BomberEW

HB, In the group I fly with, we noticed that the AR door on the F-4 remains open visually for other players in the server regardless of the switch setting. This kind of ruins screenshots. Several folks told me my AR slipway door was open while transiting. I looked down to verify the position of the switch, and it showed closed with the READY light extinguished. It appears closed on my screen when I go to the external view thus matching the switch position. Below is a screenshot from my friend. Note the open door. Is there any way to solve this issue?

Any updates on this topic as far as bugs that are easier to fix?

I have this issue too. I stopped using LOFT because of this.

Yes! I would love to have static aircraft with stores or various stages of MX. It makes the airfield or carrier seem more alive.

I just want to say I support the work you guys are doing as a B-52 crewdawg and lover of all things B-52 history. I would love a B-52H in SIOP paint as it looked back in the 1980s with markings of any of the B-52H wings at the time. I'm looking forward to seeing the final product.

We did another test to fully answer your questions. "Can you elaborate on what you two have set in your Special Options regarding Multicrew Flight Control behavior and whether you pressed the "take control" bind? What was your and your friend's ping roughly? Below 100ms?" Special Options: Disable multi-crew controls input by default when joining as WSO- unchecked Ping: 48 for me (WSO), and 41 for my friend (Pilot). Ping remained unchanged during numerous control handovers. Trim: Trim in pitch and roll remained inop in the backseat. Rudder: No response in the yaw axis and brake issue mentioned in original post persists in new session. All front seat inputs normal and visible from the backseat. Roll: Still extremely sensitive in the roll axis from the WSO seat. SAS system made no difference (cycled it for fun). A curve of 6 dampened the roll sensitivity to make it feel more like the roll authority from the front seat, but this was a marginal improvement when a curve is not needed for the front seat. Pitch: No noticeable difference between seats (great!) Throttle: All throttle movements and responses were correct with no issues in either seat. Take Control Bind: "J" on keyboard. Hope this helps. Thank you for your assistance!

I wasn't saying this as if it was intended behavior. I just did not know if something was brought up about this before, or maybe I was missing something. There are those times where bugs are reported and it turns out that the user made a mistake. "Can you elaborate on what you two have set in your Special Options regarding Multicrew Flight Control behavior and whether you pressed the "take control" bind? What was your and your friends ping roughly? Below 100ms?" I will look at the special options today after work. For transferring control, I pressed the "J" key to take control and handoff control. That worked with no issues. Ping was unknown. I'm positive it was low as we had zero issues with lag. I will get more data and get back to you on that as well. This is the second person I've tried to fly from the backseat with and the change in handling has been consistent. Last night was the first time I tried to do a brake check from the backseat on the ground, and that's when I noticed the issues with braking and the lack of rudder control.

HB, Good evening. Not sure if this issue has been reported before, but flying the phantom from the backseat during multicrew is buggy. I'm trying to teach some friends the F-4 while acting as an IP from the backseat, but once control is taken from the front, a few things stand out. See the list below. 1. The aircraft is extremely sensitive in the roll axis and tends to want to fly right wing down. The aircraft overall feels very unstable in the roll axis and constant inputs to achieve wings level will result in the aircraft rolling back and forth. 2. Pitch and roll trim have no effect despite registering correctly in the controls menu. As mentioned above, the aircraft has a tendency to want to fly right wing down, and inputting left roll trim to counteract this does nothing, or if it is working, it is prolonged and not noticeable. 3. Rudder pedals show no movement in the yaw axis despite being mapped correctly. This translates to no movement of the rudder aside from what is mechanically linked to the other flight controls, such as moving the stick left or right will move the rudder. When flying from the backseat, you cannot control yaw. 4. Wheel brakes do not work from the backseat despite being mapped correctly. Upon pressing the toe brakes, the brakes are released. I inverted the axis and the brakes ceased all functioning. I reverted to the default axis, and pressing the toe brakes removed brake pressure and the aircraft continued to taxi. Are there any plans to adjust the flight mechanics when flying from the backseat? As of now it feels like a completely different airplane. Oddly similar in feeling to the F-5 in the roll axis. This makes it difficult to demonstrate AR or smooth power and flight control inputs in the pattern. Thanks.

I support this request. I want more jets and maps from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. A scale-back feature to the 80s avionics and liveries would really make this module pop.

I hope ED at least recreates the Cold War airfields for this map. I can deal with modern Germany for ease of development, but in order to really capture the 1980s era, we have to have at least the airfields recreated. Airfields like Bitburg, Spangdahlem, Hahn, Ramstein, Sembach, and Zweibrucken. For example, Ramsteim back then, was a major fighter base with F-4s. Focusing on recreating those airfields to resemble how they appeared back then will make this map special.

I love the pilot model and the kneeboard in the right place for easy viewing. This should be standard across all modules. However, there is one change that I'm sure others have requested. Is there a way to make the arms slightly transparent when trying to manipulate switches? Trying to see and manipulate switches on the left and right panels is very difficult and I had to turn the pilot body off for a bit. I think an easy solution is an animation lifting the left or right arm when moving the mouse in that area, or making the arms go transparent when the view/mouse is looking or moving in that direction. ED did nail it with the kneeboard placement and functionality on the new model.

The need for cold war assets is here and will be here even more so when the Vietnam map comes out. ED prides itself on accuracy which means we can't have F-4s on AR track over Laos tanking from KC-135Rs. We need the 135As and other classic jets to support the fight. We have to have B-52D/Gs bombing Hanoi, not B-52Hs lol.

I love this jet. I agree with some of the post on having other assets of the time period for historical accuracy. With a Vietnam map coming, that will be even more important. I think DCS can expand to include aircraft like this with the dynamic campaign. If you can simulate taking photos or SAR maps in a way that this aircraft performed them and make that contribute to the battlespace development and target generation then I think it would be great especially as MP/multi-crew grows. It would be awesome to fly a sortie in a RA-5C taking photos and radar imagery, and then that being turned into targets for the next campaign event. Then doing a follow-up sortie to assess the damage. Even better if a friend or AI version could do it for you too. I think tactical reconnaissance should be explored. I would love a RA-5C or RF-4 one day.

I'm fine with a menu option for specific offloads, but I would like to add a 0 offload AR training option meaning that you can still get a hook-up without transferring any gas. This allows for training and teaching without the tanker disconnecting after only a few thousand pounds because you took off with full fuel. In real life military pilots practice AR without taking any gas on a regular basis.

We really need two versions of the F-111. F-111A for the future vietnam map, and the F-111F for the gulf war style missions. That would give you the realism of matching a specific model with a period in time depending on the map, and PGM usage in the form of LGBs with the F.

I brought this up months ago. I'm a B-52 guy and you should not need NVGs to AR at night. In DCS its almost impossible with low illumination. Most people do not understand what I'm talking about when i say the tanker lighting is lacking. There are several lights that illuminate the belly of the tanker that are missing. Hopefully we will see action on this along with other tankers added.

I have a few ideas that others or myself have probably mentioned before, but i'll go ahead push them anyways. More training options - ACMI Pod: ACMI pod talks to tacview. So if a player is flying with the ACMI pod, captive versions of their missiles, and the master arm switch in simulate, then simulated shots can be taken (nothing actually leaves the airplane to include visually) with full symbology, and a range controller (range ATC) will call the simulated kills. Tacview for debrief will look identical to the actual weapons launches and the kills there will match up or be close to what range control called. A communications menu will allow players to call "fights on" with range control or "terminate calls" to start or stop an engagement. This allows for training without being shot down and using air-spawns. That way a actual training sortie can be conducted with multiple objectives to include landing. This can be scaled up for red flag style events. For guns, players can verbally call "guns, guns, guns" for kills and with the mode in simulate see their gun kills in tacview. - Aerial Refueling: Contact practice option. This allows players to get a contact and remain in contact even with full fuel just to practice with no actual fuel transfer. This is normal in actual Air Force training sorties. - Range Scoring for A/G Weapons Delivery: Scoring option for air-to-ground deliveries would be useful. The editor already has a tower you can place. Might as well make it useful if you create your own bombing range. It would be cool if you could check in at a range via the comm menu and do your releases. The scoring official would let you know how you did. This would be especially useful for unguided inert deliveries. Maybe just a meters with short, right, left, or long. New Ground Crew Features - Crew chief assisting in control surface checks: Crew chiefs will assist a pilot in control surface checks on the ground prior to taxi especially if the pilot does not have the ability to actually see control surface movement outside of indications in the cockpit. So it is common for a pilot to go through these checks with his ground crew. For example if a pilot is checking the ailerons or elevons as he moves the stick, he would hear from the crew chief "right side up, left side down", when doing the speed breaks "extended" or "retracted". I think this would add a new bit of life to ground ops.

AR is also too quiet in DCS. In real life, in some airplanes, you can hear the disturbance of the air flow as the boom passes over the plane to plug the receptacle. In some airplanes you can hear the du thump as it connects and locks into place. That is non-existent in DCS.

Sirrah that is actually not entirely true. The tankers have external lights on the belly and engine pylons that illuminate the underbelly. So its more than just the position lights. DCS did not model any of the external lights outside of the navigation and position lights. So the tankers appear way darker than they actually are at night. You almost require NVGs for night AR and that isn't true or recommended for real life AR at night.

I think the best bet would be a more expensive dual model package. The A for vietnam as it was the only version to serve in Vietnam and the F with the more powerful engines and ability to employ PGMs like the laser guided bombs. That gives you realism for a Vietnam map, and the most modern version for First Gulf War style missions. I'd pay $80 or more for a dual model package if it was done on the same level as the F-14A/B.

AWACS has always been designed to operate from stand off distances due to its vulnerabilities. Yes some fighters have done it temporarily but it was more of a mission commander role versus a battle management role for a large strike package. That is why the US is replacing the E-3 with the E-7. The requirement is still there and can never be done well by even something like the F-22. I think one thing DCS is missing is that GCI style assistance thats far more common since its much cheaper than operating a fleet of AWACS aircraft. That would free up fighters to do fighter things and not trying to do a mission they weren't designed for. And yes the AI needs tweaking. You are right about its very basic functions. I just think the solution is better AI, increased functionality for players interested in doing that sort of thing, and GCI direction for legacy style flying or more realistic simulation for a given country. Imagine how awesome it would be to takeoff, tune a GCI frequency, and get constant and realistic vectors for an intercept. That GCI would also be a lucrative target for guys like me that play with a large group in a milsim style server.

I think this would be more of a useful tool for red flag style scenarios where it isn't realistic for aircraft to end up as smoldering craters. Maybe something like the AI calling the kill over the radio in a simulated fashion to provide training opportunities. Of similar note, it would be great to have a dry contact option for tankers to enable training with a full or near full fuel load just to practice AAR.

This doesn't make much since. When it comes to radars and power antenna size is everything. Large antennas require large amounts of power. The difference in size, mechanics, and power gives the radar of the E-3 coverage over hundreds of miles vs maybe 100 NM or slightly more in a modern fighter. Older fighters of gen 3 flavor like the MiG-25 would be awful AWACS given the level of tech in an old pulsed radar. I think a better move would be added functionality for players with the current AWACS or newer AWACS systems like the wedgetail.

Yes! This would make training flights more realistic and you can accomplish objectives like overheads and patterns afterwards. This would be a fantastic addition. I also think DCS should add practice AR. An ability to connect without actually taking on fuel so you could practice.

I just posted about this in bugs forums because I am pretty good at AR unless there is zero illumination. Refueling with NVGs is not recommended due to the depth perception issue, but it’s a must in DCS because you can’t see anything without them. I’m real life I’ve been behind the tanker at night from the IP seat of a B-52 numerous times. The tanker is lit up and it’s easy to refuel without the NVGs. In fact I’ve never seen it done in my plane with NVGs because of the issues mentioned above. We often request the tankers to turn up or dim the lights based on preference. Most often it’s turn up. I think this is an issue that needs a fix soon because I like realism and many wars are fought at night and you have to get the gas no matter what time it is. I’ll also add it would be nice to have the aerodynamic sounds of the boom interfering with the airflow close the jet and the tanker plugging in. It’s too quiet in DCS. You can actually hear the boom passing over and then the doo doom as it plugs you.