Hawkeye_UK

Probably until one of us learns russian and the devs read it i would say....or so it would seem

The key to the matter here is getting the AI to have some artificial Intelligence It would be beneficial if the AI would only enter afterburner (the reason i feel that they always run out of fuel) for emergency use only. As in fighting a missile that is actively on them, or during aerial engagements within visual. Also as a tip fly a circuit or two after take off to allow all flight members to get airborne otherwise again they just enter full afterburner to catch up.

Exactly this.

Video is set to private so cannot be reviewed @StevanJ

Just to wrap up yes the water is most definately been tweaked - and it looks so much better! Thanks Ugra, work you can be proud of its an amazing map and Cyprus being released makes the map fantastic for scenario's and mission building. I particularly appreciate the more detailed digital terrain mesh in Northern Cyprus with the rock outcrops, i wish these where present on in DCS world more often, it makes the whole scenery far more immersive also. Best map without question.

Couldn't agree more the only reason for dropping would be, 1) Pre planned - Operating on the very limit of endurance and required to fulfil primary tasking of strike (although this would be devolved through the ATO and given to another platform so in itself would be some emergency action) 2) Unplanned ground operations with Troops in contact and in a position of being overun and requiring emergency additional loiter time until additional CAS platforms can brought to the AO, either for direct strike, show of force, awaiting Medevac etc. 3) Inflight emergency, either through damage sustained to aircraft from hostile action or birdstrike causing instability or equally things such as unexpected fuel burn performance through various technical issues or unanticipated and adverse winds aloft (again unlikley with modern metar forecasts). However given a primary concern of running out fuel and not being able to RTB or divert your likely to have a tanker divert anyway. 4)Engaged and bounced by hostile aircraft (again unlikely given who the Harriers are operated by, there is CAP present) There seems to be some mystical myth amongst the community that dropping tanks suddenly give you a massive range increase, its not true on the Harrier. Reality is on this type of loadout id only expect a 20NM mission radius difference on a Lo-Lo-Lo sortie with jettisoning the tanks taking it just north of 290NM mission radius at max range mach 0.4 flight profile, hence why its not viable to drop them. This holds true pretty much through the mach spectrum. Equally on a CAS typical profile of say 200 NM radius from homeplate an extra 10 mins on station (either side of 100 mins). However away from the OP's original point on a typical CAS profile flight with hi transit operating on max range you'd squeeze out an additional circa 50 NM on mission radius. Anyway i see all the time F16's taking off with 10 CBU97's or 6 and 6 Mav D's on public servers so dropping the tanks on a Harrier its the least of our issues lol.

Edit - sorry in summary i should have stated the range would be bang on for Lo-Lo-Lo if the aircraft had followed the criteria i mentioned above.

Ok so for your range quoted you would meet this range if you had 1000lB additional in ordanance (6x snakeyes for example) but the caveat to that is you'd have to be crusing at sea level of around mach .4 in the real bird. At mach .5 you would expect your range to drop to circa 275 yet i note you had less weight and you landed with a good reserve. The lo lo lo profile generally allows for a 150 second from brakes off max continuous thrust (+15 at short lift wet rating), tank dropped when empty, a 5 minute max mil thrust on ingress and egress from target and leaving a reserve of 5% initial plus 10 minutes at sea level loiter on return. Perhaps refly in this manner and i would suggest that your range will be below parameters. I have made some comments on the razbam discord as there are issues currently with the Harrier. I was i think the first one to voice issues when it was apparent the fuel flow had been tanked to which they then released the patch with the engine improvements however the jet is still off on many aspects of its performance data. I couldnt believe it had been passed by the SME so i did ask if it had been tested by their SME given its a "final" model (re patch notes) as on my tests around a month ago it could not reach real world parameters with basic endurance. The response i got back was reassuringly that he / she hadn't (which is pretty obvious). I left it with them that i wasnt going to comment on any further aspects of Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi, Hi-Hi-Hi, Lo-Lo-Lo or CAS standard operations until they had actually had their SME fly the module. Otherwise its pointless. Personally speaking i do not think flight models should be released into Open Beta prior to SME validation as it just makes a mockery of the entire product. I do wonder sometimes if Razbam think they they will not get picked up on shortcomings and its acceptable to just put out what a coder thinks is right (which is often wrong). The model also has issues with its EM state, fuel flow in general and certain flight characteristics (a real easy one to spot is in level flight roll full stick to port, around the longitudinal horizontal axis noting its roll rate keeping level flight, then foll to starboard - notice the difference in rates, also some very interesting g readings lol). Repeat with SAS off also and some very interesting results. Anyway as i indicated lets allow Razbam to test with their SME as its definatly has to be a work in progress at the moment, as this cannot be final as they indicated in their patch notes. Well not unless they are serious about modelling the actual aircraft. I also look forward to some of the sub systems being correctly modelled also.

useless

Thread is 3 and a half years old - ive just checked not once has this topic had a reponse from ED - not good enough! Also, in the sales blurb, Accurate Bf 109 K-4 model, squadron markings, and weapons. Detailed modelling the Bf 109 K-4 instruments, weapons, engine, radios, fuel, and electrical systems. So where are the gunpods? Why is not even a moderator replying to WW2 threads, do we need to post in the Russian forums where things get read and responded to by the devs?

yep it makes no sense to me either why the list populating has such an FPS hit - i can cycle from 45fps to 5 fps and everything inbetweeen. Then again the 3D hanger makes no sense at all either in the background - especially when you just want to check F10 or are playing in tac command - its a huge overhead and ive yet to be able to prove if its the F10 map or the hanger itself causes lock outs in FPS (that are only recovered by opening another full screen application on the PC such as task manager and then alt tab back in). That said what i am learning recently anything to do with VR, that is posted on the Engligh forums falls on a large deaf ear. Your actually wasting your time posting. Do not expect anything from ED on this one, its been said many times in the past and many times its ignored. Then again VR is very much a poor relative and its not a priority for ED in anyway, which is a shame as they risk getting left behind. Release of the open Beta 2.7 for me was the final proof required that VR is just not a priority for them in any way (vibrating clouds on such a long awaited improvement, clearly this would have been evident early in the dev cycle - and before that rotating clouds. They say its a top priority to resolve but it should never have been an issue to resolve in the first place if VR had any significance).

Last seen going into an S&M dungeon to polish his new thrustmaster stick and something went wrong ?

For a topic your "not following" hank your reaction times of under 10 mins are pretty good lol. As I've stated not sure why you keep posting in a thread you have no interest in or berate other users requests. Asking for users to create their own is an utter nonsense for most as I've already stated, not all of us are pc tech geeks. Every payware map, dating back over the last 5 years are desert. Asset is needed for MP operations when constant throughflow of new users.

Lol there are many aspects not realistic and I could start with air to ground weapon effects and lethality, or how some of the flight models don't meet real world performance and loiter capability but that's a whole other topic of which I'm not going down.

If we take past history its fair to say even if it was released this year, which I doubt, it would be 2024/2025 before functionality is ready to leave early access. Combine this with the other modules they are committed to develop, completing the ones they already have and with the small team its hard to see anything inside of this time frame. Way too early to start asking this question, encourage them to finish the modules they already have for purchase rather than encourage further stretching of limited resources.

All you will ever get is that its a trial and test function not stable for current release and not officially endorsed. As you say though 2 years on you have to wonder the point. Of late i have started to wonder whether actually the devs read the english forums, or whether they are even passed information that we raise. I mention this as often you will see devs replying directly in the russian forum posts but never in the english ones. I have quite a few posts now that have gone unanswered for 6 or even 12 months, some requiring a 10 minute dev fix! Also i do wonder if we have to wait for more Russian's to fly in VR then it will be read more on their forums, and complained more about. I have been left with the opinion that for whatever reason at this junction VR is very much on the back burner with ED. I can only base this given the lack of development and the eagerness to update the engine with more visual treats (clouds and lighting) yet they are not really fit for release even into Open Beta. It is worrying that such a big update in the weather engine has been developed that it would not perform in VR, this surely must have been a week 1 issue when testing and writing the code to see how it looked. Add to this that Vulcan should really have taken priority to actually use more than 1 core ( i do not count the very minor useage of the pathfinding and sound offload). I actually wonder if another well known flight sim had not been released with such amazing clouds (that incidentally work really well in VR without killing performance) then we wouldnt have them at all at this point. ED need to start really putting emphasis and resource into VR and the actual engine of the game to run much more efficiently. Problem is until enough people start banging the drum, oh and by all accounts unless there is some flame mail on hoggit (still dont understand that one) then things just go on and on, and on. Also considering most heavy users are over $1000 invested in the product (ED software alone) i would like to see an operational directive to state that nothing is fit for release unless it performs both pancake and 3D. Need to get the mindset right.

Possible for an ED response?

@MAESTR0I note you keep posting and updating however please could you answer the questions that people are posting about the water and the concerns people have raised. It's good to post content but Ugra do need to start answering questions on this vital topic. It is a genuine issue with the map - i have posted a topic on this August last year and awaiting a plan of action?

Have remapped and it doesnt work for me - what has happened - can aerodev hotfix this bug, crazy how this has been introduced really?

Tank i have an idea given you have nothing constructive to add to this debate and the fact you messaged back few hours after a month gap when i asked for an update leads me to wonder why are you following a post that you have no interest in. Perhaps unfollow and focus on the issues that are important to you whilst not troll other requests, ones that for many people are very valid. Even better start bug reporting to the volume that others on this chain are doing and contributing to OB. Good bye, not being drawn into pointless discussions with you that are filling this wall with nonsense and clouding the issue - its an easy request, the texture colour change. The desert maps are what 4/5 years old now since NTTR time it was done. End of conversation.

Response ? @ ED

I think 9 months is hardly impatient to push for a response from ED. Certainly not for an hours work (at very most).

Month later bump - can this be passed to a dev please? Just highlighting its been 9 months since the initial posts - i would like to reinforce that every payware map has desert texture (WW2 maps excluded). Can we have at least farp pads that fit into them please, even a sand coloured one (or concreate even would be more realistic) surely is not more than an hours work......

Update required as its currently a bit of an eyesore - is this an ED issue or Urga. Surely reducing transparency on water will resolve to some extent? Again is this an ED fix or Urga? We need to get this resolved its a total immersion killer and ruins the Syria map. This is not an issue on PG, Caucasus, Channel, Normandy - so what is different here? Lakes and inland seas need to be blue - and along the sea coastlines, not this brown colour. Its pretty shocking given all the hard work you put into the maps that this texture has remained.

Again the Syria map is great in many ways and good to see Cyprus developing however there is a major flaw / issue with this map that just breaks all immersion instantly. Water! Its really, really bad every time you fly over any water body they just look like brown pits (water way too transparent - lakes do not look like lakes, especially the inland sea at Galilee, Lake Assad and also the general seashore does not look like the sea. Water is too transparent combined with just a brown earth texture. Have a long running post on the issue. Lakes and river's need to be blue in colour, not brown. Check the above post for more screenshots. Please can you resolve @MAESTR0? - it will make the map literally 20x more believable. At present the water view when looking immediatly around your plane just looks horrible and instant immersion killer and literally ruins what is potentially the best map. Noticable also on all the water reservoirs coming into Ramat David Airbase. Currently its a reason not to use the map compared to say PG which does not have this flaw. Having been through Akrotiri numerous times over 20 years im especially looking forward to the Cyprus addition. Keep up the good work guys.