isotaan

That is considered a workaround. I don't need to use NAVterrain, and I don't absolutely need to even use the NS 430 at all, which prevents crashes altogether. The problem is that it's not working as intended, and it's never supposed to cause a crash to the desktop.

I think the big difference is that you're on the ground. Try either an air start or takeoff on Persian Gulf. The stutter effect is more pronounced and you're more likely to CTD if you're at higher altitude. I also noticed that it's more likely to cause a CTD if you're in multiplayer versus single-player. For me, I experienced it in a F-5E while at 30k feet on a blank Persian Gulf mission. I don't have a .trk file for it, unfortunately, and there's no .zip file in my logs. I've attached my latest dcs.log and the .miz file. I also uploaded a screen recording of what I experienced to Youtube: dcs.log f5e_ns430_test.miz

I can find no reference to the wing tanks being used only on ferry flights. Indeed, according to Gordon & Komissarov, the PTB-800 wing tanks are characterized as "drop tanks" that have to be jettisoned along with their pylons before the wing sweep can be changed. Furthermore, there are even photographs of armed Mig-23s using wing tanks. Please see attached pictures. The first two are courtesy of FAS, and they're PVO Mig-23Ps on patrol. The third one is of a Mig-23MLD on patrol in Afghanistan. I apologize for the crap quality as I scanned it from Gordon's book as I cannot find it on the interwebs.

In the mission editor, the Mig-23 can't load anything onto those stations but it should.Based on photographs of the real plane, it should be able to carry fuel tanks there.

Going to maximum range under NAVterrain will crash my game. The log file is...interesting. dcs.log

Skynet IADS. If you plan to add in a bunch of SAM sites and if you don't want them to use the default DCS AI logic, then it's the only way to do it without giving yourself carpal tunnel.

Noticing the same problem with the Hornet's guided munitions- the AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-62 Walleye, and AGM-154 JSOW. Even with the MITL weapons, the result is the same: the weapon "locks" onto a point above the bunker (probably because the antennas raise the center of the hitbox into the air). Walleyes will absolutely refuse to hit the bunker and will land just behind it. Trackfile is attached. As shown in the trackfile, the Walleye is aimed directly at the top of the bunker, but the weapon is actually flying at a point above the bunker. It misses the antennas and explodes slightly behind the bunker. You can even see the camera being "grabbed" upwards at the last moment as the camera reaches its gimbal limit in the last 1/4 second of flight time. server-20200630-083015.trk

Eventually, yes. The Walleye, SLAM, and and SLAM-ER all have the ability to have a buddy control it via the datalink pod. We don't currently have this in-game.

No discussion of the Mig-23 on the podcast. I am sad.

The Harpoon is capable of launching on a datalinked target. I hope we get similar functionality.

For a target ahead of you, the flight profile of SP mode and TOO mode are identical- the missile will fly up until halfway to the target and then tip down and coast directly towards it. TOO mode has the advantage of putting the target location on your HUD, and the Harm's display on the DDI can let you pick a specific radar out spatially. One major difference is that the HARM is capable of over-the-shoulder shooting under certain flight conditions. You need to be in SP mode and the target needs to be somewhere behind you. Lock the appropriate radar and shoot and watch the missile (sometimes) turn around and hit your target.

Agreed. I only use the map overlay occasionally to check on the position of hostiles on the SA page. The bright red contacts have good contrast against the map.

Back when 2.5.6 dropped I remember toying with the gamma settings at night, and some combination of gamma adjustment and AMPCD settings made it somewhat passable with TrackIR. It only seemed to work at night, however.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4300736&postcount=185

I imagine the C-802AKG will be similar to the SLAM-ER that we're also going to get. The SLAM we're gonna get is gonna be like a Harpoon married a Walleye but the kid has features of the Maverick, so everyone who wondered who the father really was.

The Trigger Action "Unit Radar On/Off" does not currently apply to naval ships (inexplicably, it also doesn't work for land-based EWR sites). This means that warships are always detectable via RWR, and thus super easy to find the general location of a ship. If we can get this trigger action applied to the ship radars, then we can have ships simulate EMCON.

"creating currently" You sly dog, you :pilotfly:

I was able to get them to launch with the emergency jettison button.

I love this script! I had worked on similar stuff with triggers and trying to implement it in new missions is extremely painful. Having a script that can be uploaded makes my life as a mission-maker a lot easier. I have some hopefully not-too-difficult-to-implement suggestions (in order of importance): "Backup" SAM sites that only activate if other sites have been attacked and destroyed or are out of ammo and are reloading. Think of it as merely activating new sites once primary sites' radars are destroyed or the noAmmo flag has been tripped. Allow us to daily-chain backup SAM sites, so we could have a primary, secondary, and tertiary SAM sites. [*]SAM site dispersion When attacked and when configured to do so, the SAM site can move a short distance to spoil the targeting of INS/GPS guided weapons. Again, this would only apply to mobile SAM sites [*]Defined activation & engagement area In addition to allowing SAMs to engage once targets get within X distance from the site, allow SAMs to engage once enemy aircraft enter a specific location. Think of it as a SAM trap- planes go to bomb a factory, and when they get over the factory, multiple SAM sites can activate and surround enemy aircraft I think this option should be able to be switched off and allow SAM sites to use other scripted logic once the trap has been sprung. [*]ADM-141 TALDs - Configurable logic for how SAM sites react to air-launched decoys Currently TALDS seem to be treated as aircraft My suggestion is to allow scripted commands to configure the network to ignore TALDs for the purposes of site activations. I bet you can't make them invisible to the SAM site radars themselves due to DCS's AI, but at least you can allow mission makers to disable the effectiveness of TALDs so SAM sites aren't activated [*]SAM site relocation for mobile SAM units. Secondary and tertiary launch positions. SAMs should be able to regularly relocate to these positions (maybe random? I personally prefer user-defined locations?). The network can be configured to cover for the moving SAM site until it's back online, after which another SAM site can relocate. Maybe tie it into other items, like after a SAM site has been attacked but isn't currently under attack? Obviously this will only apply to mobile SAM sites. [*]Faster reloading of SAM launchers. Is this even possible? If so, it should be a configurable option.

You're correct. 80's-era F-16s did fly with triple Mavs, but the LAU-88 (triple ejector rack) was discontinued for operational F-16 flights for reasons stated in this thread. The drama llamas who complained said that the LAU-88 could have been used in wartime if the USAF needed it. Which I suppose is true, but that theory is true for a lot of things that could have been done but never were. The llamas don't want to acknowledge that our F-16 module isn't supposed to model the entire historical weapons loadout over a 30+ year lifespan. Unlike ED's Hornet, the Viper is supposed to be a snapshot of a mid-2000's F-16CJ.

That's only because the mob came after ED with torches and pitchforks. ED had initially had it on the weapons list, but removed it just before pre-orders when live. ED also removed triple rack Mavs since they were not used on the version of the F-16 that we have. Rather that continue to face the storm, ED added both back in.

Wags teased this as a possible upcoming feature last year. No updates since then. Link here

Pretty much. Keep in mind that the military keeps both weapon systems because they compliment each other. There has been some interesting attempts to combine the all-weather standoff capability of the JDAM with the accuracy of the LGB. The GBU-54 Laser JDAM can update its target's coordinates when it spots a laser. The US military has experimented with putting terminal seekers and datalinks on various GPS-guided munitions like the GBU-53 and the AGM-154C-1.

Regarding SEAD differences between the F-16C and F/A-18C... While the HTS will make the F-16 a better HARM platform in some edge cases, the Hornet will be a better SEAD aircraft overall because it can carry the TALD decoy. Do not underestimate the capability this offers when there's good mission design, even in MP. One Hornet can suck up half of a SAM site's missiles. Two hornets can negate a site's ability to engage targets for a long time as the site has to reload their missiles. The Hornet may also be able to carry more JSOWs than the Falcon, partially offsetting the game preference for murderbots over poor cluster damage modeling (I am not certain about this, but I have yet to see evidence that the F-16C carried BRU-57/As on stations 4 and 6).

That's why the Walleye ER/DL was created in the first place. They needed a way to correct the impact point but the attacking pilot was too busy getting out of dodge to have the bandwidth to do so. Instead, a follow-on plane would have the datalink and could steer the bomb into the target.