Sandman1330

Here's a track, not from the campaign (too long). I put my entire magazine into him before his engine finally quit, and I had to sit on his tail for far longer than would be possible in this campaign to do it. The first burst that damaged his landing gear and caused him to leak coolant should have been enough to force him to jump out / emergency land, but he just kept on flying. And taking hits. And flying. I started the track trying to shoot him at convergence, but against a turning target that's near impossible as they disappear under the nose. So I closed to point blank. The screenshot shows how many times he was hit (look at the scroll bar on the right - we were the only 2 units in this mission, and you can scroll all the way up and down and see nothing but him taking hits). Yes, many were on the wings (inside convergence), but there are still alot of important bits in the wings. Look at WW2 gun camera footage and you'll see wings coming off. Surely a 20mm to the main spar is going to shear the wing off, or start a fire in the fuel tank. But they just tank the rounds. I know it's not a campaign issue, but it surely does reduce the fun of the campaign. Edit: Disregard the track, apparently even a short track like this one doesn't survive. It's severely broken. 109 damage model.trk

Strange, my experience has been the opposite. I usually manage to kill 190s, it’s the 109s that sponge up bullets. And neither reacts to .303, once I’m out of 20mm it’s like I’m shooting blanks!

Overall enjoying the campaign, except one thing: It seems impossible to actually get a kill. Each sortie I manage to damage one or two, but they always limp home. I've put my entire magazine into 109s and had them happily fly home and land. How is anyone actually getting kills? I know about convergence, and it does work better at convergence (though it's near impossible to actually fire at convergence if they're in any kind of turn), but I still find it hard to believe they can absorb as many 20mm cannon hits as they do. On the flip side, one burst from them and I'm toast, even in a hard turn. All DCS problems I know, but it's unfortunate that something so silly can take so much enjoyment away from what is otherwise a great campaign.

I can actually understand why they don’t include the FOBs, this would allow for multiple scenarios from multiple time periods (80s or 2001\2002 for example). But I agree the satellite imagery of the FOBs can be jarring. Would be ideal if these areas could be manually edited out. The community will create (and already is) templates with all the FOBs for different time periods that will probably come out as good or better than would be from stock anyway. A lot of veterans with intimate knowledge of those FOBs are crafting them already.

Since the latest update, I cannot launch DCS in 2D. It forces VR mode every time. I usually play on a Quest 3 via Virtual Desktop, but occasionally for mission editing I'll launch in 2D. I used to do this via the Skatezilla tool, but now I try and use the launcher. However, ever since the update, neither the skatezilla tool nor the launcher will put me in 2D when I try. It goes VR every time. Also strangely, it goes into a loop, where once I exit after it incorrectly launches VR mode, it goes right back into launching in VR mode again, I have to force kill the DCS process in task manager to stop it from attempting to start again and again and again - every time in VR. I have even tried disabling VR in the DCS settings - it still turns it back on and forces me back into VR. Log attached. While it says the command used was force_enable_vr, I definitely selected flat screen in the DCS launcher.dcs.log.old

I'm having the opposite issue. I can't start in flat screen. I usually play in VR via virtual desktop, but now even when I specifically try and launch in flat screen, it forces me INTO VR....

Location per google maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/w93Es3U1VHZHKJaP9 This is a very imposing man-made hill in Panjwayi. First the Soviets, then coalition forces, utilized it as a stronghold to control the area. It has considerable historical significance. In DCS, the satellite image of it can be seen on the ground, but the hill is not there. I understand it seems the choice was made not to build the FOBs (that's OK, I understand this allows for more mission flexibility), but if the hill could be included it would be greatly appreciated. It's a key terrain feature in the area. A similar one called Ghundey Ghar (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5XEvkwer2gbsN6Z3A) exists to the northwest, and that hill / mountain appears to have been modelled in the map. Similar effort for Sperwan Ghar would be awesome. A photo of Sperwan Ghar:

I have so many campaigns I'm itching to play, but I'm waiting for this feature to come first. Hopefully soon!

I hope so, that would be a nice pairing. And with the Kiowa just out too, and receiving updates this patch, that would be great. I know the Kiowa will be my bird of choice to explore the new map. Just a small seed of doubt though, as Afghan was quoted for a June release but isn’t mentioned amidst all the news of new releases this patch. Edit: though in re-reading the news, I’m less concerned. When I first skimmed it on my phone I was left with an impression of a huge list of things releasing this patch, with Afghan notably absent. Rereading it that’s not really the case. Perhaps more news next week ahead of the patch.

Great update, but there was no mention of Afghanistan for the next patch. Is it still expected in June?

Having a bit more success with the above tips, thx all

Interesting. I have never not had it do this, so I’m lead to believe I’ve never had a correct lock. So what could I be doing wrong? I go cage, sidewinder on pinky, NWS to lock, switch to guns. Why am I never getting a valid lock?

I'm not submitting this as a bug yet, as I'm not sure if it's realistically modelled, or whether I'm doing something wrong, or whether it may be a bug. I'm finding the radar gunsight to be severely inaccurate. Against even a target in a constant steady turn (no jinking), the bullet stream goes nowhere near where the reticle says it will. Attached is a video and a track demonstrating my issue. I'm including both in case there's something with my DCS install that's causing the issue, as it won't replicate on someone else's track replay. I'm aware that the radar gunsight on an older jet like the Phantom won't be laser accurate like the new 4th gens. However, not only does it seem very far off, but it's worse than the Sabre, which is a much older, first generation radar gunsight. A few things about my video and track: 1. I've done my best to maintain smooth controls against a moderately maneuvering target. The target is not jinking, just turning in a constant rate turn. This should provide a stable gun solution. 2. I'm aware the target isn't always perfectly under the reticle when I fire (again, I was trying to prioritize smoothness). However, the rounds miss by such a large margin that it's not really relevant. 3. The last shot where I do kill him, I ignored the gunsight and fired off dead reckoning. You can see how far off the gunsight actually was when I scored the hits. Thanks. Again, I'm not going straight to calling this a bug. If it's something in my setup, or something I'm doing wrong, I'm OK with that. Just looking to find out why I can't get an accurate radar gun solution. Video: Track Below: phantom gunsight.trk

I can't have more than 8 spawn at the same time before it jams up. I don't know what you're doing differently than me (can't be much, other than you use retribution and I use liberation). Usually this happens after I've already launched as I usually go first. If I'm trying to launch a large strike package (say to take out a ship), I go in the first package, and the rest behind me usually get jammed up. Often even if I stagger start times by 5 mins it still happens.

Would love a fix for AI taxi logic. In liberation missions you can't spawn more than 4 aircraft at a time without them running into each other and jamming up the carrier for the rest of the mission. Supremely frustrating.

@NineLine Any info on what timeframe this map will represent? 80s, early 2000s, late 2010s?

Kandahar and Helmand were anything but. Americans weren’t the only forces in Afghanistan. British, Canadian, Dutch and many others were fighting and dying in regional command south for years. Yes Americans mostly focussed on the east, but it doesn’t mean the south was calm. In fact the area just southwest of Kandahar (Panjwayi / Zhari) was the site of one of OEF’s biggest battles, Op Medusa. Its also where the Mujahideen kicked the crap out of the Russians.

I've played with the curves to see if I can make it better, still happier with the 15 curve I have set. I personally love it to be finger responsive. I have a good stick, and I mostly do helicopters, so finger touch is where it's at for me. I dislike the Viper's AAR law, where everything becomes less sensitive, for that reason. I want it so sensitive I just have to "think" about moving the stick and the aircraft responds. Now the Hornet feels to me like I move the stick, and there's a pause before it responds, so I end up moving it a bit too much and start a PIO. Could be realistic due to inertia, don't really know...

Thanks. To be clear I'm not looking for any assists or tricks - I can AAR, I have always been able to AAR, and have no interest in using autopilots or tricks to do so My stick is a Virpil Warbrd, so good quality. I'm just wondering if anyone knows if the flight model is going to stay this way or not (ie was it intended behaviour). It seems you've noticed the change as well, though from my perspective it feels like lag (a delayed response to control inputs), where you don't perceive it that way. It just feels "spongy" now. I don't recall having any delay to fine control inputs during the real formation flying I've done, though it's been awhile to be fair and it wasn't in a hornet At least I'm not alone in knowing something has changed!

Is there a known / acknowledged issue with AAR in the new FM? Before the update, I could slide in, plug and fuel first try, every time. Now it almost feels like there's a lag in the pitch controls - it's really easy to get into pitch PIO. I can still do it, but it's much much harder, and not as clean and pretty as I used to. Is it a known / documented change? Is it a bug, or intended?

I wonder when we will see this. I have several campaigns that I want to finish but keep getting turned off by flying over an hour, refuelling, etc only to get hit by a golden BB over the objective area and have to do it all over again. Glad it's coming, hope it's soon!

I guess one could simply roll back using the updater if there are any game breaking bugs, that would be analogous to using stable version. The only impact would be connectivity to MP servers, but they all used open beta anyway, so playing on stable wouldn't have been much help in that regard. Makes sense to me!

Look at Caucuses though. The detailed map is a very small percentage of the actual map. I think both Iraq and Afghanistan could easily include water for carrier ops in low detail. This would require minimal effort and resource (both dev and PC), while providing those who want realistic carrier ops and transit times to have it. Imagine putting a carrier on the far western side of the caucuses map! It totally can be done.

I was confused myself when he said Bagram - I've flown a fair bit in and out of Baghdad, and I was sure that was Baghdad! I was also looking for the mountains around Bagram and wondering where they were. Glad to hear it was a simple mis-speak. No harm no foul. Baghdad looks great, I can't wait for it!

I suppose it could be possible, for both Iraq and Afghanistan, to extend the map south in low detail to allow placement of carriers in historical positions. It's not unprecedented - look at the Caucuses map. It extends very far west (the entire black sea and Crimea), just in low detail. That way, we could simulate the carrier ops with longer transits in with aerial refuelling, in order to operate in the detailed area of the map.