Renko

As the tittle says the F16 in Hot Start (ground or air) spawns without the GPS Time On (Data Link DED page). Making the systems based only on INS, which affects things like for example CCIP precision. No need for track, easy to reproducenull. Just spawn hot in ground or air

Ok, i see thanks for the info about the drop down menu Still the bug stands, because the wrong behaviour is there. Easy to test with the mission i said

As the title says the AAR is broken right now because there is a problem with the Race-Track Pattern. If you open an old mission you will see that a Tank has the Race-Track Pattern active for a waypoint, under Perform Task. But if you create a new flight and go to Perform Task and Pattern, there is no option other than Orbit. There is no more a Race-Track option available. So that brokes the behaviour of AI. Easy to reproduce, no need for a track. Just go to for example the Instant Mission "F-16C - Caucasus - Air Refueling.miz", and you will see that as soon as you start the mission the Tanker will go in some wild turns, instead of doing a race-track like it did before. This broke all of DCS Refueling missions that uses that

Thank you for that detailed info about the ramp use, much appreciated! So it touches the ground when its completely shutdown. But the rest of the time, if its that open, its close but dont touch the ground. It would be great to have a behaviour of that position that changes with the suspension height. Devs have great notes thanks to you. But i would be happy if ED just fixes it to avoid the ramp move the whole Chinnok even at GW of 31800lbs like can be seeing in the video https://streamable.com/eqq5ty

I noticed that when you open the Ramp and it hits the ground (3rd press of full secuence of ramp opening) it moves the entire helicopter. I always though it was weird that the ramp hits the ground in DCS and that it moves the entire helo. It was since the launch and i just did a easy search of footage just in case before reporting it. And i noticed that the ramp dont touch the ground. For example this capture of this video shows that it doesnt touch the tarmac. In this other one you can see from diferent angles on the time mark that it doesnt either touch the ground: And here is a video of DCS with 100% Fuel: https://streamable.com/eqq5ty To be notice that this happens no matter the weight, even with 5% of fuel. And with 100% fuel the ramp sometimes hits the tarmac and sometimes it clips through. Which seem totally random, as you can see in the video. I think there is an issue with the Ramp extension in degrees that should be corrected. Even at MTOW it should not hit the ground and move the helicopter. Or the suspension is too low. (Please dont fix this by letting the ramp always clip through the ground) Easy to reproduce, no need for a track.

@Lord Vader I respectfully disagree. I mean i see this behaviour is by design, so agree its not a bug. Thats why i reported as an issue, as it makes no sense from an UI perspective. The only way to open those LOAD/UNLOAD Cargo windows is throught the Rearm&Refuel menu. So from an UI perspective if you close the parent menu it should close it. Unless of course there is a need or benefits from user perspective. Why a user will prefer to have this extra clicks to close those windows after hitting OK or Cancel, when using this UI. Or which cases are prevalent from a user perspective where it beneficial to have those open. On top of that, if you go to external view and open the Rearm&Refuel menu the mouse focus change to that UI. Stops focusing on the external view of course as it will move the view anytime you move the mouse to interact with the UI. But, as soon as you hit OK or Cancel on the Rearm&Refuel menu the focus of the mouse revert to the external view. Meanwhile you need to close one or two extra windows with the mouse with the view moving. (This happens too in F1 if you are using the mouse to move the view) I really think this from a UI perspective should be tied to the parent Rearm&Refuel menu, as it makes no sense from users perspective the current behaviour. These are just additional inessential clicks.

@Lord Vader May I strongly recommend one thing to ED? If you can pass it along to the team. Please please please, make that Force Feedback option in the MISC. tab to be disable by default. I have seen countless times users with various problems that were solved by disabling this option. Just 3 days ago there was a user had problems with the trimming of a helicopter. All fixed after disable that FFB option. It causes many problems and most of the time the user is not aware of it. They would be solved if that option was disabled by default. Maybe it would also be good to add a note warning on it, that if you activate it can cause problems if you do not have FFB hardware.

The issue is that when you open any of the windows with the new Cargo system, either LOAD or UNLOAD, if you close the Rearm&Refuel menu after pressing CANCEL or OK. Those windows stay open. You have to mouse click them to close. I think those should close with the menu No need for track as it is easy to reproduce. For example the Instant ACtion mission on Caucasus called "Cargo Trip". null

There is an issue with both LCTs actuators from the Cyclic Trim panel. If you click on those to extend or retract, when you stop clicking with the mouse it returns to center position. Those switches are spring loaded. But the issue is that if you keybind EXT or RET for those buttons, they maintain the position even if you stop pushing the keybind. No need for a track, its easy to reproduce. Map a keystroke or a joystick to any of those. Push it and let go. The switch will stay on that position and not return back to center. Its a issue because even if you stop the command it will keep moving the LCTs null

Agree with the post ED should correct this behavior You can easily find images from Real Life providers that show an impact trajectory with higher angles. Right now in DCS the missile goes below that trayectory. And even lower trajectories, that makes no sense like going below the horizont line, as showed by the OP. I mean maybe in the terminal phase it has a very low angle, but right now the APKWS is not even doing a pure pursuit of the laser pointer. It takes a path where it loses a lot of kinetic energy to no purpose. In the OPs videos you can cleary see this behaviour. So there is something wrong there for sure. Please ED review this weapons, dont leave it like this For terminal angle of impact there a many easily images and footage avaiable on internet, for example this video among others nullnull

Interesting one. Could be another aproach. Selectable from Options, and Same icon with the "ft=>m" but for each measure. Or a drop down were you check what you want

We had now a great feature in F10 map, with which we can choose between imperial or metric system for measurements. What i ask is another one that have a mix of those. For example one really usefull in US Army helicopters is having imperial units except for distances, that are in Km. Or maybe even better a custom User system for measurements, customisable from Special Tab menu. A third mode selectable from F10, where the user can select previously from special tab which measures wants in that Hybrid system. All the data is there so i think the work should be adding somethings from the UI. It will give more options for users. Like the ones that fly modules like the Apache or Kiowa, or other countries or future modules that may use a Hybrid system.

Never said that you didnt have pitch oscilations, or me. By smooth i mean there are no spikes in the observed movement. Like a shaking motion within the oscilation. Its similar to the diference of this random curves i googled. One has spikes in it, the other one is more smooth. But both represent same "movement" (yes, one is inverted. but you get it)

Dramatically wobble? Nope My experience is more similar to what you see in Kablamoman's video. Smooth. I dont have weird the spikes in take off or the huge back&forth throw Maksim Savelev showed Thats why i suggested IronMike to do a video with the expected behaviour. BTW this that was said by Victory before, its worth to take into account to see the different center between Virtual stick (brown diamond) and Physical stick (Big green diamond). Useful when doing pitch axis tests

Weird, I tried exactly what you described and same thing. No difference for me in my setup. FFB on or off Maybe DCS is forcing somethings for some hardware, and not for others. Strange behavior (As a note my stick is a Virpil CM3 base+T50CM2 grip)

Maybe something weird is going on with DCS itself. Because i tried the same thing with my Virpil, and it behaves the same. FFB on or off. In Misc. Option, and even with the FFB options on the F4 Special Menu Also i dont see spikes seems smooth to me when moving the stick in pitch. But i dont have that meause tool, so its hard to tell 100%

Sure, you guys must be busy. In addition to having a video with Glover's explanation, I thought that having that video as demonstration of the expected behavior of a non-FFB stick could help detect possible errors induced by the configuration of the hardware. If there is any.

Cant wait for that post about the system that SuperGrover will do. I'm sure it will get more understanding of the systems to continue the discusion if necesary, and maybe clear some doubts about it. And Its great to see some SMEs like Victory chime in. @IronMike, could you guys consider make a video explaining the discussed behaviour? To accompany the explanation of the future SuperGrover text. Featuring a SME will be great. Could clear things about expected spring stick behaviour in a more direct way, and complement the text. If time permits and you consider that it will make more good than harm

More than a year later this bug is still there DCS Stable version 2.9.4.53990 null

Just to add to this thread as i found more info, even if its info from the D model and maybe those systems are older it may prove valuable to devs. There is info about CMWS integrated in the ASE of the airframe If you search for the public "TM 1-1520-240-10" of the D model https://www.chinook-helicopter.com/Publications/CH-47D_Technical_Publications/Operators_Manual/TM_1-1520-240-10.pdf You can search for terms like CMWS or MWS in the pdf. There are description of systems under the RWR that indicates there is too a MWS. For example, a Figure 4-1-7. AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System (CMDS) diagram.In page 224. Showing modes for SEMI or AUTO, and button to enable/disable the MWS And there are description in detail of systems like the AN/ALQ-156 https://aviationandaccessories.tpub.com/TB-43-0123/TB-43-01230142.htm With diagrams of the displays of threats and mentions to using flares to decoy missiles Oh, and BTW there is this page that contains lots of info in general about the Chinook https://www.chinook-helicopter.com/

After some search in the wwweb i found proof that the CH-47F model US Army was fitted when deployed in Afghanistan as a new airframe. Nineline told me you are doing the Block 1, and there is some info about the F model that indicates the use of CMWS. This article describes the very first F models Block 1 has them: https://www.twz.com/14540/chinooks-over-afghanistan-the-unsung-workhorse-of-americas-never-ending-war Inside teh article at the very bottom you can find a photo of one of the first F model deployed on Afghanistan in 2009 with the CMWS equipped. In fact the ED 3D model showed has already have those bumps modeled but without the sensors fitted Other photos have the CMWS and even the ATIRCM QRC, in 2013 https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2001125440/ About documents i found those that made reference to systems like that fitted around that era. It could be the same the system the Apache ED has in DCS but i'm not sure 100%. I think is named AN/AAR-57, the same as featured in the Apache. If its the same system they will share the same documentation and even the sounds of the betty. If you go to the public web they even have a Chinook as screenshot, and confirm its deployement on US Army in 2009 https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/ot225-advanced-threat-infrared-countermeasures-atircm-system If you search the web there are public documents, you can search by: "2010atircm.pdf" https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2010/army/2010atircm.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-112922-130 or "2013chinook.pdf" https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2013/army/2013chinook.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-111327-220 And there are some documents AircrewManuals from 2007 & 2013, that describe the use of CMWS as procedures If you want those you can search by "TC 1-240" & "TC 3-04-34". And then if you search by CMWS you'll find a few mentions in both And there is some footage from 2011 that proves too those systems are fitted In the 20.51 mark as the link provides. Here is a snapshoot where you can clearly see it in the fron. After that there is another shot were you see it in the back. null I hope it will be added, as there is sufficient evidence that it is a system that fits the era on which ED's Chinook is based. And it seem that its the same CMWS from the Apache. Since the Chinook will have the RWR as part of the ASE (Aircraft Survivability Equipment) systems, it would make sense to me that it would come too with the CMWS fitted Thanks

Amazing this is still present in the April update (6 months later)

Thank you for the transparent response, much appreciated. I'll buy it through HB store then

If i may ask, why HB choose not to opt in on the ED Miles? Just out of curiosity, i was waiting to be released there to make the purchase

nullIssue still present at version DCS 2.9.0.46801 Open Beta