Hawkeye_UK

Not had any issues in the F1 on the Syria map as navigate by it alot. Tacan is a bad example to compare to as that has its own separate issues. This is purely talking about VOR/ILS.

Yes away from that, its EA - but what im on about is the core usability and interaction with the player - whether it calculates correctly at this stage is less of a concern as HB will sought. Get the basics right first, aka the ergonomics to the player.

I only play the MT version - given that we are now over 12 months in its really more the standard now for playing. I see little point in ST play or testing given that should be phased out. I think it important that HB take the same approach - it is pointless to be testing on both ST and MT given that MT is the version we need to get right!! I have tested on both Virpil stick (with a thrustmaster F18 grip which i prefer) however have tested it on a warthog base, Virpil throttle, warthog throttle (odd binding i know but just testing the button theory) and even dug out a very old extra 1600. All with the same effect. It's exactly the same issue as when the mossie was released where one keypush moves the trim too much, someone in the community brought out a fix that reduced the value of the key input somehow and it was sorted, basically was like 20% of what ED had released. The same can be said of the reticle depression on the F4 where a brief switch moves it no less than 6 units. This is not a hardware issue, how do i know this, i have literally all modules except the Mig19, CE2 and the FC3 A10.

Mike i've been in and retested on the Incirlik approach on Syria using the 113.90 KHM vor station to the North East for Navigation on the way in. I have track files and the miz file which i will upload in due course once had time to timestamp the bits to look at. But as an early heads up there are definite issues in the way the VOR stations do not always update and have to be cycled or do not capture them despite being within LOS and terms. Also having multiple captures of ILS not work - cannot find what the cause is , sometimes it works (generally when you try and use it as the first nav point tuned, but after that it can become a lottery). Given the VOR issues also i think its one of the same issue. No mod's installed, clean install to test, new mission file (i created a new one knowing would need as simple as possible from my standard test miz file that has a2a spawn scripts etc). Edit - So just to expand on this, i have had VOR stations that even tune but then as you fly past them at say 15000 feet they don't update or track. Im just minded that while most people will be wanting to test weapon's etc the basics of nav can get missed. Files just uploaded - i need to add time commentary (working on now so expect re-edite of this message) but you should be able to see from where im looking what is going wrong in the cockpit. Note these are not conentrating on flying onspeed or landing im purely interested in the nav beacon and the signal received. HB ILS AND VOR BUGt Track file Comments - Why is the ED track replay so poor to be able to commentate on , timestamps cant rewind etc! Premise of the mission is to take routing via KHM on 113.90, switch for a TACAN Nav approach for initial Incirlik 23 prior to ILS Capture. Both ILS freq and tacan 21X are set in the mission editor panel although you will see me manually tune the ILS post going to KHM. Note 113.90 on the track tuned on the Vor panel, captures but then good example of it failing to track the beacon flying past it, only after multiple cycles of the mode selector to tac, nav computer and back does it recapture it behind the aircraft. ILS caputured fine within parameters and landing. Approach 2 same track file - You will note the repeated attempts to capture VOR KHM on 113.90, finally only getting it after repeated switching to INS nav and back to VOR mode. Tracks VOR ok as passes by it, then start the TACAN approach on 21x, at 50 miles i get the system setup for an ILS approach on 111.70. Not sure why the jester wheels then shows up, i certainly did not fly with it open, it was closed. Intiail approach for ILS low but that aside at no point and despite being on the PAPI's for the later stage of the approach did the jet receive the ILS ADI directions for glidepath. TRACK FILE 2 - HB ILS AND VOR BUG 2 - VOR station captured, however doesnt track overflight and point at beacon when passing. On recycing nav mode back to VOR again requires and tracks on second pass of VOR. Swtiched to then Tacan initial all ok. Switch to ILS circa 10DME and no signal picked up, you can see the map position also as i check F10. This is a better example of not capturing the ILS than approach 2 from track one. Conclusion - VOR NAV and ILS is unreliable, i just cannot fathom out the lottery of why sometimes the VOR will track and other's it wont, whatever reason i think the VOR and ILS are related. Are you sending out a polling time, its almost like the system isnt asking for an update or something IDK. Hope this helps. HB ILS AND VOR BUG 2 - Copy.trk HB ILS AND VOR BUGt - Copy.trk HB F4 ILS TEST TO FIND BUG - Copy.miz

Heatblur, Congrat's on a great launch for the F4, it hasn't disappointed i will just start with that! However certain aspects are questionable for VR and general use, the bombing table calc being one of them. This is not down to the window size or location which i know is work in progress. Release altitude, with click up and down - why is it in such low feet increments, its practically useless as would take minutes holding the mouse upto 15,000 or higher. Why not have it in blocks of 500 feet makes ALOT more sense, for VR and non VR alike. So each press of the button cycles up 500 feet (with blocks of 50 feet below 500). Have the table default to 3000 for quick alterations either way. Airspeed - same really blocks of 25 i would suggest starting at 300 but default value being 450. Also the one thing that is really needed for usability is a keyboard scratchpad built into that page so we dont have to try and fumble with the keyboard - its a non starter in VR and cumbersome to say the least. Needs some dev time for sure to make it usable. Another option would be in the jester wheel to have some preset release airspeeds and altitude's. Target altitude could be set with a jester wheel that takes you into a 0-9 wheel. Hope this helps but really feel like it needs more meat on the bones.

Ok so just rebooted the game (in 2D this time i normally only fly VR) and opened the same mission and same slot as before airstart - ILS needles came straight on as soon as turned the right dial to ILS/VOR, left then cycled through and didnt matter. Im going to have to spend time to try and recreate why it wouldnt work - the only thing different thus far to previous attempts was i had been using VOR's to navigate prior to switching to the ILS. Im wondering if something as part of the mission upto this point is then locking out the ILS. Going to have to retest and sink some time into working out what was wrong, as im confident there is definately a bug (given i opened the same mission, same slot, same weather, eerything the same the only thing difference was moved the air start 200 miles to avoid the flight prior and straight to ILS - will report back if i can recreate.

Incirlik 23 - i will check again, but literaly done 1000s of ILS approaches in DCS over the last decade so yea i was surprised to not capture. The only difference on the setup that i had to your's was that i had the left hand dial on Vor/Tac also not nav comp, but the right dial was turned to VOR/ILS - i even turned it back on and off again and kept going around to recapture from around 10 miles out. Wondering if having the left dial set to anything other than NAV/COMP is what is causing the issue. The only thing i would add is on the test mission i have alot of sound files loaded (also on multiple frequencies (note all 130-135 and now 270 - 274 for the F4 aux). I'll retest on Syria but also on Sinai as want to create a list for the large amount of Nav freqencies missing. PS - Congrat's on all the hard work - certainly paid off, really enjoying the F4.

thank you - missed that was going through the ground crew jester menu in cockpit (which you would think would be a sensible place to put it - or kneeboard)

Currently i can only set the GBU codes for one code - thus each bomb on the aircraft has to have the same code? This is far from Ideal - we need the ability to have different bombs on different codes. For example you might be working with an ingame MP jtac for some stores, but then need to use a separate code for a different target or to avoid confliction for more important targets (eg, might be carrying 4 GBU12's for TOO, using Jtacs, and have a GBU24 for a shelter or comms bunker that you need to self lase)

Yep I must admit i was expecting to see the same F14 style stores page, along with GBU codes.

This is interesting as i had the same issue on the Syria map and came to the forums purely for this reason - never had an issue with ILS and its one of the things i normally test on any module early on. I also had a failed capture on Sinai (although there are so many freqs missing on this map its not a good test map). I will have to retest also (i know the weather was ok as the test mission that i use is always set up for ILS weather landings re wind). I had the right dial set to VOR/ILS and also the Left dial to Vor/Tac. FD on and triple checked the ILS freq (as had set it in the ME) but also tried moving it manually up and back. Also volume was turned up on the panel controlling the ILS/VOR channel (below throttle). One thing i would add, ILS landings really should be added as a checklist in the manual, its not currently. There is a section on this in the manual but being honest i thought it could have been better explained than it is currently, as a procedure. Note also i have the dash one, but the manual copy that included in the HB manual i found really hard to make out the image. To add i wouldnt normally go into the manual for setting up an ILS, as well they are pretty self explanatory normally in a western gen 3 jet, along with navigation, but having had 3 failed captures i did go back into it (i had read both this and the dash one a few times prior to release) and given i understand ILS approaches well, for a new player i think it could be explained alot better. I think that part of the manual for navigation the left and right dial for the ADI and HSI settings needs to be reworked.

I see the issue here is performance, surely we should be able to see the cockpit clearly without this on. For me same as OP, Pimax Crystal, gamma 1.5-1.6 (any brigher in DCS the sky is too bright and also other parts of the model generally). Its darker than any other cockpit i can think of. Stunning, but dark, agree with OP. Also the red lamps where these not moveable in the real aircraft to direct the angle of the light of the floods - i have no idea but often floods can be rotated and adjusted.

can we confirm what exactly this is trying to connect to and why - what does it drive in the game? Olympus means zero to me also?

Damn i just left some feedback in another thread about trim, missed this main post. I completely agree reminds me of when the mossie came out where a quick press and release would add way to much. In the other thread i would be interested to hear the SME feedback as i am suspicious that the real aircraft would move the control surface that much (looking at the F2 view during a momentary push). There is quite a few keybinds like this where a brief push goes way to far, reticle depression is another one, literally momentary push adds 10-20 units. Also instrument lights that control the gun/heat/radar and other features in the front cockpit, its really either on or off. Someone at Heablur needs to sit down and map and test all the keybinds really as quite a few are off.

One thing i would add about the trim, is that one quick press of the trim seems to move the stabs along way - i'd be surprised if this was as per the real aircraft. Would be interested in any SME feedback on this one. It reminds me a little of the mosquito trim where literally one quick press and release would add too much. 50% of what it currently is would be helpful to enable trimming out, but again be interested in the SME feedback. I mention this as is seems to be an issue with a few of the keybinds, reticle depression being one of them where a quick press of the keybind shifts it down 10-20 units!

What we also need is configuration settings confirmed for Patriot, Hawk, Roland etc. Note Shrike's real world where setup for Roland attacks.

I wouldn't starve other dev's, for example the F4 has been released in an amazing state, something for everyone to consider really in terms of other dev's. That said i agree with the sentiment to some extent especially when ED's next module is a logistics chopper without the logistics infastructure inplace for the module. I think the reality is most people are looking for an update, and i think they are well within their rights to wonder if the current EA state is going to be its final position. As the week's go on i do wonder if these are going to be added to the Hawk heritage hanger lol.

ED / Razbam, Given the last code update we had in game for the F15 was on the 22nd Feb this year, 3 months ago and given that there was a very public dispute nearly 2 months ago, what is the latest? Are we going to be pleasantly surprised tomorrow with a code update? As a consumer what can we expect from this module going forward if this is not the case? I asked on the 5th April should the module be on sale, given the issues, i've not seen or heard any further updates and apologise if i have missed them, if not can you clarify including timeframes say to the nearest quarter year what your resonable expectations are in terms of development and what is going on to make this happen. I think silence is ok for a few months, but after that I think its only right that you update your customers.

Heatblur, Just looking at IFF return's and note all friendly aircraft are shown as a double horizontal bar from the radar skin. This is odd, it implies all friendlies are running the same mode and code. Slightly confused, the top bar should represent the code, the bottom bar the mode. So challenge of 4A would draw a blank if the other aircraft under the range gate target is running 4B. Or say challenge of Mode 3, if you had a mode 3 and code of say 2245, would only have a double bar from the radar skin if the other aircraft was operating on mode 3 and 2245. If the other aircraft was running mode 3 and any other other code, it would show as one horizontal bar beneath the gate (as in confirmation of coalition friend on mode). Is there any plans to implement this correctly within the module / DCS. Starting to implement IFF correctly would add a good dimension for those looking at more realistic operation of virtual airspace. PS - Amazing effort - purely mention this as know you guys are all about recreating the most realistic as possible module.

@Massun92 Congrats, about time i have no idea why ED didnt include these earlier! You asked for requests - i have only been asking ED for over 5 years now - a desert/sand coloured HAS. Given that every paid map, with the exclusion of WW2 maps Normandy/Channel and now the modern colour this last week every map is desert. Mission makers to not have a desert shelther (that is used alot in mission scrits for logistics etc and targets) are all green. So if you fancy putting some time into a desert shelther that would be great (oh and sneak it into the pack for ED to actually implement). ED if you read this - why has such a simple reskin of the green grass to a desert coloured one taken 5 years - utter nonsense to be honest.

This would imply ED have controlled or classified information about the chinook subsystem's. I find this highly doubtful and completely improbable. ED may or may not have SME's with this knowledge but again i wouldn't expect them to release any information for a video game given the consequences. Thus i'm not sure why we are even referencing classification of systems on this thread as a context of development, its very irrelevant given the people writing the code will not have the relevant clearances to be party to this information even.

Nineline, to be clear we still don't have MT for server's - so are we saying logistics is going to be single player only. Once again we get back to the core not being ready?

Own pretty much all the modules and know how to use them. Have been flying flight sim's when able for 30+ years. I also always pre-order content, that stops with recent events and this is final nail if it needed any reinforcement not to do so. To bring out a LOGISTICS chopper, and such an iconic one at that, and not have the mechanics inplace for this is pretty insulting and a bit of a disgrace it has to be said. Once again relying on very talented community coders to part solve your problems is not a solution re moose/mist. Someone once said DCS stands for Digital Cockpit Simulator and well event's like these are not exactly inspiring to change that gowing perception. The promise of later in Early Access i think for many now, when it relates to such a core function of a module has worn thin. For context to this you only have to mention mission planning and ready room for the Suppercarrier, what 4 years on now. Or Combined Arm's and the state that is in still years on with multiple units in one group, or single threaded servers still, or weapons splash damage and not just on the graphics and trees swaying for content creator video's! Sadly "high priority" means nothing these days when ED say's it, what about Mi24 cargo, that's been out a few years now and already teased years ago regarding its ability for troop carrier, surely this is the same mechanic? You only have to read this thread, or one's over on reddit to see that this concept of release has been poorly thought through. Quite simply bringing out logistics choppers without putting the core engine in, would be the same as Heatblur releasing the F4 without any missiles or bombs, it really is that simple and comparable. There is no other term for it but an absolute shambles. You may reply with EA is not for everyone, but when someone that has been buying your products for along time, only about the CEagle and mig 19 i dont own, and would generally pre-order, and i'm one of many that now won't pre-order, you know something somewhere you messed up.

One thing i would add to this discussion, whilst the map has many great features, and the additional high detail buildings will be good for chopper missions, they are lost at 500 knots and altitude. The thing that strikes me most about the map is the repeated tiles for factory units and hotels complex's, and even to the fields for that matter. Would like to see an increase in the variation of these and additional efforts made. often the same tile is next to each other repeatedly. Appreciate early EA, hence why asking if this is something you could factor in. Also as highlighted by another user - the red sea has loads of coral and is visible from the air, esp the Sinai coast and be great if the water textures around the coast could be heavily updated. Tabuk Airfield In Saudi would be really useful for MP missions also.

Should this really still be being sold ED given that people away from discord will not be aware of any freeze on its development and the ongoing discussions. I add given it now seems like Razbam have lost some lead F15 developers (they have gone public with their resignations) and as such surely there comes a morality issue of still selling a product when you have resonable suspicion you may not be able to deliver the item as specified? Probably worth a temporary hold on all further e-sales until you can hopefully resolve this issue and provide clear consumer direction.