XCNuse

May we have a follow up on this? Have personally made some adjustments recently to how I use dcs (more specifically SRS). It's a bit frustrating when the comms menu pops up and I fail to notice it's sitting up there in the corner of my screen (ultrawide problems), and go to hit other buttons and things don't happen lol

The track is a little bit of a "2-fer" Part 1: Screenshot attached is a test against ZIL farm trucks, where not a single truck was destroyed with the frag versions. For the record it was re-tested with the AT rounds. It destroyed 3 ZILs..... Unreasonable lack of damage for something this explosive. AT version against BTR 80s also did fairly little damage if any at all at times. This was previously tested against slightly heavier armor than farm trucks and thin walled BTRs, and it would do zero damage. Part 2: Why is the AI also flying around for so long before attacking? When set to Group Attack versus Unit Attack (group checked or not), the AI would do a single loop prior to attack. Track file has the AI wandering around for something like 8 minutes. I had one test where it flew around for THIRTEEN MINUTES! ptab25koat test stupid ai.miz ptab25at low damage dumb ai.trk

How does one do a line break in the text box? I know it's possible as I've seen it done before; but does it require going into the .miz file itself and editing a file by hand?

Friend just had this as well again; surprised this bug still exists 3 years down the line. For the sake he instead quit to main menu, loaded into a "quick flight" cold start, and engines would not ignite (F14 Bravo) F14A would not start either Crashing the F14 means you can't fly it until a game restart. Unfortunately I forgot to remind him you have to save tracks on single player so I have no tracks. But seems to be the case again if you crash the aircraft, it has the likelihood of not starting.

Hey on the subject of the multicore newsletter, I guess I had skipped over the "dynamic lights" aspect. What exactly does this refer to? Does that mean we'll have multiple light sources finally, and cockpits and planes won't be pitch black when sitting underneath airport lights finally?

And how many years will it take for everyone to implement? How soon will ED allow third parties to implement? I'm still waiting on anyone to notice how many aircraft are missing canopy reflections, something I take very seriously between wanting for immersion factor, and for evidence of how a situation like this is treated. I've made my list, I know exactly who has and who has not added reflections, which are bugged, which are not. What makes anyone think an updated FLIR engine will be a smooth transition? We're not talking about massive jobs to undergo; the literal purpose of an API, which has been stated as such for the record, means this should be implemented with [potentially] literally a single line of code; replacing the original API. Then down the road, what happens if someone is smart about it due to this decision of a new API, and writes it in so if something goes wrong, it falls back to the original code? Has everyone forgotten under certain circumstances the weather engine makes the FLIR stop working entirely? How long will we have to wait then to have functional FLIR weapons and sensors? For the record, nobody will have these answers, I'm just pointing out speculatively of a situation that is likely to happen that I'm forseeing that everyone else appears to be ignoring. This might also come true with multithreading/Vulkan, do we have to wait on all the third parties to transition as well? I don't know, but we might!

In the meantime I'd like you to get me a count of aircraft still missing the [prerender] interior reflections that came with the launch of the Hind. My point is exactly this. There is no guarantee when it will come.

This also now means we have to rely on everyone putting it in, including the modules ED has made themselves..... Why are all these old systems still left in place in the first place? This is only going to force more work on ED, Third Parties, and the community. The community to report this when whatever module is missing the new engine, or when it breaks a year down the road because of spaghettification. Then we have to wait on third parties to implement it. Then we have to wait on ED to shove it into a patch.

I am having this issue with the C101 pitch and roll axis. Edit - Was able to resolve by completely deleting the bindings for the C101 CC/EB

Reporting again that this bug is still true as of 2.7.8.16140 OB

Because the options we currently have potentially doubles the amount of work the mission designer is required to do. Because there is no quick and dirty way to properly make a cold and hot start, without going back in, renaming literally everything, or otherwise ending up with "Unit 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-9" And if you argue "you can just copy and paste", I am going to disagree immediately, and state you cannot, because it will move any waypoints, which defeats the point again of trying to save the time of the mission designer.

If you play the same server, then of course your anecdotal evidence will be just that. Meanwhile, I agree with cfrag. Anything that can save time for the mission developer in the first place, is an important one. Having "ground" start aircraft was a nice choice so we aren't filling up an airfield with cold AND hot aircraft. But as it stands, there are still a lot of things the mission developer has to decide on FOR the players, not the other way around. There is a server I play every once in a while, and ALL aircraft are hotstarts, and I wish they weren't. So the choice goes both ways.

As of Open Beta 2.7.7.14727 this bug report is still true.

This appears to be a global issue on the map that at least these two structures will not be drawn/built when the mission is started. marianas building bug.miz

So 3 years down the line..... Any updates on these "on the high priority list" features from 2018 that have somehow skipped the F18 Early Access despite being a slated promise?

Watched the video; still not seeing anything that says to hold / wait / anything related; or anything that is informative in such nature. I guess I'll keep.... waiting more?

I don't know if I'm misreading something, or not understanding something somewhere, but in a clear state of mind I tried it again, with no change. I see nothing in briefing about how it's supposed to work or in the radios about how it's supposed to work other than start at my own leisure, but even a looooooong time after startup and nothing happening... well nothing happens. There's no information given to me as to why I cannot take off or do anything. I'm sorry but this is just stupid at this point, and would love to hear what I'm doing wrong. It seems to me that no matter how long I wait (not that I'm literally ever asked to wait), as soon as I take off I'm told the mission has failed.

I am stuck at the beginning of Mission 2; as soon as I'm ready to take off and do so... not even 30 seconds into flying it keeps saying "the mission has failed!" What am I missing??? There's virtually no instructions here, and it's very frustrating. I tune into the freq and am told to start whenever I want, so... I do so, there's no menu to request startup or otherwise so I continue on with my business. Seriously where am I going wrong? Three attempts, last one I just sat waiting for another ten minutes and nothing happened. I've given up, the lack of direction is very confusing and frustrating, and this is only the second mission, and not even the flying part yet!

Me. I have had a single crash, day after 2.7 dropped, after deleting FXO and Metashaders, the load times were severe and it was likely more my fault that it crashed. So believe it or not.... yeah, there are people out there who literally haven't experienced anything that I've seen around. I've been pretty active on the Discord server and have seen a lot of weird bugs and crashes etc. But somehow, I have not experienced any of it, nor has my [low user count] server.

'preciate it! I'd say if I need to provide anything let me know, but I think it's fairly well covered and needs no real follow through kind of tracks. I want this campaign to be good, I know it can be! Pesky weird bugs just gotta ruin the fun.

Without the ability to control the vehicles is already a problem as it is. I don't even know how much time I attempted to spend on this first mission, but it's... it's bad, no other words can describe how embarrassingly awful it is other than... it doesn't work. And I don't mean the game crashes doesn't work.... but... it does... not... work. To the point where this shouldn't even be on the store. I don't generally regret purchases, but ED, this just isn't acceptable. I can probably share all the tracks anyone would ever need but I think it's unnecessary when I can't even control the vehicles in the sense of... if I tell them to go "here" and they just ignore said command, then there's a massive disconnect. In no less than 20 minutes, I managed to get literally every single group in the first mission stuck and unresponsive before they could even reach the objective. If that's not the definition of "does not work" then I don't know what is. Not to mention every bridge any vehicles got near they'd decide it was a good time to turn and go another way but got stuck before they could even do that. ED I'm not trying to be mean but come on.... this.... isn't acceptable.

Well remember, 2.2 is default (mine has been set to 2.1 since the 2.0 days) Also that Gamma is more about contrast than actual light/dark, and by having such a low gamma, you're decreasing all midtones down into very dark colors (which would be those entire displays). From those pictures though, the sky looks equally as bright, the ground loses some contrast, but I'm definitely not seeing whatever it is you are. It's entirely possible your monitor is brighter than it should be or you have something else going on. But gamma... is not... a brightness slider, and it is not linear. This is what I mean by telling you two that having gamma in the wrong place is 100% the culprit. If the game is too bright or looks wrong, adjust your monitor, NOT the game's gamma, if you are doing that, then it entirely means your monitor is out of spec and either too bright or too low contrast or whatever; but the fact remains... gamma is once again, NOT supposed to be used for increasing / decreasing your brightness. Gamma is logarithmic, and shifts all midtones to be much darker, or much brighter than they should be. Gamma does NOT increase nor decrease pure whites, or pure blacks. Hence why in those two photos you just shared, nothing looks blown out, the clouds look virtually the same.

I can't find very many sources of how bright the MFDs the Vipers are on a bright and sunny day, but from what I have found, they definitely do not appear to be anywhere near as bright as the green screens in the Hornet. From the images and photos I can find in broad daylight, my screenshots don't look that far off in brightness. Could brightness improve for the sake of the game? Yes a little more brightness wouldn't hurt. But I wouldn't call it a problem; not like they were a bug in the Hornet at least.

That is exceedingly low....

Gamma too low? Tried to replicate your scene some; I wouldn't say the MFDs are the brightest things in the world when trying to beat out the sun but... mine seem perfectly legible.