XCNuse

Guess you'll have to convince Razbam with all available public data about this to convince them that they came off all the time and aren't a major function of the specific model E they're developing then. In the meantime, a photo to at least prove that the hardpoints are on the aircraft and not the removable portions themselves would be outstanding; because even that I'm failing to see.

You're missing what Skate was stating. Everyone that wants to be able to remove the "CFT's" are failing to realize that at the loss of those, is also the loss of near all underbelly mountings. Some of the sensors and nearly all weapons the E model carries are through load bearing mounts on said CFTs. If you remove them, the F15E can then only carry 4 missiles and the 3 drop tanks (one per wing and centerline). Now call me stupid, but who in this thread wants a "slick" F-15E that can only carry 4 missiles? Because that's what you'd get if those fastpacks are removed.

Can't say anything was ever specified as being "EA" or not; just going off of what was sold to me at time of purchase. Either way, Heatblur's Viggen is 5 years old and they still call it Early Access, so I hate putting that name on things that are half a decade old.... Several years... shouldn't be considered "Early Access"

Yet it's still something they sold to us in their preorder list of things to come with the "dynamic cockpit"null

Secondary shadows are for carrier (Supercarrier?) only at the moment. As seen in this screengrab the shadows of the deck crew and vehicles etc. Wouldn't cast shadows with that off. Honestly though your CPU is holding it back quite a bit, or will be. Also, if GPU is only from 75-90, that means GPU intensive settings can be raised; as... your FPS is being bound by your CPU. So what you can do is raise something like MSAA to 2x, as that's going to be ONLY a GPU setting, it shouldn't affect CPU time at all. Beyond that, either a CPU upgrade or the continuous wait on multithreading is all you can do.

Chinese asset pack is part of the game as a free addition to everyone, the additional piece is the J11 which comes with the purchase of Flaming Cliffs 3 only. WW2 asset pack is a separate purchase: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/wwii_assets_pack/

I thought it was kind of weird to finally see a bird with default kneeboard pages. Fortunately, the ability to put bookmarks on the kneeboard now are a huge lifesaver. HOWEVER... the kneeboard we have for the F1 is quite awful; the text is beyond too small, and leading way too much; there is a TON of wasted space, which makes it double the pages it needs to be, and again.. hard to read due to the rather small text size. While I appreciate the addition of the kneeboard.... I also don't like it.

Or for those of us with Warthogs, have it act like the Hornet for example. If flap switch is down, flaps go to landing. If flap switch isn't engaged (centered), it goes to neutral If flap switch is forward, it goes to flight. As it stands with the Warthog throttle, we have to bump from aft, to forward, to neutral, to forward, to go into flight. We need an "XOR" style binding to be more accurately specific.

Can we get a little better description on what this means? What is Argument 1616 and how exactly does one trigger it.

Reminder that ~80% of all of DCS' aircraft modules are still titled as EA, some of which are half a decade old now too.

Oh so it has happened before! Wild. Unfortunately like I said, nothing can be done to reproduce it because they ARE in the mission file as apparent in the track. So like I said, we loaded into and ran this mission, and realized some ground unit groups didn't spawn in; but I could take the track, and run it, and suddenly they were there. I could also take the track, save it as a miz, load it up into SP and on my server, and they'd appear. Sadly the server that ran it had been restarted and missions reloaded since then, so... no log. (kind of wish logs were saved like tracks) This has been a first for myself, like I said, out of the many years I've been on DCS, this is definitely not something I have ever seen once before! But like other weird things, seems to be tied to dediservers' differences.

This is going to sound wild, and the worst part is, I literally have no way to provide proof that this happened other than a first hand account. Has ANYONE, ever seen or had this happen to them before? Where a mission loads into your server, you run it, and even things as simple as static units don't appear? To keep it simple; it was a group mission, loaded in, some triggers seemed to be wonky, we continued anyway. Map view was limited to our plane only, so we had no way to know there was a major issue off the bat (not that us players knew what we were looking for anyway, and why would the mission maker check anyway, seems pretty abnormal right?) Make it to the AO of targets... only some objects seem to be there. Majority of ground vehicles and infantry units did not spawn in; but some other units like manpads and non-vehicle statics did. And no, these were not even late activation groups or anything based on triggers; just plain units set on Syria. Here's the kicker: Load the track file in the mission editor, and everything is there. Server was restarted, mission restarted (after we called it quits by then), and everything loaded in just fine. So the mission file itself wasn't broken in any way, the server loading assets apparently was? This is my only assumption. Anyways, searched the forum, never came across this. Thought it was very unusual, and as mentioned, appears to not be reproducible in any way shape or form, but seems to have been tied to the server I guess just needing a reboot? (As for a finalizing addition, if it were somehow the wrong mission, it means the units wouldn't have been in there in the track file. Additionally I loaded the mission into a personal server and it ran fine. And after the main host rebooted their server, everything was fine) I guess the takeaway is.. reminder to reboot your servers!

So.... Those RWR noises.... Seems kind of weird right? Is that how it's shipping?

Well of course; again, that's how this all works. There's no software background mind going on that knows what you want them to do and decidedly making them do what you're thinking in your head. You have to tell them exactly what you want them to do; which seems reasonable.... you just have to know the ME and all the weird settings for waypoints to make it so. Also no that SEAD mission was probably the most complex mission I made with about 8 other AI flight groups, neutral traffic, jamming aircraft, voice overs, and many other things I hadn't done before lol, far from simple! Again, if you leave the SEAD waypoint role, the AI will attack any and all EWRs, SAMs, and ground radios they find. That's what that does; that's precisely what that does. If your AI are dumping weapons and running tail, it's because you aren't setting them to evade, but "threat allows mission cancel" (or something along those lines). You HAVE to set your AI to evade, otherwise they do indeed default to flying away under any threat. THIS IS BY DESIGN.

South Atlantic Map from Razbam in coming update to receive 2 additional airfields.

spawning in and trying to load up an aircraft at 10-15 FPS is what's keeping me from using it.

I find it impossible to believe the EULA and agreements are somehow skipped, but there is a back button there. Can you not click on the back button?

What do you mean "was never really planned" You guys literally announced during the initial release we were getting the Forrestal, B, A, and IRIAF variants.... This is 4 year old news; in what world was the IRIAF "not planned" ? It was quite literally spoken about, and announced, during the preorder in 2018...

It's immediately after the EULA and Epilepsy warning agreements.

Except the fact that literally none of it is visible... when you have grass enabled in DCS. THAT is what makes it pointless. Review my images in OP if you're telling me you can totally see the purpose of the weeded grass and small rocks in both angles of images shared; that is why these images were shared and mentioned as "pointless"

Tracks cannot be provided for obvious reasons here. But fresh dediserver installs do not install all skins for the Viper; which forces missions made with say, the CJTF aggressor skins to show the default skin when used in a mission. Obviously it should be noted; this passes through when a user changes skins; this is ONLY when a mission uses a skin. (and this is also true for several other Eagle Dynamics units, including F18)

Okay not sure why the forum deleted my text and filled it with images instead.... Dear Razbam... Not sure whose idea it was to put in thousands if not hundreds of thousands of polygons of fake grass; but DCS already has grass, and this is a seriously unnecessary draw calls nobody asked for, and isn't used on other maps.... and the only way to make it visible, is to actually REMOVE the grass in DCS. DUMB! Meanwhile, there seems to be some major issue relating to spawning in an aircraft. The performance on map is absolutely normal, 70-80FPS in these screenshots prior to spawning in. Then if you look at the screenshot that shows my FPS down to 20!... TWENTY! That's after spawning into the Viper. Something is causing insane performance drops when spawning in and on ground; an issue... no other map has by comparison. Not entirely sure what the relation is. But the faux grass... is unnecessary and pointless.

Hobel, what happens if you do the same test against like-aircraft instead of the Mi8? Just out of curiosity's sake. (although it is a very seriously and obvious presence of spaghetti code if two aircraft end up with drastically different results like that when using "the same" missile)

Apparently my former thread was worth locking. And it's hilarious that still a year after the map's release this incredibly simple bug cannot be fixed. This bug has been an issue since 2.7.4 all the way to today under 2.7.15

Redoing INS? why so? As for the AI; you have to tell the AI what you want them to do. You can't expect them to do whatever you mentally think you want them to do. If an AI is set to say a general SEAD role, and they fly within the range of a radar, they will generally bee-line it to that radar and attempt to attack it unless something else proceeds to threaten it (say, an enemy aircraft locking on or shooting a missile at it). Say for example you want to make a mission where SEAD aircraft attack an SA10, but you have the surrounding areas with AAA systems with radars or other SAM system types, and opposing red air. By default; your SEAD aircraft, no matter how you set up your waypoints etc. might generally fly the route, but might not at all attack the SA10. Why? Because you have the general SEAD role set in their tasking, and it's probably right at the top of the list.... which is why I say might generally fly the route; if that primary SEAD task is at the top of the list for whatever waypoint on, they'll stop following your routing completely, and begin attacking ANY and ALL radar systems they are spotted by. And god forbid that SA10 launches on them, and a defaulting task of RTB if threatened takes priority. As a mission editor, it is your duty to define EXACTLY what you want the AI to do, they don't have a mind of their own, they have tasks on a list, and it's your job to set that list up. So for that exact mission; WP0, remove that SEAD task completely, and set it so they will defend against attacks [evade] (and not RTB when threatened). You will then have to set up the flight path you want them to take, and within some range, set a task of "attack group" say, the SA10 you want them to attack. By removing the SEAD role, you prevent them from attacking any and all radar threats. By altering the evasion rule, they can continue on their attack whether they are threatened or not. Lastly, your attack point, tells them SPECIFICALLY what you want them to do. That's where majority of people getting into the mission maker get things wrong. They assume the AI will do what they want them to do, but general tasking alters all of this. You want BVR fighting AI? Ensure they can see their targets either by giving them a radar system ground or AWAC, ensuring EPLRS (if available), and set them to "launch at max range" for example. To me it sounds more like you don't have a complete understanding of the mission editor logic system, and are expecting AI to think for themselves in a greater manner; which is absolutely not the case.