Minni

Yep. There's no way to know who's doing what now. I'm hoping this issue is acknowledged at ED fairly early on

Hey ED, kudos for getting the lights to work but my initial concerns are now validated since we can't block people from using the LSO view and the viewport doesn't work too handily in VR. It feels a bit silly having the rogue LSO flash W/O continuosly on you after performing the rather rare perfect approach.

Yeah, it was a blast in VR when it first happened. I felt a bit crosseyed for a moment

I gave the Harrier another go. Or actually tens of them since I wanted to find out whether or not there is a sweet spot after which the spinning no longer occurs. It seems that if you AAR the empty externals from empty to full and spend over 1600 pounds of new fuel (1200lbs or less remaining per tank) it won't spin. Anything less than that used produces the spinning shown in the video and it apparently is more violent the less fuel used. At the 1300lbs per tank mark the plane doesn't exactly spin but starts... shaking. Violently. I tested this with the same parameters as in the video: by spawning in air with the empty externals, refueling until full and jettisoning the tanks every 100 pounds until it no longer happened. edit: I recorded the 1300lbs and 1200lbs remaining per tank jettisons. At the 1200lbs one you can see the jettison itself doesn't induce any shakes but after that the plane has the rollrate of a Skyhawk on speed and it'll rip your wing off. Tracks below: 1300lbs Jitters Harrier_AAR_1300lbs_jitters.trk 1200lbs smooth but rollrate flips to ludicrous Harrier_AAR_1200lbs_smooth_but_rollrate.trk

Hello, I've encountered this bug and it's been repeatable for quite some time now in MP and SP as well. If you start your flight with empty external tanks loaded, hit the tanker and then jettison the bag your planes becomes an unrecoverable rollercoaster of death. This seems to be the case with the outerboard external tanks that for now have given me a five for five success rate in consecutive tests. The inboard external tanks, when loaded on their own without outer tanks, seem to be functioning as expected (ie. no violent spins) in my tests. As shown in the video below, I start the mission from the air with outboard tanks installed and empty, refuel, disconnect when full and once I select JETT everything goes black. I had zero input on the stick or pedals (I forgot to enable the overlay before pushing jettison but I believe you get the idea since the violent jerk is immediate after jettisoning) and once the spin starts no amount of any input will recover the spin. Below is a track of the recorded mission and a recording made in VR, sorry for the shakes. Harrier_AAR_uncontrolled.trk Similar thing happens with the Mirage as well in the same conditions.

CMPTR PILOT, the default position. I cycled through all the drop modes as well when we started troubleshooting but no joy. The issue isn't that we couldn't get the proper drop cues. In fact LANTIRN shows TREL and when the pickle button is pressed switches to TIMP as it always does but since no station could be selected the bomb won't release.

Hello, This is apparently tied to the GBU-24 but I have a recollection of this happening with other GBU's as well, not just maybe as often. I believe this has been an issue ever since the release of the module and since I haven't found an explanation as to why this happens anywhere I feel this is indeed a bug. When the plane is set up for A/G (Master Arm on, HUD A/G, stations selected as desired, weapon wheel set correctly, the whole shebang) the station flag(s) on the pilots ACM panel do not flag the selected stations and munitions can't be dropped. Just now I did a sortie where we first tested the station after departing and everything worked up until we got to our IP and the flag wouldn't rise on the station we were supposed to drop. We cycled multiple times from A/A to A/G, tried all the different stations (only one was A/G though) and the flags wouldn't budge. As the plane hadn't done more than 2G's after the first test and the actual attempt to drop I'm having a hard time figuring out what could be the problem here. Any ideas?

The optimist trapped inside me thinks they're postponing the AI A6 since they're making the playable version after the Tomcats are finished.. :music_whistling: They had (some very detailed) renders of the A6 over a year ago so who knows, maybe we'll get at least the AI Intruder ingame sometime this year. Would also be a decent first chance to make the KA-6 for those cooler refueling ops, playable or not.

I've made a few missions where I've had a ADF beacon transmitting from a trigger zone. You can do this by setting a radio transmission trigger on the desired frequency and the game reads it as properly transmitting station and you can home in on that. Note that you (apparently) need a .ogg file, even a completely silent .ogg looping lets you home in. It works for static stuff if you want to create your own stations but things get more complicated if you want your beacon to move. Other way is through the advanced waypoints. Under "perform command" you have a similar menu but you have to set another command for the frequency. This is side locked so a blue unit transmitting on 600kHz is only transmitting to the blue coalition and the ships waypoint options, for reasons unknown) are limited so you can't use this on ships but you can for example set a car driving around and transmitting as a moving homing station if you wish. Then there's always scripting which allows for way more and then some but is that much more difficult. Tarawa let's you set up the TACAN through the advanced waypoints as well. You set it up on the WP you want it to start transmitting. Kuznetsov doesn't have this. Then again, KA-50 doesn't have TACAN so you're out of luck there :) edit: whoops, misread your message Accipiter and actually answered nothing there assuming your ship is moving. Sorry about that. You could try and make an AI helicopter stay on the ship and transmit but it's a silly workaround that I haven't tested. edit2: you could also try and make a triggerzone moving, there's at least (UNIT INSIDE MOVING ZONE) which ties the created zone to a unit. I'm not sure if this breaks the transmission though.

RCTRL+K (iirc) marks your position on the ingame kneeboard charts, it's kinda like a cheat since it works even when all F10 map options are disabled. As to the others, if you have the extra 50 dollars you can get a drawing tablet and a VRK tool so you can DIY the kneeboard pages. I know it's not exactly what you're looking for but it's another tool in a box. edit: note that this only works in VR, you may want to look in to it before you go shopping https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246970

ED has stated in the past that the boom and drogue physics are being worked on making AAR more realistic/difficult. Granted it's been at least a year with practically zero news about it so it may have been pushed beyond the back burner pending bigger stuff.

That certainly wasn't my goal and differing opinions are welcome. This, however isn't really a vote, so I feel barging through the door and being dismissive towards new ideas/wishes on the count of "not realistic enough in these two scenarios" is definitely not the way to voice said opinion. Especially since the wish specifically was for an option to decouple the wave height IF THE MISSION MAKER SO CHOOSES. This doesn't take anything away from anyone and surely separating two joined values shouldn't be a huge development hurdle.

I may have worded myself poorly. My intention was to suggest the disconnect feature as an option in the editor for those who so wish to do for some reason. Those representing the wind=waves school of thought could simply let the defaults apply.

That's stretching it a bit, eh? I'm fairly certain you can actually see my logic and reasoning here without being snarky.

Let's play a game of "what if" and some people want to try landing their planes in crappy weather. You saying it doesn't warrant any change in the name of realism has the same weight as anyone saying +1 so how about you just... let people wish? It's an option, no one is going to take your precious charts away from you :) If the wave physics are how they are now when Marianas map drops and we actually need to place ~70kts winds to get a swell that feels like anything, ED is either going to have to visit the wave setting through "how to model a sea" or "how to make this a slider" and do we wanna guess which is probably easier?

There was some discussion about ocean physics regarding the pitching decks and such in the Supercarrier section of the forums but I'd suggest the wave height/length made optionally independent of the wind condition in the editor pending any large changes to the actual physics. This way we could uncheck the box tying the wave height to wind speed and setting the waves through a 0-100% slider allowing for rougher seas without placing unrealistic 90kts winds across the sea level. If left checked the wind would affect the waves in the same way they do now.

Same results in SP and MP

+1, the carrier spawns have never been this smooth and I fear if we start choosing spawn slots we're back at even more of "your flight is delayed" or explosions.

Can't reproduce this. Just tested this and with all three number modexes the AI ATC will refer to the one set through the loadout screen. If you input only two numbers the ATC text itself shows "-409" but the audio is still 409.

Excellent point, ED should most definedly keep the external view modes in.

Hello, At this time the LSO view is just a view port accessible to every SC owner on the server by pressing LAlt+F9. The same apparently would be true for the other planned positions that are to come later in the early access. I feel this will present a problem in the future if the playable positions on the Supercarrier are not made in to actual mannable slots effectively making the SC a large multicrew module rather than a terrain object. I'm sure this will be a rather large hurdle to code but in the long run I strongly believe the SC slots as clients -solution is the only correct one. Even moreso as I'm not sure if the game engine allows for anything clickable from the "external" viewport of LSO there would be no way to intercat with the cut/waveoff lights, hook to ramp points and such without it being through an overlay or a series of keybinds which would be a massive blow immersionwise. The same would be true for the future planned positions. Furthermore, if we're going forwards with the current viewport solution there should be a check for the game to actually determine who of the seven guys specating for example the LSO view is the LSO in command who can adjust the aforementioned things. We can all probably imagine the results if two or more guys adjust these things at the same time through their own overlays or keybinds just by entering an external view. I absolutely love the new LSO view even in its current state when playing with a closed group but I do feel there will be some issues with the current model in the future if this is not adressed early on.

We discovered this yesterday while testing a CSAR script. When the radios are set to listening guard freqs, they really don't. We tested this by transmitting beacons on 243.000 and 121.500 and neither radio (set to BOTH in front or TR+G in the back) didn't pick anything up. When tuned to guard presets or manually set corresponding frequencies the beacon worked as it should. Guard frequencies works through SRS but any in-game transmission made on guard will not be broadcast to the F-14 unless the specific channel has been selected. This is implemented correctly in multiple other modules and it would be rather nice feature to have in the Tomcat as well. EDIT: was already mentioned here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=235218

As the title says, I'd argue hiding the scoreboard for all players would lessen the quakeish playstyle in missions it's not called for and it could also be used to hide any human players joining the opposing side adding a level of surprise to some missions for sure. Added option would be to show the scoreboard upon landing/server quit/death etc so those who care about the score would get their satisfaction if the mission maker so chooses. This has been mentioned on and off on the forums and Discord but the Wishlist search turned up results no newer than 2018.

Hey, Now that there are more and more multicrew planes coming to DCS it would be nice option to always allow a set people to join your aircraft without having to go through the trouble of accepting the request. Usually it isn't an issue but every once in a while someone joins midflight and some of those times don't necessarily make it easy to reach for the mouse especially in VR. This could be (maybe) done by sorting players by their player id and at the same time we could block the non wanted players from even trying to slot so that the prompt window doesn't even come up.

The LANTIRN is very picky about the contrast compared to LITENING. You can help the pod by zooming out, changing from BHOT to WHOT or vice versa and if all else fails you can try adjusting the gain manually to make the target pop a little more.