Hawkeye_UK

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)!

Hey reflected i only purchased the campaign because i have played your other excellent campaigns and wanted to support the project. I bought in when it came out knowing it would be one of those to wait for the map to catch up re VR. Agree with your thought process also, and purchased with the foresight that they cannot leave the map in its current format. So much detail just not needed for flying along, just really hoping for ED to optimise in a sensible matter over the next year or so, fingers crossed. I think they will have to do something as you only have to look at the lack of uptake for MP on this map tells you there is a problem with it, which is a shame as you say as it is stunning, just not all that detial actually adds to it over fps!

Yea ive pulled all mine out to a separate one drive so can have them on an ipad and sync at ease. Point is we are getting alot of new players to DCS that do not even know their is a manual for the module i kid you not! Using chucks guides which are excellent but do not cover everything. They just need to be highlighted, i do think it should be on the email purchase as a link but also in the aircraft folder on the start screen too (along with instant action etc). Its just that way more people might actually read them too "

Yea totally agree with this, my earlier comment was a bit brief and not very helpful in hindsight just saying GPU but that;s what i meant - expecting too much. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the original OP but realistically your card is real borderline id say for DCS, its just so damn demanding. I have a similar system re 2080ti and for me in VR the channel map is by far the most demanding of any map we have. All the others including Syria run far far better. I have no idea what the reason is for this but given that a 2080ti is as of 5 months ago the best card you could get it i just feel like something is wrong with this map. Needs real optimization or something. Something somewher isnt right though as i think Syria is just as detailed, if not more so and that runs far far better on a much bigger map. I was hoping it was going to be like the Normandy map that came out, had issues , got optimized and now runs really smooth. To note i think its the main reason why no one uses the channel map its just not feasible by any stretch MP wise with complexities thrown in. I was surpirsed to read on one of the news letters that basically the map was nearly finished. For me its my only module i do not get any joy out of or value (i own everything except Christian Eagle and Yak). FIngers crossed they find some time later in the year to sort out and revisit and its a great potential but in its current format i just can not see it working (Perhaps a 3080/3090 not that you can buy them)! Edit - i suspect it might be the building texture detail - think they went a bit overboard as cannot see indivdual bricks at 300 mph etc but the level of detail if say in CA is unreal! As i said think it needs a total rework / revist of what is causing the problem as its a shame as reflected has made a great campaign but in VR the base map just is too much before adding the scripting ontop.

Rudder, rudder and more rudder. Cannot underline that enough. The model is good though as it gives you so much feedback its better than other non FBW in that context. Good rudder pedals help enormously for fine control and slow speed turning flight / fight and gun snapshots. To this effect cannot recommend MFG Crosswinds enough. They are not the cheapest, or the most expensive but they are sure tough to beat and a solid investment if this is a main hobby. Mine are well over 3 years old, as good as the day i bought them, do not degrade, solid build, adjustable and also excellently designed if you switch planes alot (i use the choppers alot so being able to switch instantly to a non spring return centre is a huge benefit). Alas it has to be said that hardware does indeed really help once you get away from the FBW modules, along with a good quality stick input. Its the same as the warbirds.

Update - notice since the last time i looked the documentation has indeed been updated recently with more manuals - which is excellent although it could be laid out much better re sections and also needs completing as some are missing. But it does need highlighting futher, i'd actually strip this out of the downloads section and have a totally separate column called aircraft manuals as a main link header next to Support. Honestly being a regular on one of the main PvP servers its amazing the amount of new DCS players that do not know how to find the manuals or aware of their existence even.

What is needed is counter battery fire systems for the opposing team to retaliate. It would actually make artiliary more relevant as at present it is way to OP. Also the fire sequence for some reason can cause slow downs in performance this needs to be reviewed (as in stutters in MP for those not even within view distance).

ED, It's come to my attention alot of new players to DCS are actually unaware of the location of the aircraft manual by ED or the third party. It is currently buried in the file structure of the install, far from ideal. This is something that is currently poorly implemented if we are being honest. The downloads section on the website contains a token fraction of available manuals and are not always current. Can we update this part of the website so that all modules, including all third parties are easily accessible for reference. Ideally you would click in there and have 4 sections. Jets, Helicopters, Warbirds and a General game section covering the game manual, combined arms etc. Its literally an hours work top"s for one of your website guys. When purchasing a module on the confirmation email it should contain a direct link to the manual on the website. Please can we come up with a better structure than what we currently provide new players. Many thanks.

Please can we fix the SA19 Tungusta missile. Alas on public servers it is being used often innappropriately to kill MBT's in combined arms. The point is there is no way this system should be killing tanks with the rocket warhead, AP its not. Also the main AA guns will shred tanks in seconds, HE shells are causing huge damage. Which also brings me onto another issue of HE rounds in tanks being able to kill other tanks. Both issues need to be resolved please. Track file attached , the Tungusta is a priority however. SA19 armour killing.trkSA19 armour killing with he guns.trk

Excellent thank you - i had missed the keybind - amazing given that i fly and use all aspects of the Viggen including nav computer TOT etc lol. I have had a break from the module for the last year and it only really became an issue with the 2.5.6 update. Thank you both Machelot and also Jediteo, one for the solution and the other for the fix - both greatly appreciated.