJoY1

Ciribob said that they had been running Blue Flag on the dedicated server for a while now with all the scripts enabled. Only for 1 day this weekend did they run a specific test with no scripts running.

That makes sense in the vertical axis to an extent but this behaviour even occurs aiming left and right. The AIM-9X seeker also doesn't seem to get masked by the fuselage when you are using an AIM-9X on the left pylon and lock someone up on your right for example so I'm not sure if this is intentional.

When using an AIM-9X on a LAU-127 pylon (The single AIM-9X wing pylon) the seeker cannot look more than 20 degrees or so off boresight with JHMCS. Switching to a wingtip AIM-9X or LAU-115 dual rack pylon and you can utilise the full 90 degrees. Track attached FA-18C AIM-9X LAU-127 Bug.trk

Bug still occurs in DCS 2.5.3.21444 Open beta Having more than 80 Heliports (FARP or Helipad Single) crashes the game when joining the slot. Attached are 2 mission files, one with 80 FARPs and another with 81 FARPs, the game will always crash loading the 81 FARP mission. Is there any way we can manually edit some lua files and disable the automatic data cartridge generation as a workaround assuming that is the issue? Viggen80StaticsNoCrash.miz Viggen81StaticsYesCrash.miz dcs.log.txt

Thanks for the quick response RagnarDa. Server name starts with "DDCS|Standard|Caucasus|dynamicdcs.com". Here is the forum thread for the server: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=208608 Unfortunately I can't send a mission file for testing as this server has an empty mission file with just player slots, the entire mission is then populated by an NodeJS server generating commands and then sending them to the DCS Server for execution. I'm sure you could contact the server owner Drex if you needed any information about specifics about the units and what attributes they have.

On the Dynamic DCS server as soon as I join a Viggen slot and click fly the game crashes, game log looks like it's happening as the data cartridge generator enumerates over all the units. This seems specific to the Dynamic DCS server so maybe it's because it has lots of units or maybe because the units are setup different to other servers. Logs and track are attached dcs.log-20180830-165030.zip

Exactly, the 104th has had to disable Carrier Ops and DDCS has had to remove the Hornet entirely due to issues with the Hornet in MP. This bug with the LAU-127 for example crashes servers often: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=218255 I'm most excited for LTWS to be implemented and STT to not drop locks when rolling. After that HARM.

Try turning off SSAA

Right now it can't do that (Just saw that post before I made mine) but I could probably add some functionality to export the data in that lua file format, seems pretty straightforward. Can that lua file be modified and accept changes while the game is running or does it need to be configured before you join the server or start the sim?

Seeing all this discussion over datacartridges has prompted me to post some progress on something I've been working on. Over the last few weeks in my spare time I've been working on my own solution to the problem of fragging a flight and entering the data into the Viggen for Multiplayer. The "VMMP" Viggen Multiplayer Mission Planner My solution to entering the data quickly was to setup an Export.lua script to receive simulated button inputs from VMMP transmitted by local UDP (Similar to how Helios works). Once you've setup your flightplan and click "Load in AJS-37" the program converts your flightplan into all the required key inputs for the CK-37 and sends them. While it's not the ideal solution (An API or datacartridge file that the Viggen loads would be ideal) it can send the entire flightplan of seen in the screenshot in 23 seconds. (9 Waypoints, 6 Markpoints, 3 Airfields). It's amazing listening to the 33 keys per second being pressed on the CK-37 like an automatic typewriter though so that's something. The flightplan coordinates can be entered in DMS or Degrees Decimal formats from DCS (for accuracy) or just placed on the map visually. (I find it useful to place target waypoints with DCS coords and then visually lay out my flightplan using the map). It also includes a QFE calculator so you can calculate the QFE of a target or airfield by entering the QNH from the kneeboard and elevation of the target. This can all be saved and loaded as *.dtc files which allows you to save missions and load them later. It's still a ways off from release as I want to polish it more and add UI features such as: Configuring advanced RB-15 and BK-90 settings Set takt codes such as Fuel Reserve levels, Target Motion Measurement, TERNAV Once it's ready to release I'll make a separate post in the AJS-37 Sub-forum. Some more screenshots: Markpoint Entry QFE Calculator