Lau

Copy thanks Just ended the session with two F4E AI, both going for AAR just after take off with three external tanks. First disconnected after 15' and the second one did not disconnect after 30'. Thats 45' flying in formation with them waiting that they finish AAR. Now I did add a trigger "switch to waypoint X by 97% of fuel, just to see if that could help to no avail. I will report this on the DCS AI section. Link to the bug report on the DCS side Note: In the mean time I finally found a kind of way around, it is not ideal but at least I can now play the mission while the bug gets fixed on the ED side. To force the AI F4E to disconnect I setup a refueling duration of 10' Not sure how this is accounted since two AI F4E had time to refuel and carry on with their mission. It is possible that the second AI F4E had less fuel than it's lead, but hey at least the AI is not stock to the tanker this way.

Indeed Zabuzard a real treat to have you working to fix the F4E, thanks ! Just to add that this is also preventing AI F4Es from disconnecting while AAR breaking missions.

Had these oscillations while doing AAR and went full flaps which attenuated the effect. It seems that the longer you wait to react on it the worth it gets. Looking at your video, it is not a speed vs GW issue, so not sure what is going on.

Hi, So this has already been discussed but I am posting the issue in the event anyone has found a solution. The pdf manual is crashing Adobe acrobat reader so I tried Foxit pdf reader as suggested by Fly&Wire and that worked, unfortunately I can only work on the manual offline and the hyperlinks are not working which makes it hard for me to use the almost 1000 pages manual. I am currently using the search function and taking note of pages numbers when I find a topic but that is not ideal. I do not mind having an out of date manual in between DCS updates like it used to be for the F14 as long as I can make my way offline. Thanks

Cool, thanks for the feedback, I will try ! Congrats on your videos, please keep them coming

This is still happening in the latest release MT. Thanks,

Hi HB, ED made this possible in the AH64D with the option "aircraft Control Priority" that can be set to "Equally Responsible" for both pilots allowing the single player to fly manually in both seats without the AI taking over the flight controls. I have seen the temporary bindings that allow the pilot to action some of the WSO functions without having to jump to the backseat and hope these will remain and become optional since they are not doing any harm but helping the single players enjoy the module and only use AI assistance when convenient, with the possibility to deactivate it at any time. I am of course aware that JESTER contract serves that purpose, I am just hoping that HB will keep working in improving the single player experience also without AI assistance in a fully manual environment, helping singleplayers to use some shortcuts bindings from the front seat to fully operate the jet without a human WSO. Thanks, Lau

This has not been fixed or acknowledged.

Hi, I have norrowed the best I could the weights & DIs for each individual station, there could be a mistake that I have not managed to find after countless cross-checkings since the process is not user friendly in the ME. The problem seems limited to this SEAD config since my CAP config was not affected. The reason I'm doing this is to help with mission planning and the study of NATOPS perf for the F4E. That being said, basic numbers should add properly on the jet for an accurate simulation. Thanks, Lau Edit 1 : Finally found an error that further reduces the discrepancy from 2776lbs to 1229lbs, getting closer. Pls let me know if you spot any other mistake that I could have done. These type of information's could be made available to the virtual pilots with the module upon release, after all these are the numbers used by the sim to calculate performance which could greatly help with mission planning and immersion. Now this number is now getting very close to the 1128lbs which is the number used by HB for the weight of the external hard outer inner pylons and the four AERO 3B AIM9 launchers, which you can remove to withness how the weapon load goes in to negative values in the ME. This is due to the choice of HB to base the ZFW on an aircraft ready for war instead of a clean aircraft (31374lbs vs 32502lbs, the delta being 1128lbs). Now my question is did HB made a mistake by adding two times this number? With a bit of luck that could be an easy fix, unless the numbers that I am using are incorrect in which case, I would love that HB publish a full list of weights and Drag Indexes to help out with mission planning. Thank you Edit 2: Out of curiosity, I have just recalculated my CAP config and reach to the same conclusion than my "edit 1", this time being even closer with 1120lbs discrepancy with the ME. This is now getting very much in line with an error from HB with the 1128lbs weight as explained in the "Edit 1". Thought I add this information since initially I stated that my CAP config was not affected. Edit 3: Spotted a typo error naming the LAU-34A with LAU-117 but using the correct weight and drag for the LAU-34A on station 2, so my conclusions remain. I still updated the spreadsheet to avoid any confusion.

This is the second time I get screwed while trying to get the Strike Eagle. The first time was by M2M that ended up never releasing the bird or refunding (2014) and now RB still working with people like M2M. There might be an EULA, but the industry needs to grow up, get away from these type of events and in no circumstances hold customers hostages when they want to get out of a stinky situation. One way or the other the Strike Eagle will be severely delayed to say the least, this situation has been going on for a long time and it has just been made public on a desperate move by RB while customers were kept in the dark as usual. If we cannot longer trust ED then that is going to be an important issue for many customers, I am not saying that we can’t, I am just saying that ED reaction to this problem will be paramount for its reputation. I personally would like out of this problem since, I am not convinced that what is happening is a good mix for the future of the Strike Eagle one way or the other. Best, Lau

In normal conditions I would have been more than keen in having this conversation, however after our exchange in this very topic, I no longer wish to exchange with you. Yep, F4 here I come!

draconus you just showed me that there is no cure for your bad faith. You go fast over messages and misread the information contained. If you read my message properly you will see that I am not asking for "unrealistic faster bingo setting" and that the answer to my question was therefore not so obvious to you. Here is my message one more time just for you : See, you did not answer before and are still not able to answer this very easy question. There cannot be anything unrealistic about what I am asking since, it is already implemented in game with the shift key, the only thing I am asking is for the shift key to be replaced by the left mouse button for fast scrolling and the right one to fine tune with the current 100 lbs adjustments speed. Now over this exchange I must admit that I was more interested in how hard you make peoples life than the actual bingo setting. As far as this topic goes, your realistic policing has been based on nonsense. The more interesting part being that after so much ink, nothing will change in game like many other things that required HB attention, but we will leave that for another time when you will choose to discuss about it. I am done with this topic, Best, Lau

Thanks for taking the time to test: No way, it just moves by hundreds lbs and it takes a long time to move between 1000 lbs up to 12k for example. Do the same test with the F15E and you will see the difference. The F18C is also faster although not as fast as the F15E. The F14B can carry a little over 20k Lbs, my first bingo in the mission is at 14k, then 10k and finally 6k around the boat. I therefore do not use the option the way it is simulated to move from one fuel state to the other, it takes too much time. You haven’t answered my question: what on earth is so unrealistic about what I am asking ?

Thanks evanf117, noted I added a red mark on top of the delete key... Best, Lau

Well you failed on that by quoting only that part of my message and then trying to make me say things I did not write. Keeping it short does not always fit the bill, on that perspective you felt short. Over 10k post and not a single marked as solution from the community, how ungrateful of them. There is nothing balanced about what you have written in this topic. If you fancy adding another 10k post like that, please do by all means, but do not try to make me say things I did not write or give me that nonsense. If you have any comments to add to my previous answer, please feel free to open another topic or PM me and I will meet you there. Now this might be your way of ending this poor exchange with a notch of humor, therefore please forgive me for having a hard time mixing nonsense with humor. I am not aware to have requested anything unrealistic, quite the opposite actually. I requested HB to allow players to simulate a fast hand movement with a left mouse click and a slow one with the right mouse button. Can't pilots turn a button faster or slower to fine tune as they see fit? At the end of the day, it's the same than what it is currently implemented, by just replacing the shift key that requires a second hand by the left mouse button to be able to do the same action single handed. I finally pointed out that the altimeter is better implemented in my point of view since, it allows for fast and precise pressure settings by simply scrolling the mouse wheel, way easier to use and at the end of the day when we are in the cockpit, this is the type of solution we are all looking for. This is what we call customers feedback and it is paramount that HB takes this into account, not this precise example but in general without any doubt. What on earth is so unrealistic about it ? Best, Lau

Hi draconus, I find it to be quite a stretch that you only quote « to improve their customer’s life while using their product » from my previous message and then take the liberty of writing « How can they improve something that is properly simulated? Ah, they can remove the unrealistic fast method. ». I made the effort of writing a message with detailed explanations that are not to be taken out of context like you are trying to do. I furthermore raise a general problem about customer support and delivery delays and I am not talking about the F4 since, I will not be buying the module for the same reasons. I would like to add that I did found the HB update on the F4 delays very neat and respectful, even if I am not concerned, I read it because I care about the company future, but unfortunately that does not cover any of the points I raised in my previous message. I believe that you do these types of things because of the role you have been appointed to by ED and third party developers in this forum, might be unofficial but it is there. While I salute the support you are able to give to the end user from time to time, there is no possible denying that you are over protecting ED and third party developers; I just hope that at least you are getting some free modules for all that non sense. With over 900 USD worth of modules, I believe to be in a good position to assess if ED and third party developers are fulfilling their duty and from my previous message it is clear that they are not doing so well. I believe the passion and support from ED’s customers is prepared for anything but that exclude to be taken for fools. Best, Lau

Thanks draconus, I also heard the same from maintenance guys, pilots where actually complaining about how slow it was and just living with it since, the smartest people on earth do not need that junk to remember at what fuel state they should divert, even adding that it should be in the RIOs cockpit in the first place since, they have nothing else to do and therefore, have plenty of time to spare to play with the knob. After all it is only lighting a bulb with a « fuel » caution advisory. A detail that might have been more relevant when flying the multi million dollars jet with your butt strapped to it. No one is complaining about it since very few people are using it and the ones that do, have plenty of time in their missions to use both hands to shift it fasssst. The thing is therefore not slow, it just takes two hands to operate which, does not make sense from a virtual pilot perspective with eyes riveted on lead during the whole mission. My suggestion since it has currently two speeds, is to allow for the left mouse button to be the fast speed and for the right one for the slow speed. I know that we are debating in the air since probably HB will never read this, but it bugs me that virtual pilots feedback is not taken into account like the annoying fact that we have to retrim the airplane with WoW every time that we jump to the RIOs seat in SP. The probe light is another one and so forth, but yeah the F4, although in 2020 it was not even an egg and things where already reported and acknowledged by HB with the usual “sorry”, not fair. At the end of the day the real jet is in a museum and we are flying it every day, therefore I do care about HB feedback on this and customer support means everything. If they can go through so much trouble fixing an outpost in a training mission, they surely can spare some time to improve their customer’s life while using their product. Best, Lau

Good catch draconus, Indeed I got confused by the JFS of an AI F15E next to my parking spot that should not have been running in the first place since, the plane had no crews on board. I have changed the title to ECS, thanks! Best, Lau

Hey Tyler, thanks for having reported this a long time ago. I do care about customer support, especially after helping the RB dev team with an early access purchase. For me no support = no further investments on RB modules. I am also reporting the AI related stuff directly to ED on the AI bug section. Best, Lau

ECS sound loop can be heard i/o continuous ECS sound Best, Lau

Unable to set Bullseye. Best, Lau

Pilot reflection glitches on both mirrors when moving the head. Best, Lau

Performance issues looking towards mirrors after roughly 1h30 to 2h00 of game. Before that time frame all is fine. There are triggers in the mission and I have not checked if this is happening when calling to RTB a large number of AI airframes, but since I am only experiencing this with the F15E I thought it would be of good measure to report it. Best, Lau

JFS can be heard on uncontrolled parked F15E Best, Lau

Hi @Art-J, Thanks for the feedback, looking forward to read what @NineLine and @BIGNEWY have to say about this one. Best, Lau