Zee Pet

Hi, Used TGP to designate a target for a jdam drop and crashed to desktop on hitting TDC with no error messages. Process was: Made slave underlined on TPOD screen, designated waypoint as target on EHSD, TGP slewed automatically to waypoint, TDC underlined on TGP, slew to target i wanted, WP increment hold to designate for jdam, dropped bomb, hit TDC to remove the underline and immediate crash. I think it might have occurred because I didn't press undesignate before hitting _TDC_ because on the previous JDAM drop, I pressed undesignate a few times before touching anything on the pod screen. Track file exceeds by 0.51MB so I can't upload it. Uploaded the .log dcs.log

Hmm would be really convenient if some smart engineers somewhere could find a way to utilize AG radar along with associated landmarks that have known coordinates to compensate and correct for inaccuracies that propagate within the INS oh.... wait.... But yeah, within the context and time frame of DCS, simulating jets that are currently in the air, it totally makes sense to revert to guestimation and carpet bombing the whole area when there is some overcast in game and we cant use the TGP, rather than asking ED to prioritize and develop a technology present in said jets that is purpose built to assist in that scenario. Yeah dude, totally makes sense, you're either using the most advanced TGP, or falling back to guessing and carpet bombing..... But I guess wanting the irl capabilities that assist you in adverse conditions is just 'whinging' because you'd rather have an entire operational mode be missing from the radar than have it compete with whatever other project you see as being more useful.

I've got this problem as well. Very irritating.

Ohhh that does make sense/seem pretty simple. Thanks a lot RustBelt!

Kind of off topic but was wondering if anyone can point me to some resources that can help me understand that bypass logic diagram?

This is actually a pretty good point and one that's pretty easy to forget. There are significant 'firsts' that happened with the development of the Hornet; immediately coming to mind- high fidelity AA radar, AG radar, independent engine simulations, Datalink ground work for all of that. Matt had even mentioned getting all this groundwork done now will speed up future development. I do think everyone's concerns over perpetual EA are valid, but I do hope that this is just a funky transient of funding needed to get all this groundwork done (technical debt as Kate said). Anyway I guess this is getting off topic now.

Last time Kate posted on Hoggit she said they attempted clouds twice and failed twice. So it's not that it's just arbitrarily postponed (sounds like what you think they did) but they've been trying.

*In reply to above* Still not going to be able to use radios or interact with deck crew. Not much difference from what will be on Stennis except watching the crew work with the Hornets and Cats which is cool. Harrier has its own carrier anyway with the proper length for takeoff. Id imagine it'll be very awkward on the SC to be doing your takeoff run (through the deck crew you can't communicate with to get out of the way) when all the compatible jets are moving around. Sure you can land but I'd argue the experience will be worse than doing so on the empty carriers.

Incompatibility or limited compatibility at the start of early access is not the same thing as planned incompatibility at the end of development. Again, they said they want it to be compatible. Lee1hy, how do you interpret "To be clear, we are not saying that the Tomcat will not be compatible at Super Carrier EA launch, we will do our very best with HB to have at least limited functionality." when discussing F14+SC during early access as understanding that "The Tomcat is not compatible"? Do you mean compatible during early access?

Yeah I wonder because they never said "F14 is not compatible with Super Carrier" if they did it would be very reasonable to ask for a refund. Instead they say it'll be limited at early access release and will be worked on, which means it'll eventually work if you're having trouble extrapolating. So again, why would you want a refund when it's going to work at some point. You're still going to pay the money for it when it eventually does work to the level you want. Again, unless a delay somehow makes you throw a fit and not want it anymore.

Lol why are people getting so bent out of shape? A few days of delay is going to be nothing in comparison to the years of enjoyment you can get out of the finished module. You want a refund because of a delay? So 15 days of delay makes the subsequent year+ of use meaningless? You've got to be kidding me... Sure it's a little unfortunate, but I welcome the news and look forward to having fun with what the devs are working on when they're ready to release it!

Remember where you might have heard that? I don't recall it, and I get the feeling something like that would have caused a noticeable flareup with some of the people on here and other groups.

I'm having this same problem when trying a fresh install. VERY irritating, wasting huge amounts of my time trying to figure this out.

Condensation trails are caused by condensation of the water in the combustion gas at high altitudes, and also result when pressure drops in the air mass fast enough that it is approximately adiabatic and the local temperature of the air lowers below the dew point.

Pretending the Open Beta isn't an Open Beta doesn't get rid of the bugs, you're aware of that right? If we we're going to 'stop pretending' what will it be called then? What is your solution? name it the release version and continue to complain when the same bugs are there in the release? Make an open alpha and have the same 99% of people to move to that and you post again saying "Can we stop pretending the Open Alpha is just the open alpha?" Close the Beta entirely and only have the stable version? How do you arrive at this conclusion, I am blown away.