1.2.4 CHANGE LOG

[Rider1]

 

Where do we tweak the zoom feature? Anyone done that already with success and have a mod for it?

 

 

 

 

 

Here are your binocs, Eno..

Go here:

C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Config\View

 

in view.lua, do this:

Line 135 CameraViewAngleLimits[A_10A] = {5.0, 100.0}

 

And that's it. :)

[Ranger79]

I really hope CBU-87's are fixed in the future, they don't really kill anything except ground troops. A jeep or truck should be severely damaged or destroyed by these.

[71st_Mastiff]

I really hope CBU-87's are fixed in the future, they don't really kill anything except ground troops. A jeep or truck should be severely damaged or destroyed by these.

 

dito+1:thumbup:

[SkateZilla]

Whatever input buffer they put on the SFM for when it's low and slow should be nixed.

 

So Many times in Get in the F-15C, Take off roll, nose up, retract gear, and then pull back hard only to see partial surface deflection and slow attitude changes untill i hit a few hundred feet then all of a sudden the nose jumps like 30 degrees. external view shows the surfaces going from partial deflection to full deflection at the same time. (though I have My Stick Full BACK).

 

Dunno if it's a bug on my end or not with the landing and takeoff mechanics (Or maybe I accidentally set some Difficulty setting lower?)

 

But it's annoying to have the input's handicapped when Im low and slow or taking off.

 

But it's evident on the F-15C, as well as 3 modules I have that are SFM for the time being..

(Yes the F-100 is one of them)

 

I dont really fly the Red side planes (lack of 6DoF and the old pits dont like Eyefinity)

[badger66]

LITENING TGP masking logic has been restored

 

What exactly does this refer to please ?

[112th_Rossi]

LITENING TGP masking logic has been restored

 

What exactly does this refer to please ?

 

When a part of the A10s fuselage or wing or other object obscures the TGP. I think there was a bug that stopped this from happening.

[Nealius]

When a part of the A10s fuselage or wing or other object obscures the TGP. I think there was a bug that stopped this from happening.

 

Airframe masking of the TGP works perfectly fine on my end.

[Witchking]

Based on the change log, I am assuming AFM for A-10A is not included in this update?

[SkateZilla]

Weird, is there that big of a difference between -A and -C Flight Performance Data?

[ENO]

Airframe masking of the TGP works perfectly fine on my end.

 

I don't think it was the visibility part that wasn't working... I spend half my life staring at the side of my aircraft or wingtip...

 

However if I start marking a target with the IR pointer or laser (assuming), I can be at any orientation and provided I was lasing / IR pointing before I went blind- it would go right through my aircraft surfaces.

 

Maybe that's what they're talking about...

[Nealius]

I don't think it was the visibility part that wasn't working... I spend half my life staring at the side of my aircraft or wingtip...

 

However if I start marking a target with the IR pointer or laser (assuming), I can be at any orientation and provided I was lasing / IR pointing before I went blind- it would go right through my aircraft surfaces.

 

Maybe that's what they're talking about...

 

Hmm....for me I cannot even fire the laser unless I am 2nm away, flying straight and level. I will hit the laser-fire button in latch mode and nothing will happen, then when I get closer to the target all of a sudden the 'L' starts flashing. Then as I pass the target the 'L' goes solid again.

[ENO]

Maybe it was just the IR pointer. I remember seeing this on a number of occasions. Then again, maybe that's not what they're talking about.

[gregzagk]

Does anybody know if Ground Commanders can move aircraft when they are clients in the new patch?

,

Until now it's only possible if you are the Host or playing in SP .I think somebody said that it was fixed but I can't see it on the list.

[arteedecco]

I can completely understand the reasons behind this (company resources, more efforts moved towards future modules, or, for example, AFM ported from A-10C to FC3's Hog), and I don't blame ED for it. But when I buy a sim, I want everything on the same level, not just some parts.

 

Well, end of my rant. Once again, great news! :thumbup:

 

+1 You nailed it. Difference between a polished product and one that is not.

[arteedecco]

+1

 

If they don't solve it this time fine, But if they don't even acknowledge it then things are coming off the rails.

 

Yeah, don't put arty or MLRS in your missions that actually engage anything... and don't look in the direction of where a jet with rockets is attacking an enemy column... all same... major fps drop to point of nearly being unplayable.

 

[EDIT]Nate and Wags acknowledged the CBU-87 issue... hoping this translates to all the others I mentioned, arty, MLRS, rocket strikes (e.g. Mig-23 rocket pods attacking a column of ground vehicles)[/EDIT]

Edited April 22, 2013 by arteedecco

[arteedecco]

In that radio interview Wags did a while back (mentioned earlier in this thread), he mentioned continuing to support FC and the SFM aircraft to help get people into the genre who would be dissuaded by the complexity of DCS fidelity aircraft.

 

My belief is the 6DOF pits and skin updates were essentially "cherry picked" due to dev work being done towards DCS fidelity modules of those aircraft. I'm of the opinion that to maintain product differentiation / value, 6DOF pits should only be for DCS fidelity modules, which would stop the whole varying standards debate. Either way... it is what it is. I'm ready for more important things like new aircraft and serious updates to ME.

 

And yes, Huey release is dependent upon 1.2.4 which allows many things the UH-1 module depends upon, including multiple seating positions, here.

 

Much of the 1.2.4 changelog is encouraging... sling loads... multiple seating positions (hopefully translates *soon* into multiple-human playable positions.... AH-64, Mi-24, F-15E, etc.).

[Nealius]

I'm curious, what's the point of "multiple seating positions?" Who in their right mind wants to sit in the back seat/dummy seat in a flight sim?

[159th_Falcon]

I'm curious, what's the point of "multiple seating positions?" Who in their right mind wants to sit in the back seat/dummy seat in a flight sim?

 

Well, assuming it isn't an eventless 6 hour long CAP, i wouldn't mind.

 

Operating Radar and other sensors to make things go BOOM can be a blast.

Not to mention the CO-OP whit the pilot and other players.

[NineLine]

I'm curious, what's the point of "multiple seating positions?" Who in their right mind wants to sit in the back seat/dummy seat in a flight sim?

 

 

Gunner Position

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

I'm curious, what's the point of "multiple seating positions?" Who in their right mind wants to sit in the back seat/dummy seat in a flight sim?

 

well, imagine, just imagine they will one day develop for example a b17....i would love to fly this crate together with one of my buddies, copilot or pic i wouldnt mind...either position would rock.

[near_blind]

I'm curious, what's the point of "multiple seating positions?" Who in their right mind wants to sit in the back seat/dummy seat in a flight sim?

 

It depends on whose in the front seat. It could be a lot of fun working with another person to blow a bunch of stuff up.

[arteedecco]

I'm curious, what's the point of "multiple seating positions?" Who in their right mind wants to sit in the back seat/dummy seat in a flight sim?

 

Who would ever want to have to take 5+ minutes to click all the buttons and press all the switches to simply get the A-10C started up and ready for takeoff!? What a drag!!! (sarcasm)

 

See my point? Yeah a little different, but as others have indicated... it is really fun to play the other positions.

 

Just a few examples:

1. COD4 - introduced a mission where you were gunner in an AC-130 and were using the 105 and 40mm to take out ground targets. It was easily one of the most popular segments of that game

http://youtu.be/iVaWOPSoIZY?t=1m

 

2. BF2 / BF2143 - Su-34 or F-15E WSO position where you could fire guided missiles... seems lame... wasn't. Sure, you didn't fly in that position all the time, but... you ended up doing it more than you would have thought and it was fun... could have been a LOT better as well... read: DCS FTW

 

3. Pacific Fighters - Endless hours of fun creating missions and flying as gunner, while friend tried like crazy to get us over target area and back home in approximately the same number and organization of parts / pieces we started in while I'm yelling at him about bandits and break left / right etc. Great great fun.

 

And... F-4 ... F-14 << uh.... yeah... getting choked up just thinking about it.

 

And... now think of choppers: AH-64, AH-1, Mi-24, etc. etc.

 

Startin to see the picture? :)

 

It's fun to simulate the battlefield... heck... there's even an FAA controller simulator that integrates into Flight Sim... who would EVER think that's cool??? Turns out... lots of people... and the more vehicles and positions we can participate in... the more authentic, realistic, and rich the experience... DCS is on a mission to simulate battlefield operations. This is the precursor.

 

Think big!

Edited April 22, 2013 by arteedecco

[Boon1986]

2 words: "Release it":punch: or give us new News....:music_whistling:

Edited April 22, 2013 by Boon1986

[Oznerol256]

I really hope CBU-87's are fixed in the future, they don't really kill anything except ground troops. A jeep or truck should be severely damaged or destroyed by these.

 

AFAIK, the BLU-97/B submunitions are armor-penetrating. Therefore, even armored vehicles should get heavily damaged by the CBU-87. Im not talking about MBTs here, but IFVs and APCs.

[arteedecco]

AFAIK, the BLU-97/B submunitions are armor-penetrating. Therefore, even armored vehicles should get heavily damaged by the CBU-87. Im not talking about MBTs here, but IFVs and APCs.

 

Lots of info / discussion on CBU submunitions in this thread I started a long time back about CBU-105, here.