ShadowFrost

Yes, under conditions find "unit life less than" and select that. Then you have several options, but I'm assuming you want to destroy it and credit whoever damaged it with the kill. Then under actions, set "explode unit". Of note, too small of an explosion won't kill the unit (depending on what it is) and too big will damage units around it and if an aircraft is on a low pass nearby, potentially killing unintentional targets.

Interesting, will certainly look into it. Thank you.

As the title says, has anyone found a good way to put ground units (not static) on an oil rig out at sea? *As a side note, I know I can edit the .lua to manually override it. But that is a painful process. I am looking for if anyone knows a better way. IE- disabling the ground unit must be on land feature or similar. Thanks in advance.

Can confirm, doesn't work as well.

I have used this to great success, but is there a way to make it query four aircraft and still work without an error if only 2 or 3 aircraft show up? Thanks in advance.

Not sure if you mean to Stretch_NL's post or not. But as far as the original issue is concerned it has been addressed. Cannot speak about Stretch_NL's issue however.

Originally the tests were done to see if there were any truth to the claim of the bug report, that the JF-17 was being detected earlier than larger aircraft. But the results proved everything to be working as expected given how they were set to in the game. So the test was started at ~100 nautical miles out at 20K feet head-on 430 kts both aircraft. Using the JF-17's radar in RWS mode, 30 degree scan, co-alt looking forward straight and level to determine when the radar would detect an aircraft in front of it. Speed/starting distance/altitude were kept the same so while there may be some variation in maximum possible detection due to the target coming into range between sweeps (IE missed for a period of seconds therefore in inaccurate true range) the % error from true detection would be consistent throughout the test. Though being on a 30 degree sweep, the % error off shouldn't be very high to begin with. It was designed to be a relative test between detection time of JF-17 vs other aircraft. If I wanted an accurate best possible range detected I would have done several more of each aircraft to account for error. This was my document https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ietAOAHq5TgAr8FyYzZNoYArioiKJV6Fdd2IqdBGni8/edit?usp=sharing and below a picture of the quick disclaimers I had originally written.

I feel like you guys are missing a very important statement.... And besides that, I can't really understand the RCS argument when there are more pressing factors not even considered like payloads, pylons, and angle of viewing. The entire RCS system needs to be redone and then a discussion about what RCS is more accurate can take place. Because currently its not a huge factor considering payload isn't accounted to begin with. Your are arguing over quite a small difference in end result with the current system. The system itself being overhauled will make for bigger changes in detection than current adjustments. As currently, with the JF-17's radar, the RCS change from 3 to 4 means effectively 3.5 nautical miles of detection.

I mean.... Your making quite the argument about RCS when its massively unrealistic in its current implementation within DCS anyways. One number is all you have for RCS currently. I think the better argument would be for a realistic implementation of RCS and then go on to specifics. And besides that, your kind of hijacking a bug forum.... A debate would do better in the general section.

The damage model is currently in a transition period from old to new systems, so there have been several issues with the visual damage representation and the simulation of damage not quite lining up for a period of time now. So, unfortunately, it likely only be fixed when the new system arrives provided its (its being the current issues you are facing) not considered massively game breaking. There are some bugs that are fixed (normally the massively game breaking ones), but overall there have been issues between visual and simulated damage for a little while now.

Lol that doesn't mean Phil's methods are valid. That's quite the fallacy... Plenty of DCS pilots use unrealistic tactics. But even then, the flight model is a decent bit work in progress so expect some handling aspects especially near stall and at stall to change.

Good to know.

Also as an additional side note to the above, IIRC aircraft in DCS (example being the P-51) need more power than what is necessary IRL to get rolling. And other aircraft have had various friction issues throughout the years. Could it be less a prop wash problem and more a tire/friction related issue? Because I imagine the propwash effectiveness could be decently easily correlated with CFD.

I think we are going need some more detail on what your saying/trying to do. How fast your moving, how much power. The specifics of the scenario. Not in a P-47, but in a similar WW2 aircraft T-6. I have to use differential brakes for two reasons related to taxiing, one slow speed turns and two setting the tail wheel. When starting from a stop and the tail wheel isn't aligned (say after pushback), you must use the brakes to align it in the direction you want to go. This can take several applications of tapping the brakes while slightly moving forward to get it spun around in the correct direction. You will not be able to overcome this with power alone. I have no experience in any tail wheel aircraft where I can turn the aircraft at slow speeds without differential braking, but this could be due to the mechanisms used on the aircraft I've flown. It will turn without differential braking once the tail wheel becomes free/point in the direction you want to go but to get the tail wheel there it needs help. I don't see the tail having enough effectiveness without a good amount of speed to turn around even with the tail wheel unlocked. For aircraft as heavy as a P-47 at least. For a cub (which I haven't flown) I imagine it can. I'd be happy to be told and proven otherwise by a P-47 pilot or other documentation/example, but what you asking goes against the normal expectations of what I've experienced with other relatively heavy taildraggers IRL. But also this could be due to the assumptions I'm making on the scenario based on the lack of specifics from your original post.

SSD or HDD? If HDD that might be a cause, if SSD check to make sure its not doing weird things (I forget the name of the options for SSD settings) but SSD is kinda needed for DCS. I've had a lot crashes previously on the HDD a couple years ago, with a SSD they went away.

I'm not aware of any taildragger where the rudder (in the aerodynamic sense) has enough authority until you gain a decent amount of speed. Maybe cubs do since they are so light, but even with a Citabria you need speed for the rudder (aerodynamically to be of any use). The main thing is whether you have a steerable tailwheel or not for the rudder pedals to be effective before this point. For the 109, I generally take the approach (I read it somewhere, can't remember where or I would link) 100% right rudder, push the throttle up relatively quickly, and use the brake to steer until rudder becomes effective. As the sooner you have a lot of air moving over the tail the better. I've also found if you less authoritative with the throttle, push it up slowly, you can get into a dangerous area where your moving quite quickly but don't have enough rudder authority and the brakes can become overpowered by inertia. But there are multiple ways these aircraft were taken off in the war, find what works best for you.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277802

Eh oil temp is in a weird state (heavily WIP) unless it was updated to a working condition in the most recent update. I don't believe oil shutters did anything previously. The oil temp/pressure wasn't working at all in a realistic manner.

I've flown with both R985s and R1340s. How quick they start is largely based on how long since they were flown last. With the R1340 specifically it'll start after 3 or less blades if its been flown recently (a few days or even yesterday). And starts very similar to how the P-47 does in DCS. But, on the contrary, if they have been sitting for long, its a much slower and more uneven start as to what you describe. I would like to see some variety, but for a prepped aircraft (as I am under the impression that they are supposed to be under normal wartime conditions, someone can correct me on that) a clean/fast startup wouldn't be unusual. But likewise, the startup process seems to be pretty identical time after time, a little variety would be nice.

I imagine this bug report won't go very far as, IIRC, they (ED) are in a transition period from old damage modeling to the new system so old model issues will likely not be a priority. Though I imagine if similar happens when the new system is released it will be quite the priority. But similar issues are prevalent in many aircraft currently where the visual damage does not correlate with the structural damage. Edit- That's not to say there won't be some adjustment as this is quite a severe example, but its been a reoccurring issue for a few years with the other WW2 aircraft. So it will likely be fixed with NDM. -My opinion not affiliated to ED in anyway shape or form.

It isn't dependent on hot starts for the oil cooler switch. As both cold start and hotstart moving to the left is available and doesn't work without first pressing to the right. It appears on hotstarts for the intercooler switch because on cold starts the intercooler is closed not allowing a left click movement therefore the bug doesn't really exist as its not applicable, but for hot starts it does exist and is applicable due to the starting position of the intercooler changing to the middle therefore enabiling a left click of the button (that doesn't work without a right click first) given the different starting conditions of the aircraft. I edited my first post to clear that up better.

The cables make sense given where they are going. Good find

As you said high altitude, is it the bomber escort mission? If not please clarify. Does the crash happen at approximately the same time? IE mission related issue Or does it seem to be random? IE DCS/Your hardware running into problems. Lastly, the more information provided the better as without a log/detailed information other people can't comment on whether they had a similar or the same type of crash. As in terms of development having a crash or two across an entire game/module can be very difficult to narrow down and fix especially if it only shows up for a small percentage/handful of people.

I mean I'll go ahead and say the obligatory statement, have you updated your drivers? After that..... What were you doing? Multiplayer? Singleplayer? Were you on the same map? Were you running the same mission? Doing something similar? Are there any similarities between this crash and the others in terms of what you were doing? Just anything you can think of to attempt to narrow down possibilities to determine if its just a overall issue or something specific causing it. As you appear to have sufficient RAM which is generally a important consideration.

It depends to an extent, especially on whether your airborne or stationary. IRL I've run 1000 rpm or so to cool the cylinders in other radials as the 600/700 minimum idle wasn't enough, but likewise using higher rpm and the cooling of the prop is overcome by the extra heat being produced by the engine while stationary. When airborne its a bit of a different story, speed helps more now, RPM helps to a much smaller extent than on the ground and speed is generally you main concern. (Along with cowl flaps and other control available like mixture.)