S D

Shouldn't be a problem, aslong as the sensors (CV1) are placed in positions where tracking is unobstructed, with the S, sensors are not a concern. You would have to setup/calibrate the software from that position. In terms of DCS, there is a Centre VR option in the controls which can be used once your in position.

A very enjoyable mission indeed, although i think one of the recent updates may have broke it. Have just been flying the mission, all good until we destroyed a Tunguska on the airfield, then the game CTD. The following is the last few lines of the log. 2019-12-29 18:34:40.398 INFO Scripting: event:type=shot,initiatorPilotName=Danny_P,initiator=Venom 1-1,t=61772.968,weapon=AGM-65F,initiatorMissionID=667, 2019-12-29 18:34:54.536 INFO Scripting: event:type=shot,initiatorPilotName=SD,initiator=Venom 1-2,t=61787.103,weapon=AGM-88C,initiatorMissionID=668, 2019-12-29 18:35:03.076 INFO Scripting: event:weapon=AGM-65F,type=hit,initiatorPilotName=Danny_P,initiator=Venom 1-1,target=Unit #163,t=61795.622,initiatorMissionID=667,targetMissionID=370, 2019-12-29 18:35:03.078 INFO Scripting: event:type=dead,t=61795.622,initiatorMissionID=370,initiator=Unit #163, Once the Maverick hit the target and it was killed the mission CTD.

Also received my S today, can report the same as above. No performance drop and looks loverly...i can read my qfe setting ahaha. :pilotfly:

Wonderful...

Yes its been reported and reported again like many other carrier issues. They seemingly never get attention...

Do you have an AWACS on the same coalition as the Silkworm? They can shoot over the horizon with an external sensor, pretty sure its only the AWACS atm.

Looks amazing being the key phrase... People are kidding themselves,if they think that ED are going to be able to pull off what they have said, at least in any resonable timeframe. There are many fundemental issues related to carriers/ships, which haven't been addressed for a long time (years) and are seemingly being evaded by ED. Fix core problems, before promising VR briefing rooms. I hope i'm wrong...

ED does indeed know about this, aswell as the bouncing when going from the carrier to a land base. They have been pointed out multiple times in various bug reports. Such as this one... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3863511#post3863511 and this one... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232362&page=5 Have a good read through those, i see the same problems being mentioned again and again. But it seems ED really dont seem to be prioritising a major issue. With their own flagship F18 and the F14 being carrier aircraft, i would've hoped they would at least have a plan of action on how to solve the problem. Problem is they get "reported" apparently, then the threads get locked allowing no further dicussion/bumping. As a result there are numerous threads buried away in the archives. Like IronMike has said, the decksliding in particular is DCS wide all aircraft do it. Some is due to ping/desync no doubt, but its also to do with the way the DCS physics work on the ships. Sliding behaviour can be experienced in SP aswell.

Indeed this is a DCS limitation, if playing in SP, the mission needs to start before you select a slot. Its to do with the way DCS handles client menus and hasnt been fixed for years.

Hey man, looking forward to getting stuck into this, great to see people using MOOSE. The one thing i have done before playing, is to add the MOOSE airboss system for the Stennis. Not sure if you didn't include airboss for a reason, but it all seems to work fine. So thought i'd just post it here, if you dont mind. I've just added the airboss as a seperate .lua for now as its pulled out of one of my missions. So i'll post both... File size for mission is slightly bigger due to Airboss sounds. Cheers for the mission, like i said looking forward to playing it and even more so learning some more ways ppl are using MOOSE. Operation Snowfox.miz Airboss.lua

This is frustrating for me to keep seeing these threads, i cant imagine what Heatblur think. This is a DCS issue and IS NOT limited to the F14. All airframes slide to some extent on the decks. MP just exaggerates the issue... As does increased pitch/roll on the deck or maneuvering at any kind of speed. Admittedly like IronMike has said, its definitley effecting the F14 more because of the multicrew. This has been reported numerous times and confirmed as a DCS problem, evidence, tracks, screenshos and detailed information have all been provided mutiple time to ED. The forum threads are tagged as "reported" then locked and vanish into the forums back pages and archive. All those saying its something HB need to fix, please go and test situations with other airframes. Dont just put a static ship down with no weather, try different speeds, the ship turning, increases pitch/roll from sea state. Then see the difference when doing things like starting engines, see how you "unstick" from the deck and begin the slide. Easiest way is to get weapons and fuel added and removed during these scenarios. Whatever system ED have working right now is not uniform over modules, some do indeed stick to the deck better. But this is an underlying issue and has been for a long time.

This is the kind of stuff that needs sorting before adding more content. We take it on faith that most of this stuff is working, but those of us who have been around long enough to see through the trickery and eye candy see the truth. There is so much broken under the hood, i'm not even sure ED know what functions correctly in their game anymore.

Even though apparently recent udates have helped with alot of units, especially in MP. It all grinds to a halt, if those units do anything other than sit static waiting to be blown up. Hence most missions you find just have static targets everywhere. The fact ED have announced this "dynamic campaign", i think will come back to bite. I dont see with the current engine even half of a fully dynamic conflict being playable. I hope i'm wrong and we see massive strides in performance in the near future, but history with ED would suggest not.

From a current mission i'm working on, like razo said, its related to the number of units or objects present on the map, FPS is top left. This is with nothing but the labels turned on and off, what kind of performance are we loosing from the rest.

Because its all half arsed implementation, under the guise of "well we're improving the carrier soon". Same reason trying to spawn and operate AI off the current carrier is pretty much impossible. Same reason we slide all over the deck with any kind of speed/pitch/roll/manouvering. But hey their flagship product is still early access right? Who needs a basic working carrier deck. Everything is only exacerbated in MP or plain doesnt work. Its fine, we'll be able to pay for the pleasure of this stuff not working soon.

The whole F10 map makes no sense to me, why do we need to see the trees swaying in the wind on the map. I'm sure we loose so much performance from all this. For example you can gain ALOT of fps just by turning the unit names off. How is this possible, its just white text.... Priorities.

Negative it is the same bug, please check the whole thread. It's all related, all airframes slide to some extent on ships. The ships maneuvering just exaggerates the behaviour.

There have been many threads created about this. It was finally acknowledged a couple of months ago, but we have heard nothing on the matter since. The threads relating to this, have been closed and thus buried in back pages. Here is the thread where it was acknowledged. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=234990

Honestly the best thing to do is jump into the mission editor. If you have training objectives you want to achieve and have in your mind then all you need is a cold start aircraft on a runway. There are alot of tutorials around, but tbh for what you need just fiddling yourself will be fine. Click on the aircraft icon on the left side, select your aircraft type on the right, then click on an airfield you want to start from. Then at the bottom of the right panel, once the aircraft is placed on an airfield, you can set the takeoff "Type", to takeoff from ramp. Job done.

Good luck getting most standard game features like that to work in MP. CTLD is definatly the easiest and most reliable way for MP FAC. MOOSE has the same functionality plus alot more, but you need to have a little more scripting know how to get this set up correctly for MP.

Seems strange but try this. Just take the HMD off, or let the screen go into standby by moving the sensor far enough away. Give it a few seconds..10/15 count and try again, i have no idea why but it works for me.

Your best bet is it join the MOOSE Discord, it is much more active and up to date.

I'm surprised more people are not making posts like this...well to be fair i'm not surprised. Those who have been around long enough on here or in the DCS community have learned that we are constantly ignored when it comes to core game issues. There are many i'm aware of, that don't even bother to post in the forums anymore for this reason. The constant push of "new additions" and money making projects, while seemingly ignoring,delaying,not addressing long term problems and core engine limitations, are alienating long time supporters. I have often wondered how bigger naval focused groups manage, with the current limitations/engine problems. The truth as i've come to see it, is simple. You make do... If that's putting extra carriers in, having to steralise weather conditions or slow ship speeds to make naval ops even remotley possible in multiplayer. To even having to use MOOSE or another framework to conduct anything like real world recovery methods. There is an apathy from most it seems towards these problems. To even try and make noise about these issues, you open yourself up to being ignored or being jumped on by users of the forums with things like, "be patient they're doing their best" or "how do you expect them carry going on, without selling more modules". Again generally these concerns come from long time supporters or large groups such as yourself, who have been patient for many years and supported ED and 3rd party developers with our money and time. When we do put our heads above the parapet and even manage to gain a little traction, they are shut down fairly sharpish and just vanish into the abyss of closed threads and forum archives. The following being a good example, which wasn't really created to show the problem, as it was/is a very easy problem to observe (it being one of your questions). But more to force some kind of recognition from ED. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=234990 After alot of pushing we got a closed thread with a [KNOWN] tag... Of course its known, it has been for years. But alas nothing will happen, we know this also. It's going to require more effort from the player base to push these core engine problems, but again the minority that will raise their voice are shut down and most just get on with it, accepting the game limitations/lack of interest from ED and work around them. Again, i feel for you big groups, even trying to do somewhat realistic carrier ops with 5/6 guys can be a nightmare. Additionally i would like to add, it might be worth reposting this in the main DCS 2.5 forum, perhaps with some support/testimony from members of your group, with the frustrations of trying to operate in multiplayer. Its not going to get any attention in the dark corners of the mission editor forum :P

Wooooo Lets all get excited about having devs pulled off DCS work.... Nevermind though eh, because DCS is free (except the hundreds we've spent on aircraft), we'll just keep waiting for a new shiny money making project, while the core engine/game is negelected. Hurraayyy!!!

The list posted in the spoiler is the current airbase list in Moose. The DCS update today adds more airfields to the PG, so these will need to be added into Moose, best to wait a couple of days, it'll get done soon.