mcfleck

I had one B52 JSOW Strike the other day in the TF74 Hornet campaign (Open Beta) and it was a pure joy to watch. A wall of MiGs headed towards us to intercept the bombers, but they were a little late and the B52 dropped all their JSOWs. There were 3 or 4 Bombers and each of them dropped a a massive load of ordnance on a poor SA-2 site. The MiGs suddenly turned around, chased and engaged the AGMs. Some AGMs were shot down, but there were just too much of them in order to kill them all. It was a sad day for the guys serving in the SA-2 site. Largest strike I have seen in many years of DCS flying!

Yes I thought about this, but I think it will still be useful with th SC. I saw the preview videos and I have to say that there are so many features in the Airboss script, that the SC will only get way later (or never) that it might be worth getting the Airboss script to work. I suppose it the script may be adapted to work also with the SC and then it is only about switching one line in the Airboss script

I can add the TF 74 Hornet campaign to the list of working open beta campaigns. At least for me. Had to use the clean deck option though due to multiple fails in order to get a free parking spot on the carrier. I am experimenting a little bit how hard it is to bring Moose and the airboss script to life within the TF74 campaign as I totally fell in love with that script. There are still some points to resolve though.

This is the hostility I am talking about. If I would be concerned, I would not have bought it. But I have read these kind of statements a lot in the past few months and I just do not understand the point. But maybe I am just making this things up and there are no such statements... Who knows

This kind of hostility against potential customers is the exact opposite of a good reason to buy the SC. No need to punish all those that did not buy it. You can reach the goal of selling the SC or any other modules on two different ways. 1: Negativity and punishment for non owners Sure it might force someone to buy the module but I think that the majority might be rather upset and might not support this practice. This is just the elitist mindset, that makes the lives of newcomers to the community so hard. Being shot or yelled at? I mean you are flying back from a mission and come to close to a SC and get shot down or yelled at? Wtf honestly? 2: positivity and product quality Just make a product, that everybody wants to have. Listen to the community and enhance the fun for everyone owning your core product. Bring in unique features and do not punish the ones that can not or just do not want to afford a new module. (Bohemia is quite successful with this strategy) I bought the SC and would really prefer the second option. As the discussions in the last months have shown there are some people in the community preferring the first option. I can not understand why to be honest. Why does anyone want to punish the ones that did not buy it and by that split the community even more? Totally beyond me

I have tried to compile the code from the master branch and had to make little corrections in order to build the binaries (like adding using System.Windows.Forms in the file MizExporter.cs) Did not take too long and I am by far not a professional software developer (but I have already developed some smaller private C++/C# projects in the past and have a little bit of experience with VS). After that the mission generator starts and generates different missions. I will have to verify that the missions indeed do work as intended in DCS. Will try that too, when I'll find some time. I am fully aware that the generator is not feature complete and in a very early development stage, but I liked the first version very much and just wanted to see, how far the current progress is.

Great summary and exactly the right questions to be clarified!

Sure it might seem so. On the other hand I would like to know how many of the Modules are bought with a discount during a sale event (which takes place every 2-3 months). I would prefer stopping sales at all if there is a need to generate more revenue. This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think many guys out there who really want a module are just waiting for sales and won't buy full price modules anyway. If they knew that the price will always be the same, they probably also would buy it but at a higher price. Just my thoughts...

If the terminology is not important at all, then why is it so important to change it from"early access" to something else? Like Bonzo I always was very positive about the EA program, but I am quite concerned about the latest decisions. I really hope that this will be reconsidered by the team.

Are there no plans to complete the Link16/Mids functionality? I do not want to be able to create data link groups dynamically like in the A10c (via freq/ group id/own ID).

A friend of mine has the same issues and also only when he fires Vikhr missiles with his kamov. There are no problems at all with any other plane or even other games/flight Sims. Seems very weird, that only the kamov causes such an error in the system/PSU. We had tried everything on the software side to figure out what was happening and have not found any solution for this problem. I forwarded him this thread and recommended him trying a new PSU. Let us hope that his problem will also be fixed by the new PSU.

Isn't it a bit too fast marking this report as "no bug" 1. The OP stated right in the beginning, that the hornets flew head on. 2. The RWR information in the HUD shows that the other Hornet is spiking the OP (would not be possible in rear aspect) 3. The Vc is around 1300 knots... Clearly a head on engagement. I would rather guess it was a very fast judgements without even looking at the screenhot/description.

I cannot interrogate or communicate with Crystal palace anymore. Here are the steps I tried up until now: - Complete reinstall of Vaicom pro - Using the profile that came with the latest patch (including the radio tune commands) - manual check of every file in the DCS folder, where Vaicom appends some code - Completely cleaning the export.lua in the saved games folder, so that there is only one line vor Voicom left -Set a default Text-to-Speech voice (Microsoft Zira) in Voice Attack under the profile options Communicating with the AI (Ground Crew, AWACS, ATC) works fine. The attached screenshot shows , that the interrogate command was understood correctly, but there seems to be no unit tunid in to 284.000 MHz (used the Hornet for the test) Slect Frequency and Channel works fine, if the command is given without a pause between "select" and the rest of the command. Tested in SP Mode Deep Interrogate in Vaicom Pro enabled DCS current Open Beta Release (nonsteam) Windows 10 (eng language setting) Vaicom Version Pro 2.5.15.2 Voice Attack Version 1.8.3 It worked before the latest 2 patches. Does anyone have an idea how to fix the issues? Thanks in advance

I had the same Idea a while back and tried several Things in order to make it work. As I am not a fan of the Target software and rather want to solve such problems by editing the corresponding Lua files for the Stick/throttle, target was not an option for me. I have already successfully modified my KA50 and F18 Lua in order to make the toggle switches work correctly for things like master arm, gear lever and so on. As one of the guys above stated this works quite nice if the function you want to manipulate can only be triggered by the switch you mapped for this function. On the other hand this does not work well at all if the same function can be triggered somehow else. It is quite hard to describe... Again the example that was already described above is exactly right: Go into AG mode by your boat switch. Now by pressing Weapon select, your master mode switches to the AA mode, while your Boat switch is still in AG Mode. Every time you are out of sync between your switch and the mastermode in your plane, the workload to restore the sync is just not worth the benefits in my opinion. So this is a problem that can not easily be changed by programming (except for messing around with the Target SW). The only way to make it work work like you (and me) want is by physically connecting your boat switch to the plane state, so that if you go into your AA mode, your boat switch will automatically snap into the forward position. Maybe possible but again not worth the effort.

Oh shoot! Yes, sorry it is the mission where the scripts are dynamically loaded. I will try to reproduce it in a script less mission.

Well even if this may happen more frequently after the TWS implementation, I had seen this bug way earlier. Btw: A track is attached by now, so the thread title can be changed (the part in [...]).

I can confirm this bug, as I am experiencing it too from time to time. Today I wanted to quickly try the new TWS function. After the initial engagement (and after I shot both enemy planes) I switched back to RWS and there it was again. I tried all azimuth settings. In 140° i.e. the radar scanned completely to the left, but stopped at about 58° to the right. I thougth, great I can submit a track file and maybe help getting this bug fixed. But replaying the track file I saw, that the recorded file sometimes came nowhere near to what really happened. So keep that in mind. After killing the second jet, I tried several different modes and a few moments later I switched back from TWS to RWS. Have a look and see for yourself. Version: Latest Open Beta (21. December, 2019) P.S.: Dont judge the engagement itself, as it was flown without any VR/Headtracker and was only meant to quickly test the TWS feature. I know it was horrible.:music_whistling: The mission I am using here is an adapted TTI Mission, which I turned into a pure AA Training map. All Credits and thanks for it are going to Deadlyfishes for his brilliant work. Centering Bug.trk

Hey Guys, this really sounds phenomenal. I cannot wait to try this out. May I ask if you ever thought about implementing a mission saving script, as running a dedicated server may be not that easy. Especially if we want to fly this mission over several weeks and an update kicks in... Anyway thanks a lot for the Supreme content. Gesendet von meinem ELE-L29 mit Tapatalk

Happened to me a lot recently. Primarily on self hosted MP servers. I can see the DL target on the radar display, but my radar is not able to find the target even if the cursor is over the target and is set to the correct scan altitude (checked alt via SA page and even via F10 map) . One thing I have noticed that in this cases the PRF was not available at all despite being in AA Mode. A Workaround that worked for me: - Switch weapons - Leave the AA Mode - Go to AG Mode - switch back to AA Mode And it started working again, so I was able to lock targets with my radar again. Also noticeable is that SURF on the left side of the radar display was visible in AA Mode when it stopped working. Same happened to some guys in my squadron. After applying the above mentioned workaround, the radar started working again. It is not easy to reproduce, as this happens sporadically in situations where you are already quite some time in the mission. I will try and find the corresponding track file. Gesendet von meinem ELE-L29 mit Tapatalk

Hi guys, Does anyone know whether the campaign engine updates have already been released by now? I appreciate the great work and cannot wait until anyone comes out with a black shark dynamic campaign... Gesendet von meinem ELE-L29 mit Tapatalk

Hey guys, I have read, that a User has managed to convert the gazelle campaign into a Kamov version. I would really love to give it a try. Does anyone know how to accomplish this conversion or is anyone willing to share his conversion here? Many thanks.

The perfect solution for me would be that if I own the carrier module, every carrier I see is replaced by the DLC one. It can stay the old stennis for everyone who did not buy it. That way there would be no need to change existing mission and I vould always land on the nicely crowded carrier. I dont believe this will really happen, but one shall be allowed to dream

Back in the 1.X days there was a Cockpit/HUD Mod where the temperature was displayed. Generally speaking you will have to be careful with your laser ranging/guiding shots. There is a chapter in the manual wich states the mandatory cool down phases between each shot and a longer cool down after about 10 uses (as far as I remember). As I am currently at my mobile phone I cannot cite the corresponding chapter directly. Just search the BS2 flight manual for laser.

At the moment I am more than ever willing to pay or donate to Alerax for his fantastic LSO script, wich is not that much worse than what I have seen so far regarding the new comms by ED. It works, is not less immersive and the best about it: It does not split the community. So a very clever modder achieved a comparable goal without the possibility of diving deep into the DCS code. And it is not possible for the guys at ED to create similar results with full access to the source code? I can imagine it is more about a strategic decision and not primarily a technical one. We will see if it pays out at the end...

I am kind of surprised. I thought Nineline and Wags mentioned in Interviews and statements that the comm overhaul would come for free. As long as there is no official statement I still hope that the corresponding reddit post (about hiding the new comm system behind another paywall) ist just nonsense. If it would be true, what comes next? A DLC for each airfield, that will get the updated ATC? Players have to have all the Airfield DLCs that the server uses in order to play online? Come on ED this is rediculous. Could some ED official please clarify the planned procedure?