Al-Azraq

We need to provide a track guys, I’m off the PC for all day unfortunately. Can someone do it?

I’m finding CCIP bombing with he Mk 82s inaccurate as well. I set up a simple escenario with Strelas and air start but my bombs miss a lot of time. I remember that while I was learning DCS I practiced with the Hornet in CCIP and had a high impact rate. Now I have way more experience yet my bombs miss although I do the 30 - 45 degree dive, line is aligned, etc.

I’m finding CCIP bombing with he Mk 82s inaccurate as well. I set up a simple escenario with Strelas and air start but my bombs miss a lot of time. I remember that while I was learning DCS I practiced with the Hornet in CCIP and had a high impact rate. Now I have way more experience yet my bombs miss although I do the 30 - 45 degree dive, line is aligned, etc.

Check this for instance: Why does it jink like that? Besides, there's the issue that when you crank in TWS AUTO many times the radar scan bar freezes losing the contact.

Yeah I'm having these issues with the Hornet radar where the elevation gets stuck after changing TWS modes and RWS. I've been never able to reproduce the issue but I think you guys got it. There's a nasty bug there. Also the 'ghost' lock @QuiGonmentions has happened to me many times. Sometimes this ghost contact gets to Angels -77 and can't be unlocked.

My issues are in a PvP server (Blue Flag). I don't think there's a problem with the AIM 120 because as you said, they are the same missiles for all planes but I do think that the F-18 might have an issue supporting the missiles. I'm always getting the LOST cue on the HUD unless I launch from very close and also in TWS, when I launch and notch, the scan bar in the radar gets kinda stuck to the radar contact gets lost and missile is wasted. Also ED nerfed the AIM 120 after improving them due to the Russian community complaining and I guess it will stay like that until the improvements to the Russian missiles come, but that's a separate issue.

Yeah same, I get the LOST Cue 100% of the time and also get ghost locked contacts. When I lock a contact in TWS and it drops, sometimes it stays locked and following an straight line. Sometimes they get to -77.000 ft.

Same experience. I usually fly Blue Flag and the F-16 AIM120 are way more dangerous. Sure the F-16 flies at Match 1+ everywhere and will be more dangerous than the Hornet most of the times but still, my launches are good and I find weird I don't have more connections. I try to get to Match 1 before launching, good altitudes, always supporting the missile, but my oponents are always able to defend. I observed some weird behaviour of the radar while in TWS AUTO as it seems to freeze after launching and start nothing. The search bar will stop and the launch is not being supported. After some seconds it will start working again but the launch is already dead.

I think that at some point, we will just have to settle with what wind tunnel tests, virtual tunnel tests, and written memories will give us in order to represent an old warbird in a simulation. I think that with this data it should be plenty to have a trustful simulated version of these great planes, and that when using them in combat you will exploit their real advantages and avoid the disadvantages in the same way as in reality. Of course you may not have all those small details, but at least you will get a picture of how that plane behave in battle.

You are right mate, I didn’t remember that the Dora has no flying example either. I hope that with the data we have and virtual wind tunnel is enough to create a Tempest.

Completely agree, you made a very good list and I wouldn't be surprised if ED's plans were more or less in-line. After what you proposed, I would go to Battle of Britain afterwards but fleshing out the current plane set and the 1944 - 1945 setting should be relatively easy and will offer a cohesive experience. The 1943 - 1944 period would be great as well. Tempest would be difficult for DCS standards as there are no flying examples out there. It is true that neither there are for the K-4 but the K can be extrapolated from G variants.

This has happened before and after the patch. I'm in open beta.

Hi, are you having this behaviour by any chance? https://i.imgur.com/l8aN3xs.gifv The bombs where aligned, designated by the TGP, and launched within range. GPS was in IFA mode and completely aligned. I didn't set the HT, but there should be a default HT right? i understand that there's no need to touch this option unless needed. The server was Blue Flag by the way. Thanks.

Hi! In my last 3 sorties I observed this behaviour in my JSOW-A: https://i.imgur.com/l8aN3xs.gifv The bombs where aligned, designated by the TGP, and launched within range. GPS was in IFA mode and completely aligned. I didn't set the HT, but there should be a default HT right? i understand that there's no need to touch this option unless needed. The server was Blue Flag by the way. Thanks a lot!

TACAN for multiplayer has been broken for ages. It works fine for a while, but then it breaks and becomes completely unreliable, so much that I don't land in the carrier usually as TACAN is a much needed part of a carrier landing. Yeah the thing is that it breaks after a while and even ED hasn't been able to locate and fix the bug so reasons are unknown. Some people may have never experienced it because they could have been lucky, or the server they play doesn't trigger the bug. Anyway, I contacted Bignewy through Discord for this and the told me they were working on it and the last finding was that assignning a custom name for the TACAN in the mission editor may fixt it. Finally, it is not because the distance or altitude, I like to tune in the TACAN before take off from the Carrier and even being in the deck the TACAN station cannot be tunned.

So, La-7 for DCS? https://www.facebook.com/OctopusG-1475030196055201 122266388_2763647983860076_6228428590954875937_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=2&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=U1uDTUMrKugAX8qJ6qI&_nc_oc=AQnoyi5zOSamnybPYbJjicnOrNtWZxBfbT1NTlsR6kIRn4W8RSxPqnD696LTB8KaG9w&_nc_ht=scontent-mad1-1.xx&oh=e82e355b

Bump for this! DCS has tons of features that can't be used in multiplayer which will enrich the missions a lot. Please ED, take care of multiplayer.

*New weather and clouds *Detailed damage model for ground units: we need mobility and gun kill, not every unit exploding when destroyed. We also need simulation in this regard, it is very arcadey now. *Central European map to accommodate the current plane set. *Bf 109 G-6 *P-51 B/C *P-47 D-22 *Ju-88 with bombs

Hi Bignewy! Any update on this issue?

Hi Bignewy! Any update on this? With the rockets coming to the P-47 we need trains to blow up in multiplayer.

This looks like a pretty advanced AI model but as many things, they are announced just to be forgotten and never to be seen again. We could make a long list of items like this. Have you heard about Freya radar? 190 F-8 and G-8? Damage model? We only know about it because we ask many times. What about those clouds? They are my favourite mythological animal. Yeah I know that we hear about these things from time to time by buried forum posts, interviews in Russian and whatnot but clear updates to these announced items would be great. Especially because these items weren't a small drop of info in Discord or whatever, where I understand information of features in early development may slip and they are still a long way to go. These things were announced in Weekend Newsletter where I understand that they are already promises and should be updated periodically.

Nick Grey said in a Growling Sidewinder interview (I think it was the P-47 one) that the Mosquito was aimed for the end of the year. They wanted also to test the flight model with someone with experience flying the plane in real life, but then COVID hapened and these plans were delayed to October 2020. I don't know if this remains true or plans have changed. THIS, but I think Nick said October.

This, with the current branching it makes zero sense to be on "stable".

I can understand this limitations and that some of the systems have to be implemented using educated guesses, but they should communicate those before silently removing the EA label from the module. We are a grown up community and can understand the situation, but someone has to explain it to us.

"No bugs" in software development is very difficult, especially in an ever evolving platform like DCS is. These bugs should be kept at minimum, but what I know for sure is that a product should be feature complete and the Harrier is not.