Rolds

That said, pulling things like this out of the game might come across better to the many players who aren't deep into the forums, rather than leaving them in game and broken for months/years?

A new "Counter-battery" option shows up in the fire at point task for a lot of units now, and it lets you input a value in feet (maybe meters if you are set to metric, haven't checked). Does anyone know what it does?

Yes if alarm state is green the unit lowers the missile upon mission start, but if you had the unit spawn in under a cover (in a shelter lets say), the missile starts clipped through the covering object which is undesirable.

The light artillery piece in DCS has issues, using the Mi-8 to carry it causes it to immediately jump around and crash.

Arleigh Burke Given an "Add target" task in sim results in 10 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles being fired at that point. The number of shots box is greyed out and cannot be changed in the way it can for artillery. Also, it would be really helpful if, in addition to choosing the number of Tomahawks to be fired, if we could set up the fire mission and have a final button to press to execute the order, rather than the missiles going off immediately as we try to place the target indicator.

Oh I came back just now to report this again and guess who else is here? 2020 me. @Dscross you're lucky if they are obeying the "Chaff-Flare" usage, that is not working for me as they still drop flares with this option selected.

Your math may overstate the "leak rate". On S3 math, I agree. I think the figures should be added for the F18C to determine how much it gains. Connected fuel gain rate=transfer rate less burn rate, therefore transfer rate=burn rate plus fuel gain (which is better thought of as net fuel gain rate). I imagine this won't matter to the coders. The issue is probably going to be something simple like the transfer rates are hard-coded for each aircraft and independent of the aircraft type on the other side of the transfer. Simple to understand I mean, that may be difficult to solve.

This isn't really a bug but there isn't anywhere to make a request. There is this old thread where the topic of having different fusing options for the harrier was discussed: At present, the PR and OP fuse settings both cause the Mk20 to burst at 1200' AGL based on my testing (which just involved dropping a couple and reviewing the results with TAC view). It would be nice if we could at least set different burst heights (even if this is only available on the ground like other weapons settings). 1200' results in a pretty wide dispersion of the bomb-lets. Another issue with the 1200' AGL burst height is that if you are trying to loft bomb something, the weapon will function right away if you release while still below 1200'. Perhaps the topic of Mk-20 fusing could be re-opened with ED?

I just got the map yesterday and I had the same problem. There is at least one strip across the entrance to the San Carlos bay which is only 3 feet deep, and the depth is quite shallow in other areas around the bay also. Even the little higgens boat cannot seem to cross this area to enter the bay. It seems the depth should be increased in this area.

I just had a flight where George kept yawing about 30 degrees left and right of the commanded heading in a hover and never damped out, I eventually crashed the helicopter out of frustration.

Sometimes when they are heading for the tanker, the AI aircraft fly in nearly the exact same place and clip into one another, see photo and track. F18 AI form glitch when refueling.trk

OP I have a thought, I was finding my bombs were long by about 300' similar to yours but I was still pulling when I released them, which apparently isn't the correct procedure. Try unloading the plane so it is at 1g at weapon release. To put it another way, pull up to your desired release angle then wait for the release cue to come down to the velocity vector rather than continuing to pull up to meet it. The miss long may be because the firing solution doesn't recompute fast enough if you are still pulling up.

I re-ran the test with @Exorcet script in place. In this test F18 fuel at the start of tanking was 3,177 lbs and at the end was 11,676lbs for an increase of 8,499 lbs. In all cases the script output agreed with the hornet in cockpit fuel gauge very closely. At the start of refueling the S3 fuel from the script read 14,105lbs and at the end it read 1,048lbs for a decrease of 13,057 lbs. In other words the S3 lost 4,558 lbs more than it gave the hornet, and it is not reasonable that it burned that much fuel itself during the refueling. The S3 then returned to the carrier, did a case1 and landed with only 252lbs remaining. Of course there is the possibility the script is wrong but I don't think so. To test this, I had the S3 airstart with 3% internal fuel and watched it, and sure enough when fuel reached zero according the the script, the crew ejected. I think there is some problem where the fuel outflow rate from the S3 is higher than the rate it is going into the tanking aircraft, and the difference is just being lost. EDIT - Attached is a track you can play around with which includes the fuel script. In this case tanking began with 2,806lbs in the hornet and 14,290lbs in the S3. It ended with 11,330lbs in the hornet and 1,144lbs in the S3. The hornet gained 8,524lbs while the S3 lost 13,146lbs. S3B fuel rate issue.trk

Hi Flappie, EDIT - THERE IS STILL SOMETHING WRONG SEE NEXT POST I am re-running the test. I notice a couple of things before I start. The S-3 can now carry 15,183lbs of fuel and its weight when full of fuel is 41,833lbs per the mission editor, an increase over the 12,126lbs fuel weight and 38,775 lbs total aircraft weight I noted in my original post. I also noticed that the tanker now starts with 80% fuel whereas before I had it set to 100%. Looking at other missions I made prior to the most recent patch, it appears all S3 tankers are now starting in the air with 80% but I almost certainly placed them as air starts with 100% fuel. People who want to maximize the tankers' fuel load might want to recheck old missions. Re-running the original flight, I dumped to 2,400 then tanked. The tanker refueled me to 11,260 then retracted the drogue, so this time I think it gave me about 8,860lbs. That is a definite improvement over the original situation. This may mean the bug is squashed, but my method of testing is crude compared to @Exorcet script. I looked at that script and it is beyond me but that looks like the right tool to test this.

I did a few lofting runs last weekend and also found them landing long, I'll do a few more tonight to provide a track.

I want to be able to offset JSOW from a target point a relatively small distance to launch two (or more?) at a time at the same target area. Is the UFC O/S option in the TOO screen supposed to provide this functionality? Is that a WIP item? I am also aware of the waypoint offset problem which itself would be a useful thing to have here as that might give a workaround, and I hope that is fixed soon.

Could F18 (and F16 and A10C) please get the option of mounting empty external tanks, similar to what other modules (F14, F15E, AV8B, JF17, Mirage 2000C, Mirage F1) have?

Oh dear, this is too much. I just want a triggered action so units can say "they're shooting at us!" and stuff like that. Your example is more complicated than any mission I've made!

I want to make a mission where tanks are in cover until they shoot. My idea was to have them set to invisible (which makes them invisible to other AI, not to players) and then have a triggered action to AI task push>do command>invisible off, when they fire. This would be useful for simulating an ambush, which at present isn't easy to do given the AI's efficiency in spotting. My problem is that there doesn't seem to be a "unit fired" or "unit has shot" condition. Since the game log registers each unit shot event, I imagine this would be fairly easy to implement? A "part of group has shot" would also be a useful condition.

Still happening on December 4, 2023. 312 days since Flappie bumped the report. OHP class damage model bug.trk

When you get artillery to fire, there is a message output after the battery fires it's last shot. For longer salvos, this could be after the first round lands. Could the message happen just after, or shortly before the first shot?

A fair bit of mission editing time gets spent setting up frequencies, tacan stations, AWL, ICLS, etc and then putting it in the mission briefing or writing it on the map so users know what the frequencies are. Could this be automated in two ways? 1. Tankers could automatically get unused frequencies, tacan channels, etc assigned. Maybe other units also. 2. This information could automatically be filled in to the mission briefing for that coalition. This would be an amazing help.

All tankers: the tankers navigation lights are off until the player who called intent to refuel is within .5nm. This makes it very difficult to close with the tanker, it would make a lot more sense if the tankers were either always running with their navigation lights on at night or turned them on at a greater distance, say 2nm. KC135 specific: The line up lights are switched off the instant you get the transfer complete call. I'm talking about the fore-aft and vertical alignment lights, meaning once you get transfer complete you are suddenly staring into blackness where there is a giant aircraft that you cannot see. This is not reasonable, these lights should remain on at least until the refueling aircraft is clear.

To test this I created a situation where I had a hornet with two fuel tanks and dumped down to ~2,300 lbs and then tanked to see how long the S3 would dispense. See track. When my fuel showed 4,900 lbs, the S3 retracted the drogue. I could no longer contact it on radio to begin refueling again, I believe it had hit its bingo point and considered its refueling task finished. The tanker began this mission in the air with a full load, as did I, so very little fuel would have been used up prior to me tanking. In the mission editor I see that full of fuel the S3 weighs 38,775 lbs, and empty it weighs 26,649lbs, giving fuel weight of 12,126 lbs. The tanker gave me 2,600lbs, maybe burned 1,000 though I doubt it would have been that much in this short period of time (just watch the track), so I think it stopped refueling with at least 8,500 lbs and the carrier it is set to land at only 30 miles away. Other experiences with the S3 tanker had made me suspicious as I had seen it stop its refueling task mid refuel on many other occasions. I suspect there is a math error in the code somewhere, like the outflow rate is measured in the wrong units, or not all the internal fuel is usable, or its bingo logic is far too conservative. S3B does not dispense enough fuel.trk