DGC338

Thank you. Will give it a go.

When trying to update the open beta I get a message that I am running out of disk space and the download stops. DCS is the only program on the drive (500GB SSD) and DCS directory on the drive currently has more than 440GB. Is this right or has something doubled up somewhere? What is the size of DCS with all available modules installed? is there another option in terms of updating? Downloading the patch onto another drive? Is DCS able to operate across multiple drives? Or should I just get a 2TB SSD?

Map creation has always intrigued me and the choices that have been made. Caucaus: the original map. A five day war between Georgia and Russia, (other potential conflict areas like Ukraine, Turkey, azerbaïdjanais, Armenia not included) persian gulf: other than the tanker war (though this is a modern map) and massive potential conflict not much has happened. (Iraq, Kuwait not included) Marianas: nothing since WW2 (not really modern as South China Sea has a lot more potential for conflict.) Nevada: Good for training, limited for other scenarios Normandy: good WW2 map choice (though not for the majority of the plane set) channel map: see above Syria: an excellent choice of area, historic, current and future conflict area. falklans: good choice particularly as a plane set is being developed for the theatre. Historic and perhaps future conflict zone. Afghanistan: fantastic for CAS but not a huge scope for other. Some of the above choices seem strange to me when you have areas like Korea, Iraq- Iran, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, India- Pakistan, Egypt-Sinai, South China Sea and Vietnam that have both historic and potential conflicts across multiple eras. i do love this game and the work is of a super high standard. I do wish that the plane set was more cohesive in era and that perhaps some better map choices were made.

Hopefully you use part of this song for one of your trailers. F-4 is such a great choice, so many users and uses. Vietnam map to go with it is the dream.

Could a racetrack polygon be added. It would be useful for things like tanker tracks, CAP positions and Holding patterns. More useful than a oval for these.

I think to really get the most out of this fantastic idea, you need a 3D editor. It is extremely difficult to place things on the 2D map as you have no idea of actual ground and the small nuances of the maps. I can’t believe how often I place objects on what I perceive as good ground only to be amazed when jumping into the mission as to the actual ground.

With typical missile RCS of ~0.5m2 what range would you expect to pick one up?

45. Heavy machine gun AA guns. With Helicopter becoming more prevalent there is a need for at least a .50 cal and. Dshk emplacement both with and without cover (sand bags/logs etc) Light MG positions (Pk & GPMG) would be good and also Zpu 1/2/4.

Would be nice to see an update of infantry if nothing but an update of look if not function (better function is the ultimate goal) It would be great to have a standard of work like the WW2 infantry or deck crew. The major factions, US, Soviet/Russia needs infantry skins for the major changes in equipment and uniforms from the 50s (Korean era) all the way to today. Hopefully with some desert and winter uniforms thrown in. Be fantastic to see Soviet era troops in Afghan era uniforms or US troops in multi-cam etc.

A sensitivity adjustment for radar elevation for button or hat users is required. I don't want to edit lua files etc for what should be a basic option.

I have been informed that the above is correct as per the aircraft radar specifications.

I have a question about bar scan and scan Volume in the F/A-18 v F-16. Conditions. Scope range 80, Radar cursor set at 40NM. I get the following altitude volumes scanned by the aircraft F/A-18: 1 Bar 14K' 2 Bar 20K' 4 Bar 32k' 6 Bar 44k' F-16: 1 Bar 20K' vertical scan volume 2 Bar 29K' 4 Bar 46K' It seems odd that 4 Bar scan on F-16 is scanning more vertical Volume than a 6 Bar scan on F/A-18. It certainly may not be wrong given different radars, does anyone have any insight into this? Radar beam width differences?

Rainmaker, where does the current C model FM (as alluded to in your last line) in your opinion need to be changed to make it more accurate. It is mostly correct and off at the fringes or off in more substantial ways? I would love a full fidelity C.

@NineLine Would it be possible to get some idea of just what is being worked on FM wise with the F-16 and F/A-18. The FM is such a big area and it would be interesting to get some idea of the focus areas that the FM people are working on. Much like the list of priorities for features What are the Priority areas within the entirety of the FM. E.g Landing configuration behaviour is a very different from Specific excess power and energy bleed rate with stores. If people understand what is being looked at then it may reduce some of the questions and it may also help with community expectations. Because when you say you are working on an FM update (for whatever aircraft) that will set different expectations for different people so some more specific information may adjust those expectations. Also is there a FM validation document for F/A-18?

http://discord.gg/ZmXEBSU OCG are AUS/NZ based DCS group. We fly the Hornet a fair bit.

Is there any way to do sort of thing this without running a script? I would like a loop of suppression. So you continually suppress a target (unit or group) until said unit is killed or you are out of effective range. I have tried a number of different methods. ROE and AI Off triggers. I can get the AI to stop engaging and then after a time re-engage but then I can't make them stop engaging again. Is the unit hit function working? E.g I have a number of armed Hummers that are meant to be simulating light AAA positions. problem is that if you hit them with 7.62 it does 1% per hit as far as I can tell. They don't become combat ineffective until they catch fire at the ~55% mark so that is a lot of hits required even with a minigun. I would like them to switch off for a time on taking every few hits. switch on switch off sitch on switch off etc etc

Is there a time frame for a fix for this? As it stands Hornet is not functional and would be sent to the hangar.

Surely there needs to be a parking positions as per a field runway other than just the catapults.

Do you have to change it to something other than one of those units? I.e can I change my lot 20 hornets into the AI F/A-18C and then back to the lot 20 and it will work?

I have looked in the NATOPS but can’t find the specific reference as to whether the ATC function targets IAS or MACH or if it targets one then the other. I.e targets IAS then at a certain Altitude it crosses over and targets MACH, and what if that is the case is the crossover point. It seems in game that it targets a MACH number at any altitude (speed set at 310 at SL then climb and the IAS will decrease with Alt) which seems wrong to me. On a aircraft that is not limited MACH no wise in military thrust. Most airlines autothrust will target IAS upto crossover Alt (normally 28-34k) I would like to know if anyone has further info before bug reporting this. As an aside to RL Military pilots here what do you use tactically? Do you crossover from one to the other? References From functional check flight at 15,000’

I know how to go from AUTO to CCIP (Ivank description and Wags Video) does the Hornet have to ability to go from CCIP to AUTO. I believe in the Av-8 amongst other Aircraft (F-16) if are in CCIP and the reflected CCIP is in view (not the actual CCIP) and you pickle the MC will revert to an AUTO delivery mode on the spot "designated" by the reflected CCIP. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=201489&highlight=reflected+ccip Does this happen in the Hornet? Or is it a feature yet to be implemented?

What is the purpose in game is the question.

The default view I assume is set at the correct seat height. (I hope it is) If this is the case for our virtual pilot is the ability to move the seat just a gimmick?

has there been anything further on this. I too feel like I would like to move the center of the JHMCS up so in default view it sits in the HUD not looking at the top of the UFC.

A-6 or the Tornado both can utilise Jester. I would think the Tornado would be a better seller (though I do love the intruder) just because of its European connections and multiple users.