Opalias

Having the same problem, checking manual but so far coming up empty, this seems like a change from the last build.

I've been running some solo missions and I have to say the AAA gunners seem to be extremely alert and accurate. I'm not sure what if anything has changed but I've had great difficulty engaging ground units if I have to be in their range to employ munitions. I'm not saying that I'm particularly skilled, but being able to get a burst on an aircraft making a low altitude pass at supersonic speeds on the first pass with only a 23mm emplacement doesn't seem quiet right. The 50cal gunners on vehicles are also feel extremely accurate when I try to engage them with helicopters. Maybe this is realistic enough, but it would be nice to have a little more spread between the best and worst gunners. Is there a roadmap for how the ground AI will develop over time, or is it more or less complete in its current state?

A good flair will have true plans right on the edge of flight. If your nose is coming down with the mains you’re either too nose high or flairing too high. The F-5 does need a lot of stick or trim for take off depending on weight. Watch your airspeed.

It got reported elsewhere and apparently is already fixed. Go Deka Ironworks!

Thanks for being so responsive with bug squashing. Your team is really on top of things.

I would really like to see a MiG 28 skin for the FJ-17. Obviously the F-5 was the actual air frame in the film, but the JF-17 does all the things the MiG-28 was suppose to be able to do (like the ASCMs) Not sure about the Negative 4G Pushover though........

I know we haven't gotten official paint kit support yet but there were a handful people made anyway. They all were fine until the 18Dec19 patch. I can still see them in the drop down menus, but they won't render in game. It just defaults to the PLAAF skin.

The NATOPS makes mention of the minimum descent rate landings (AKA with a flair), it allows for landing at a higher gross weight, but the plane is designed for carrier landings, and if you follow the max trap weight and descent rate limitations the air frame will be fine. Fly a normal approach, round out before touchdown and pull your velocity vector level with the horizon. FCS is probably going to fight you a little bit, trying to maintain on speed but if you're trying to grease it on, that should get it done.

If the carrier receives damage can we expect to see damage control teams responding to the casualty?

Will there be an AI setting or function that will allow a pilot to make the a CSG change course and speed to set conditions for flight operations based on current weather conditions?

200 channels is a lot, and that menu could get messy if it’s not laid out well, but having the ability to configure the radios in the ME is a must I agree. It would be great if he defaults aligned with the other radios in DCS. Having to retune the tomcats presets was always a pain since most ED aircraft have matching presets assuming the frequency bands are the same.

Are the ground units effected by the new AI tweaks for gunnery solutions? They seem more accurate, especially for guys on the ground with basic machine guns, (cobras, M-113, BTR-80 etc) Though maybe they are just more accurate than I want them to be. While the hits I take during the attack run in I expect, thought they generally don't get me then, but the ones after I've executed my turn away and are opening away seem too accurate to me.

I’m looking over the documentation trying to find something, but anecdotally I’ve seen a connection between loss of steering and idle engine RPM. My suspicion is that if you are getting the generator warning that sufficient electrical power isn’t making it to the utility hydraulic systems. When I’ve managed to avoid spending a lot of time at idle I seemed to have fewer instances of stuck nosewheels.

If the door is shut or the engine is on you need to talk over the radio, which requires that you have it turned on and that the selector switch is set to ground.

Is this also election the FPAS page? Some of the speeds, especially the best climb speeds seem to me off too. At least from the values I remember.

+1

Also worth remembering that in actuality unless the missile is spotted visually, the RWR should not alert the aircraft to the missile launch until terminal homing in many cases with ARH missiles, with the tomcat the launch is only cued from the RWR ~30seconds prior to projected impact. Recently the AI have been hitting the water a lot for me, that has been a little frustrating.

I've had good luck with opening the adjust control menu and clicking ok so far.

Upon initial mission load none of my controls work, if I open the adjust controls menu and click ok, all bindings are restored. Continuing to investigate the nuances of the problem. I have my right and left mouse click bound to my HOTAS which I know is somewhat unusual.

This would be a great feature. Seems like the F-14 is starting to leverage a lot of ground crew re-configurations, maybe the engine is better at supporting this now?

For a while now there has been a problem where aircraft on MP servers that land at an airfield after landing on a carrier will bounce. This appears to be lined to the code that keeps the aircraft stable on the carrier, they appear to continue to move up and down as if the deck of the ship extended all the way to land, and the small 3-4 degree rolls now bounce the aircraft thousands of feet above and below the ground. This has been on the bug fix radar for a while now, but a new problem has arisen since the wing tip vorticies were added. Previously this was only problematic for aircraft watching from the ground being confused by the bouncing or the RIOs who would desync and have to quickly get the VR headset off to prevent puking, but most recently I watched a whole flight line get tossed into the air when I touched down. They were tumbling like leaves. My theory is that now the turbulence from the bouncing aircraft is creating such powerful wind that it is flipping over the hornets on the ground.

It is not missiles. Its possible it's countermeasures + a confused radar. I also thought it might be ECM, but I've seen it on non ECM equipped aircraft.

Lately I have started to see a lot more random looking tack files on the HSD, often targets blink in and out on the scope, which is somewhat expected, but I've noticed a lot of very fast targets that will splinter off of the actual target. It seems like there has been a drop in the TWS's ability to maintain the track file. I've noticed that I am losing track of contacts at 40-60nm, high-co-altitude, and high closing range rate. Are there tactics to help keep my AIM-54 from going stupid at these ranges due to briefly losing the track file? I wouldn't have expected the radar to struggle so much at 20-30k feet. I would try looking more up, but the elevation is still a little bugged for jester. Any help would be appreciated.

Received a hot trigger under unexpected conditions. Took off with AIM-9 and AIM-7 engaged landed shut down, rearmed started up and took off. Upon fencing in received an immediate hot trigger for AIM-54. Cycled weapons and master arm to attempt to clear. INS was realigned on ground to fine prior to taxi. ACM cover verified down. Master on, no targets held by AWG-9 (DL only) Missiles had been prepped. Shifted from daytime to nighttime lighting between landing and take off. Was able to launch missiles though it was unclear if they were attempting to track. My guess is no, though they did climb out and attempt to maintain altitude until they stalled and fell more of less straight down. I'm not sure if I missed something but this seemed like a bug.

This also appears to effect manual frequency selection.