theIRIEone

So i decided to fly R1 again, and got stuck in mission 2. I then found a "fixed version" of the mission on the official DCS user files section, which stated that it would be baked into the next update. However this was a few updates ago and i couldn't anything about that in changelogs i searched. So first question: Which version should i use? The one that comes with the module manager in-game or the one from user files section? Currently trying with user files version: Tanker TCN supposed to be 55X, but it isn't (A/A is active on my end), that is true for both versions as this bug triggered me to download the user files version. When you manage to find the tanker for 2nd refuel, which is not seen on S/A page despite that E2 being not too far off, and constantly circling downwards into the clouds, you have to send in Smoke first. He gets his fuel, but upon disconnect he just crashes the tanker bursting into flames.. Obviously this is rather frustrating as this happens towards the end of the mission and without being able to save midflight / prior to this happening you have to go through the whole thing again.. there go another 4-5hrs today without any progress, just doing the same things a couple of times and giving up. I think i probably have to find away to cheat the mission somehow whenever i decide to try again, just to end up with enough fuel to spare out the 2nd AAR, albeit i'd prefer having the full experience here. Well, at least i know what is happening when and where by now, so i might get a headstart on that Fencer, just ignoring the training or something on that line.

EDIT: Please ignore, today's update appeared to have fixed the issue again. Made some observations on more recent YT videos and flying myself: Prior, depending on weight, we used to approach the carrier at around 135kts - give or take a few kts depending on weight. Obviously we fly on-speed and not numbers in the box, yet you keep an eye on those. Nowadays, on-speed is more like 145kts, not sure when that changed. Is this a bug or am i missing some infos here? As far as i remember, Charlie Hornets always landed around 135kts (as explained in Wags' Supercarrier landing How To video as well), what did change and why?

That makes total sense. After all this time of "works as intended" i must've missed that the relating logic was changed. Thanks a lot gentlemen, much appreciated.

Hi, I always was under the impression that CM (chaff/flare) release is only functional with Master Arm switched ON. However, earlier today during a mock dogfight with a squadmate, i was in A/A master mode with SIM boxed/active, Master Arm switch SAFE - and actually released CM. So i guess my question is: Does SIM mode while in A/A master mode let us release CM regardless of Master Arm settings (override?) or did i stumble over a bug? I would assume the latter being the case but thought i'd ask if i'm missing something here before posting in the actual "Bugs" section. For the record : Master Arm switch was set to ON for a brief moment while setting up for the mock dogfight but was set to SAFE immediately again after consulting with flight lead - long before the first merge happened. I have footage reassuring myself i didn't remember wrong, Master Arm was 100% SAFE but CMs been released still.

Ok, so i decided to give OP Pontus another shot after giving up on it quite a while ago because the random (but not so random?) unbearable performance hits, the AI loving to kiss the ground and basically never managing to RTB successful among some other problems (like tgt coordinates sometimes being inaccurate leading to guesswork regarding the actual target building etc). Fresh start, roll the intro.. First flight: During Mission 1 you have to make a decision about wanting to AAR or not - Of course i wanted to AAR.. i am a bit rusty and can use that training myself, also don't want morale to drop! ..as i said, i am a bit rusty and have taken a little longer than usual, but i connected and took a proper sip from the tanker - just to lose awareness of my airspeed and therefor disconnect.. Slowly pushing myself back towards the basket, Lt Trimmer apparently has finished his refueling process but never cared to say a word, neither did the tanker.. Guess what Trimmer did next? Sparks flying, me plummeting towards the sea in a rather uncontrolled manner - not what i expected at all. Right, i guess i lay OP Pontus aside for the next 6 or so months..

I'm not using ATTH that much really, but BALT. I don't think it's important what A/P mode is active prior to / the moment of dirtying up, but just that any A/P mode is active. You can see me cycling gear / flaps in the recording as well, problems didn't disappear this time - meybe i was too fast with the cycling, but i remember being successful the same way during a flight some time earlier (few weeks back).

The *new FLIR renderer* ,responsible for the push back in ATFLIR delivery, may help you out with this a little when it is released... Oh, wait^^ On the real though: Practice, practice, practice... and actively switching modes and brightness / contrast etc can help a lot. If possible fly an orbit over tgt area, depending on the angles etc bulidings and the likes may also block direct LoS to targets - so it's good to get a view of the area from as many sides as possible, with as many filters switched / tuned as necessary.

Experienced the same issue here on Sunday, also a few weeks back as well. Thing is, i can get the plane trimmed after a while despite nose initially shooting for a cobra, but it appears that FCS does not enter PA Mode correctly as the trimmed aircraft does not stay trimmed: - in PA mode, E-bracket and VV are tied to one another rather rigid, but this is not the case when described bug appears. Rather slow power changes will result in slow drift of e-bracket. Note that A/P advisory is displayed despite disengaging all A/Ps by the use of paddle switch. Trackfile is probably too long, but as usual i have an unlisted YT recording of this (problems described from timestamp til landing - ignore bad r/t, was heavily distracted by the bug)

Thanks a lot for your input. I would assume elevation blanks being filled by the MC would mean no drifting coordinates, but also an actual altitude input being present in the O/S data - i know that elevation data is not displayed when leaving elevation blank, but that doesn't mean it couldn't exist somewhere in the background. To be clear this has nothing to do with SLAM-ERs really, they're just here for context. Basically we wanted to write down the O/S coordinates, but that wasn't possible because they kept changing - and i am not sure what caused that drift, thinking it may be us not having entered altitude data - and if that would really cause the GRID to be drifting?

Hi, ran into some issued trying to use O/S coordinates as STP for our SLAM-ERs, not sure if what we experienced is intended behavior. Given was a designated waypoint with multiple targets around for a 2ship - we set up an O/S from that in this order: 1. hit UFC from according HSI/DATA format 2. hit O/S on UFCP 3. entered 30NM range 4. entered 145MAG and 235MAG for BRG respectively as we wanted 45deg offsets from our inbound HDG of 010 to create separation between the missiles 5. We left the altitude blank as the intend was not to use the Offset as such, but to read the calculated O/S coordinates (GRID) from the HSI to use as creation for another waypoint in the sequence - which we then would use as STP for our SLAM-ERs. That's where things went wrong: While writing down the given O/S GRID from the HSI/DATA/WYPT sub-format, the coordinates actually where slowly, but constantly changing aka the offset was drifting and not a fixed point in space (it was still roughly correct according to tacview as the SLAM-ER still took a turn at roughly 30NM and correct-ish BRG from TGT). While i couldn't find any reports of this exact issue described on the forums, i found another user's entry that is marked 'solved' - their screenshots also show their O/S Grid drifting, but nobody in the comments mention this. The marked solution there was "Check O/S Altitude" - which in that case made sense as they where trying to acquire a specific point on the ground with ATFLIR using F10 map shenanigans. - I'll leave their topic linked here for the screenshots, since i don't have own recordings of the O/S drift so far unfortunately. Question boils down to: Should Offset always be a fixed point in space or start drifting when (deliberately) not entering altitude? Considering WPT creation does not necessarily require altitude to be entered for the GRID to be stable, i would assume same logic applies for O/S creation (with the addition of offset logic such as BRG/RNG)?

Don't speak for everybody in the community please, at least not for me! I'm not going into a "my Hornet can't do it so no other plane can" argument because obviously, each airframe differs in equipment and capabilities, some more than others. While i don't know about other, specially REDFOR, aircraft capabilities in that regard, i tend to side with @Csgo GE oh yeah: If you use macros in FC aircraft to simulate likely realistic CM programs, that is all fine and well, but if you use macros to spam 20chaff in 0.1 second because "i say the aircraft is capable of doing so", there's something wrong with it imho.. All that discussion gives me is more reasons to stay away from public MP airquake servers and enjoy the sim for what it is with the community i fly with on a regular. Keep in mind "the community" exists of very different folks enjoying the sim in different ways, loads of them not daily on the forums - don't act like your way is the only one everybody else is in agreement with. Thanks.

can confirm it happening from time to time - this is what it looks like in practice - note that superquick box/unbox toggling

As far as i'm aware, the official DLC campaigns are SP only.. That at least goes for the ones i own: F-5 BFM F/A-18C BFM F/A-18C Raven One F/A-18C Operation Pontus Be aware at least some people having troubles with campaign progression at the moment (Sim does not allow us to "End Mission" resulting into all progress being lost) Examples: However there are inofficial MP campaigns, your best bet would probably be searching the user files section on the official website: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/type-is-campaign/apply/ I don't know about their quality or if they're affected by the progression bug, but since they're free i guess they're worth a shot anyways.

I experience exactly the same with Pontus. Hope a fix is found soon, as of now campaigns appear unplayable.

IIRC these coordinates don't need to be converted, however I would suggest to just use GRID [MGRS] instead - no need to worry about conversion, and even if you have never used it before it's pretty self explanatory and a breeze compared to lat/long: 1. Hit GRID on UFCP - watch GRID DDI page pop up on right DDI 2. make sure you're on correct GZD [38T in example - '38' is displayed above/below the actual grid symbology on DDI] you can move the displayed GZD towards N/E/S/W with corresponding pushbuttons if necessary, it will start out with whatever you overfly upon first pressing GRID in center. 3. enter all following number values [01337 92812] in UFCP at once, hit enter once done - numbers correspond to lat/long positioning within that 100km GRID and each digit increases precision. 4. enter altitude as usual. Either way coordinates given are *precise* so you wanna make sure you set up your jet accordingly - and obviously make sure your general DCS coordinates display is set up accordingly as well. Hope that helps.

To chime in as a GTX1050TI User: The update was not "too much" at all, matter of fact the sim looks better and runs smoother through the bench, on my system and the systems of all my squadmates (who use all kinds of different systems from "great" to "not so well"). Stuff that worked flawless before is still flawless, and very taxing things like low level flying over cities in Syria are still not really great (understandable with my setup) but actually improved a little as well. For completion's sake find my settings in the attached screenshot - assuming you're on 1080p and everything's alright with your system & installation (+mods), you really should be able to crank things up quite a bit higher without compromising your overall simming experience.

Great update, it's some kind of magic no doubt, but i am sure these visual effects while zooming on boat in darkness are unwanted:

Not sure if the fix went through already or not, but if so it didn't help much and this issue still needs tackling. Doesn't really matter if it's an ED issue or not imho, i wonder if these things really can slip through testing, or if the campaign is released regardless as one can always wave the "open beta" flag (not saying anybody does that, just wondering how this can be released in such a state, really). I mean, how can you expect your customers to fly like that? DCS usually runs just fine with the exception of low level flying over Syria, but even then FPS drops are nowhere near as severe as in Ponuts sometimes.. Issue is as OP described, campaign goes from smooth to unplayable in the blink of an eye - but for me it lasted about 5mins before i just quit to desktop yesterday. On another occasion it was gone after a few mins and i was able to continue the flight. I started recording after issue was persistent for a few mins already.

Hi, after flying the intro mission, i received a continuation code along with strike coordinates. Said coordinates however been in the middle between 2 buildings (picture 1, ignore elevation - Screen_210323_151018). Given we don't want to hit civilian infrastructure, i think target coordinates should be spot on - which should be achievable considering you use precise data (i like that). I also was under the impression we should be liberating areas 1 by 1 , starting with AOR 1, then go to 2 etc, is that correct? Wondering because the target coords been close to area 8. I decided to just start the campaign over again - this time i received same progression code, but coords that where laying right on the corner of a building, so i know which building to hit, but it's still kinda inaccurate (picture 2 - Screen_210325_223418). This target wasn't as far in the "backfield" as the first one, but still nowhere near the 1st AOR. Am i correct to focus on AOR 1 at first - and if so, am i supposed to still try to go for Strike targets further down much closer to other AORs? I really like what i'm seeing so far minus the inaccurate coordinates issue and uncertainty of how to progress. Thank you for your help in advance, and hoping for more exact coordinates in the future (i crosschecked lat/long vs GRID, no discrepancy here - same spots).

Thanks a lot for looking into this! I don't think spacebar is particularly tiresome as the magic works out fine in previous missions. I suspect DCS has a hard time detecting the users intend in this one - it's a bit more clear and appears less "dynamic" in previous missions (from a user's perspective), but whatever you have to do to fix / work around this issue. I will just start to fly OP Pontus and return back to the gulf after an update to finish this one off.

Having the same problem as OP - didn't get to Tomcat phase yet because only tried once so far: I think the problem here is related to the double bind of trigger (used for fox3) and voice command - spacebar for each. It appeared to work out fine in previous missions, but with this it first appears to spool through all the "Splash one" lines before allowing me to fire, which needless to say hit me by surprise. Is there any solution to this? Hornet is vanilla, only mod is an altered FLOLS.lua for the supercarrier disabling that annoying pop up when coming into the groove. Overall i REALLY like the campaign, but incidents like this one or others in previous missions (tanker refusing to AAR or different info in brief and kneeboard for example) leading to retries really feel like a let down, specially considering the long time these missions take. I'd also like to see more double ugly loadouts when carrying the TGP, but that's off topic..

I actually was under the impression the SC would come with a virtual trapsheet, oh boy was i wrong.. Having such sheet would be beneficial in so many areas, from squadwork to improving oneself in very specific areas of the approach.. +1 must have, really.

+1, if that's still a thing..

I wonder if this one is related to the thing i described here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=276770 The reason for the ghost target (box) was a different one, yet the result sounds somewhat related...

+1 i would like the team to have another look into this: Feels wrong comparing the Hornet to other planes sporting the same M-61, but being able to get IN RNG much, much earlier... something's off, or is the Hornet just THAT bad compared to other fighters?