Kazius

ok, so today I was testing out the new Mk-82Y's and after dropping them I headed to practice landing as I haven't flown the F-18 for a bit due to radar bugs. On route I turned the afterburners off so I wouldn't accidentally go into burner and then just put my throttle to max. I increased speed all the way up to mach 1.04 at only 5000 feet altitude. As far as I know the F-18C wasn't capable of super cruise. So again, there seems to be something wrong with the flight model. Sorry, I forgot to save the track this time.

oh ok, thought VT was similar to HoF like on the A-10C for the CBU-97's and 87's. I know on the CBU-97's the higher you release the bigger the spread. As I usually think of it as a cone. On another note, I was wrong about them adding more ground attack bombs since they added the Mk-82Y. Can now do very low altitude releases at slower speeds without fraging yourself. Wonder if these will eventually get an efuze for doing airbursts :)

I don't think they want to introduce stuff people would end up complaining about because it doesn't work as intended. If you watch some of there youtube promotions and read the comments there, people complain about them releasing buggy content. So its just ends up as bad advertising. As for the CBU's, before the patch on the Sept.26th, yes you could set VT but I did some testing. If you place a dozen or two infantry and for instance, drop a CBU-99 in the middle of the pack with VT 300, say it kills 6. Then you drop VT1200, it still only kills about 6 when it should end up being a wider effect. So although VT setting has been there for many months. I don't think it actually does anything. I think all they fixed was accuracy and from what I read in patch notes they gave it more damage power but I don't think any of the fixes make it spread out properly.

I'm going to say it will probably be awhile before they get more A2G stuff done. One of the news letters (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3625468&postcount=159) stated this: "Regarding the Hornet, it's important to note that we are now focusing on some of the more difficult and time-intensive tasks like making several fundamental changes to the air-to-air radar simulation (will have benefits with other modules), the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), and other systems we've touched on recently. As such, the number of new items for the Hornet will be less than before, but the same amount of attention and manpower is being devoted." So my best guess is they are trying to finish off the A2A systems and it could take some time, but I could be wrong.

Sweet, a thread I can show off my squadrons true colors.

Thanks Feefifofum, that worked good. And thanks for reading Ciribob, look forward to you updating your main script as I plan to use this in my missions as MOOSE doesn't have script yet and I'm to lazy to write anything big as I'd likely run out of time with my university classes starting again soon. :) So thanks to you and all the others who make it quicker to create good missions.

Hi, with the sale of helicopters I have started using this script a lot. First off thanks for doing great work on this script. Is there a way to increase the hover height for CSAR? I understand rope length max is nearly 100 ft, however I found that CSAR missions are sometimes in forest locations where the trees are almost 200 feet high. Or is there any other options for setting up the script to rescue pilots in these areas?

Just an example of what would happen if you turn it off. I will use a game with loading screens since I can't explain using DCS as example. So lets say you have 16 GB of RAM. Your playing a very new MMORPG that has instanced dungeons. In the resource meter the working set for memory is 12GB. Other resources are using roughly 2GB so total RAM used is roughly 14GB. But lets say you go into a loading screen to enter the instanced dungeon. The game suddenly needs to load a ton more things into memory, more than you have available. So either A) your game will move some data out of memory and put it in a page file / virtual memory location on your SSD/HDD. But if you turned page files off the game just crashes. Big thing is, the game works just fine when your not in a loading screen, so you don't need more RAM. However, having more RAM would increase loading screen times. But at least having the page file enabled prevents crashes. Second good reason to have it is enabled is if a game crashes you know it probably isn't because it ran out of memory. If you have it disabled and a game crashes you might report the game crashing issue and its not because the game has a bug but because virtual memory is disabled. So it is very nice to have tons of memory and never really need to use virtual memory. Not everyone can afford to go to 32 GB of RAM and should know that page files can still be your friends. However, if say your playing on the Persian Gulf map and experiencing stutters due to running out of memory, your only option is to either a) buy more memory or b) play on an older map that uses less memory. Page Files are slow and you will experience stutters. Having an SSD makes these stutters seem minor. An old spinner is going to very noticeable.

Ignore my previous posting, I made an error. The QFE provided by the briefing is correct I was looking at QNH and not QFE for local Aerodrome. I change persian gulf Inferno practice map to dynamic weather and the QFE ended up being 30.52 which once the altimeter is set gave me 60 feet on the deck of the carrier which is correct. I'm guessing wind is not a bug either and is correct for some point on the map. But you would likely need to listen to your ATC for your local Aerodrome for the wind in that current location on the map since the wind changes directions within each weather system.

I will +1 and add something. I noticed the briefing will always report a value of 29.92 for QNH every time you enter a mission that uses dynamic weather. Made a video to show it is incorrect. Anyone using the dynamic weather in missions should probably do an F10 check of the airport and find its altitude and set there QNH to the proper value by making sure there barometric altitude is giving the same altitude as the airport they are taking off from. Unless of course there flying planes like the Viggen that needs QFE settings for each target point or for landing. https://youtu.be/r1N-nuV0Etg Also surprised to read the wind issue has been reported 4 years ago and still not fixed.

Ok, was trying to see if other maps had this issue and noticed I could punch in the west coordinate and I could. I went back to normandy inferno and couldn't. Made a quick mission on normandy with just an F-18 and could punch in the west coordinate. So this is not an F-18 module coordinate but something buggy with the inferno mission, probably some kind of corruption. So basically just ignore this post.

Was playing a player made Normandy Through the Inferno map with other people and since there was 5 people and only 1 carrier I did an air start. I eventually needed to rearm and so I was going to head to an airfield but noticed the coordinates are North-West based and the F-18 in its current build doesn't only allows N, E, S. When you press W/4 key on the UFC nothing happens.

Is there a specific heading your using? I use HSEL on most missions with long flights, I will try to duplicate.

Mavericks might actually target fences, power lines, etc at times. Sometimes you need to make sure none of those are in the line of fire. Might just need to change your direction of attack to make sure those are not going to interfere with what your trying to lock the maverick on.

Since the Mission Editor already has an option to for a zone trigger to remove trees, objects or both, I was wondering if an additional option could be added to remove trees by a user set percentage. For example, in a 25000 foot radius, trees are removed by 50 or 75%. This might allow tanks to use that forested area to move through but still a chance for CAS to see them. This would help with some of the dynamic mission generators people are making with randomly placed FEBA's.

I was just thinking of something I posted earlier regarding tanks in the forest that are impossible to find. One other option would be to place a zone the size of the FEBA to remove all trees. Since ED has this option in the ME, maybe if they could also add an option to just thin out the trees by a user set percentage. I'll go suggest in the wishlist cause it might be overall useful :)

I just experience this issue myself. A friend experienced this issue yesterday. I was using an older Through the Inferno mission that I added F-18's to and was on my second plane spawn. I acquired lock through auto acquisition and after splashing the F-5 and undesignating my target I experienced the issue. The radar started to work a bit after but I couldn't get it out of ACM. I fixed by turning off air to air mode and then turning it back on. Not sure what caused it or if it has something to do with my target having been auto acquired or undesignating on a target that is in bits and pieces. Radar Glitch.rar

Good to know it isn't just me finding it really hard to follow. I'm somewhat new to helicopter flying in DCS, was actually looking for tips on following erratic wings, but I see this is considered something that needs fixing. I had to reduce collective and pull up hard so often that eventually I stalled and crashed. But was good practice and I did manage to get 30 minutes into the flight. Look forward to a future fix for the campaign.

Finally started doing this campaign again. Found the issue was because I toyed with the files just the slightest. So no fix needed.

First off, I love this generator, I hope some comments can help improve it. List of ideas to improve the generator: - Air start aircraft speed should be a speed in TAS, for example: If you set a F-15 to start at say 15000 feet with a speed of 297 TAS his actual IAS start speed is like 150 or so. - I noticed AI CAS units don't actually do anything, I ran into this issue in my own mission creations. My work around is to set most planes who are CAS, CAP, etc to search and engage in zones. I usually remove the CAS, CAP, SEAD settings. SEAD especially as your SEAD aircraft will just pick a target even not in the zone you want and go after that. = Escort craft need a condition set to roughly the same duration of the plane it is escortings flight plan time. For example, if the flight path of the L=39 the mirages are escorting will take 30 minutes, then the stop condition for the Mirages escort should be about 30 minutes. I noticed the escorts spawn in but immediately turn to RTB. - AWACs shouldn't spawn over enemy territory. I saw in your code you set for random within the AWACs range, but probably should be somewhere near or in between the base of operations and the target area, preferably closer to the base. When your flying escort for say a C-130 I noticed the attack aircraft often ignore the C-130. I haven't done an intercept role in mission editor before but there might be a setting to tell it to attack target. Might also need to remove roll of interceptor if there is one to force it to do what it is meant to do. - I noticed CAS sometimes spawn almost on top of the FEBA while CAP is sometimes still 60 miles enroute. I didn't see where you coded this part so not sure if you know of an easy way to make this better matched. With CAS not attacking ground targets at the moment it doesn't really matter. But if you fix CAS to search and engage in zone then CAP will need to have a chance to stop the CAS units. - Not sure how you decide where the FEBA line is, but I noticed on the Caucasus map that tanks travelling through forests are nearly impossible to do CAS support against. If there is a way to pick spots that are more open on that map it would be nice. To bad trees don't break and sway when a tanks moving through a forest to see its location visually. At least then I could pick a spot to drop a CBU-97 :) Anyways, keep up the awesome work on the generator, look forward to see it evolve.

I had a foggy mission and almost had a crash with the AI. Control Tower said to take off from runway 16. The AI wingman went for runway 34. I just happened to be recording the crazy fog take off when this happen. Here is video of the Tower stating to head for runway 16 and the AI going to the wrong runway. https://youtu.be/StpvPHojTi0

You didn't read his post fully. He states, "There is a workaround in setting a mark point before manually entering a waypoint, and if you assign a single waypoint in a mission there is no problem." But yes, he was reporting the bug.

He states the mark point creation requirement in his post. I'm pretty sure the point is that you should not have to create a mark point to be able to create valid waypoints, thus it is either a bug or a feature request. Personally I think of it as something that still needs to be implemented.

I also recommend watching this video to help understand radar and why you sometimes can't even find targets on it. The video will also teach you how to try and not get hit by a missile too :) Jabbers(who made the video below) also made other good videos you might enjoy learning from. And below is an explanation on how to utilize the F-15C radar. It isn't by Jabbers but he did a very good explanation on using the F-15C radar.

After a lot of testing I noticed CCIP accuracy is still off. You need to pickle slightly after the target to get a good hit. Rockeyes still don't do anything if you change the function height. The Area of Effect stays the same regardless. The auto mode is not related to the CBU's or rockeyes but to the F-18 itself so I will bug post there. Still haven't made a proper video as I wanted to make sure I understood what was happening before I post something that makes sense. As for Rockeye damaging SAMs and AA, they do but like I said you have to make sure the bomb is pickled late. So far if I pickle late I destroy the target every time. And Zu-23 emplacements are really hard to see to get a good drop on them haha. So overall, for the Rockeye and CBU-99 they really just have to fix the function height so it spreads out properly. Rest of the fixes are plane related.