Xoho

Hmm, the track may have corrupted as well then. I was able to maintain roll control, and when controls were released it behaved as though it were undamaged when it comes to roll, despite missing significant portions of the right wing and right horizontal stabilizer, but only a small portion of the left wing and left horizontal stabilizer. In that same test the pitch behavior was a total loss of pitch control as expected, but the roll behavior was acting up. Most of the time this occurs it's one or two glitchy behaviors occurring seemingly at random, but there are times when all of them glitch out and the aircraft handles perfectly fine, despite visually sustaining massive amounts of damage and not having the required control surfaces.

This is turning out to be one of those things that I can only seem to fully recreate when I'm not trying to, but here is a track demonstrating how despite a significant difference in lifting area after having most of one wing but only a portion of the other destroyed. Flight characteristics remain unchanged in the sense that while losing pitch control, the roll characteristics remained perfectly normal and no uncommanded roll was present. Had pitch control and trim been available, hands off level flight would have been entirely possible. C-101CC Damage Model_BIN-200 Damage Effect #002.trk

Latest open beta, though it also occurred in the past. This happens most of the time when I take blast damage but survive. I'll try and make an even simpler track, though if that track didn't work then I'm not sure one can be made accurate enough. As can be seen in the screenshots I got from being on fire and missing control surfaces to landing with gear extended, with no change in flight characteristics from normal even with all the damage that was sustained. From a few days ago, when I took a hit from an AIM-9P-5 and retained full pitch control with my yaw and roll axis essentially locked in place. (Aircraft did not roll or yaw at all, and maintained the bank angle perfectly, while I had full pitch control) The engine was still functional so I was able to sustain flight without issue, aside from not being able to do anything except fly in circles. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4108078&postcount=26

Earlier in Rudel's damage model thread I mentioned an example where I lost all control surfaces and maintained perfect control in the pitch axis as though nothing had been lost (except ailerons/rudder). While testing the damaging effects of the BIN-200 fire bombs, I ran into it again, this time with a track, and perfect control in all axes. I had full pitch, roll, and yaw control despite having none of the required control surfaces remaining. Flight remained normal despite missing significant portions of the wings as well. If the engine had not died in this instance, normal flight would have been entirely possible. See attached track and screenshots: C-101CC Damage Model_BIN-200 Damage Effect #001.trk

I had a similar experience to the OP. Took a single hit from a BTR-80, noticed my oil pressure warning come on, followed by the same warnings and consequences later on. Very cool. One thing I noticed was that despite my oil pressure dropping to 10PSI, my oil temperature remained at 60-70 degrees Celsius until the engine failed and temperatures dropped. Is that intended? Also, the day before I was flying on a multiplayer server (F99 S2) and took a hit from an AIM-9P-5. I lost both horizontal stabilizers, the ends of both wings, and most of my vertical stabilizer. I had no control surfaces, yet I had full pitch control and saw no change in flight characteristics in terms of lift. I had no yaw or roll control, but the aircraft essentially froze in those aspects so by maintaining throttle and pitch I was able to maintain airspeed and altitude perfectly fine. I've had this happen several times in the past and was wondering if it was being tracked/worked on. I checked your stickied thread on currently tracked bugs, but it seems as though the list has been removed. Thanks!

Ghost 2-1 | Xoho in an Su-25 out of Gudauta please. Thanks!

1.) Ability to save coalition presets (currently you can only save a default one, or select between ww2 and modern.) 2.) Ability to rotate groups of units altogether, rather than individual units. 3.) Ability to select and move multiple groups of units/static objects either by specifically clicking each, and/or a "box" we can drag over to select units/objects in an area. 4.) Ability to place static objects inside hangars. 5.) Ability to place static objects other than just aircraft on ships such as aircraft carriers. 6.) Ability to save groups of units and/or static objects as a single template. (Currently you need to save a map that's empty except for that, save as a static template, load that in a new mission, and then build the mission, which completely negates the entire purpose of doing this in the first place in many cases) 7.) Hidden units should be faded, not completely hidden in the ME. 8.) Documentation explaining how the various functions of the ME interact, and what they're supposed to do. (E.g. What's the difference between setting a trigger via advanced waypoint actions, the unit trigger tab, or the main trigger menu? When might you use each, can they work together, etc.) 9.) Ability to place any aircraft anywhere on the ground similarly to helicopters, without restriction. 10.) Documentation for unit specific ME functions such as the A-10's waypoint type tab. (What's the difference between enroute, descent, and terminal waypoints, what does it change, and what do the other settings do?) 11.) Updated warehouse system that can be adjusted by air/ground units "carrying" adjustable amounts of supplies, among other things. 12.) Ability to add markers on map that can be set to be viewable by unit, group, task, coalition, or all. Also a way to add/remove them via triggers in game. 13.) Rework of available tasks for units, and actions available to them. For example, the Kiowa AI currently has no ground attack or CAS option, only "escort", and as such cannot be easily tasked to engage hostile units. 14.) Ability to change unit coalition/side via trigger. 15.) A third "independent" faction, that can be set to friendly, neutral, or hostile with one or both red or blue. Potentially with expanded ROE settings. 16.) Ability to set "engagement zones" or "activation zones" for SAMs, as well as aircraft, in that an aircraft entering/that has entered but is leaving will be engaged. 17.) Ability to set "FARP Zones" that only require the supply units similar to current FARPs to function. Ideally movable, (attachable to a unit, or group)

Ghost 2-1 | Xoho for an Su-25 out of Bandar Abbas Intl HQ Airport.

From the BF-109K-4 "Jagdflieger" Campaign: (Right click > Open Image In New Tab to view full size. I'm not very good with formatting on these forums)

Ghost 2-1 | Xoho for Fw-190D-9 out of Saint Pierre du Mont HQ Airport. [TBD if able to attend, schedule's in flux]

@AeriaGloria, I wouldn't think so, as it essentially means that it will never hit a target unless it's flying directly at (not just over), or away from the launcher. Considering how successful they were in certain conflicts, that would be pretty hard to imagine being the case.

The SA-2 currently appears to only aim for pure pursuit and does not pull nearly enough lead to hit even a B-52H at 36,000ft flying with no ECM, chaff, or maneuvering. SA-2 Guidance Issues #001.trk

Polychop's Mistral faces several inconsistencies with other missiles in DCS. 1.) Let's compare to the AIM-9X. The Mistral's seeker slew rate is 99.9 in comparison to the AIM-9X's 1.10(Om_viz), essentially meaning that no target could ever cross the missile's line of sight quickly enough to break the seeker's "lock". In fairness, ED's mistral shares the same "99.9" value for this, however not for the other parameters that are related. 2.) While it checks the boxes for stated maximum speed and effective range (1827-1854 ktas and 6km max firing distance on a cold target at 450 ktas from 2.4km altitude), it does so with a self destruction limitation while still holding over 1350 ktas, which seems unlikely, but plausible. 3.) It appears to have 10% of the drag that the AIM-9X has, which, while it does seem to allow it to reach the desired parameters, does so in a way that is potentially incorrect. ED's AIM-9X Cx Values: 0.04, 0.08, 0.02, 0.05, 1.2, 1.0 Polychop's Mistral Cx Values: 0.004, 0.008, 0.004, 0.012, 0.004, 1.2, ED's Mistral Cx Values: 1, 0.45, 1.1, 0.65, 1.2, 1.86 According to MBDA's website, the Mistral has a stated top speed of 930 m/s (1807 knots), which matches quite closely with that of polychop's mistral in game. It does not state the maximum effective range, though other unofficial sources claim an effective range of 5-6km, which matches with what can be seen in game depending on how you interpret that. (Maximum effective range to impact/firing, at a hot/cold target, at what target airspeed, etc.) ED's mistral in comparison seems to only achieve ~1300 knots, which is well below the stated limit. 4.) The burn time from various videos appears to be ~3.2 seconds, as opposed to that of Polychop's Mistral's 5-6 second burn time. Going into guesses here, as I'm still trying to figure out how to recompile the .txt file in order to test some changes, I believe that a shorter burn time with higher thrust and possibly increased drag would significantly improve the characteristics of the missile and bring it more in line with the others we see in DCS, as well as becoming more accurate to IRL. EDIT: All issues were resolved, and behavior improved. Good work Polychop!

MAC is not a part of DCSW and will be a separate product. I cant recall hearing/seeing anything about an overhaul of fc3 cockpits, and as such I would not expect them to be coming any time soon. Knobs/switches not displaying properly is a massive problem when that is your only indication of what's selected. It has been repeatedly reported and afaik has not been acknowledged. I can't say either way as to the radar performance, but the switches do NOT display properly in the flankers and migs. It's fine to be simplified, but simplified != broken. This is broken.

Currently left click sets the marks, and right click confirms it. Having right click as cancel would be great as long as we also have a UI option or another key command to set the path. The ability for a server owner to limit the number and distance between waypoints or even certain types of waypoints would also be an incredible benefit to CA, as currently it's incredibly easy to kill a server by issuing long or offroad waypoints, leading server owners to almost universally disable CA, further reducing the module's value.

I'm only three missions in but a fair number of AI textures are missing in all of them. The player's texture is fine, but a large number of the AI such as white 15 are missing textures.

Thanks for the quick response! Interesting that you get far better performance in VR than I was on a single monitor. Perhaps it's time for a system restart! As for #4, I didn't realize that. I must've taken a long time to get airborne in that case. I assumed it was triggered on takeoff since my wheels were just barely off the runway when they continued.

Thought I'd share some of the screenshots I've captured so far. This campaign lends itself beautifully to them. These are just the ones from the in game screenshot feature, as the reshade versions don't play nice with ED's file system.

1.) The campaign does not appear in the store page when going to "Products > Campaigns", only " Eshop > Campaigns" 2.) Many aircraft textures appear to be missing, primarily for the BF-109s using the "white" numbering schemes. (White 1, White 3, etc.) 3.) The prompts do not continue after all hostile P-51s near Carpiquet are shot down in mission #1. The "Major" remains silent and lands. 4.) The AI in mission #2 does not way for you to rejoin before vectoring to the enemy, and begins a hard and fast climb that exceeds any player flown aircraft's ability to maintain without destroying the engine. (You're forced to roughly 1/2 or 2/3 of the AI's climb rate, and fall greatly behind as a result) 5.) The sheer number of AI in mission #2, while impressive, is extremely demanding. Perhaps changing the default mode to be the "performance" mode, with an option for a greater number of AI in the comm menu instead. With an i5 8600k, 16gb ddr4 (DCS only uses ~6gb at most anyways), GTX 1070, and the game on an ssd, I was maintaining about 0.2 to 3 fps at best once engaged with the bombers. In mission #1 and early mission #2 fps was roughly 90-100, so it was a significant drop. Other than those it's been enjoyable so far. I'm only two missions in, but I'll continue adding onto this thread as things pop up. Thanks for the campaign! It was sorely needed for the German warbirds. (Are you planning one for the Fw-190D-9 in the future? :D)

I believe I reported this before on the discord when using the HARM vs S-300 radars, as the HARM would home to the mid-point of the antenna tower rather than the radar and explode midair, leaving a rather buggy effect and doing very little damage. (It required 3+ hits to disable a radar tower)

The last screenshot doesn't look that bad, but that's because I was having difficulties timing the screenshot. It clips almost entirely when closing.

Most of the guarded switches can be activated without opening their guard, though they will not function properly. The ones that do appear to require the guard to open first have an issue with the animations not being timed correctly, and the switch noticeably clips through the guard when closing. ALL GUARDED SWITCHES APPEAR TO BE AFFECTED.

When TWS or STT locking a target at range, the box is offset so that the target is at the bottom edge of the top 1/3rd of the box. See attached screenshot. (may need to zoom in)

On page 287 of the english manual, step 6 of the takeoff checklist says "Thottle" instead of "throttle".

1. Ability to rotate entire groups rather than individual units. 2. The ability to select the first unit of a group by clicking on it rather than automatically selecting the last unit of the group until the first unit is clicked again. 3. The ability to select, rotate, and move multiple groups at once. (Currently we can only select) 4. "Several trigger actions only functioning for the host machine in multiplayer, most notably - SCENERY REMOVE OBJECTS does not propagate to the client machines." - IlludiumQ36, though I also have this issue. 5. The ability to place static objects on carriers or other ships. They appear correctly in the editor, however they teleport to land once in game. Only static aircraft can be placed and work properly. 6. Ships should have separate restriction options for surface to air and anti-ship missiles, as well as the ability to control the ROE. 7. Hidden units should have a faded icon rather than being completely hidden, requiring you to search through a unit list to find/modify them. 8. All aircraft should have a "spawn on ground" or "spawn on ground (hot)" function available by default. 9. FARP zones/mobile FARP zones to replace the current FARP pads, allowing road bases, helicopter outposts, and more without requiring a full helipad or FARP pad. 10. More capable supply system, allowing real time modification such as the ability to set a trigger for an aircraft to land and add a predetermined amount/type of supplies to an airfield/warehouse/FARP.