Hawkeye_UK

I spent 20 years of my professional life avoiding an office and desk life, im not about to start now when others are far more capable. Each to their own skillset. I am chilled the reality being this is more of an issue for Mission Editors and designers and Multiplayer. Won't be an issue for airquake and simple SP missions. For those of us that play in complex threat enviroments with human tac commanders PvP, on any payware map this is an issue. New players need to have farp pads and the invisible ones are not always favourable. Clearly if you did alot in ME and played the ground game you would appreciate why this is an issue, for such a short period of time, given that every map paywhere is desert it should have been done by now.

There is a simple answer to this and that is becuase Razbam have not modelled it on a heat source. No doubt there will say they are waiting for ED code, which was always the historical issue so to be honest not quite sure why they have modelled it currently in game. Bit pointless to be honest, unless they have no aspiratations to actually do it when the upgraded thermal signatures are released. Once possible scenario and conclusion. Whilst the real life version gave alot of false positives for targets it would bounce off buildings which whilst not targets in all instances do give a thermal signature. Again not seen this once. Also once you get used to how the false positves are generated in game and then when there is actually a unit there its pretty OP, unnaffected by trees or any line of sight re buildings etc.

Bump given that we are now 8 months on , now running 2.7 and we still do not have a sand coloured farp. Given that all Payware maps have desert can one of the devs spare literally 1 HOUR to sort this out please. Its crazy that we are still waiting, its such a simple change. Looks absolutely terrible - green grass farps in the desert - or are you not bothered about Syria, Persian Gulf or Nevada maps for third party content creation or mission editors? How can i get this message acrross it needs sorting - enough is enough.

Was hoping that in 2.7 the horrible brown water would have been dealt with. On the Syria map none of the lakes look like they should colour wise they are always brown when you fly over them right below aircraft. Looks terrible. Please reduce transparancy so they actually look how they should, not crystal clear water with brown mud under them! Thanks bumping as 4 months on with a major update.

Bump!!

Guessing your flying with parser turned on, check in your config folder there is an autoexec file, if it has this then there is a problem accross all modules with this test feature. To be honest i was hoping that 2.7 would have implemented this fully. options.graphics.stereo_mode_use_shared_parser = true

Currently on any Multiplayer server you can see the full spawn shedule for the opposite side and their exact location. This is unbelievable SA and actually can be used against the player / team. Please can we have this locked down so it doesnt show at all in the lobby, and then when you select a slot you can then see the rest of your team (but none of the opposites). Also on the scoresheet it lists every player and what they are currently flying, again its an exploit were we can monitor certain players whilst flying around to see that they are doing - this again needs to be a server option so that on the score sheet it shows the player but not what unit they are in if on the opposite team. The situation is far from ideal at present and prone to abuse. Please can this be reviewed. It will make a huge difference to gameplay and tactics for MP PvP.

Because on MP when the convoys are spawned and they then have to start pathfinding - it can send them on a 400 mile round trip and the pathfinding AI / Engine is just not upto it currently without causing stutters. Its that simple. Need mechanics where by we can set certain stuctures to immune - also affects the potential for third party campaigns breaking. Obviously Bridges in real life are a strategic use, you leave up the ones that you may want, drop others to push the adversary into a kill zone. Problem is the engine just isnt there as yet in game.

Ok so bridges can be destroyed however that can cause horrendous routing and pathfinding issues. On an example i spotted today a convoy was trying to get to tuapse from sochi, via the mountain passes near Beslan over the other side of the map! Stutters etc. We really could do with a setting in ME that makes bridges immune to damage and also another setting that can have an auto repair, with a time setting that we could specify for MP. Ideally the same functionality with runways in which we could set the repair time. Many thanks.

Damn - sorry Big newy totally missed your reply, annoying as just come in here to post a Bump note! The track files from our MP are way too big so i have them disabled (can be 300mb +) . What i would say is set any convoys moving, take the road north from Tuapse to Makob for example and see how many tanks get stuck. Its a newish problem, last few patches, but it was an issued about 12 months back and it had been fixed about a year ago - like we have gone back in code or changed bridge templates. Obviously on DDCS we experience it more than others - but this will also ruin potential SP campaigns also if they route convoys over certain bridges. Hence why i take screenshots it generally always looks the same the tank stuck inside the bridge as per above - then whole convoys get screwed.

Issue can be found accross all maps, somethinging in the F10 map can cause this on returning to the F1 cockpit view. Often it can be freed back to normal fps by opening task manager or just anothe active window, you can actually see your frames jump when tabbing back in. Long running issue for the last year or so. THe biggest issue with VR to be fair and thats on 32GB fast ram and 2080Ti, CPU at 5GHz

Edit i should also have added - get your guys to look at the weight of the fragmentation from the continous rods and the distribution - that in itself tell's you all you need to know.

These are on the main MSR, its a good point in real world obviously however the ones in game tend to be the reinforced large concreate bridges with the walkways either side. Im pretty confident ED are not at the stage of weight restrictions on bridges at this stage however so i think we are in the clear on that one.

Bump 04/04/21 - Can anyone from ED confirm what is going on - after another 5 days of review this is causing chaos for ground units. Being reported now by numerous tac commanders on our server, this issue must also be affecting SP campaigns. Can we clarify if by accident we have reverted to some old code as this used to be a huge problem, or indeed is the bridge template been changed recently. Someting however is very different in the last month or two.

Thanks Bignewy for the quick reply, however as i highlight i'm confident the team are confused and need to properly review and revisit their source information, somewhere, someone has got the information wrong. Its an easy transposition error if writing down hence why i stated the model numbers above. (9M311 to 9M133 or 9M113 is an easy human error which is the only reason i perceive they are claiming their work on the subject is correct). I know developers quite often have this we are correct mode, the whole A10 gun debarcle proved that, but in this instance they are incorrect again. Even on a simple level please can you go back to them with this information and ask how a fragmentation proximity fused warhead can kill a MBT, its just not possible on the thickness of armour we are talking about for a MBT. Suggest perhaps they have got the wrong design re numbers again. Edit - yes we are aware of differences with the Armour, we use alot on DDCS and the Abrams we purposely price high for crate slinging units as thy are extra hard to kill compared to say a Challenger MBT or Leopard 2. However this issue does not change the core issue of the SA19 system being incorrect in its capability. Many thanks.

Oh dear, all because the missile is made by KBP that make numerous missiles im wondering if there is some misunderstanding here. That company makes a whole host of arms from the Vikhr's to VSK94 Sniper rifles and various other cannons that can be found in the hands of various factions spread out accross the middle east. I think the research team have got confused which is understandable as the SA19 fires the 9M311, yet the same company makes the 9M133 that we know as the Spirragan (Kornet) which will indeed puncture and kill MBT's and are lethal to the latest operational armour the west has (also very heavily fortified reinforced concreate structures for that matter). It is the reason why systems such as Trophy has been developed to counter Kornet capability and this has been operationally deployed in the Middle East with success given the diversification of operators of the Spirragan system (Daesh for one). They could also be getting confused with the the earlier 9M113 Sprandrel (Konkurs). Both of these missiles are very different in nature and capability to the 9M311 of the SA19 despite being made by the same company and looking similar on paper. It has to be that they have got very confused. Furthermore consider this vital aspect, the Tungusta 9M311 being an Anit Aircraft system has a laser proximity fuse and the warhead itself is that of a fragmentation design, it will not knock out a MBT like we have currently in game. The only other type of the 9M311 is the Kashtan system that is a boat based CIWS (again will not kill a tank lol). The design team are wrong in this instance. Appreciate that the Trophy system will not be able to be modelled given the sensitive nature of that system but that is away from the point of this post. I will state again the SA19 should not be able to kill MBT's as it currently does, let alone with the 30MM which fires HE and HEI ! Please can you go back and ask them to verify their findings - the status quo is not acceptable. Regards.

All in the manual and chucks guide, well worth studying.

Need to read the manuals, they will help. Good luck.

Would not want to attempt to fly MP in busy complex servers with anything less than 32Gb fast ram. Usual rules apply for VR, need to be on a fast SSD, 32GB+ ram, 4.6Ghz + CPU, GTX1080Ti / RTX 2080 minimum standard. As for the specific issue with rota blades? Not experienced this myself on the Huey, Mi8 or Ka50 and fly most of them daily.

ED, Has anthing changed in the last patch or two with reference to either pathfinding or the bridge template. On caucasus map and in general units are getting stuck on bridges again stopping whole convoys and creating choas. What has changed, this has suddenly got alot worse and is it just me but are some of the bridge objects used new? Pictures to show problem , not coordinates for location (North of Tuapse). AS you can see the tanks are getting stuck inside the bridges and is this a new style bridge with the walkways either side of it? Please can we just use a simple template that works that the tanks will drive over rather than mounting the kerb and getting stuck - it is very frustrating.

Yea the volum issue i have resolved , had to change gain volumes down to .20 and .30 depending on contact or launch - much better can still hear multiplayer comms now!

Massive Kudos to the OP. I note alot of this functionality has been requested by the community over the last 4 years. It's a sad state of affairs when the customer has to actually make the files themselves (which without desrespect to the OP) is pretty simple stuff but beyond the reach of people without scriting capability. A module should in no way be released from EA until at the very least basic keybinds are completed, and more to the point with this module work. I honestly cannot think of a justification on on why these additions where not made sooner, and by Razbam themselves. Or equally when playing the game one of the most important keybinds such as the RWR volume is still no longer functional. )

OK so 2 1/2 years later will we ever see RWR CW and CCW controls and / or axis controls. The default minimum is also way too loud (gain is still 2) in game prior to it switching off.

Never classified how this should be titled however probably my fault for listing in the bugs section. To elaborate on this i appreciate if i "termed" it a bug , i would mean its not how it should be. Probably to be clear and despite not referencing it in my title i should have stated this might be how its designed in coding. But, and a large one at that is that the ED design specification is incorrect. As for the other comments about specific weak points, its not something that going to encourage on an internet forum. That said in terms of vehicle models certain assumptions in the public domain can be made. All weapons systems have vunerabilites and weaknesses, parameters that they work well in, others that you avoid using them in however things such as tank armour are highly sensitive (even ones no longer in service) / classified along with balistics capabilites of certain rounds so appreciate assumptions need to be made. What i would say is the SA19 system is not a recognized threat to heavy armour in that sense neither are the rounds it fires for an MBT. How the system functions in game, and exploited on public servers does need to be addressed, thanks at @BIGNEWY

Hi Bignewy, So the 30mm cannons for the SA19 are they not normally configured with a HE-I and HE-T mix operationally, they are not enough to penetrate a MBT with composite armour. Either way these tunguskas in game will plow through MBT's front on also irregarding of the position or angle. Also distance does not seem to effect the punch power, if it connects it kills. Also all because a round is labelled as AP does not mean it will defeat and penetrate all armour. Yea systems like the Bushmaster on the Bradly with the 791 round will punch through foot thick concreate walls easily and really thick sangars and steel, but a MBT head on, no thanks. Its why they have the TOW for self protection. Here lies the problem. Also again with the anti aircraft missile, the 9M311 would not penetrate a MBT. It's hardly a Javelin. But to run around in Tunguska killing MBT's just makes the whole thing feel really gamey. More attention to detail needs to go into ammunition types. I can upload more tracks if you like of tanks using HE rounds that blow up MBT's (infact oddly enough more reliably than AP rounds)!