Sandman1330

My point being there shouldn’t be so much clutter when in a look up situation over flat terrain. And an STT beam is very narrow. Clutter in search is understandable, my issue is jester (or the radar I guess) cannot get a reliable STT lock in a look up situation over flat terrain where ground clutter should be minimal to non existent.

I really don't think so. Here's a couple videos displaying the situation. One over caucuses - it's impossible to get a reliable lock, even with a 10,000ft lookup and over flat terrain. The mountains are very far back and I'm looking up at a blue sky. Despite significant clutter on the screen Jester finds the target, but cannot get a reliable lock that would allow for a shot. In this one, I'm over water. Instant and easy lock, even looking down. I understand in look down situations there should be clutter and it should be a challenge to get a lock. But with a significant look up? And Jester can see the target, he just can't get a reliable lock. Something seems off.

I found that the setup on my practice mission was giving me a hard time. I was eastbound from the coast in Caucuses while the enemy planes were coming westbound, so they had the mountains behind them. Jester was able to detect them in lookup but never able to get a stable lock. I then tried in Marianas over water and was able to consistently detect and lock at enough range to get the first shot. It became almost easy. Which has me wondering, why so bad on Caucuses? The mountains were a good 100 miles behind the bandit, and I was locking in a lookup situation with the bandit at 25k and me around 17-20k. Under those conditions should it not be just as effective as over water?

It's unfortunate that I'm going to have to park my attempts to learn and fly a great module because the DCS AI cheats and I'm not interested in playing it in multiplayer. I mean, doesn't that sound ridiculous? State of DCS unfortunately. I fear what the experience would be like trying to make it through a challenging campaign with the DCS AI in this omniscient state. It’s too bad such an amazingly detailed module is handicapped by the rudimentary AI.

I am pulling my hair out. Trying to take on an AI MIG23 in a head on engagement. He gets his radar missile off every single time before I can even see him on radar. Isn't the MIG23 supposed to be the same vintage, with about the same capabilities? I feel like I'm going against a vastly superior jet with a vastly superior radar. I've tried using jester 25nm narrow, boresight, cage/CAA. I'm 5-10K feet below my target. Nothing gets a lock, or I just get a bad lock. Missile goes stupid every time. I keep hearing about how it can be done, and I see it done in videos. But it doesn't work when I try it. I'm quite frustrated. I'm trying to get proficient so I can start playing some campaigns, but at this point I feel I'm just going to have no fun in a campaign I have no chance of winning. I know the AI isn't subject to the same radar limitations as our F4 (it should be of course), but in this environment, how does one have a chance? What am I doing wrong?

Sorry! Here's one attached.OH58D tailwind.trk

Something about the Kiowa FM has bugged me since it came out. When hovering with a moderate tailwind, or hovering backwards, the aircraft does.... something I don't understand. The rotor RPM spikes off the chart, the aircraft starts falling as if it's in VRS (but it's not), and yaw becomes nearly uncontrollable. I feel like this might be trying to simulate LTE, or VRS. But it can't be VRS because it occurs with no descent rate, and it can't be LTE because the pedals are still effective. Neither explains the spike in rotor RPM. I've attached a track. What the heck is this??? In 2000+hrs flying real helicopters I've never seen or heard of anything like this. Please tell me it's a bug and it will be fixed, it's extremely annoying - combat does not always allow one to hover into wind (the enemy could be downwind from you!) kiowa tailwind.trk

This just happened to me after Speed and Angels Mission 13. Love how bugs from 5 years ago work their way back in... can't end mission.log dcs.log debrief.log

Nothing like playing the whole mission through, then after refueling and sitting happy off the tanker's right wing, lead breaks HARD right after fuelling, straight into me. Boom, done. 2 hours down the drain. After fuelling is it just fly back to the ship and land? Anything else I'm missing if I just skip? Really don't want to fly the whole thing again... On a side note, maybe a suggestion, can we make the player immortal during certain phases (primarily when we're expected to fly form off such an unpredictable AI?) Those sudden breaks that AI makes are just too damn unpredictable (not to mention unrealistic)...

Possibly!

OK after troubleshooting, it looks like the trigger won't accept the voiceattack "salute" command (though it correctly triggers the ground crew). You have to use the 's' key (which I have bound to salute), and this will progress the trigger.

Mission 10 (night CQ). Do the startup (autostart as I'm lazy and hate cold starts - don't judge, I do them for a living), once alignment complete, Chig says "are you ready?". Nothing after this - no response from Slick, no checklists, no radio calls. Tried hitting space to see if there was user input required, still nothing. Trying to progress, using salute command takes me to Cat 1 (not Cat 3). Launch, standard SC comms but no mission comms. I've stopped there everytime as I don't want to waste time on a mission that isn't going to progress.... It seems the mission is stalling at "Are you ready?" PS - briefing says to set the front radio to Lion Tac (button 13), but when I do that, I stop hearing all the radio chatter.

Is the grade sheet supposed to autofill, or is it meant for manual entry? My grade sheet is blank and I’m complete up to mission 5…

I wonder if there is any chance of an AC-130 variant in the future?

Any update on this bug? I'm sitting on what I feel is a great idea for a mission but can't really achieve my objective with this issue breaking the gameplay, thanks!

Hope you’re right. But as I read the text, even before I got to that point, I started to wonder if this would work with heavily scripted missions. It does sound more like a persistence save for units, etc - there wasn’t a mention of saving script states. Maybe it’s implied

If I read this right, the save function will not work with payware campaigns? Bummer…

Thanks, I tried 0, but not 1. Either way it has no effect - they leave the hesco towers and run around. I’ve made them immortal for the purposes of prolonging the fight against a superior enemy force, but the mission flow won’t work with them running around outside the FOB.

Is this still being investigated? I’m trying to build a mission that has infantry in the HESCO towers, but they disperse and leave the tower as soon as they come under fire, even with disperse turned off.

I don't think it's fair to refer to those who disagree with the development of this module as "complainers." It's more akin to shareholders of a company who may disagree with the direction the company board or CEO are taking the company. Many of us have spent significant amounts (thousands) over the years on ED modules - I have almost every single module and map. That's a significant investment in the DCS World ecosystem. If I feel the direction the company is going could jeopardize my enjoyment of the product that I have invested significant funds into, I have the right to speak up. That's not complaining, that's voicing my concerns to protect my investment. Calling those of us complainers who disagree with what we believe to be a shift in the company's focus, what we see as a reduction in the standard of documentation required to make an accurate module, is unfairly belittling. You don't have to agree with us, but you should respect our right to disagree (respectfully) with the decision.

Well said, and beautiful picture

It’s actually me you are quoting, not Oban, so I’ll address. The difference is FC4 are advertised as simplified / low fidelity (and priced accordingly). This one is advertised as high fidelity, a bar it can’t reasonably achieve in comparison to modules with thousands of pages of documentation that describe how they work. Much will have to be interpolated through educated guesses with this new module, something ED has refused to do with other full fidelity modules. I have no doubt it will be fun, detailed and immersive, but it just can’t be accurate. This is why I’ve advocated a third “high fidelity” tier for this one (and those that come after it). Detailed, clickable, but not able to be substantiated to the same level as full fidelity. Those customers who are interested in being as close as possible to the real thing can then, in an informed way, decide whether it works for them or not. It shouldn’t be advertised as the same level of fidelity as A10C, F18, etc, because it simply can’t be. If it is, then I for one have greatly overestimated how accurate the others actually are - and there lies the other concern in people’s minds. If this is truly to be to the same level as A10C, Hornet, et al - then this can only mean those modules are not as true to life as they were thought (and advertised) to be. Now, I’ve said my piece - my voice has been heard (I hope), and I’m going to stop responding to pings and responses as I’m just cluttering up the thread with the same argument again and again. If you buy it, great, it was free (my argument, not the module). If you don’t, carry on as if you were normal (little military humour there, no one take this seriously pls).

You feel this is disrespectful? Seriously? Nothing disrespectful to anyone here. I am literally saying here that it's OK to disagree, but to do so respectfully.

Who did so though? Disagreement doesn't equate to disloyalty. The vast majority of those disagreeing on this thread have done so respectfully. In fact, I think more disrespect and toxicity was just thrown by the "agreeing" side in the last page than has been thrown by the "disagreeing" side.

Actually I think for the most part this thread has been fairly civil. If you think this is toxic, you haven't been around long enough Different people play DCS for different reasons. Some play it for the level of realism it provides, while to others that's less important. To those for whom realism matters, this signals a shift away from the reason they play in the first place. This explains the passion, and they (we) have a right to express our concerns. Some may think it's whiny, and others may think those who don't value realism are just fanboys, air quakers, whatever. But in the end we have to remember that we have to respect the reasons others play, even if it doesn't align with our own. Let's not devolve to calling each other whiny (wasn't you) and/or toxic. Respect our right to voice disagreement with the direction the company is taking the game, and we will respect your right to play differently than us.