Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Do you happen to know if your mission file was old or frequently updated? I've seen some weird stuff happen files that are older. I also did some more experimenting and it seems like the units in the mission might be related to the problem? If I deleted every single unit (including statics) then place a fresh F-16 and AWACS, the DL worked. If any units from the original mission remain, it seems DL can't function.
  2. Bump. I've played around with the mission a bit more but I cannot find a root cause or remedy. The problem only exists in the mission, suggesting that I should be able to fix it by rebuilding the entire mission (it's actually larger than the file provided, I removed many units to simplfy), but that would be a lot of work. It might also trigger the issue to happen again.
  3. Use either the axis indicator (R Ctrl Enter I think) or when the throttle in the cockpit clicks and lifts over the detent. These are consistent indicators. The next best is fuel flow as it will jump when AB turns on, but the numbers will change based on a number of factors.
  4. Currently the AI has 1 plan of attack that it uses across all engagements. It seems to prefer flying nearly coalt with its target and beaming at low to moderate speed when defending. This makes setting up high speed AI difficult as they just throw away their speed and altitude advantages. It's especially bad with planes like the MiG-25 and MiG-31 (which also seem to have questionable flight models, but I guess that's for the GFM to resolve). Would it be possible to add a setting that makes the AI at least try to maintain speed and altitude advantages when engaging in combat? This would go a long way to making combat with the AI more varied.
  5. In the attached mission/track I have an AWACS flying around that should be providing DL information to my flight, however my HSD is empty. It's only when I jump from one flight to another that the DL information displays. F-16C datalink bug.trk F-16C datalink bug.miz
  6. Yes the missile can come down too steep, but the optimum probably isn't a 90 degree dive anyway.
  7. I don't really have a range number, and I don't recall how the 54's loft logic works exactly. Maybe experiment a bit to find the minimum range at which it will still loft to target. Or if it ends up pulling excessive g trying to loft, fire further out rather than closer. As far as firing position I'd maintain altitude (30,000 ft +). The missile loses some energy climbing but remember than some of it also converted to potential energy which helps the missile retain speed when coming back down. The air is also much thinner up high so losses to drag are much much less. Essentially the loft makes traveling long distance really low cost for the missile, and if you get the loft angle correct you minimize the effect of the thick atmosphere. There is also the potential bonus of coming in too steep to set off the target's RWR.
  8. Not just the Phantom, the MiG-21 and F-5 have similar requests. We even have requests the other way, for simplied F-18's and F-16's that wouldn't be competitive with the current modules. I don't keep track of every post I've seen over the years, but if you want a tally you can search through the wishlist. I don't think it matters. They're popular enough to have some demand, and popularity alone doesn't mean a module will be made. I certainly would love to see modernized classic fighters in DCS. If it flies it has a place here. I'm not arguing that we need them tomorrow, that's not up to me. Which is fine, we have other developers. Although again deciding to do X doesn't lock you out from Y. And it's not just RAZBAM that's an example. There is Heatblur itself along with ED. They all have multiple projects that they plan to deliver. OK, then do it right and spend the time. That time can be spent today, tomorrow, or whenever. Well, you're free to hold your opinion. I guess we just wait and see.
  9. That's subjective. I certainly have my list of priorities, but if a dev wanted to focus on an AMRAAM armed F-4, that's totally up to them. I feel like you're underestimating their popularity. I've seen them requested multiple times, but either way an advanced F-4 does not lock a developer out from doing other modules as well. Something that many in the community would like to see are more coherent groups of aircraft that belong to the same era. A developer that wanted to pursue such a thing would have incentive to develop modernized older airframes along with more advanced ones in situations where it made sense (ie Japan, West Germany, China, etc). It does seem like 4th gen might be the most popular, but they are far from the only ones worth developing. And again competitiveness only counts for so much Even in the MP community, players will take it upon themselves to create a desired level of balance. Banning AMRAAM online has been a thing since before DCS was DCS (LOMAC). It's up to the devs and the demand from the players. Whether that means we'll see one in 2030 or in 2024, no one can really say.
  10. There are a whole lot of factors here, like how much data they have on each plane and how big the team is, and what parts of each module need to be worked on. In anycase offering an advanced F-4 doesn't mean it has to be done before the A-6, not to mention we have multiple module developers within DCS. It's a non issue. DCS isn't a competitive game. Where ever the F-4 falls doesn't matter. Additionally, it's more than the airframe that matters here. The situation does as well. I'd say that's a completely arbitrary limitation of the game and I'd disagree heavily. 3+ belong in DCS just as much as any other category. It's not an esports title, and even if it was you could still work these planes into it.
  11. You still want the missile to loft. It will lose the least energy to the atmosphere by traveling straight down on the target. If it flies a shallow descent it's just going to bleed energy.
  12. We don't experience it because no one makes planes that try to kill the pilot. In actual unstable aircraft you have the safety net of the FBW system which prevents you from feeling the instability. We've had fast enough computers for decades, the ones in the actual FBW systems have to be fast enough to account for instability or making flyable unstable aircraft wouldn't be possible in the first place. The F-16 won't let you point it 45 degrees nose up. Why do we need real time calculations for airflow? All you need is the pitch stability derivative. Stability doesn't have anything to do with turbulence. What are the equations for normal forward flight? You aren't wrong necessarily, but my overwhelming focus when setting weather in a mission is to make it so that the AI doesn't take 30 minutes to taxi. Perhaps when we get an ATC update there will be more interest in freely varying the weather.
  13. What I mean by target of interest is a group or unit (possibly multiple groups/units in separate groups) whose status is monitored and reported during a mission. As an example consider a CAP mission where the goal is to escort a tanker. The player would be in the CAP flight and the target of interest would be the tanker. During the mission AWACS and the tanker itself would relay important information to the player flight such as whenever enemy aircraft are nearby, when enemy aircraft fire on the tanker, or when far off enemy aircraft have a speed and heading that suggests that they might attack the tanker. The target of interest might also be an enemy one, like an enemy tanker. In this case AWACS, etc, would report its position and direct friendly forces to attack it. They would also report additional threats near the target like escorts or SAM's. Basically the idea is to better simulate communication on a given side and actual monitoring by radars and command centers. Without setting up a bunch of triggers, which can be a lot of work, the player can be overburdened in trying to build a picture of the battlefield because no other units really help. Designating important targets should also help in creating mission win/lose conditions as we could set the success of the mission based on whether all targets of interest are alive/dead, etc.
  14. Retarded Mk82, or rippled Mk83/84. The 82's will let you fly lower but the others will do more damage.
  15. I think that misses the point. You don't want an AMRAAM armed Phantom to do Hornet things. You want an AMRAAM armed Phantom to do Phantom things. Just because a plane carries AMRAAM doesn't make it equivalent to all other AMRAAM carriers. That's part of the appeal. They're worse than 4th gen aircraft. We have plenty of room for advanced 3rd gen fighters. They are their own unique class that is distinct from 70's 3rd gen fighters and current 4th gen fighters. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want them given that. It's not like they would keep us from getting other planes.
  • Create New...