Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'investigating'.
-
locking a target with ACM Boresight with HMD on can sometimes give the symbology of a lock that doesn't follow the target (sits there stationary on hud/helmet), and firing on it results in missile doing nothing, as its not a valid lock. this state is a false lock, where other actions do not always work and the radar ceases to search for targets. Particularly frustrating, as using ACM boresight is done within 10nm, which is always a time critical situation. this state is semi-permanent until the player uses a workaround. workarounds are: double press undesignate cycle radar power i think switching weapons with weapon select switch will also work past it. system notes: Multithreaded binary, HMD on, HMD blanking off, otherwise stock configuration of the jet from hotstart. Bug happens to cold-started jets too though. video: https://clips.twitch.tv/SteamyHumbleJaguarRalpherZ-Ff4ItXayZTRO20c- not the best video, as I work around it pretty fast (having known this bug well for several months now) to try and secure the kill fox1 Testing.miz -
Seems that counts only for AI controlled SAMs.. Heres the difference between a player SAM and an AI SAM ...I operating the SA-15 see the HARM on the Radar in the last 3km(!) of the missle and die. the AI detect it around 13km and shot it down.. AI SA-15.acmi AI controlled SA-15.trk Player SA-15.acmi player controlled SA-15.trk- 1 reply
-
- 3
-
-
investigating STN datalink number missing in multiplayer
TobiasA posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
In multiplayer, the datalink STN team number from flight members spawning after you is missing when a flight of human pilots starts from cold. The first one to join has no team members after startup (apart from ownship). The second one to join has the first one as team member. The third one to join has #1 and #2's STN as team member. After manually adding the team members that joined after you spawned, everything works. But those who spawned after you will be missing. -
Hi. When I use the Normandy map in the multithreading executable of the simulator, it feels like something is overloading it. The FPS drops and they feel slower than they actually are. I've been testing the MT since it came out and I haven't had any problems. I've flown perfectly in desktop and VR, and the simulator on MT runs great on all maps, even on Marianas. I performed a test by looking at the sky, and attached the results (With MT, it doesn't go beyond 90fps, even looking at the sky, but these 90fps feel like they are 50fps.). The tests were carried out with the same mission, which only contains a parked F-18 aircraft at an airfield, with a few clouds at midday. With MT, the FPS fluctuates quite a bit and it feels overloaded, while without MT it runs smoothly and reaches the maximum of 144hz (VSYNC enabled). As I mentioned, I haven't had this problem on other maps. Does anyone else have this issue? Has this problem been reported? Let me know if you need more information.
-
I remember that in the past, CCIP could calculate correctly regardless of whether the bomb's parachute was activated or not, but now CCIP can only calculate the situation when the parachute is activated. This makes the Mk-82Y unable to be used as an low-drag bomb. Mk-82Y.trk
-
Greetings ED devs, while working on a different project to clone the SA-5 and give it some longer range search radars, another individual and I discovered the Tin Shield search radar does not presently function with the in game SA-10B (S-300PS). The ST-68U Tin Shield was originally intended as a temporary search radar for the early S-300P systems and as a general Early Warning Radar. I was able to modify the High Digit SAM Mod S-300PS to utilize the Tin Shield in its coding, and after discovering how easy it is (literally one line gets changed), I was wondering if this change could be pushed to the default DCS S-300PS as an option for countries which didn't receive the Big Bird search radar and as an option for those which did. The specific line in High Digit SAMs is: GT.WS[ws].LN[1].depends_on_unit = {{{"S-300PS SA-10B 40B6MD MAST sr"}},{{"S-300PS 64H6E TRAILER sr"}},{{"RLS_19J6"}}}; where the RLS_19J6 is the in game ST-68U Tin Shield. In S-300PS 54K6 cp.lua, would need to have the depends_on_unit line changed to something like: GT.WS[ws].LN[1].depends_on_unit = {{{"S-300PS 40B6MD sr"}},{{"S-300PS 64H6E sr"}},{{"RLS_19J6"}}}; A fairly small amount of time would be required to add a whole new level of "realism" to the in game S-300PS for nations which didn't have access to the Big Bird search radar or for "dated" scenarios involving pre-64N6 Big Bird deployment by the Soviet Union. Thanks for your time! -
Scenario; create a flight, 4 members, ascending STN numbers (as per default) Save the mission. Create Static Template Open new, empty mission Load static template Check STN - number 3 and 4 are switched. Seems like when generating the STN, something gets messed up. when checking the STN in a text editor, everything seems to be correct, however, upon loading it, the jets have the wrong values Test miz and STN file attached. edit; only tested with vipers, assume its the same for other aircraft too STN TEST.stm STN_TEST.miz -
Can't set laser code to laser designator when switch is safe position. I don't think that's accurate. For example, it should be possible to set the laser code on the ground. For comparison, LST can be set to ground. So I think it should logically be possible for LTD / R.
-
investigating Framerate decreasing up to 16% with 2.8.0
Limaro posted a topic in Game Performance Bugs
Hi, I want to report a general decrease of framerate by about 13%. This might be to the new cloud and lighting effects, however I think It might be useful to let you know this. Since the 2.7.6 to 2.7.7 - Performance-Loss Bug I have a small replay I regularly check before updates. These are now the differences: 2.7.18 27-10-2022, 16:05:09 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 8549 frames rendered in 101.203 s Average framerate : 84.4 FPS Minimum framerate : 56.9 FPS Maximum framerate : 109.9 FPS 1% low framerate : 58.7 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 33.7 FPS 2.8.0 30-10-2022, 20:50:31 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 7452 frames rendered in 101.015 s Average framerate : 73.7 FPS Minimum framerate : 51.4 FPS Maximum framerate : 92.6 FPS 1% low framerate : 52.8 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 47.7 FPS My PC in short: Ryzen 7 3700X, AMD 6900XT (Adrenalin 22.10.2), 64GB RAM, Windows 10 21H2 Unfortunately, I can only share a actual 2.8 log file (attached). Currently I try to make space on my drive, to update the stable and -counterverify the original numbers. I will post the log for this later. What I've done so far: - Delete fxo - Delete metashader2 - Removed Scripts-Folder As soon as the stable is ready I'll try diffent settings to compare the impacts. But meanwhile, if someone has valuable suggestions, I am open for tipps. EDIT: I finally could find some place for the stable and installed it. I've created two more flight, one in very bad weather, the other without. Also changed the modules. But the results are very compareable. 30-10-2022, 22:11:55 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 5598 frames rendered in 74.672 s 2.7.18 Beirut_4_2 Average framerate : 74.9 FPS Minimum framerate : 56.6 FPS Maximum framerate : 99.8 FPS 1% low framerate : 56.6 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 55.1 FPS 30-10-2022, 22:15:30 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 6445 frames rendered in 63.859 s 2.7.18 Beirut_4_3 Average framerate : 100.9 FPS Minimum framerate : 72.7 FPS Maximum framerate : 137.7 FPS 1% low framerate : 72.4 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 70.8 FPS 30-10-2022, 22:19:27 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 4906 frames rendered in 74.469 s 2.8.0 Beirut_4_2 Average framerate : 65.8 FPS Minimum framerate : 52.2 FPS Maximum framerate : 87.3 FPS 1% low framerate : 51.6 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 47.5 FPS 30-10-2022, 22:21:04 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 5590 frames rendered in 63.438 s 2.8.0 Beirut_4_3 Average framerate : 88.1 FPS Minimum framerate : 60.8 FPS Maximum framerate : 115.7 FPS 1% low framerate : 60.1 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 58.6 FPS EDIT2: Updated Title EDIT3: Corrected GPU Number dcs.log Performance_Fly_4_1_Beirut.trk Performance_Fly_4_2_Beirut.trk Performance_Fly_4_3_Beirut.trk dcs_2.7.18.log- 31 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
- performance issue
- fps
- (and 1 more)
-
Simple logic bug here, no track provided. If you scan center away from the middle in RWS while not using 140 azimuth, going into VS will re-center the scan. If you use TWS BIAS or if AUTO was being used causing the scan to not be centered, going into VS will not recenter the scan, and as there seems to be no method of scan centering while in VS, you must exit VS, go into RWS, then back into VS to get your scan back into center point.
-
reported Huey's new performance profile discussion
Tim_Fragmagnet posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
It needs another rework. For the points marked as "level flight impossible", I am unsure if it is realistic or not, it is very possible the real aircraft produced enough power that full forward cyclic could not maintain level flight. However data for flight over the Vne of 125knots, let alone over 50PSI is hard to come by, and usually for the UH-1H with the old blades. Overall the huey has more available power, however at low speeds the performance discrepancy is not good. You go from requiring far too much power to requiring far too little power. However, the engine profile doesn't seem to take altitude into account. As for the engine profile itself, it is still underpowered at high power settings. The new profile produces 50PSI (1158shp) at 101% N1 The real huey produces 50PSI (1158shp) at 96-98% N1 However the EGT profile has improved significantly. The hover performance is not great, however. It requires too much power at every weight. Here is a more advanced profiling of the hover performance. The new WIP fuel consumption is far better than it was, but it's still using too much fuel at higher power settings, however it is reaching what could be considered "close enough", but could still use another tweak. The rate of climb is messed up too.
- 96 replies
-
- 37
-
-
-
- investigating
- performance
- (and 1 more)
-
12/16/22 Preface: In this Friday's OpenBeta update, the easy coding fixes have been added for the P-51, 190s, Spitfire, 109, and 47. However, the Mosquito has been missed. Additionally, the armor plates that are missing from DCS entirely haven't yet been included. Items that were fixed in the 12/16 OpenBeta update will be highlighted in green, and marked with the update date. TL;DR: Many warbirds have incorrect armor values, or are missing armor. If you open the x-ray.edm in the Modelviewer, and the individual aircraft's Lua, you can see the IDs from the Modelviewer and see what those objects' properties are. Please click on the photos here, as while I've minimized them in this post so it doesn't get cluttered, but if you click on them you will see them in better resolution. The P-51D (INCORRECT): [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The headrest and seat back armor (aka XArmor01 and XArmor00) - If we open Aircorps Library and look at the drawings for the late P-51D, like ours, we will see that these are two pieces of armor welded together. The headrest being 7/16", or 11mm...and the seat back being 5/16", or 8mm thick. Meanwhile in DCS, it is given a thickness of 22mm! For both plates! Almost three times the value of most of the area of the armor. I have an idea on how this value came to be, but I'll drop it into the spoiler below: [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The armored glass (aka XArmor02) - In DCS, it is given a thickness of 75mm. Using the schematics from Aircorps Library, we can again see that it is 1.5" thick, or 38mm. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The instrument panel (aka XCockpitElement02) - In DCS, this is given a thickness of just 1mm! In truth, the instrument panel is a part that's for once, thicker in truth, coming out to 0.128", or 3.25mm. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The firewall (aka XArmor03) - This is given a value of 12mm in DCS, or just a scratch under 1/2". For our 51D, it appears that a more possible value would've been 1/4", or 6.35mm. The P-51D (MISSING): The coolant header tank armor - This is a piece of armor that has been missing from the Mustang's damage model. It is 1/4" thick, or 6.35mm, and lies just forward of the coolant header tank within the engine nacelle, between the coolant header tank and the spinner. In summary for the P-51: -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.022 to 0.008 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.022 to 0.011 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.038 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor03 from 0.012 to 0.00635 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XCockpitElement02 from 0.001 to 0.00325 -Add coolant header tank armor. Steel, 0.00635
- 28 replies
-
- 10
-
-
- protection
- dcs
- (and 17 more)
-
Hi, on a multiplayer server catapult 2 deflector once raised up will not come down until next server/mission reload.
-
Hi, I've noticed that this part of the manual is not correct anymore. If the hornets radar is in TWS mode and I select a target to be the L&S target via the NWS/Undesignate button and then push the SCS right, the radar goes into AACQ (ACM) mode which should not happen according to the manual: Page 357/499 states: When in TWS mode, press right on the Sensor Control switch will place the L&S target into STT. This seems like a bug. I attached a track file to see this behavior. bug.trk
-
Hey guys, a hute A-10C II overhaul is out, but it is quite possible I missed some things - or they changed in DCS in the meantime. For the time being I see such example in M02. When you contact Prowler, you won't hear comms with him (6 lines in total) until he gets to Bravo. Not a mission-breaking thing, but letting you know. Apparently core code for the radios changed between me updating this mission and releasing the overhaul. I will fix it for next update. -
Hi Folks, Prior to 2.8 Open Beta, we were able to add SC Liveries a follows: Supercarrier Deck Upgrade v1.00 (digitalcombatsimulator.com) Higher in Contrast, for easier spotting of the deck in certain lighting and weather conditions, Most certainly a Hugh Boost for us in VR. Since the release of 2.8 O.B in Fall of 2022, this feature is broken when used on a MP server or Dedicated Group Server (it only works on the Client side), when the SC Custom Livery is selected via the Mission Editor on a Group Server, it reverts to only Displaying the Stock SC Livery. It would be cool to have this feature available again, @ ED Team, would you kindly look into this please? Thank you!
-
investigating Tank Engagement range broken
WirtsLegs posted a topic in Ground AI Bugs (Non-Combined Arms)
Some ground units (specifically tested some of the WW2 tanks seem to be able to engage beyond their noted max range in the editor, further they seem to ignore the 'interception range' option. here is the test setup: Note that all the red tanks are set to interception range 15%, the blue tank is immortal and weapons hold and spawns 1 second after start to prevent potential issues with everything being there at start. All of the red tanks engage the blue tank despite being set to 15% range and despite the blue tank being outside the red tank's denoted maximum range I have attached the miz file to demonstrate this: engagementRangeBug.miz, just run it and watch So i guess 2 issues here: 1) Either the units ranges are longer than they should be or the value assigned to generate the circles is too small so they don't match and 2) Ground units don't seem to be respecting the interception range option
-
I thought I saw this elsewhere but now I cannot find the post. After taking out the targets and heading to the second tanker I am not finding Exon 55. I got to button 8, TACAN to 15x, TACAN is ON, navigate to where the tanker is supposed to be and its not there and I cannot contact the tanker on button 8. The kneeboard says Exxon is on button 8, TACAN 15x and at FL200. I thought I saw somewhere that there is not an Exxon just Texaco. Hope this makes sense. Anyone else have this issue? Thanks
-
I read through the other big thread on Mission 6 and decided to start a new thread since, at least for me, a lot of the issues there no longer applied. I survived the Tomcat issue on deck, had proper comms all the way through, and passed the mission fine. There were still a few non-breaking issues. It seems like tapes still don't count for final score if it is set to MAN, which is what I did, and I got 90. Also, the instructions for recovery were confusing: the kneeboard said to follow the regular DCS marshal instructions except ignore the push time and adopt Cajun's timing - 1, which in the briefing was listed as 39. However, in the mission, Cajun's push time was 44. Also, the DCS marshal instructed me to 23 DME Angels 8, but Irish also got assigned 23 DME Angels 8. I kind of put 2 and 2 together and figured that no one was assigned 21 DME Angels 6, and it would make sense for me to be there if I'm supposed to push 1 min before Cajun - so I completely ignored DCS marshal and did what made the most sense, but yeah that was confusing. Also, I suppose this is probably just DCS AI being DCS AI, but Cajun flew like a drunk UFO He'd slow down until almost falling off the sky, and then suddenly go full burner, which for AI seems to accelerate him way more than it does me, forcing a long chase. Hanging on his wing was a sweatbath! Just wanna say also that for all the issues, that was an amazing experience. The custom Case III comms are truly an immersion game changer.
-
Attached is a quick clip of an admittedly sloppy BVR engagement where my R-27ER appears to go active on the opposing F-15E. My radar dropped lock after maneuvering to avoid the AIM-120C headed my way. You can watch the R-27ER go dumb, and then appear to reacquire the F-15E and start to lead the target like it has an active seeker and ultimately impact the target (my basic understanding of HOJ is that it would be a pure pursuit intercept and simply fly directly at the emitting source which doesn't appear to be the case here as you can see the missile successfully fly an intercept course on the target). Ultimately, it looks like my R-27ER went active on the target, even though it should have been trashed after my lock dropped. I fly this simple BVR scenario frequently and this is the first time I've seen this behavior, just updated to 2.8.8.43489 OB FYI. 230816_r27er_active.trk
-
Ball call in the Tomcat no longer triggers "Tomcat, ball" but instead triggers "Hornet, ball." Only flown MT so far, but in previous MT versions (2.8.3.38090) "Tomcat, ball" was triggered properly. At some point on or after 2.8.4.38947 it stopped working correctly.
-
So bit of an edge-case but super frustrating one at times, Seems that with the right elevation difference or slope infantry units will decide to go alert state red, taking a knee to shoot...but then will never shoot getting stuck indefinitely or until something unsticks them. image here shows what it looks like i could set time compression on 50x and nothing will ever change I've also attached a track infantryLOS.trk and the miz file visibility.miz for your review
-
The AIM-7 has once again acquired the ability to self-guide to aerial targets. I've confirmed this on the AIM-7F, I've not checked other variants of the AIM-7 but I suspect it will be the same. In the following series of event I am the player герой. 1st Event In the Tacview attached below skip to 11:01:20. Observe the AIM-7F launched by player 'Baguette 3-5 - The Skyline' (F-14A) track to player герой in an F-15C. Timestamps: 11:01:24 - F-14A launches AIM-7F 11:01:50 - F-14A destroyed by Frosty in F-15C (note the F-14A's AIM-7F continues tracking) 11:02:15 - AIM-7F impacts герой F-15C despite being unguided 2nd Event In the second instance герой launches an AIM-7F onto an F-14A 'Sapphic 1-1'. The F-14A is destroyed by a friendly F-15C. The lock on the F-14A is dropped by герой. The AIM-7F guides itself onto a new target - a friendly F-15C. Timestamps: 11:44:15 - герой launches AIM-7F 11:44:23 - F-14A destroyed by Frosty in F-15C 11:44:29 - STT lock by герой on F-14A is dropped > Missile then acquires Frosty in F-15C (uncommanded) 11:44:51 - AIM-7F impacts Frosty in F-15C Don't have a track file because I don't record tracks. They're always broken. Tacview-20221230-201455-DCS-80s-production-V42-OVC.zip.acmi
-
Good morning, I just bought Cerberus North Campaign and when I tried to download the module it appears the message "Servers are unable to complete your request. Please, try again later.", when downloading version info... How to solve this problem? Thanks
-
investigating AMPCD Store page and uncage issue with Mav E
Burner1111 posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
Hello gentlemen, I have an issue with AMPCD Store page when using Mav E. With first missile all seems OK, but when store changes to next station automatically, MAV E seeker head does not track when uncaging (laser is lasing) nor seems switching really work correctly. I have to press step to another station to get a lock where TGP is looking. Could this be a bug? NB! Automatic switching and manual uncaging works with the left and right store page in Mav E mode, no issues there. Haven't tested other weapons though. Thanks. F18 AMPCD no uncage nor missle switch 2.trk
.thumb.jpg.bfa9d2c1cc457b05affa51b25f835c05.jpg)
