FalcoGer

The control measures are generated when you enter the aircraft and are points in the control measure point database. They can't move. BFT is a thing in the Apache and would show up and be configured in the SA (Situational Awareness) submenu of the TSD. There is currently a bug where the CPG and PLT are generating those points separately from each other, causing desync when units move, you move or units die before the copilot joins. This will create different points, moved points or a different point order. So if you can, make sure the copilot is in the slot and has pressed fly before pressing fly yourself so you both spawn in at the sameish time.

The MT forum wasn't a thing when I made the initial post.

Currently the eastern part of the caucasus map is completely blank with just the bare terrain there and even that is flat like a mirror in most places. I'd like to see some details done with Crimea and the surrounding areas.

The destroyed radio tower has no collision model. it's also disconnected on the bottom.

There shouldn't be any differences on how things look between MT and ST. And as far as I know, other modules are not affected, or at least that's what I've been told. If you want increased performance from degraded graphics, you change the settings.

When selecting the gun as CPG it doesn't reset to MAN RNG, even when in CHMD as sight. Steps to reproduce: Enter CPG seat Select desired MAN RNG (optional) Select TADS as sight Laser range something Select HMD as sight Select Gun Expected: Man range set as range source with the selected value Actual: No change, last laser range still valid Track attached cpg_no_manrng_rst.trk

The video output of the TADS is very blurry, but only in the multi threaded branch. Also it's both blurry in FLIR as well as TV, so it isn't just a FLIR thing. Settings Blurry MT Normal ST

Since most of us are flying with sticks with springs in them, we have no way of knowing the stick center position from our physical hardware after trimming without the controls indicator or awkwardly trying to match the arrows on the cyclic itself. When you land the helicopter and you want things in a default configuration, that's when you can use trim reset. It's not very useful in flight. I'm glad to have it.

It depends a lot on the environment. Warm water and clouds kill the gain settings completely for example.

Another thing is that squelch off would only be used in circumstances where the circuit would suppress legitimate transmissions, such as being far away from a transmitter or having a broken antenna or something of the sort. From what I understand, the aircraft remembers the last state of each squelch circuit after shutdown. During cold start they are all off, which makes no sense. While not strictly wrong or a bug, it's inconvenient and unrealistic that the last person to fly the apache would've switched them all off. I have also noticed that I get no background noise when they are off, only noise overlay when receiving a transmission, including intercom from ground crew. But just letting through the audio without a trigger point is the whole point of turning squelching off, so there should be static noise always. This is also why squelch should be on by default, no sane pilot would keep their sanity for long if they were listening to 5 radios blasting static into their ears all day long, so they likely didn't do that in their previous flight. When I get a transmission, I do get static noise, but that's exactly when there should be no noise heard at all, since there is an active transmission in the air. What should happen is that when squelching is on and receiving a strong enough signal, the audio you get is exactly the same as squelch off and receiving that same signal since it's just a trigger point on when to let that signal through or not. I also get noise on all 5 channels at once when receiving a radio transmission on one of them. This is wrong, addressing the other two bugs should automatically create the correct behavior for this as well, but it's probably worth looking into as well. The correct behavior would be 4 times static from 4 radios that don't receive and 1 normal transmission. I have not yet noticed different volumes on the noise depending on hot or cold start, but I have not paid attention to that, since I usually just turn squelch on.

Well "something" is going on and a lot of things "should" be one way or another. Probably just low priority. I can't say for sure, but it does take around 11 seconds for the bullets to go out to 3000m. Would be nice to sneak that potential quick fix in with the next update if it happens to be the case. With little to no splash damage and the bullet dispersion, you are going to shoot all of your rounds to get a few hits at best at those ranges anyway, so I guess they simply have not felt the need to address it.

From what I've read, this isn't related to the distance. The bullet time to live is set to 11 seconds. It should be a really easy fix by adjusting that to say 15 or something. I mean it's literally changing one number in one file. Here is the relevant post.

You are free not to use them. That said, every single module is installed as a mod. The difference is that there is such a repository and API to download and install them, making it easy and painless.

That's exactly the point. It's impractical to many people to have them installed precisely because no such system to make it easy exists. Many other games with mod support offer such a system. Those people that do not want mods are still free to choose not to install them. I suggest to make it easier, not to force mods on people. Also just because it is impractical right now that doesn't mean it's impossible. The grayflag servers run the hercules and uh-60 mods and they are routinely full. The rotorheads server run the uh-60 mod and they are also quite full a lot of the time. A mod manager would make getting the mods and keeping them up to date more easy, that is all. But more mods and more obscure mods means more and more work for users to keep things up to date or to find them in the first place. That is the part that I would like to be made more simple. I could probably whip something up in a week or two, but I simply don't have the storage space or bandwidth to host such a service myself. There are probably terabytes worth of liveries out there.

I may have confused it with something else.

They already have that little yellow corner thing for GBU31s to edit the bomb parameters, at least in the F18. I think that would be a great place to put the laser code selection. When loading the DTC for the A10 it could use that information, for aircraft like the F18 who magically load the configuration after the rearm is done, it could also load the codes then. That janky kneeboard thing really should only be a temporary solution.

They have announced an A4 module. That would make a good candidate because the existing A4 mod already is exceptionally well done in all terms that matter, that is flight model, systems, weapons and graphics and it comes with the hands down best kneeboard as a bonus. Such a kneeboard should be included with all aircraft in my opinion. If they ask for money for the A4, I personally don't see any incentive to buy it over the existing mod, especially since it's already fleshed out and established so well. It also falls in that era of 3rd gen jets and early computerization that should be relatively simple to model, at least compared to highly complex aircraft like the F/A-18C. If you just want a free, high fidelity and high quality aircraft, the A4-E community mod is worth a try and it's very fun to use, too.

A great many mods exist. Stuff like liveries don't require to be synchronized between servers and clients, but airframe mods and other assets do. And while some mods are of dubious quality or realism, a few stand out as exceptional and rival or even surpass ED's own assets, for example the A4-E community mod, SRS or the ground and naval assets made by the user currenthill among plenty more. Not including those high quality assets can therefore reduce the capability of designing scenarios and ultimately be less fun and/or realistic without them. While I don't agree with the decision to not just include those high quality mods by default, I can understand the decision as they fall outside ED's quality control. I therefore propose a middle ground solution that should work for most situations. When joining a server, a list of required mods is already sent to the client and it is shown in the server list as missing required modules. I suggest that this goes one step further and that mods that announce themselves in this way also are required to have some sort of ID and version attached that can be used to directly download them from a mod repository, such as ed user files. If a user than tries to join a server, he or she may then be prompted if they want to fetch the required mods and be given the size and description for each instead of trying to hunt down the dependencies manually. This would also require a type of mod manager, perhaps similar to or integrated with the module manager, within the game to enable or disable mods without going through the directories and moving/deleting folders so that mods don't affect servers or single player which aren't supposed to be affected. As a bonus because the mods include a link to the repository, DCS can inquire about updates to the mod and automatically download them if the user desires such a thing. Such a mod manager integration may then also be used to query users if they want to download optional mods, such as liveries, which are in use on the server. While mod support exists on a basic level it is complicated and cumbersome to work with. Such additions would greatly enhance DCS by allowing to include mods easier for everyone and allowing server owners to add high quality mods, such as the A4, without scaring off a very large portion of their potential player base because suddenly they have to do a lot of work that simply would be automated in other software products that offer mod support.

If the distance between points is long enough, L3/L4 are panning in increments along the route. So either this was fixed at some point or I didn't check with long distances and it was always correct.

Might that also explain engine start troubles?

I won't go on an off topic rant in response to this. Regarding the bug, I don't think it's as "fringe" as other bugs, which were fixed almost instantly. It actually affects the behavior of different systems. As stated it can be used to store target points outside the valid laser range, effectively cheating. It also makes LMC behave quite differently because you can't get 10km range for example when tracking an air target in the distance. To be clear, I don't demand instant fixes. I just want the reports to be acknowledged within a reasonable timeframe.

That would be ridiculous. DCS's M4 is software, the real gun is hardware. It's not being copied by ED in any way whatsoever. And it's not artwork either. You won't get sued for copyright for making a photo of your gun and posting it online either, even though it has the correct "texture". I can understand copyrighting a photo of a statue or a building, since you might consider that art. But making a model of a gun that doesn't even work is a bit too much. And surely Kalashnikov doesn't earn lots of money either in licensing for every game that has an AK-47 in it either.

It was already confirmed that 9999 is a hard limit in the software. Both TSD and the actual range indication should be limited at 9999m. Right now this can be used to cheat to mark targets out to 15km. Also if no laser energy is coming back at all it should still be 9999m. I don't see what that has to do with the bug. Currently DCS's laser has a limit of 15000m for the laser itself, so that should be useful for weapons guidance for example. It doesn't matter how far that laser goes for ranging though. If it doesn't come back at all, or above 9999m, it should display 9999m everywhere. It's not like I'm doing something strange or wrong in shooting a laser at a mountain that's 12km away.

Yes, I do.

Just the airports would be helpful, too. There are many things that are a pity, but honestly this isn't that big of a deal. FFD would be really great in comparison.