Hawkeye_UK

The landing lights for the A10C 2 now seem very underpowered and also do not illuminate more than 1 aircraft lenght. On a moonless night even taxing around is hazardous! Needs resolution - i have yet to see any military jet or chopper for that matter that has landing lights this ineffective (as in if you stand infront of them they are blinding)!

One can only hope!

I'd actually recommend after playing around with this for the last few days is scoobie's lua change on the controls speed, but i found 0.1 the best for fine control. At 0.2 depending on fuel load and climb profile can still struggle to trim for climb then level. The point is this is what 10 times less than the standard ED control - clearly its way off. As i said i do not hold that De Havilland constructed a plane that cannot be trimmed for level flight, especially in wartime and with inexperienced crews. ED need to bring in this fine control as a default setting for this module, that is clear. Lastly hats off to @scoobie and many thanks for making the module flyable at night...!

more examples

You missed the most important part in terms of admiration of how difficult these crews had it, all the above mixed with exhaustion from repeated sorties, losing friendsand obviously being shot at from Flak, tripple A and other fighters every flight!!

bombs have been working ok so far and i have dropped quite a lot in the last few days. Always remember to fuse however.

If you turn on the flashlight at night and just move it around in VR its obvious Nineline when moving back and forth - ugly baked on textures that dont move which is a shame given the beauty of the module. Whoever keeps doing this at ED lol can you have a word its the same on every module near enough at some point. Baked on reflections suck i dont know how many times they get reported.

It's a pity that this thread didnt note the obvious in the picture - all AI mosquito's have both red Port and Starboard lights (latter should obviously be green). See picture from earlier this evening i took whilst descending through the clouds.

As title says a simple AI pilot to hold level flight would be most useful when swapping to the nav seat to work the radio direction finding. At night and with the current state of the trim controls not being able to trim for reliable level flight its a recipe for disaster at present. I do think however a simple "Iceman" style feature of hold course, come left 10, 30 degrees etc would be a huge asset for this module. It really does need it otherwise we are not going to get the enjoyment of the nav station seat.

yep horrible at night in VR, spotted them in the reverb last night

With both Virpil and thrustmaster sticks using a hat switch for trim it is impossible to keep it in level flight, one notch up or down makes it rapidly up or down over 1000 feet per minute. If you want a good example of this, make a night mission and try and fly instruments, it will leave you in no doubt. It is common sense that this current flight model isnt correct, as the mosquito losses would have been horrendous with inexperienced aircrews, it would have been known as a flying coffin by its aircrews. I do not hold that De Havilland produced an aircraft that could not be trimmed out to sustain level flight wihout violent pitch oscilliations. This needs review and sorting, rather than LUA edits. this also needs revistiting regarding its "cannot reproduce" category

It does make you wonder why both WMR and Steam VR dont give you a blank option - its a bit like ED and the useless 3D hanger to be fair. Just give us a black screen that requires minimum overhead

Yep it must be a steep learning curve coming into DCS i guess but keep with it and patience and perseverance is the key (along with frequency of virtually flying). The more you learn the more you get a reward from playing. I cannot recommend enough reading the procedures and also setting up simple missions to practice what you have learnt. Good luck. Also if you struggle quite often you will find things on you tube, red kite is one to pay attention to as his videos are generally excellent also many features are covered by Wags in his videos also which are worth watching. Avoid people like spudknocker and grim reapers they are generally low on knowledge but do get some aspects over and can provide an initial visual guide if that helps. But yep manuals and chucks guides. Have to remember also just as in real life, only get proficient by having to study and the slog pays off as you acquire knowledge that you can then use to manipulate systems or tactically apply to a situation. As for air combat, in all honesty the best thing you can read as to regards tactics in ACM that is not classified and publically available is Shaw's book on Fighter Combat - Tactics and Maneuvering. Still applicable now. Luckily ive just googled to see if available and this link has it free http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/Fighter Combat-Tactics and Maneuvering.pdf. Enjoy!

yep read the manual

with your rig go VR.....hard to fly 2D once you have esp with latest headsets

update?

Hey, just thought id give you a quick reply. On this type of report its always easier for one of the community to assist if you attach your mission file, then im sure someone will have a look at it for you when they have some free time. Also its worth checking out this guys videos on mission editing you will be able to find and learn from these for sure. Check out his channel he has a whole series on "how to" Hope these help.

So on the first linked post on my earlier message that contained tracks, indeed you replied to me on the 30th July 2021 you thanked me for them? shortcut for ease; On the other posts there are also many other examples of tracks? How many more tracks of the exact same issue do beta testers need to provide the dev's before they take the issue seriously. Dont get me wrong we will bend over backwards to help if we can get some offer of assistance from ED on this issue. Even if this means jumping on the MP server in real time we could show you live examples of how it freeze's and lags out the server. If you let me know your schedules on what time you could be free im confident we could arrange something for you guys to work with and understand deeper. Keen to assist to get this issue resolved, as it's killing gameplay and equally its not good for you guys either!

I've lost count the number of times this has been reported however the latest thread (first link) got closed so no further discussion can be had. After a 2 min review of other topics posts ive included just a few to give you a flavour of how widespread this issue is being reported, there are many more over the last 15 months all relating to the same issue. Surely after a year of it being reported on what is a fundamental game breaking issue for combined arms and thus any attempt to be able to have a moving MP ground battle why is this still not being given any resources? ED's own mission statement of providing a digital battleground of air land and sea just doesnt seem honest right now. Enough is enough @BIGNEWY @NineLine what is the update from the dev's? Saying its been reported, 12 months on is now not good enough. The point of sales information is; "DCS: Combined Arms gives you control of ground forces during the battle. Use the Command Map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) in multiplayer and designate targets for player-controlled close air support aircraft, or directly control armor vehicles or air defense weapons and engage the enemy. Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare game...... DCS: Combined Arms supports both single player and multiplayer gameplay. When in multiplayer, different players can take on different roles such as artillery commanders, tank commanders, pilots, JTACS, etc. DCS: Combined Arms allows you full control of the battle. All roles can be changed dynamically during the battle." it would be a fair assesment at this stage that ED are misleading customers at the point of software purchase. Appreciate you might not have looked at it in this light but that is the harsh reality. It does not allow you to control ground forces effectively during battle and there is currently no communication from the company on when this will be resolved. It really is totally game breaking on what is a fully paid module and its an issue on both MP stable and open beta branches. We have this issue on Caucasus, Persian Gulf, Normandy and Syria ( not tested channel or Nevada but id assume the same). Needless to say you dont need me to reinforce that this is a serious issue that has potential to escalate quickly. Its been reported numerous times by both customers, beta testers, closed beta testers (looking at who has been reporting on this issue) and even third party campaign developers. Customers are loyal and patient, alot of people reporting on this are experienced and valued open beta testers that are passionate and help evolve the product and DCS brand. However there comes a point, especially when no clear communication on resolution that this tolerance runs out, especially with it still being for sale. What is being done and what resources are going to be placed on sorting out this MP car crash. Have you raised it with the senior management team, are they aware so that they can escalate and task ? If not why not? Do we need to tag them directly into this chain given the potential implications going forward on nothing being done? Pretty clouds are sure nice and ive no doubt sell modules, but not when a server can't run with any element of a ground force with tac command without the server totally freezing and lagging out whats the point! I know of hundreds of users of our server that have bought into Combined Arms over the years and they can no longer use it. It's fair to say no more reports, track files, video's or screenshots are required. A clear statement from a senior representative from ED is required i would suggust at this stage.

Sorry nineline i meant to say this was dealt with as other people have sent in files and bug reports but also ive update this one again with the original track files i reference in this bug report. Utterly game breaking still.

i have to turn the contrast down and brightness, but i do not have an issue its very, very clear. I do lean into the sight though to look at it also with my head just infront of the site. I use 1024 for cockpit settings, textures high and a PD of 1.1 and MSAAx2 and either on my G2 or Quest 2 (running 1.7 72hz or 80hz) i do not have an issue with the sight optics. What you may reference is that the zoom levels are not that of the TGP. It is all about knowing where the target is and then shifting the site small distances to lock. I actually fine the 75's on the viggen rediculous they are way to easy to lock and will jump on the target, about the best mav in game to be fair. Hate to suggest it but i honestly think its your settingsm or headset.

+1 that works in MP also

Even updating it to work with 2.7 would be a start and also agree given that its not a massive undertaking to update to A10C2. But alas has anyone from ED even acknowledged either of these topics as yet?

Basically ED have not updated the campain to 2.7 which is also on the stable branch. In fairness its about an hours work at the very most to change the presets and mission brief yet despite it still being sold ED dont want to even update this initial thread from the beta test.

Well we are 4 months in.......for what an hour or so work to change the mission files. IF ED cannot be bothered to change them on what is a payware module, then should unlock to allow users to change their own weather. Pointless posting to be honest, teams are busy but this is a payware module? As you say its on stable branch, and stilll being sold yet its not even compatible. crazy