MARLAN_

I reported it 3 years ago. Don't worry ED is on the case! It'll be fixed any day now!

My Dynamic Weather script for DCS is now broken and I don't have the time to fix it in an instant with zero warning, so support for that tool is going to be dropped too. Oh well.

So, are you saying this upcoming breaking change was well communicated to closed beta testers? Why was this kept a secret from the rest of the community? You realize how terrible of a practice it is for a company to release a breaking change without any notice, right? Companies following best practice will deprecate features/API versions (meaning you can still use them, but you know they're going to be removed LATER) or at the bare minimum, give upcoming notice...

The code already defines 4 different dispenser sources (presumably Chaff/Flare Left/Right), but it seems 2 are being ignored. I've already tried modifying the values, 2 of them are being ignored.nullnullnull

Checking docs shows a 125ms release is officially supported

The DTC editor doesn't let you set your interval less than 250ms which is silly (it'll be overridden to 250ms once you load it in game) There are plenty of videos online showing much lower intervals. I was personally using 100ms from my testing for a good profile. I would be fine with a more sensible limit. Obviously releasing flares 1ms each would be ridiculous, but 250ms is also way too slow.

Still a bug in the latest version.

"Still" this is my first comment in this thread, no? You're also hyper-focusing on proximity fusing. Its a way to mitigate the issue, but doesn't resolve it. These barrel rolls can cause the AMRAAM to miss by easily enormous amounts, a proxy fuse isn't going to make a missile missing 1000ft+ suddenly be useful. If we ignore reverse-engineering a multi-billion dollar project, this can absolutely be solved. For example, if they so choose, they could make the AMRAAM fly at Mach 69 and do 10,000G turns... Its their sim, they can code it however. Now obviously they want it to feel reasonably realistic so my example is insane if realism is the goal (and should be), but its absolutely possible to fix. Also note, realism is not the same thing as real which seems to be their goal right now with reverse engineering...

I don't understand why ED is trying to reverse engineer a multi-billion dollar AMRAAM project instead of creating a reasonably realistic simulation AMRAAM instead... We don't need a full simulation, especially if it doesn't work. Its a nice to have sure, but it needs to work. If something can be made more realistic that's great, but if it causes the missile to be defeated by hilariously simple maneuvers like this, how about we just stick with a reasonably realistic simulation instead. I don't care how much depth the AMRAAM has in the internal code that I can never even read anyway, if it feels real, that's good enough. For example, if ED decided to implement background cosmic ray radiation causing random errors in the sim... I mean.. great, I guess, I can't argue with something being more realistic... but if their code adds a bunch of ridiculous bugs it wasn't worth it.

The pilot in the video is flying perfectly once he's hooked up. He only "battles" initially because the basket is moving in the wind/turbulence. Again, nothing to do with the F-18, those are core game issues. And as mentioned, the sim FM isn't going to be *perfect* to real life but it is very close. It's one of the things ED has done very well.

What are you even talking about... I didn't magically appear perfectly behind the basket, I moved there. My flight is stable because I am in control of the aircraft. "Notice the small precise movements the aircraft makes with no tendency to PIO" ... You mean exactly what I just demonstrated? --- Obviously the basket needs physics added (and needs to be deployed prior to pre-contact...) and wake turbulence and wind simulation needs improvement but none of these have anything to do with the F-18.

Seems fine to me.

ED has been loud and clear to the community via their actions, not words, that the Supercarrier is one of the lowest priority modules, and they don't care if the catapults are broken for half a decade.

It's multi source integration, not sensor, by the way. Should help with your key word searches. @BIGNEWY

If an aircraft tickles the "catapult zone" the shooter will "lock on" to that aircraft and never release, meaning that catapult is now permanently assigned to that aircraft, even if they have no intention to take off, or use that catapult in the near future. When an aircraft leaves the "catapult zone" it must be released for anyone else to use! This issue just about bricks any sort of organized large force event where you won't always be the first to launch (or at all). Taxiing on the deck and if you tickle the zone now the catapult is locked and nobody else can use it. Please prioritize fixing the catapults, they have had these types of issues for years... Every time I/we run a mission I want to pull out my hair when the most frustrating part of the entire mission is the very beginning, every, single, time... can barely get the jets off the deck. It really cannot be that hard to at least check if an aircraft is in zone, and if not, reset the shooters... Even if they teleport to their beginning animation that's good enough for now...