CAPT_Kirkpatrick

Using a continuous statement that is running "group stop" on a SA-6 site to prevent the site from being moved in multiplayer. The statement fires continuously(using a signal flare as visual indication) but the waypoints given by a tac commander are followed, the group will not halt. This does not quite seem like intended behaviour by the action. could someone clarify the method and possibly a solution for the desired result of making unit controllable but immovable? EDIT: achieved goal using the AI SET TASK option and adding a task for "halt". Intended behaviour still seems off

Both of you have great points here, I'll try to see if there's a way of keeping the sites static as the only intention is to get the radar to turn off to avoid a 100km+ harm. generally we dont need to move the units as the INS degrades over the flight that if the radar goes off in the first third it misses by a good enough degree (bout 50m average at ~20m from further testing). If it goes off in a loft the missile wont come down unless its in PB EDIT: you can script the SAM sites to not move whilst keeping them controllable. First, add a task to each SAM site that sets the task "Hold" which will halt the vehicles movement Then have a continuous action running that does a AI_TASK_SET for each SAM site and runs the hold task for that SAM site the sites are still able to fire but cannot move, save for the very lucky times they will move 1m then halt as the script runs. This should allow you to set the SAM sites to be controllable without worrying about them being moved. I'm not sure of the overhead but so long as the tasks are bundled under one trigger it seems fine.

Yeah that makes a lot more sense thanks. I was working under the assumption either 104/IAF were going to be blue like normal but if not I agree it's probably going to be an unfair expectation to place on Randoms/new players

Not quite sure what you mean here, would you care to explain in a bit more detail?

Do you think you can make the SAM sites on both sides controllable? At least to the extent where the ground commanders will be able to toggle on and off the radars to emulate and IADS system. I feel like this would make it a much more dynamic scenario rather than allowing both sides to lob their ARM's from max range at the radar sites. This will force both sides to actually engage the SAM's with weasel aircraft and thus make it more realistic

not newbies, they've been on a few times, hence the team killing in a previous mission. We tried calling them on SRS, which they're not on. There was no apparent need to send a message as they were flying over a friendly airbase, of which the 25 had just taken off of. I understand new guys struggle, and we do our best in the GCI/tac com slots to give them a hand over SRS or messaging, but either people aren't on srs, or they don't read the chat. A good example of the latter was a 25-t attacking the friendly farp the other day, we messaged him about 5 times it was friendly but they continued shooting the farp and friendly helo's. A side note for context if you're lacking it, we did call out the squadron for shooting down the friendly, they decide to respond childishly about some obscure fact that one of our pilots had "an abused upbringing" rather to owning up to and apologising for the team kill. I understand its a cold war server, and missiles don't track perfectly. Generally a simple apology is perfectly acceptable to most people and I do my best to ensure the new guys learn. But when people blatantly don't care for the other players on their side and refuse to learn/improve, I think all of us would rather they keep away.

I feel like this is a good solution, but unfortunately as legion said it's happened a few times with certain individuals. I wouldn't put it past people intent on keeping the slot locked out from jumping back to spectators and then back in at the 9 min mark. Side notes; On battle over Sukhumi, the red FARP in the valley held at mission start still has issues with the helicopter spawns; KA-50's and MI-8's will routinely spawn inside of each other on the pad leading to the loss of both airframes. We had another team killing incident with the No.15 squadron shooting down a froggy last night, I don't have the tac view but hopefully @LegionCW or @Zachrix will be able to supply what I lack. If I remember correctly, Zach also has the Tac's of the other incidents in which they've done this Quick edit: looks like that 25 died from literally nothing on the tac view, so the 15 guys aren't to blame on this occasion

Not to mention the financial side: Any modules produced in DCS will need permission from the owners of the property, currently Boeing after mergers. The chance of this contract being granted for free is very low, and Boeing will also want to add criteria to the modeling such that it properly reflects their aircraft as they want it shown. With all of this done, your spare time modelers are now needing legal support in obtaining these contracts and agreements, probably also needing to form a single entity for Boeing to deal with rather than separate individuals, and added criteria that will probably only be met if they make this their full time job. All this requires money to get done, and thus will require this new entity to probably charge for their module. TLDR: Simply impossible with the current producers mindsets, and even if that changes; probably not financially viable. Not to mention Boeing could just deny permission As to ED deciding they want it to be official, same as above. contracts need signed, money needs passed ect

If we want to use the wiki for details on aircraft: "AV-8B Harrier II Plus Similar to the Night Attack variant, with the addition of an APG-65 radar and separate targeting pod. It is used by the USMC, Spanish Navy, and Italian Navy. Forty-six were built." Similar to the Night attack variant. Not the same. So the Spanish weapon systems are part of the AV-8B+, not the AV-8B-2 N/A we have. The British operate GR-x model harriers which are, as the wiki says, "derived from the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II." so again, different to the AV-8B-2 N/A we have.

I dont think the seeker is worse per say as it is just a maverick seeker, just that its datalink is far worse than the AKG and thus that ruins your picture on the way in.

You shouldn't be riding with the missile to target. Fire from 50 miles at angles 30 with the flt parameter set to high, oribt around your launch point or slightly behind it. wait for the seeker to power on and then guide it terminally onto the target. Again, the datalink is supposed to allow you to launch and then fly away from the target, not launch and piggyback the missile. If fired in the high flt parameter from an 18 going at mach ~80 at angels 30, the missile itself will travel at mach 90+, possibly 1+ on its way into the target. It will only be slow if you fire it low down due to the increased drag

Quick rundown for the SLAM: for best employment, ensure you have an idea of the target beforehand, either from a picture in the brief or using the tpod for targeting. Align the SLAM (currently bugged(?) to one at a time) and employ at range. orbit around the launch point or any ranged position at the rear but roughly inline with the SLAM terminal path use DL guidance for terminal, otherwise the weapon can deviate somewhere around 50m from a 40 mile launch. The INS of the SLAM will lose accuracy faster than an aircraft's INS system, so longer flight times will have a greater deviation from the designated point. Remember the SLAM is used for long range standoff. If you are within <30 miles of the target, a SLAM is not needed and employment of a JDAM is much preferable due to greater accuracy If you need longer to acquire a target, set the distance to 15-20 miles to give ample time to acquire the target. as the weapon dives, levels out and then dives again, you may need to work out when the missile will be in the first dive, as acquiring a low target during the terminal level flight is difficult and leaves little room for error. As the seeker is fixed to the missile body, it is not possible to look around without altering the flight of the SLAM.

30 miles shouldn't be an issue. The only times the slam will have some heavy noise to the degree you're talking is: 1. the missile is behind you, but you haven't set the DLink pod antenna to aft mode 2. the missile is diving, and thus the rear transmitter is angled up and thus away from you 3(?) you are to the side of the missile, and thus the rear transmitter cone does not reach your AC (Not sure if this is 100% accurate with the SLAM but its common to most similar DL weapons [AKG or Walleye]) 4. you are out of range of the SLAM, which is not the case

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=261384

I'll try this out next time I'm back, Thanks for the help!

They have been added as a modifier, and were working perfectly up until a few weeks back. They no longer work due to the fact the basic input is not even detected by DCS for some reason. I tried reinstalling the drivers but to no avail.

So, as most of you are aware, the x55/56 throttle has a 3 way mode switch we can use as an modifier selector. My current issue is that DCS has stopped receiving inputs from this selector, the rest of the throttle bindings work fine and it is only the selector that is failing I have verified that the throttle is producing an input, it is only DCS that is not detecting that input. Any ideas on how to fix this?

This is not up to Deka; It would be the choice/work of the third party devs for both of those modules, Razbam and Magnitude 3 respectively.

The JSOW B was never integrated with the F/A-18C Thus there is no stores page info to add it to the F18 We will probably not see it on the hornet at any point

Hi guys, Just got the Rift S, I was wondering if there was any way to rebind the touch controllers? Its rather frustrating not being able to "Right click" using the controllers. I've had a look around but have found nothing that really helps me Anything is Appreciated; Thanks in Advance!

Auto-Bombing has never been pinpoint accurate. The system works by generating a drop point from the target and aircraft altitude, the aircraft attitude and possibly wind data from the aircraft(probably not the last on the 18 ) this means that, once the bomb leaves the rail, it is perfectly on target. Now, with any deviation in wind, slight miscalculation in drag or airspeed, the bomb will now miss the target. dropping from 10,000ft gives a good long fall time, thus a good long while for any slight deviation to have a greater effect on the final impact zone. Thus i feel like it is still inaccurate, as it was never supposed to be 100% accurate under the conditions you state.

Tanker flying 90 degrees off of your nose is in the notch whether at 5 miles or 50, he is in the notch and filtered out with ground returns This description seems to be accurate to the performance of the radar system.

Problem 1; You are using LTWS, only an STT or TWS(Not implemented) lock gives info on the hud Problem 2; off and out of HUD shows where the lock is in relation to the nose, turn toward the box to go head on with the target problem 3; LWTS again, you are trying to lock an old target, who has changed alt significantly or is notching and thus the radar cannot get a track on the previously recorded location as the bandit is no longer there

As far as i am aware, the raw install is so large due to the fact certain files are duplicated and then removed I go with deleting the maps(either PG or both) and am able to install the update and maps fine after

9line commented on the official discord about some bug getting caught late last night. He said they had to do a full rebuild(compile) of the files to get it set for an update but has no solid idea on how long it will take to fix/build