Alphazulu

Mission Order Are the missions currently running in a specific order or are they random? If they are running in a specific order, can we just have a simple list of the missions in the order they run? It can be helpful when planning to play and planning how much time one is going to be playing for. Thanks,

I honestly wish we could just make it clear in the briefing that vulching is prohibited and get rid of the base guns. Yes, of course I know that they attacked air fields in real life, but this is so far from real life, we are missing a hundred other factors that occurred in real life, like other base defenses, coms systems, soldiers etc.... I just say this because I find it sad to see what the fighting on this server has degraded too. The map is so small that I have seen many of the top scoring guys on the German side have completely adjusted their entire style of flying to revolve around the base guns. Even when engaging on even terms most of them won't fight at all until they have the base guns to cover them, then they fly around the base until the people they are avoiding are bingo and then chase them back. Rewatching it in Tacivew it's so obvious. There are so many things you can do it that 109 k4 that don't require you depending on the base guns. Yet, they all use them like a wing man to cover them and shoot enemies off their six. I flew the 109 for one year straight in 2018 with no squad, no wingman and did amazing. I was able to constantly chase plans back to Novo and fight them with the base defenses shooting at me the entire time and they almost never hit me, even when slow and when they did, it pretty much never destroyed my plane. Even when it got my plane smoking I could just fly full throttle all the way back to Anapa and outrun everyone chasing me. On the flip side, I've pretty much never seen an Allied plane fly through the Anapa base guns and not get completely destroyed, even at high speeds. When I was flying the 109 for all of 2018, every time the teams were stacked in favor of the reds, I would end up quitting because I would fly around looking for enemy and when I never saw them I would go check out Novo and sure enough, all of the other reds were there shooting everyone on the ground. Building up multiple kills and then just flying off like there weren't even any defenses.

For everyone flying the Spit that has been suffering through the engine just quitting on you for no rhyme or reason I finally had it happen to me right after I joined and took off (as opposed to in the middle of a very long track), so I was able to replay the short track and then look at the after flight briefing. It is in fact a random failure! So no, we are not all going crazy. I sent Eakz a direct message asking him to look into and confirm that there are no random failures set for the Spit on this server. If he confirms it's not server side then I can submit it directly to ED as a bug with the short track and the screen shot showing it was a random failure. I do doubt that it is a bug because I've never had it happen anywhere but on the Burning Skies server. Hopefully we can get this fixed asap, it's been killing the Spit.

Haha, how is asking what the possible load outs are, is already knowing the answer? You didn't even try to answer the question. Like so may other people your answer is irrelevant to the question. You tried to change my question from "what are the A2A load outs" to "can you use the Viggen as a fighter" I already have the F5 (which was implied in my post, but you would actually need to read it before responding) and Mig-21! I'll be sure to let the guys that are in the top rankings on the Cold War server that are flying the Viggen that you know better. Stop trying so hard to find a way to be right, it's just sad.

Thank you Razo+r. So, are you also saying that you can't carry a gun pod and a flare pod at the same time? People are so funny, they can't just answer the question and just always assume they know better. This jet is used very successfully in the fighter role everyday by people flying on the Cold War server.

There are over 400 pages on this thread and a lot of them are from before the plane was even released and are full of guesses so this may be in here but I don't feel like looking through it all. I'm thinking of getting this for use as a fighter on the Cold War server because I'm sick of fighting pairs of Migs with at least 8 IR missiles between them while I have only 2. Especially since the way the missiles are right now they fire half of them at you head on at the merge even before they have done anything to out fly you. Now that this Aircraft has been out for some time can some give me a very straight forward and exact answer to this question? While carrying the gun-pod and a flare pod, how many A2A missiles can this thing carry and of what variants? Thanks,

I had a bunch of perfect tracks before I started recording including one right after take off but whenever I try to play the tracks back they play back incorrectly. So, I don't know if those would be any help. When I in fact taxied to the runway and took off in the game the track show my plane ground loop and few times then setup a takeoff run right into the other parked aircraft and then power up and head right into the parked planes for a glories explosion.

I have loaded up this exact mission from the Burning Skies server in Mission Editor and confirmed there are no random failures enabled at all. I also have a video of it happening I can send you if you want to tell me how you would like me to get it to you. I don't see how to upload video on here. My video is a perfect example, because rather then happening well into or at the end of the flight, the gun-site suddenly disappears right after take off. Then I loop around and land, show me flipping the gun-site switch on and off several times then try to run a repair several times to no avail showing that there is no damage or failure with the plane itself. After it will not repair, I go back to spec, jump back into the same spit, flip the switch and the gun site shows up. Several people have been complaining about this in chat everyday that I play for a couple of weeks now and both they and I have cleared metashaders before flying and it still occurs. Thanks,

zionid, Thank a bunch for figuring that out. I was having this issue as well for a long time and just ignored it but it was driving me crazy and this finally fixed it. Thanks,

Yes, this is so true. I have a 4k monitor and fly in 2k and was able to see all kinds of things prior to the change in the label system. The ED reps then said "nothing has changed" then you post clear proof and they skip right over acknowledging you are correct and go straight to defending changes they swore never took place before the proof is presented. This is how they operate on here. I have no problem if they want to change the vis settings but you can't do it by accident and then say, "well I think this is better even though I denied it was changed until I was proven otherwise". That is not how you do development. I had to entirely quit Cold War era servers that I use to go rackup kills on (and survive as well) because guys with lower res gear can see you and you can't see them at all. I even posted images and video of a Mig-21 less then 1 mile behind me and when paused and zoomed in on that spot there is absolutely nothing there. Then a second later a white trail start to grow out of the sky because he fired a missile and that is the only visible indication he is there. Take the same track and replay it in 1080p and you can clearly see the guy. These things go on and on and with the label change the zoom has also started having a big effect on what you see. There was con trails 2K above me and no indication they were there. I happened to zoom all the way in for a second and you would thing an air show was going on right above me and you can't even see it without zooming all the way in. Zoom back out and tons of con trails completely disappear and they are right there above me. Just like someone pointed out above, I was running in 2K and when I would dive on an enemy right in front of me, as I would close in he would just disappear, even his shadow would disappear and he was right in front of me. I changed the res to 1080p I was able to track a plane on the deck half way across the battle area.

When a "patch' for this is released like the 1.3.1 version above do we just download it and and replace the existing A4 directory with it? Or does it actually run and install updates the the existing directory? Thanks,

Don't know if this is just not done or not planned but can someone tell us if the FW-190 A8s MG 131 are going to use the green tracers like all the other MG 131s in the game? It would be really nice to have a consistency in tracer color when trying to identify targets or friends. I brought this up, because I flew in "the other WW2 Sim" out there right now and all of the tracer colors are the same and it is really annoying and huge pain. This issue never existed in DCS WW2 until now, so it would be nice if it did not stay this way. Thanks,

Ya, it's hilarious to see people that complain about this when we are in the summer of 1944 with a K4 that did not even exist yet. I like the guy that was just pissed that is was not faster then the MkIX. These are all the same guys that talk about how performance gab between an old MKIX and their K4 doesn't make a difference if you are good, but the gab here makes all of the difference when reversed. :D Besides it's all a moot point with a pre-release early access. You can go back in the forums and see all of these exact same complaints for just about every module after release. "We want it early and Perfect!" LoL!

There are plenty of things that are operated "automatically" on these birds but that doesn't mean they operate well. Often this is what makes the difference between an experienced pilot and one that just follows the manual. If you want the most of out of it you need to open it manually, just like the Spit. I'm able to climb at a much higher rate then then manual says, I can because I manually operate the rads from experience. The drag that is caused only effects the top speeds and how often do you actually fly at that speed? Almost never. If you want to stick to letting it adjust itself, go right ahead, but don't be surprised when it blows on you. Just like I have other guys that can't figure out for the life of them why that can't catch me at certain alts in the Spit or Stang and it's because I'm "testing" the supercharger at 12k feet...LoL the manual sure doesn't tell you to do that.

grafspee, Are you opening the engine cowling when using the MW-50? I use it for a long period of time with the cowling open with no engine issues. I climb from take off to 5K with the MW-50 on the entire time and no issues, as long as the cowling in full open. I think with all the FW-190s advanced features people forget that even the D9 has a manual radiator cowling.

I can't be the only person with this issue but have been unable to even find anyone talking about it. I can't fly the Harrier online because anytime I hit the communication menu for bogey dope, it causes the Aim-9 growl in the Harrier to disappear and I have not been able to find anyway to get the growl back. Absolutely killing this bird for me and driving me crazy! It's one or the other, I can have an Aim-9 growl and no bogey dope or bogey dope and no Aim-9 growl.

A quick question to clarify. I see on the first page that some bugs have been addressed by updates to the module. I read the FAQs however, I did not see anything that specifically addresses the update process. When updates are made to this module, is the latest update just going to be posted on the first page of this thread as version 1.0, 1.1 etc... and then you just re-download and replace the A-4 files in order to update? I also see a black and white skin one the first page in one of those posted videos. Can someone tell me where I can get that skin for the A-4. Last, can someone tell me how to change the piper in the A-4? I see in videos 2 different pipers, the large default one and then another when people are shooting missiles, however, I don't see how to change it. Thanks

Is this setup still working with the current DCS Open Beta as of 11/24/18? I was about to start playing with this and wanted to make sure it was still working or if I should get some more up to date files from you. Also, I noticed there is the 'bin" folder in this download, so I assume this is the JSGME version you mentioned? Thanks,

Aim-9 Question Hi Guys, Thanks for the awesome mod! It is very fun. I just have one question. From what I have read this A-4E variant should be able to carry 4 Aim-9s at once, but it can currently only load out with 2. Is this correct? Also, one other FYI- for me it appears that the internal canons are firing 7.62mm ammo as opposed to 20mm. I fixed it on my end for myself, but this is something you might want to look into. Thanks again.

Oh yes....clearly I missed what Nineline said......since I responding to what someones else said and not Nineline! Right let me respond to what one person says based on what another person says....:doh: Oh ya, I still fly with guys that are seeing aircraft at 40-50 miles in this version while other guys can't even see them at 5 miles. It's hilarious to me how telling other people on here that changes to the sim should not be made unintentionally somehow has anything to do with you or what you say. Also, love how his response was to tell me that It effects different people in different ways which was exactly my point to the guy that thought it was an improvement. "You need to relax" Nothing cracks me up more then people online that think they actually know how someone else feels when righting a post.

"This is such a great change. I'm glad they finally addressed this issue." From Forum moderator: "Nothing has been changed in this regard" Oh yes, very well done on accident.....Now lets just ignore the other results like the cons not showing and all the other visibility bugs reported across platforms from VR to 4k. Like I said many times, I have no issue with ED adjusting the visibility, however and accidental effect from another change that is not consistent across multiple resolutions is not the way to do it. People online crack me up how they are able to ignore whatever does not help make their point. Out of all the people that commented and don't "agree" with the 20.9 miles all ignored the pictures of the cons not showing.....what a surprise. People on here blow my mind.....

Okay, here are the screenshots. This is running in 2K in the middle of the day in a test mission. This particular one is in an F5 with a Mig-21 set to fly directly at me from a long distance. I made the screen shots from the current version of DCS then simply rolled that install of DCS back to the last patch before the 8/29 update that implemented the new labels. Then I flew the exact same test mission and took screen shots, using the label system in both to tell you how far away the target was. I ran this test in WW2, Korea, Cold War and Modern and they were all about the same. I'm not going to take, modify and upload every photo to show the same thing over and over again. The last 2 screenshot are from the current version, with me flying in my F-86, and looking at a hill side and not seeing anything. Then the next screenshot is the same hill at that moment with me zoomed all the way in. Prior to this update I could always see cons without zooming in. There has been talk about "zooming in and zooming out" and yes, I did see that effect the visibility and that is why I did not use the zoom at all in my aircraft spotting test. I just wanted to leave the view in the default position. Yes, zooming in would cause things to appear when I had reached the max zoom in but they would disappear as soon as I zoomed out at all. It did not use to do this either. Finally, I have not interest in getting in any arguments about what it is like "in real life". Again, this post was started as a question concerning a technical change to a software, not a discussion on what we all feel is correct or right. If people want to argue over that, there are plenty of threads for that. My only concern here is, was the change intentional? If not is it going to be corrected? That is it. To see what is what, you may need to download the images to zoom in properly and see what is there. Image's in order" 1-DCS Post-Label Change 20.4 miles (for comparing to Pre-Label change screenshot at 20.9 miles) 2-DCS Post-Label Change 9.2 miles with Labels (first spotted enemy) 3-DCS Post-Label Change 9.2 miles with No Labels (first spotted enemy) 4-DCS Pre-Label Change-20.9 Miles with Label (first spotted enemy) 5-DCS Pre-Label Change-20.9 miles No Label (first spotted enemy) Cons not zoomed in Same Cons ZOOMED in

The problem with me with this kind of statement is maybe it is true and maybe that is more realistic. However.....this should be a conversation for when ED actually says, "Yes, we are changing this". Half of the people on here are talking about if it was actually changed or not and the other half are talking about if it should be changed. I'm not going to get into if it is more realistic or not if ED is still over here saying "we did not change anything". For people that don't see a change, the truth is it is probably just your equipment. DCS is a simulator and provides different results on different equipment. I know a bunch of guys that have always invested in high end equipment and yes, we have always had better visibility in DCS. This has been confirmed time and time again in multiplayer flights when other guys on chat can not see targets until they reach a certain distance and other guys can always see them before. That is the way it is with a computer simulator and variable setting and the variations in equipment. So, for people with that high end equipment the change in visibility is very noticeable. Again, I'm not going to personally get into the argument of weather this is correct to real life or not unless ED actually says, Yes we wanted to change this and did it on purpose and it was not just an accidental side effect of all the changes to create the new label system. Like I said in my last post, rather then comparing what you see in the current version and arguing about if it changed or not, just simply run up standard DCS version that is not updated with the 8/29 update and then run up the latest OpenBeta in the same test mission and the difference is extremely easy to notice.

I know that everyone is saying there was no change here however, I have been flying DCS for many years and really noticed this as well. If there was no change then can someone explain to me how I just tested in my OpenBeta (up to date version) with an F5 using radar and my DCS Standard version (which is on the version just prior to the 8/29 update) and I can see air targets at almost twice the distance in my Standard version that is not updated with the 8/29 update? As soon as I can spot a target in OpenBeta I pause and go to F10 map and then do the exact same test in my Standard version and again, the distance between my aircraft and the enemy is almost down to half as much in the 8/29 updated version. I have some screenshots of this but I do not have them with me at the moment. I will upload them as soon as I get a chance.

Thank you Rob! This is exactly what I was saying in my head before I got to your post. So many of views that people hold when comparing aircraft capabilities often don't account for the variant of the aircraft. This is the same reason why stats are so screwed and kill ratio's are debated and go back and forth, because these stats change when the variant of the aircraft changes. This exact same issue occurs with the Spitfire and BF-109. When asking which plane is better the answer depends on the month and year you are talking about. It went back and forth with each aircraft countering the others advantages. So, in this case when someone tries to compare the F-86 and the Mig-15 you will get widely varying results. The question really needs to be "what is better the F-86F-35 or the Mig-15bis? Historically all the other info is interesting but has no relevance in this specific case. I don't dislike the Mig-15, however, in this situation my opinion is that the F-86F-35 is superior to the Mig-15bis. The stronger engine is one thing but one of the biggest advantages of the later model F-86 is the "flying tail". This is key for dealing with near mac 1 speeds. The soviets did not implement a flying tail until after the Mig-17bis.