Hawkeye_UK

A10-C uses something known as combat mix (CM) which is a nasty mix of PGU-13 HE high explosive and PGU-14 API depleted uranium armour piercing in a 4 to 1 mix ratio. A10-C also is mounts a 30mm cannon whilst the F18C is 20mm and uses 20mm HE rounds - big difference! Lastly attached is a pic of interest - note how the 30mm cannon with CM has shredded the APC. So if the F18c was having the same impact as the A10C something would definitely not be right - its correct that HE would not penetrate armoured targets however will effectively neutralise soft skinned targets / ground troops.

+1,000,000

yep - not implemented yet it will work from the CAS page as per the release video.

Anyone worried about ED and costing - suggest leave that to them - However here's an idea for anyone wanting to support ED why don't you buy some modules and gift them to the community - problem solved for all the people "concerned". Reality is they have a smallish team with limited resources however the frustration largely comes not from the length of time but the historical poor communication to the community on updates which they have recently tried to improve re features and timescales. This current undertone stems from the Viper release and as highlighted to them 3 months ago was going to cause some raised eyebrows and kickback from some sectors. Subscription and tech tree - oh my lord this is a simulator not Call of Duty....as i said for those concerned buy modules and give them away.

Prolonged EA access doesn't mean we should sacrifice systems implementation to a halfway house between FF and FC3. I actually don't understand the perspective of this thread. DCS is a simulation, aka the title and by definition gives it away - it should be a model of a real activity as close to the original activity as possible. Pointless thread IMO.

Yep uses for the Elint pod

+1,000,000

What about the white flood switch - works in the pilot cockpit but not the rio ??

Happy to confirm that a full new install did indeed remove the problem - clearly something somehow had got corrupted! Back to enjoying seeing the world in full technicolor ;-)!

I've bit the bullet and decided to unistall everything and reinstall the full program - hopefully that should resolve it. If not then i'll post the log file on the new build. Yes oculus is fully upto date - strange how after the clean and repair it caused this crash though. Fingers crossed by tomorrow should be back up and running! Thanks for the reply.

@Bignewy Ok so i did the clean up and repair exactly as listed - Now DCS wont even load it just crashes? IN the crash log i get this issue (username blanked out by me) ... # -------------- 20191113-153420 -------------- DCS/2.5.5.39262 (x86_64; Windows NT 10.0.17763) C:\Program Files\Oculus\Support\oculus-runtime\LibOVRRT64_1.dll # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at 86FD444B 00:00000000 SymInit: Symbol-SearchPath: '.', symOptions: 534, UserName: '-----' OS-Version: 10.0.17763 () 0x300-0x1 0x000000000016444B (LibOVRRT64_1): ConfiguratorUnregisterC + 0x2543B 0x00000000000B0CF5 (LibOVRRT64_1): ovr_Lookup + 0x41905 0x00000000000B1935 (LibOVRRT64_1): ovr_Lookup + 0x42545 0x00000000000A54BD (LibOVRRT64_1): ovr_Lookup + 0x360CD 0x000000000003AB1E (LibOVRRT64_1): ovr_GetFovStencil + 0xC3BE 0x00000000000455FF (Visualizer): MouseCursorOwner::setMouseCursorPosition + 0x395F 0x0000000000076C8D (Visualizer): smCamera_Implement::SetProjBounds + 0x3B7D 0x0000000000084FC6 (Visualizer): smSceneManager::CreateSceneManager + 0x126 0x000000000056C831 (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 0x000000000056995F (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 0x00000000001BB4FB (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 0x000000000072CB76 (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 0x0000000000017974 (KERNEL32): BaseThreadInitThunk + 0x14 0x000000000006A271 (ntdll): RtlUserThreadStart + 0x21

@Bignewy Really appreciate the quick posting - after further testing i should have referenced this only occurs when the Shadows tab in DCS settings is in either Flat, Low, Medium or High. If i switch this to off then the problem instantly goes away. Note the terrain shadows i have set to default and this does not cause the screen to black out. I also get it around the Harrier carrier its down to lights im confident of this aspect in the fault. Yes i've removed all mods etc in fairness i uses OvGME for this anyway for qucik removal. I regularly remove the FXO and metashaders2 folders in addition to the track files (multiplayer) to save disc space. I have removed them again today however its always down to the shadows Tab, obviously i don't want to lose the functionality of this in terms of immersion. Is there a way to just repair this section of the install if that's the problem?

Thanks for helping. Ok so i have a problem that's driving me mad and i cant seem to bottom the problem out. Essentially on certain lights, i believe its the aircraft position lights that cause the whole screen to "black out" outside the cockpit, except for certain details. It started this summer and i really don't know what's happened. I've tried a DCS repair also but to no avail. I've looked at the ndivia control panel settings and tried just about every combination. I run the game with shadows on low, global shadows terrain on default set within the main DCS menu. I run 436.30 however have had this with the last 2 or 3 versions of Nvidia. That said i cannot say the problem suddenly started when i update my Nvidia software. It makes playing the game near enough impossible - Has anyone else had this problem. Lastly i run my Rift S on an EVGA RTX2080 however everything else runs fine so im confident its not a hardware issue. Just put a few screenshots up from today, i've switched on labels so you can see what units are there. It's as i pan my head around i lose vision (black) on one eye then within a few degrees the other eye. Then look where no lighting and everything instantly comes back!! It makes multiplayer impossible as all anyone has to do is fence out or equally forget to fence in and i can't see anything. Also ruins SP play also. If anyone has any ideas - no matter how basic i'm happy to literally start from stage 1 to rectify the problem (i really don't want to have to reinstall the 200Gb DCS folder however if at all possible).

Don't think the OP was attempting to micro manage, he was looking for clarification, equally he is not in a position to micro manage the ED dev team at any rate. As for just letting them do their jobs - part of any commercial entity is to communicate with the customer, the fact that people raise such issues combined with the lack of hornet development in the last quarter and no real detailed milestone discussions from ED means that from a PR perspective they have failed aka part of their job. Luckily for them their is no competition in this sector, they have an excellent product with a devoted and loyal customer base and thus get away with their substandard communication. Being critical of their Public Relations is separate from being critical of the dev team.

This is not about dev time - i think you have completely missed the point - its about the poor communication from both the community managers and in fairness to the top including Wags. Also leaving dev's to just get on with stuff as one quote said - lol. This is about project management and communicating to the customers what their intention's are with milestone's. You know like the rest of the real world.

I think its unfair to say about manager's - this is a forum and people can raise or voice their feelings/thoughts. However this has been raised before in terms of concerns. I think the context to this is that people easily forget the community was told earlier this year that the F16 development would in no way affect the rollout or Early Access status of the F18. At the time i think it was fair to say a few of us rolled our eyes and thought that wouldn't be the case which has since proven to be correct. It is also fair to say that since the end of July there has not really been any major advancements in the Hornet systems for early access and that is a full quarter. There are many outstanding issues and systems that need development, the TGP has had nothing more done and it is currently very basic with key features missing, even the HUD marker. We all know the key systems the hornet drivers are waiting on being TWS, AG radar, TGP completion etc. The issue as i always say is ED's communication is generally very poor on milestone developments, even if they said Q3/Q4 target date for this or that system its not the time taken its the apparent lack of direction and treating paying customers like mushrooms. This was highlighted about a month ago and we got a brief statement on plans for both the hornet and the viper. Whilst we are appreciative of this great simulation we should also remember that this is not BMS or community developed and given that it is payware ED should quite rightly have to communicate to their customers like any other commercial venture. It is also correct that they are brought to task when they go back on their promises or don't deliver a system. Releasing the Viper has clearly annoyed some customers given the broken promise of it not impacting the Hornet. I have also noted numerous people saying that they will no longer purchase the Viper EA because its supporting ED's policy of moving on and not finishing modules, encouraging endless EA and chasing the next cash source - that said without support remember what happened to Mircoprose.....

VR - Simply the immersion and 1 to 1 tracking and the SA that provides in the 3D space cannot be compared to 2D. It also has distinct advantages both in terms of general flight (on the tank), ACM and CAS. Its like comparing jets to propellers. People that say about spotting - i play with Rift S its excellent. Also there is now VR Zoom options. Go VR you will not regret it. Put it this way i have an high end 55inch display that is never used anymore!

Persian Gulf - Hornet - FC3 This should give you a good base to learn and allow you to enjoy multiplayer - in the sale this should come to circa $130. The biggest reccomedation i would make it read, read and read some more. Both the manuals and Chucks guide. Only by doing this will you get the most out of the modules. AVOID CA at all costs if you are planning to play in VR - It does not work and all the view axis are screwed up and ED still haven't sorted the binds out. I only bought if for Multiplayer but suggest you learn the modules first before getting involved with the groundwar online. After that i'd recommend F14, its model is amazing yet less forgiving with not having FBW and does need some mastering to get the most out of it. It also IMO has a higher hardware requirement due to the gorgeous textures. Harrier is great fun, its getting there, slowly. Viggen is a good module, another credit to HB. L39 has a good flight model and a great aircraft for learning to operate a jet if new to flight sims in general. Mi8 is a beast if you like helicopters with a great flight model, Huey is fun and looks great inside and both are vital on multiplayer servers if they have sling loading. Lastly welcome to DCS!

Or jump in the rear seat - can select the individual stations and hit jettison. Recommend reading the manual and chucks guide!!

Have to remember manufacturing engineering was very different in the late 1960's when the cat was being designed, especially toughened canopy glass of aircraft. It was also a crossover in belief doctrine when the US was being tested in Vietnam away from the over reliance on BVR missiles with poor combat Pk and the realisation that WVR ACM was still massively important. I think the counter argument to this is that for the time it was very forward thinking with the elevated pilot seated positing, especially the rio not having a bulkhead behind him unlike the F4. Later designs of the 15/16 further increased this visibility. Off the top of my head im struggling to think of a 4th generation fighter that precedes the tomcat that has better pilot/rio WVR view, either Nato or Soviet Block. Think about the Mig 31, 5 years later in first flight and poor visibility for the Rio with sunken pilot positions. As for the pit and view, i only fly in VR and certainly the visibility compared to later 4th generation fighters is reduced but its reflective of the actual aircraft. I think what Heatblur have done is purely astounding in terms of the interior model - its way beyond ED to be fair. I cannot recommend VR enough , the Rift S for me has been a game changer over the cv1. As for views in general, VR is the way forward the immediate SA especially on things like on the tank and close in ACM or A2G aquisition/roll in does improve your execution of flight. If you enjoy the game, invest in VR.

Hey guys just to let you know repeated thread, this was muted when it first came out last week. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=252950

Storm shadow was initially handed over to RAF end of 2001, in very limited numbers, GR4 conversion airframes started being handed over think late 97 and then over a six year period. So when Op Telic was launched Storm Shadow was mission capable but limited in squadrons with 617 launching them first. So in answer no it wasn't in from the beginning in terms of capability. GR4 would be great, however despite being just retired alot of ordnance / systems data is sensitive no way ED are going to be able to get their hands on that nor would we want them. GR1 on the other hand....that would be immense especially if the A2G WSO radar was correctly done with offset fixation for attack runs a bit like the Viggen. Problem is think ED need to work on the whole side of that in terms of what reflects radar and what doesn't on the ground. As for which tornado do you want - lets not even raise the spectre of the ADV. pointless. I'd love an early F2 , i'm sure the blue circle radar would be a great match for the AWG 9....NOT!

Its a good question, worth testing - observations are however that the extra drag and weight is modelled but would have to get tacview and a calculator lol and lose a few hours! Hopefully its not like the terrible Hornet drag model which needs work. So a 14 would never have taken off the boat with 6 54's anyway for a standard CAP patrol as the base wow with fuel reserve would have put him outside of the recovery landing configs. So unless fired off he would have to jettison a minimum of 2 very expensive missiles and be heavy back on the boat with 4. More realistic would be a 2 3 2 approach however nobody is going to load that in MP as nobody cares about FLE or hitting the Jettison button and the 54, well that's a separate discussion.

IRL you land a plane with nothing on the dials but smiths (empty) and you haven't got a mechanical issue resulting in fuel loss your CO will be ensuring your not flying anytime soon again that's for sure. Extremely serious Safety Breach. One of the primary reasons that instructors have to step in to instruct immediate RTB when students are distracted with either target fixation or workflow overload in poor conditions down low. In game always set Bingo and look at your FF, work from that and divide fuel gives you a approximate playtime at current altitude. Utilise tankers and in the 14 keep out of burners unless needed - i.e caught into a hostile's E-pole and extending rapidly away. As you would in real life keep sweeping the dials - have a process that covers all and flow through them in the same fashion (not ad hoc) noting against a value for normal at that stage in flight. During ACM glimpse fuel flow every 60 seconds. One thing that Jester should be talking about is fuel, and so far he only ever does it when on the tank. A WSO would be assisting the pilot and a verbal check to ensure both crew are aware of fuel state. It would be good for Jester to reflect this to call out tanks dry / 10,000 pounds, 8000, 6000, 4000, 2000 and whatever the Bingo value was. One thing that would be useful is if HB make some attempt to model the F14 mission data loader which would incorporate pre planned waypoints (like Viggen) where Jester could say fuel as fragged - inline with flight plan etc.

ps - re the F14 i do use the first mod that was mentioned have it in my save games folder and it doesnt break the IC for multiplayer now. That said the original pit looks fine, i just prefer the new less worn out txt look.