Ironwulf

AI units like the Stennis, Perry, and Ticonderoga do not even attempt to defend against incoming Chinese anti-ship missiles. Sure, they're sea-skimmers but equally sure the phalanx would at least make an attempt. Same units have no problems -or at least engage- with Silkworm, or Russian anti-ship missiles. Having trouble uploading a track but will do so within the next 24 hours.

@rudel_chw - heatblur did the F-14B You are showing the F-14A, which has always been in the mission editor as an AI aircraft. Heatblur have said they will do a F-14A eventually, and specifically an Iranian one, but it is not yet out.

I note there's an SU-25 in your pics but cannot find the download... do you have a link?

Sure, I take those into account. They would have also been required for the Chinese SAM system

Just thought I'd bump this up. Surely it can't be that hard :)

How is it we get a new Chinese SAM, and the SA-5 which was announced ages ago, is still not out.... not to mention the SCUD. Even if you made SCUD statics, that would be a helpful start!

Another one would be the ability to control surface to air and surface to surface engagement ROE... something like engage air threats only (which would include AS missiles), engage surface threats only. Would make it easier to set up a surprise attack on a patrolling vessel, but still have it engage anti ship missiles. When moving, there's no missile in moving zone, so cannot use that to trigger an ROE change.

You can also set UNIT - EMISSION OFF/ON which just turns emitters off.

In an aircraft with out a RWR, why would you ever want to know whats out there? ugh +1 for me

An escort or at least a follow function. An example would be whats happening in real life now, frigates escorting tankers through the Straits of Hormuz.

Or just take the carriers out of the mission, as its really only aircraft from them that seem to cause the real problems.

You are right, at least an acknowledgment by ED that they have seen the reports on this rather serious issue, would be good

Bump

Well done to all the ED guys that got LITENING happening. Not sure if it was because of this suggestion or it was already in the works, but its great to finally get some autonomy in precision munition delivery! :)

Just ran through multiple times on an MP server and had no issues with LGBs in Auto mode.

Had issues with the moving map going a bit weird when loading up the TGP after startup from cold start with no weapons. Scren was half black, half white. Could be removed by turning the map off, but if you turned it back on it came back. Same with SA page MAP. Once the aircraft started moving, it was fine again.

I had no issues with AUTO releases albeit I didn't know to use Sensor switch depress to get a target cue on the hud, I just made the HUD SOI and did it the old fashioned way, putting it in the general area, then lasing. Should be noted that with the bang bang guidance of the bomb, if it picks up the laser early it could bleed energy early which is why the automatic systems usually start lasing about 8? seconds from calculated time of impact. Of course I concede that doesn't explain bombs that don't track at all... just bombs that seem to track but fall short. I imagine the problem may be worse from lower altitudes, than higher.

Just a point to note, RAAF F/A-18A Hornets (which are now pretty much upgraded to C standard) have ILS instead of ICLS. I believe RCAF ones may also do so. They're buying Australian Hornets anyway, so either way, if they don't, they're getting it soon.

https://skyvector.com/?ll=25.71034197865112,52.911254897414324&chart=301&zoom=7

I have had it if left with an inlet ice warning on, an engine RPM issue and warnings appear. back off the power, descend, turn on anti-icing, seems to fix it. Maybe I am imagining it, but the only time I've had these engine RPM issues (usually only in one) is when I have got the warning and haven't turned on the anti-icing. It is correct to say it only warns if potential icing may be happening. But, apparently, sometimes it actually does?

I think recent events are making this update more and more relevant... come on ED! :)

I think the picture speaks for itself ;)

You can adjust the tacan station settings in the beacons.lua file for the map. Jask’s frequency is correct but the channel should be 110X - easily fixed I’ll check out the Qatari one, I was wondering where the 2nd station was! I must admit it was less of an issue as I don’t get over that side of the map.

Is the multi player server browser just run through www.digitalcombatsimulator.com ? or elsewhere? on which ports?

I did some more investigating... If a player sling loads a crate as described, and it doesn't disappear, but leaves the server, and comes back, it is gone from their view, and it is also gone from the 'all cargos' list, but all other players still on the server can still see the crate, and it is still present on the all cargos list, for them. Strangely the issue doesn't seem to happen when played in single player mode. It also does not happen on a multiplayer server if I play from the server itself.... which may be the same thing, I don't know. Interestingly when playing on the server, it works normally from my perspective even when other players put out crates and then unpack them, causing the crates to be destroyed... but they can still see the moved crates. If I (on the server) move crates via sling however, whilst all of the crates disappear for me (even if other players initiate the unpack and thus the destroy() command) the crate I moved does not disappear for them. I hope this helps with reproducing and hopefully finding the issue and fixing it.