Sandman1330

I love the idea of the wildcard - the extra realism and element of randomness is great. However... Due to DCS limitations, it's becoming very frustrating that of 4 crew members in the flight, I am the only one who can or will see him. I just got shot down on Hop 6. While doing the intercept I was looking left, right, up, down, everywhere - except directly to my 6, which is extremely difficult to see in VR (as it is in real life of course). Also add to that reduced visual acuity in VR... To counter this, IRL a formation flies spread out, so you are watching each other's six and more looking to the side then directly behind. On Hop 5, I spotted the wildcard going to the wingman's six. In Hop 6, he didn't watch my 6 for me. A further weird issue, Jester started dispensing flares when the wildcard shot at me. It took me a second to stop and think, what? Why is he doing that? Is he pre-emptively flaring for the guys in front? In the 2 secs it took to think through this and realize it was the wildcard firing at me from behind, it was too late. So Jester saw him, didn't say a word, saw him fire, and still didn't say a word but started dispensing flares. Obviously a DCS limitation / bug, but still... So, DCS limitations aside, I wonder if it could be scripted into the campaign to have a certain percentage chance that either your "in campaign" Jester sees him or your wingman does. I mean, the idea of the wildcard is realistic and great, but all realism is lost when all onus is on me to spot him, no? That's why we fly in formation - mutual support! That aside, still loving the campaign!

I just listened to the PCWorld Full Nerd interview of the AMD devs behind implementation of FSR, and they said there is no reason why it should not work with VR (though it didn't sound like they'd really tried or tested it). So hope lives! As an aside, they also said it can be implemented in about an hour's work for game developers. Who knows if that would be a valid estimate for a game as large and complex as DCS, but again, hope lives!

Is this due to doppler gates? In my limited understanding, I know PD radars to transmit in harmonic frequencies, for which the spacing between them is determined by the radar's PRF. The doppler return needs to come in at 1/2 the PRF in order to be recognizable to one of the harmonics, otherwise it will fall into the "range" of one of the other harmonics, thereby giving an inaccurate speed. A faster closure will see more doppler shift, until such time as it falls into one of the other harmonic gates. Is this what the target aspect switch does? Does it tell the radar which gate the return should be inside, thereby allowing a wider range of closure speeds? I think if we can get one of our many radar gurus to explain this better than I, it would clear up much of the dissention here... I have a foggy enough understanding to know why this is a thing, but not enough to explain it well!

This exactly answers my question - very cool! I’ve only tried it in a mission with 30kts relative down the angle (I think it’s 15kts ship speed plus 15kts wind 18* off BRC, which is more like 28kts I guess but I’m too lazy to do the math). It was noticeable there, so I guess I’ll need to really work for it when the ship is making its own wind!

You need to leave the lights off during taxi and hookup. Once you’ve run up and are ready to launch, that’s when you turn them on as the signal to go. The act of turning the lights on replaces the salute, done at the same time as you would have saluted in daytime. Caveat: haven’t tried it yet myself but this is how I understand it should work.

Regarding the burble effect, I’ve read it’s the worst on calm wind days when the ship is making its own wind. It is mentioned the speed of the ship is a factor in the burble strength in game, is wind direction also factored? I mean to say, with a stronger natural wind, the boat will be manoeuvred to put the wind right down the angle. Theoretically this should mean the burble from the island would parallel the approach (remain on your right side while in the groove) rather than requiring the plane to fly through it. is this correct to real life, and is it factored into the new burble physics in game?

Ahhhh, so this explains it. I play with easy comms off, and I intentionally set my server missions to not enforce easy comms so other players can use it if they want. However, easy comms never work for other players on my server. This explains why! I concur this would be great to have fixed. I allow a wide range of skill levels on my servers and would like players to have the choice whether to use easy comms or not (or wake turbulence, etc.)

Update for any lurkers who may be following: the controllers worked fine out of the box, no special setup required

@Bob556a did you ever get your controllers working? I too am switching from Oculus to G2, and I’ve gotten quite used to using controllers instead of the mouse in cockpit. My G2 hasn’t arrived yet but I’ve only recently heard the controllers aren’t as plug and play as the Oculus. If you managed to get them working, I’d be very interested in what you had to do!

Epic! I've gotten so much enjoyment out of Bactria, I feel it’s only right for me to offer my assistance for your next project. Whether it’s voiceovers, testing or anything else (I’m fairly proficient with vanilla ME, not so much with scripting), please PM me if I can be of any assistance. As far as VOs, I’m Canadian (native English speaker), also a military helicopter pilot so I am familiar with CAS and CCA procedures, brevity, etc. I’m also a former Infantry officer with deployed Afghanistan experience. Anything I can do, I’d love to be a part of your next great project!

Maybe there's an easier way to do it that I haven't figured out yet

Following. Thus far, the only way I've found to allow me to independently slew the Mav after using ATFLIR to find the target is if I switch back to the ATFLIR and undesignate; however, this means the next Mav can't be slewed to the same spot again. So the workflow looks like this: Use ATFLIR to find target, designate Uncage maverick, maverick slews to that target switch back to ATFLIR, undesignate switch back to Maverick, now I can slew the maverick independently. However, after firing, the next maverick isn't pointed in the same location anymore as I've undesignated the target. So, to ripple multiple mavericks on a single group of vehicles, the only real way to do it is: Use ATFLIR to designate first target, uncage maverick, fire when it locks Back to ATFLIR, move to next target, designate Back to maverick, cage then uncage again, lock target and fire Repeat. I'm not sure if this is realistic, it seems a better workflow would be to use ATFLIR to find a group of vehicles, then hand off to maverick and be able to use the maverick to target the individual vehicles...

OK, I've narrowed it down to a conflict with a template that I have set up to spawn random opponents. That script is the following: AItemplate = { "AI_#001", "AI_#002", "AI_#003", "AI_#004", "AI_#005", "AI_#006", "AI_#007", "AI_#008", "AI_#009", "AI_#010","AI_#011", "AI_#012", "AI_#013" } AI = SPAWN:New( "AI_#001" ) :InitRandomizeTemplate( AItemplate ) Which initializes the template, then is triggered via a flag from F10 menu with this command: AIBFM = AI:Spawn() Something in this script is causing a conflict...

Hey guys, Banging my head against the wall for awhile on this one. I have 2 missions, mostly identical in setup except one is on PG, and one is on Syria. Both have a CVBG, both use the recovery tanker script. Because I'm lazy, I've even used all the same unit names and the script is a direct copy and paste from one mission to the next. On the Syria mission, all works as planned. On the PG mission, the recovery tanker takes off, moves to it's station aft of the ship, then where it should become available for tanking, it just descends into the pattern and recovers. Once it recovers, another spawns and does the exact same thing. It's almost as though it thinks it's running out of gas, but for some reason it is deciding that it can't be a tanker and just coming home. I thought it might be because the PG mission has an additional tanker and has to share Texaco with another tanker (callsign conflict), but I've deleted all other tankers and it still has the problem. I currently use MOOSE 2.5.0 for compatibility with SWAPR, but the same issue arises using 2.5.3 Here's the script I'm using, though I've also tried just the basic script with no modifiers, and the same result happens: TexacoStennis1=RECOVERYTANKER:New(UNIT:FindByName("USS George Washington" ), "Recovery Tanker 1") TexacoStennis1:SetCallsign(CALLSIGN.Tanker.Texaco, 2) TexacoStennis1:SetRadio(260) TexacoStennis1:SetTACAN(55, "RCV") TexacoStennis1:SetAltitude(7000) TexacoStennis1:Start() Attached are the two .miz files. It's super weird. Any suggestions? Sandman's Server - PG - V1.2 no stennis.miz Sandmans_Server - Syria - V1.2.miz

After just a quick test, The ASW artefacting in the Spitfire gunsight is fixed.

Same! also noticed the texture of the hand is more detailed though, not just a black hand but an actual flight glove, looks pretty cool but harder to use now.

What speed are you flying? Try to target 65kts, you’ll get your best rate of climb around that speed. You can also use zoom climbs, so accelerate to Vne then pull back on the cyclic for a quick instantaneous climb, though of course timing will be important here. Are you in VR? If so, you can fly from the left seat while aiming the miniguns just by looking. Maybe this can be done with trackIR too, I’m not sure.

Get and stay above him. Your guns can depress down, while his can’t depress up, and your Huey can outclimb him. So get close, and get above him!

I don’t think it really matters, you can set it to “no task”, as long as you set in the waypoint options for it to “attack target” and select the player group. (I’m going off memory on how this works so hopefully that’s right!)

You can get a Hind to engage your helicopter, I’ve done it before. I’ve also had an MI8 engage me while in a hornet so it may work too. And it is a plausible scenario, and a lot of fun to play out! You may have difficulty getting your AI door gunners to shoot at it though.

Have you guys tried the 1usmus power plan? It doesn’t really increase frame rates per se, but it greatly improved smoothness for me, especially in Syria (3900X) I guess what it does is force threads to stay on the same CCX and CCD, reducing thread hop between them and the increased latency that comes with it. It’s also supposed to help with the boost problems of the 3000 series. These problems were supposed to be fixed by the windows scheduler and BIOS updates, but I personally found this power plan made it even better. Again, not so much higher frames as more consistent frames. I don’t know if it will work for 5000 series, but might be worth a try. https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/1usmus-custom-power-plan-for-ryzen-3000-download,7.html

I’ve had the same, but it was a red box. I think I narrowed it down to Tacca’s NVG mod (the one that changes NVG view in VR to a realistic circle in the center vice full view). Are you using that mod?

Naa, just worked my way through the 5 stages. That was anger. I bargained with Bignewy, got depressed as heck and quit playing, then just eventually accepted it

In this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/234279-save-feature-for-sp-missions-is-essential/?tab=comments#comment-235028

Wow, in retrospect reading my post on this, I was maaaad! I’m actually kind of embarrassed I've since gotten much more into multiplayer and just worked around the missing save game feature. I have, however, only purchased one campaign since then I believe (Raven One). It certainly has reduced my enjoyment (and therefore my money spent) on the scripted campaigns. Bignewy or Nineline addressed the question in a different post, apparently it won’t be coming any time soon due to engine limitations (as Lurker already mentioned). At least they were upfront about the issues they are facing. Maybe one day with DCS World 3.0 or something...