rossmum

The attitude isn't doing any of us, or the server, any favours. Transient players are only part of the problem, and doubtless other servers will draw them away. On the other hand, this server had a pretty committed core of redfor pilots. Some have come and gone over the years, but I recognise names. I know when I am or am not seeing them go to the "other" server - and like I said, every time I have looked, I rarely see more than two or three at the same hours they would previously have been on this server. I have been playing here for nearly four years on and off, two years of that almost exclusively, frequently 3-4 days a week. I get to know names. The Russians are turning up in lesser numbers, perhaps we can guess why. The Bulgarians have mostly disappeared, I've only seen two or three of them on here recently and I know some of them have been playing more modern stuff recently. Zach is finishing school. I've been busy with things outside of DCS. Kirk has been on hiatus for quite a while now and as a result, one of our main GCIs is gone. The Vodka guys have been on less frequently and partly due to real world concerns. There are a couple of regular redfor guys I see on Enigma's server from time to time, but it isn't enough to explain where the whole team has gone - and considering most of those in question were the same guys who used to take 21s up to hunt Tomcats and Mirage 2000s, back when the latter was on the server, I think it's pretty safe to say that it isn't out of fear of a challenge. People burn out or have real life things come up. We can sit here all day and moan about our players being pressganged away from us by other servers but at the end of the day, that neither fixes the problem, nor has any resemblance to what's actually happened. Perhaps if we want to talk about things being easier, I'd like to know where my R-3Rs went. The sole advantage the R-60M has is its close-range turning ability - it has a worse seeker (and thus far worse front aspect capability), shorter range, worse flare rejection, and a weaker warhead. If you gave me a choice between the two missiles I know which I would pick, I wish I could strap the 9P5 to my 21. It isn't an easy I-win button like people make out, but it is pretty undeniably the superior missile and it forces some adaptation to beat. I would say the main threat comes from being third partied by it from someone you didn't see, purely because of the larger engagement envelope it provides and the almost smokeless motor. For what it's worth - I brought it up in reference to another server. Here I don't think it's that big a factor at all, though it was a rude shock when you reminded me that they are available to A-10s It's the single most common excuse I've heard for why people say how much they want to play here, but then never actually do it. Personally I prefer it being disabled, and I try to drill into people that it only takes 3 minutes to learn to use something like TACAN or RSBN, and then you'll never need the F10 map again. There's even still the ability to mark current position and rough heading on the kneeboard (which cannot even be turned off). Allowing F10 ownship position might bring some new blood in, or it might not - the excuse might become something else. I dunno, maybe it's worth trying for a bit if nothing else.

Not all aircraft experience prestall buffet at all speeds, so it is entirely possible it's intentional. At very low speeds in particular, some aircraft will experience almost none, and some will experience it long before an imminent stall at higher speeds.

"Migration" is overstated, at least when it comes to the core population. A few regulars do play elsewhere now, but many of them no longer play at all, or have been unable to play as often at the hours the server tends to populate (for example, I've barely been able to play more than twice a week at the usual hours for some time now, and the past couple of times nobody has been on either team). Some of the most active red players have simply been busy with other things and when they go, the rest will tend to fly less as we usually enjoy flying with each other. I've been hearing about migration for months now but I'm rarely seeing more than 2-3 familiar names on the player list of the server people usually single out, and they aren't always red players, either - if anything I think I see more familiar blue names there. What the server needs is enough players on during prime time to hit critical mass, at which point transient players will start joining again. There are plenty of people who say they'd play the server but it's never populated when they're around, but few with the time or patience to sit in it until more people join, unfortunately. In some respects the set piece nature of the missions probably factors in as well, although it's great for holding onto players once they do join - it's harder to just pick up and play for a few sorties. I also very much doubt it's to do with it being "easier", as having to deal with AIM-9P5s is anything but that. The general skill level is lower but the airspace is crowded, all-aspect weapons are in play (and in that regard the 9P5 is absolutely top dog), and GCI coverage can be spotty as well. The real ease in that regard is it being easier to jump on for 20-30 mins and find action, which probably appeals more to those with limited play time.

19 would be extremely brutal I think, especially with no missiles for the Sabre. Nothing will catch it, and its performance in the vertical makes it quite trivial for it to just lurk above and bully peoople. I really enjoyed the mission, the AAA fire at the road outposts was enough to be scary but not enough to be oppressive, and we had some awesome fights around the town. Adding the Spit and maybe a few more slots and/or airframes is really the main thing it needs right now I think. It went down a treat on stream too! I think blue's problem was partly that we all wanted to go bomb stuff in Skyhawks and that left nobody for CAP. When the nuke carrier appeared we had nobody really in position to stop it and none of us were loaded for air to air. As crazy as it sounds, less A-4 slots might actually be the problem - though it'll suck for people who want to try out the jet in a MP environment but join late in the mission. I also learnt a harsh lesson, to the tune of "just because you survived a cat shot with a loadout once, it doesn't mean you won't be sleeping with the fish the next two times". The carrier probably turned without me realising it and I lost just enough headwind that all those bombs plus full fuel was a bit ambitious. Landlubber pilot...

Noticed some issues earlier on Alpen's server - no engine sound for T-55 and M60A3 totally unable to cope with hills, even gentle slopes. I fired up the ME to do some testing and it appears the engine sounds are an intermittent or MP-only issue as I had them there; however the M60 behaviour was consistent. On a grade of about 1 in 11 it will grind to a halt, cannot be hill started, cannot be turned, etc., the only recourse is to try reverse back down the way you came and build enough speed to turn and drive off the slope. Excuse the longish trackfile - wasn't sure what other vehicles were affected and wanted to check, but in any case I think it helps highlight the issue with the M60 better. Second trackfile shows sound issue on a MP server (Cold War 1947-1991). Vehicles I've confirmed have no engine sounds in MP missions: T-55 T-80U M1A2 M163 Haven't had the opportunity to check others yet - or on other servers, in case this is some weird issue due to the age of the missions the server runs. CA issue.trk Fight Island-20220331-155501.trk

Shilka can climb shallower hills but struggles with steep ones - not sure that's changed. M60 definitely has issues, it won't even climb a 1 in 10 grade, I'll bug report it if it hasn't been already. Engine sounds seem to be a MP issue, worked fine in SP.

CA is... a bit more functional, but still pretty buggy. I'll have to try make a list this afternoon. The good news is that the handbrake issue appears fixed.

Server updated.

While I'm here - regarding the objectives one side or the other shouldn't know about, that's the issue we get with DCS - we've all seen the briefing for both sides, we've all played some of these missions dozens or hundreds of times, we know exactly where everything is (including hidden objectives) and so the temptation to attack things like roadbases or supply crates can be quite high, especially if one team feels they're stacked against. The main thing to think about is - is this going to mildly inconvenience the other team, or is it going to make them too frustrated to play? If it's the latter, maybe don't do it, or at least wait until a few hours into the mission. Losing all EWR coverage in the first 20 mins of a 4+ hour mission is a great way to kill server population, and not all missions allow sling loading of new radar sites. Likewise, hobbling a team by blowing up all their special objective crates early on can really kill the fun of a mission. I get that it's a sound strategy, but we have to consider what is/isn't going to be fun and try to balance that against the desire for our team to win. I used to play on a PvP Space Engineers server that had a rule to deal with this sort of thing - "keep it funny and charming, not cruel and tragic". Unless there's a way to randomise where those special objectives spawn, or where EWRs do, I don't know if there's really any other effective way of removing that extra situational awareness.

Guys, can we attempt to keep the personal disputes to a minimum please We don't need potential players coming in here and being scared off by watching us lay into each other. As far as MD and helicopters go: there are ways to avoid getting hit. Don't directly overfly positions he has units in. Don't fly directly at his tanks, it makes you a very easy target. Fire from near max range and if you have more than one Hind available, have both run in from different directions. There's no need to resort to airing out frustrations in chat, just potential for learning measures that help keep you alive. You don't need to be flying perfectly straight for either Petrovich or a halfway decent human operator to make a hit, you just need to not make very abrupt changes, and your ATGMs can reach him at distances where his tanks will struggle to reach you. This isn't just limited to Hinds either - things like F-5s or Viggens flying directly at BMP-2s make easy targets to a CA player. Consider your target's possible firing arc and do what you can to either stay out of it, or be far enough away that you can dodge the incoming round. If you get nailed in an area you didn't see any units in, it's a safe assumption he had something hidden nearby which you didn't see - so avoid that area, and scout it out from further back. Most of all, I would recommend more of you pick up CA (yes, it's buggy and lacking in features, but it can be incredibly satisfying) and give it a go yourselves. You'll get a better appreciation of what CA players can or can't do, and we definitely need more possible tac commanders/GCIs on the server - those of us who do it already aren't always in the mood when we could be flying instead.

Transfer ate it, I'll have to have another try later. If that one works expect some more screens. I mostly started with 3 because it was the easiest to find and spot, and I don't fully understand the Skyhawk's nav system yet. Definitely hard to attack, but led to some awesome dogfights!

Unfortunately DCS trackfiles are still extremely prone to desync, so I couldn't get all the pretty screenshots I was hoping to post. I had a dumpster fire of a day (didn't realise SRS PTT was double bound with weapon release, since I hadn't had need to use SRS in the jet before, so my first two Shrikes and a Mk 83 went for dirt just by the coast, then I couldn't get a single Shrike to work after that...) but it was fun, and aside from having to yell over comms a few times at F-5s trying to teamkill me, it went smoother than I expected. The OP overlooking the Sea of Galilee is well enough defended that really it needs a simultaneous attack by two or more Skyhawks, I think. I didn't try the others. Can't wait for next run of the mission!

It would call for far more. F-13 has even less avionics than bis, while a LanceR or Bison has entire modern avionics systems with MFDs, which blow out development time enormously (just look at how long the gen 4 stuff takes to reach "full release" compared to older aircraft). They also still have enough external differences to require substantial art work. MF arrived there in... 1970, from memory? There are some photos/videos of them right at the end of the war, from the Vietnamese side.

Not sure if you ever played a WWII game called Red Orchestra, but when they made a sequel to it and removed the ability for crews to exit their tanks it pretty much ruined tank gameplay for exactly that reason - I couldn't get out and check out the other side of a wall or such by climbing on top of the thing or going around it like in the first game. The main reason cited for tethering the crew to the vehicle? People used to complain about "tank jumping", where someone would bail right before an incoming shell hit them, so a kill wouldn't be awarded. That was only possible because the original game's physics engine required shell velocities to be about half what they should have been, a problem the sequel didn't have, but by then the damage was done The A-4E being an unofficial mod means there are a lot of potential issues with using it on a public multiplayer server, versus a private community where all players can be assured to have the mod installed and up to date. As for the Mirage - it's a monster, and fairly effortlessly destroys any other plane in the server regardless of player skill. The issue is mainly in that its fly-by-wire makes any manoeuvre absolutely trivial at either the high or low end of its flight envelope. It's a shame that's the case, as it has the best radar simulation currently in the game and this new unreliability would be a lot of fun here, but it isn't fun to fight against. The only thing that could really threaten it was a perfectly-flown MiG-29, and those are not as common as incompetently-flown ones, sadly. They're honestly pretty crap, I doubt it'll be too much of a concern - especially if red's tac comm can silence the radars, or if the SAMs in question are mobile at all.

The basic Lazur integration on the 21 is a little more sophisticated than TAF is - TAF is just feeding target info to your radar as a memory contact, which the radar displays the info of to cue you onto the target's position, speed, relative bearing, closure rate, altitude, and number. You do get an intercept course given on the scope but that's about the sum of TAF guidance - it's using the radar's own existing memory function with regular updates to tell you more or less where the target is and what it's doing, and calculate the bearing and rough speed you need for an intercept. By contrast, the MiG-21's implementation of the Lazur datalink/command system will transmit direct commands to the pilot as well as the relative direction to point the aircraft in order to accomplish the intercept. It gives you relative instructions on which way to turn and how much and how much to climb and descend, command bearing to fly, command speed to reach and maintain, command altitude, it tells you when to engage or disengage the afterburner, when to turn on the radar, what range to search for the target, when to fire, when to break off. You're there purely to manage the throttle and stick and pull the trigger, then land. In the case of more sophisticated integration found in the PVO's dedicated interceptors, it even directly interfaces with the aircraft's autopilot and sensors and so you are literally just there to manage the throttle and pull the trigger. Intercept geometry for the assigned target would be worked out on the ground side by the Kaskad computer and then fed up through the datalink, so you aren't just being told where the target is and what it's doing - you are given the specific inputs you need to make to place yourself in a perfect weapon employment envelope. It's the direct Soviet equivalent of the SAGE system in the US. As it stands now, IIRC you can use LotATC integration to manually manage/assign TAF targets. How Vozdukh's far more complex functionality would work with that is anyone's guess, along with whether it'll ever receive more "official" intergration with DCS itself, like the ability to assign targets to players from the F10 map using tac comm roles or such. To do Lazur you'd already need to remodel the entire left hand side and main instrument panel of 21bis, and from memory part of the right panel too, or else just use supercarrier FLOLS- style onscreen overlays (which I'd prefer to avoid personally). At that point the only work you're saving over an earlier 21 variant is not having to extensively remodel the exterior - although you would have to partly alter it to reflect differences in avionics fittings - and not having to redo the flight model or the engine.

It's most likely using code derived from the Kh-25L. In the same vein, RS-2US pulls lead, which it definitely shouldn't be doing.

The windscreen remodel alone gave the jet an entire new lease on life I think. Having just that little bit more forwards visibility helps a lot.

Hm. I'm about 90% sure I had a fellow 21 return unknown/hostile to me once, though he'd also taken some battle damage so who knows.

F-16 too, IIRC. As for IFF transponders not being able to be left off/always on/etc - that is not correct either. Leave the SRZO and/or izdelie 81 switches off in the MiG-21 or the green-guarded SRO switch in the MiG-19 off and tell me how that pans out for you. The reason it's called "magic IFF" is because it's globally compatible and coalition-based, and aircraft without it still reply. It does not mean that all modules have always-on IFF, because several of them do not. As for people asking about the M2000's IFF in Razbam's Discord - at least they're asking. This is meant to be a study sim, yet a sizeable chunk of the playerbase are allergic to even the suggestion of reading a manual and a lot of them seem outright hostile to the concept of learning everything. I don't think we should be sacrificing fidelity in a game whose entire draw is said fidelity, just to keep casual players happy. You could always make it an option clientside with a mission editor override, like all the other simplified modes. Sensitivity - interrogators and codes, sure. The (particularly US) transponders are not new tech and it's not particularly hard to find out how they work. We must be playing different games. I more or less exclusively play what could be described as "airquake" in DCS, but that doesn't stop me reading manuals and finding out how my aircraft is actually supposed to work (often versus how it does work ingame). Multiplayer is a minority of the DCS playerbase and PvP is a minority of that. Considering how long it takes to get quality of life improvements for multiplayer sometimes, I don't think we should expect DCS' development to orbit around what the current flavour of the week is on Hoggit, let alone GS. If only there was some way to learn. This game has a reputation of being a very in-depth study sim. Most of its players probably study one aircraft religiously and fly a few hours of singleplayer per week, because all the numbers ED have mentioned in the past indicate the vast majority of players are singleplayer only. If you pretend they don't exist, you still have a large number of milsim-oriented PvE servers as well as regular self-hosted missions for groups. PvP is a drop in the ocean. Just because there's been a relatively recent influx of people from other games who want the shortest possible path between installing and cool explosions, does not mean we should throw fidelity out the window to cater to them, especially when you can always add new features like this but then leave it up to mission makers whether to enable them on their servers or not.

It is fixed for some people but not for others.

In real life you'd either get the infantry you have with you to go climb on something and look, or get out of the tank and do it yourself. It's honestly not that big a deal and it's the only thing that makes driving various vehicles (given DCS ground physics and Stalinium trees) bearable. I'll be away from home for somewhere between "a few days" and a week, starting tomorrow, so hopefully nothing explodes between now and then that Alpen isn't around for

F-4E has no lookdown and isn't much of a BFM monster. I would suggest people manage their expectations severely... the Phantom is going to be a worse dogfighter than the F-5 in the horizontal, and its advantages in the vertical against an early 21 largely cease to exist against a 21bis. Its load factor limitations in air to air config are even lower than those of the F-5. As the server meta is already very heavily skewed towards low altitude, the Phantoms are not going to have a very fun time in air to air combat. They'll be fantastic bomb trucks, though. Red will not need the F1 (and the F1 itself is likely going to be a lot less than people are hyping it up to be as well, though I don't have performance figures I can trust for it, so that's just a guess right now). I have doubts on a 2022 delivery for the Phantom, but we'll see. I've learnt never to trust DCS release dates, especially third party ones. As for the reds... we haven't had many of our usual GCIs on for some time, mainly because they've moved on from DCS or just shifted focus to other eras within it. It can make it frustrating and so probably not as many of them are bothering to turn up. Unfortunately experienced and committed GCIs are few and far between, but the population still gets back up there once a few red regulars hop on and it'll flow back over time I think. Anyway, what I came here to post... please do not use the tac commander role unless you are actually moving ground units. I know most of you guys in the thread don't need to be told, but I'd like to repeat it just in case. The other day I had to kick someone for sitting in a tac comm slot while neither being on comms nor using it to advance the ground war, and it isn't something I particularly enjoy doing and it wastes everyone's time. If you just want to GCI or drive a single unit around, use JTAC, that's what the slots are there for.

The internal engine sounds are bugged out at the moment. Nin's sound mod removes the chirping (as well as being a general improvement across the board), though sometimes you'll have no engine audio in the cockpit unless you reslot due to the same bug. Hopefully it'll be fixed soon, it's been reported already.

Yeah, coupled with most trigger zones for capture (IIRC, it's been a while since I checked) being a radius from airfield centre rather than a polygon actually within the airfield fence. Having a mechanic where whoever has more units in the zone owns it would be more ideal, but not sure how feasible that is with the way DCS does things - Alpen would know best since he's the one who built the missions anyway. You'd still be able to get a lot done by one-manning but it wouldn't be a sure thing anymore.

The main issue with 'printing' as it's become known, is that it can cause missions to drag on for hours with little perceived progress. While MD and I will sit there and fight until the last unit, it often results in frustration for one or both teams and quite often the server is nearly emptied out by the time the mission finally times out or one team finally spots the last hidden unit. It's not to say anyone is doing anything bad or intentionally stagnating gameplay - rather that stagnant gameplay becomes kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy when you end up with a couple of stubborn ground commanders and a large mission involving capturing and holding areas of the map. Since I'm not always on the forums, if the server goes down or a mission needs to be changed over, I can be reached on Discord at rossmum#9419. Sooner or later I'll probably either make an official one or see about merging one with Kirk's, just so people who want more immediate news or discussion can use that, but I'd like to try design one so it doesn't get too rowdy since I don't have enough time to moderate it much and it should mostly be focused on organising play on the server.