Sandman1330

@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...

Do you guys use Vaicom? I’ve seen this too (the original problem with read backs), but it only started when I installed Vaicom.

I get the same thing when taking off at mil power as well - it’s been around for awhile now. Not a deal breaker but it’s there.

Bump, I have the same issue... Edit - solved. I copied the contents of the first server’s saved games into the new one, then edited serversettings.lua to change the port, and created autoexec.cfg to set the new control port. It still didn’t work, until I added —server —norender to the second servers DCS.exe I didn’t think it would need this as it doesn’t when using DCS_updater.exe but apparently it does.

The Viper was announced in 2019 and beyond at the end of 2018, and was released in October of 2019, so about 10 months later. However, it was released in a very incomplete state and I believe ED has stated they don’t want to do that again, so it could be longer, or perhaps they are at a further stage of development already. TL;DR: maybe late 2021, maybe longer

Huh, interesting. I would have thought flares would have been higher priority, I mean the Russians learned as early as the 80s that helicopters are vulnerable to MANPADs! And given the ineffectiveness of the disco ball against anything but the earliest threats... But hey, if it’s not realistic than so be it. Just blows my mind a bit... And on second thought, 2002 was a freaking long time ago. God I’m getting old haha

@joelsi @NeedzWD40 thanks for the detailed breakdown, that’s awesome! The Apache definitely carries flares. Aside from being an obvious oversight (the IR jammer alone wouldn’t be sufficient), there’s this footage from Baghdad last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CJTF-OIR_Crisis_Response_to_Protests_DOD_107565097-5e0cec395974d.webm

In the ME, did you ensure to link the static object (LSO) to the carrier unit? There’s a drop down to do this in the options for the static object.

I’ve copied my post from the newsletter thread, as I think the same perception exists here that there aren’t many helo drivers around here: I know many wanted the F4, Tornado, or a modern REDFOR (and I do hope you get what you want, though none of them personally interest me), but us rotorheads have been waiting for a western attack helicopter for 5+ years!