tom_19d
-
Posts
443 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by tom_19d
-
-
Good point spiddx. Nothing to stop you from sliding a full drop tank down the runway during takeoff roll if you aren't careful what you touch though.
-
I tried again to get on this morning so I will share my results for your troubleshooting Alpenwolf...
-launched DCS, couldn't see server, no direct IP connection
-tried a PING command using the DOS command window. I was able to ping your server
-launched DCS again, still couldn't see your server, no direct IP
-closed DCS, launched SRS, joined your SRS with no issue
-launched DCS, voila, your server was there in the browser
-closed DCS, closed SRS, relaunched DCS only and your server was still right there in the browser
This is such a strange issue, hopefully these notes can help as you try to track it down.
-
Darcwaynard is correct, the jettison system is tied to a hot battery bus and has no interface with the WoW (weight on wheels) system. You don't even need to have the battery switch ON to use either the selective jettison or the emer system. That is why the emer jettison has a plastic cover and the select jettison switch is the type that requires you to pull to move it from center.
-
Yes this is very strange. I am US based, still not showing here, negative on direct IP also. I can see and join all the other big name servers (104th, acro, the BFs, Korea, ect). Very weird.
-
Sorry Alpenwolf, multiple refreshes/attempts. Nothing in the browser, no luck with direct IP. This is strange considering the server list still shows it up and running mountains cry now.
-
Is anyone else having trouble connecting since the server is back up? I can’t find it in the public list and direct IP won’t connect.
EDIT: Looked again this morning. The DCS Server Listing shows that the server is currently running Sail Ahoy, but it doesn't appear in the browser and direct IP says "server offline". I'm running latest OB and all of the other servers I typically play on show up in the browser and I can join them. Normally I would attribute this to the server running a different version, but I believe beta and stable are unified at the moment, so I don't know how that could be.
-
Hey guys, just started playing BF the last week or so. Can someone explain how mortars work when inserted by helo? I know the FAQ stuff says they need to be line of sight, so last night I was able to put a team in within 1.5 miles of an enemy FARP on an elevated position. I could see the enemy vehicles clearly from where I landed (all the AAA was shooting at me haha) but when I inserted the mortars they didn’t start firing. Do I need to take off? Is there something else I am missing? Thanks.
-
Monitor or VR? Have you tried using just a little zoom?
-
As said by Top Jockey, you shouldn't hold the uncage button,
What is your source for this? If you don't hold the uncage button, the sidewinder seeker head is locked straight ahead looking through a 4 degree cone. Holding the uncage button allows the seeker to move all the way to its 26 degree conical gimbal limit. This lets you pull lead before launching as described by the OP and makes it easier to fly a lag pursuit course and maintain missile track in situations where that is advantageous.
I'm certainly not trying to talk anyone out of how they employ the aircraft, I'm just curious as to how not using the full capabilities of the missile system would help the OP. It sounds to me like he had the right idea all along, just the wrong equipment loaded...
-
Interesting. If it isn’t just constrained to engine start I am certainly more open to the idea that it could be a bug. Tracks will tell I suppose, I’ll definitely be paying more attention during startup and taxi now.
-
I only fly multiplayer and I spend at least 75% of that time in the F5 and I have never seen this.
As numerous people in this thread have pointed out, with the F5's J85 engines (and essentially every other turbojet/turbofan engine until FADAC came around and changed some things on some types), you can start ignition at essentially any time in the start cycle before introducing fuel, but you can only move the throttle out of cutoff to start fuel flow once the engine reaches a certain RPM. Per TO 1F-5E-1, and as bun pointed out above, that is 10% for us . Introducing fuel prior to that minimum RPM or starting ignition after there is a bunch of fuel in the burner can is going to lead to a hot start or explosion that will require an inspection that will most likely reveal major if not catastrophic damage to the engine.
Like a lot of these issues, a track will immediately point out if it is a bug or not. And if it is happening in MP, DCS automatically saved your track...
-
May you guys help out with this and provide some multiplayer tracks?
Red, I have tracks from that specific day in question showing the issue. I will pass them along to Hiromachi. (Sadly I am on a trip now so it will be a couple days before I am back in front of my machine but I will do it ASAP).
What do you mean exactly? Any suggestions maybe?I can't speak exactly to the first part of Shadow's post but I would give a +1 to the extra SRS radios. While a second radio in an F5/MiG 21 isn't fully realistic, it is more realistic than any of the other voice applications and is easier to arrange on the fly. By that I mean you can set up an intraflight frequency easily with a random player you meet in game and no one has to tab out to start another application, while at the same time not clogging the AWACS/GCI freq with flight communications.
-
I will admit that I am not that current in the F86 but why would you use manual ranging with the A4 if the radar is working?
EDIT: Also the procedure being described for manual ranging is backwards. The whole point behind manual ranging is giving the pilot a way to determine target range that doesn't rely on range estimation as you are describing. If the wingspan is set appropriately and the enemy is framed in the pipper correctly, the A4 knows the range and generates a proper solution. If you are going to use manual ranging in the way you describe, there is no reason to set the wingspan lever.
-
Thanks dFlow for the confirmation, that is quite in line with what I was observing, it looked like some of the video I have seen on the C101 being indestructible haha.
-
Don't forget to adjust our pipper range on the gun sight. I always do.
What do you mean by this exactly? The wingspan lever under the sight?
Then map 2 keys to your stick for camera height. One to go up , one to go down.Does that really help someone using TIR? Couldn’t you just sit up in your chair a shade?
Sorry, it probably sounds like I am trolling but I’m not, just trying to make sure I am following you. I do agree that is wish ED would bump the MV a bit.
-
Anyone else think the latest update did something to the MiG’s damage model? The server seemed to be full of MiGs flying around on fire, missing pieces, etc and still fighting this afternoon.
-
NOSE BALLAST [E][E-2] T.O. 1F-5E-594 J and [E-1][E-3]
In addition to the fixed nose ballast, additional variable nose ballast must be installed when inboard pylon fuel tanks are carried.
Interesting, is that a quote from F5AAA-1? 1F-5E-1 isn’t that specific, I had missed the difference between the fixed ballast which seems to be there and the variable ballast, but your explanation certainly makes sense.
Do you have any insight on how the variable ballast functions dolfo? To me the name implies that it would move its weight as the fuel burned out of the pylon tanks to compensate for a shift in CG, but of course that is just speculation.
-
The figure of 15,170 lbs. in the editor suggests that this ballast is included at all times, even when wing tanks are not used. For maximum performance when wing tanks are not used 97 lbs. of nose ballast may be remove which would result in a basic airplane weight of 15,073 lbs and the CG moving aft by as much as 1.4%. Is this modeled?
For takeoff performance calculation purposes I have always assumed the DCS F5 has the ballast installed. Just as you say, the DCS F5 with full internal fuel is 15170 lbs, which matches exactly the aircraft average gross weight given on A1-8 of 1F-5E-1. Taking that F5 with full internal fuel and adding the 2 275gal pylon tanks yields a gross weight of 19178 lbs. That means DCS thinks the 2 drop tanks weigh 4008 lbs. This matches almost exactly with the values given on page A1-8A, 3549 usable pounds of JP4 plus 454 pounds of tank, for a total of 4003 lbs.
So if DCS modeled the ballast, either the empty weight should be 97 pounds less or 97 pounds should be added in addition to the ~4000 pounds of tank and fuel when the pylon DTs are installed. Since that isn't the case, I have always assumed the variable ballast is installed all the time.
-
I put so much stuff out there for strikers and no one gives a damn. Everybody's into dogfighting only. EVEN when flying strikers!
I'm probably one of the few exceptions that proves the rule, since I spent the vast majority of my time AG, but I know what you mean and I have thought about it a lot. I think the issue consistently comes down to a lack of cooperation, because unless you come to the server with friends, you will maybe be able to put together a 2 or 3 ship strike package. But organizing enough to have an escort/CAP for said package is out of the question, so in the F5 that usually means jettisoning the stores as soon as a MiG is sniffing around. (None of that is a criticism of the mission design, just as you say the reality of a public server where most people seem to want to just dogfight).
One thing that I thought of that could promote cooperation and maybe some enthusiasm for actually trying to achieve the mission goals; what about if say once a month you would actually run your server non-public, but rather off a roster more like a tournament. Try to fill each side, still have unlimited lives, but essentially the players all commit to playing for the duration of the mission to try to achieve the goals. Post the results on this thread "Red team won the match, holding 3 of the 5 objectives at the expiration of time." or some such. I would think that among a group of players that would make the commitment to playing a more structured event, some real cooperation might emerge between the fighters and the strikers (and naturally GCI).
Anyway, I know that doesn't fix the issue that most of the time the AG objectives seem to take back stage, and I don't know if there is ever a great way to "enforce" a certain style of play on a public server, or if there should be, but this is one way I thought of that maybe you could actually see your missions run more as intended, even if it is on a rare basis.
Haven't gotten to fly yet with any of the arms restrictions btw, but looking forward to it as it sounds like everyone is enjoying it.
EDIT: PS, can't play today but I can still look at the online server list, congrats on having the 5th most populated DCS server right now!
-
Was stuck in the snowstorm for hours before I got home. Only then I could put the server back online :smilewink:
Thanks Alpenwolf.
-
+1
Yes please, a way to make a true comparison where the only variable is either the system or the settings would be great.
-
Are you working on the server Alpenwolf, because otherwise it might be down? Can anyone else confirm? It was running The Sukhumi City mission about six hours ago and was fine...
-
To the best of my knowledge the server browser likely only shows servers on your installed version. I play on a few of the popular public servers, all of them run OB.
-
Welcome to the forum baddtz. Which version of the game are you running? Most servers are on the open beta version, which is 2.5.4.25729 I believe. ( I will be able to verify that version in a few minutes and will advise if I am incorrect).
Cold War 1947 - 1991
in Multiplayer
Posted
Working great here now Alpenwolf, instantly visible. Thanks!
Hard pass. I had to really crawl into Discord while the Cold War server was down as I was flying on a server that leans heavily on it, and it is a dumpster fire of flaming, off topic conversations, negativity, and moderators having to repeat the same announcements over and over because people are too lazy to read. (And that isn't a knock at all on the sever, their excellent team of creators, or most of the pilots, just on the kind of conduct that an environment like Discord seems to bring out from people).
SRS invites its users to an increase of systems knowledge in their chosen aircraft (what frequency bands can I access, what aircraft systems need to be operational for the radio(s) to work, where are the radios located physically in the cockpit and how do I key up?) and communication discipline. DCS strives for realism and SRS is currently an amazing community development that fosters and encourages it.
I'm a little short on sympathy for people who are too lazy to embrace such a wonderful tool as SRS (and I'm not directing that at all to anyone contributing to the discussion here), which has been provided to us for free and has a tiny system footprint. I don't want to step backwards in realism for comms, nor do a I think a further split in the comms base is wise.
As for the information distribution uses of Discord, Alpenwolf has always been very connected to the community through this thread (and the thread that came before it). It is my opinion the more measured pace of a forum and the ability to more easily compose full paragraphs, link to various sources, ect elevates the discussion, where Discord seems to devolve into SMS style spats.