Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Laud

  1. I rant about this huge missing piece for years. CAS simply feels dead due to the lack of units, camps, AI-capabilities etc. Whatever you can bring on the ground/water - I'll throw my money at you. As well as everybody else. At least once those who don't yet see how much this is missing. At least for everybody flying A-G Missions and Helicopters. I'd love to contribute but I have about nill useful skills...
  2. ROFL! This is nearly half a year old and just yesterday I spent a half day wondering why the KC-135 I put in a new mission was not answering my (F-18) radio calls. Switching to the drogue-equiped aircraft did the trick... PS: Frequency was correct. That far I knew from hearing him calling out my shots on him.
  3. Looked at it a bit more: What seems to happen for me is that all day/night- and brightness-settings get applied to the exported displays only. Should be the other way around at best. Unaffected exports, working dimming on the mainscreen-display. Flying at night is really a pain atm.
  4. I got it messed up too, but different: MP: Did a CASE 3 - Bolter -> Missed Approach Procedure -> Calling Inbound again 25nm out - Getting a Push-Time T+50 Minutes. WTF? I'm host with no clients... Yesterday flight with three, same thing. First round went ok. For a second run we'd get just crazy late approach-times from ATC. What I discovered sometimes wrong in ATC calls is the tail#.
  5. Same problem here. Additionally the day/night-settings seem to have no effect on my dsiplays (neither main screen nor exported). Only flying the F-18C so no idea about other modules.
  6. More Aircraft??? Hell no! How about Assets? More variety on the ground (and sea). More infantry variations (weapons, clothes, equipment), more vehicles of all kinds to fit into the avaiable maps, more options to control ships / fleets. And so on... We have way too many aircraft for way too little environmental / peripheral stuff and functionalities. Just my 2c...
  7. Awesome, TY! But I have no idea why it was unchecked in the first place... However, it's all good again.
  8. When I'm in my ME and I place a unit (no matter what type) I can't see anything. No unit-icon, no waypoints, no lines between waypoints. Happens with new mission and with opening old ones. The units and waypoints etc. are there though. They're in the unit list and the mission works just fine to fly in. I just can't see them. Did a repair already with no success. Btw.: Running a 1+3 monitor configuration if that may have something to do with it?
  9. I found out what it was: The remove-script can't work with "-" in the name-string. Once I changed the name-prefixes from "TO-1-2-2.*" to "TO122.*" it worked flawlessly.
  10. Now that's very much what I would think of. The way it is in MP is just very uncompatible or uncomfortable.
  11. For some reason my Remove-Template.lua doesn't work. I start the mission with a clean ship. Spawn the statics after 10 seconds (time more trigger) and after 20 seconds it should be clear again ( again time more trigger) but nothing happens. I attached a screenshot of the remove lua and part of the spawn template so you can see my units naming. Any ideas?
  12. Nick Grey said in an interview that ED is happy about all the community content as ED, as a small company, couldn't cover that all by themselves. Skins, 3D objects, missions... Now what I wonder is can't this content (at least the qualtiy-stuff) be included into the base-game? Rather than having to go and download it, resulting in incompatibilities in MP. Skins are really foremost in my mind here but also things like the Range Targets. Are there legal issues involved? Maybe at least some kind of auto-download of skins, to the clients saved game folder? The community support is there in force. It's maybe just not ideally integrated into the game. Looking forward to all your thoughts on this!
  13. Wow.. I really hope they're going to add something more straightforward to organize the deck ops. Would be great if we could place them on numbered spots just like on an airfield and then maybe add a # in TO-sequence to them. I really hate to spend hours in the editor with trial and error for something that basic.
  14. Yes, we figured that as long as you support it for at least 10 - 15 seconds performance increases significantly.
  15. That's a thing I didn't even was aware of.
  16. It flew (lofting) towards the position the target was at at launch (not going stupid) but corrected once the lock was reacquired. That hinted to be caused by a reestablished datalink to the aircraft, which shouldn't happen.
  17. No, don't thinkso. Tested both scenarios: Without reaquiring the lock and with reaquiring. There was a noteable difference in its flight-profile.
  18. Well, yeah, that's basically what my post is about.
  19. Well, the Rmax shots from 30k+ ft. are well further out than 10 nm. More like 30-35 nm.
  20. As far as I understand it the missile should be "cut off" the aircrafts datalink once a lock is droped / radar off. We tested this. Locked a target - fire missile at Rmax - drop the lock / radar off - wait ten seconds - reaquire the lock. TacView showed the missile kinda lost in its loft trajectory after stoping to support it. But once the target was reaquired by the aircraft radar, the missile put it's nose down and corrected its flightpath. This hints to the missile being supported by a reaquired lock even though it shouldn't. Am I wrong or is the missile?
  21. Just to give this a bump: When training BVR lately against two Su-27, starting at about 140 nm distance, we splitted: My wingie remained high (35 k ft. radar on) and I went low and on a pincer move (below 300 ft AGL, radar off). The Flankers had no AWACS/GCI. Nonetheless one of them instantly instantly changed course to come at me head-on. Again: 140 nm distance 30k ft. altitude difference, no AWACS no GCI no nothing. Next thing: TWS long-range AIM-120C shot - They instantly start chaffing/flaring. They souldn't even know about the missile launches... No Tracks but TacView-Files if wanted.
  22. In case your designated WP isn't really close to your target, you maybe want to designate your FLIR-target to have the CCRP calculated for your target instead of the WP. I figure that's been clarified in the previous posts... 1. as you use Warthog terminology, it's hard to help because no one knows what you have mapped to the DMS. Try Hornet terminology to describe what you do (i think you're talking about the SCS?). Same goes for TMS up (Stick) - that's all A-10 talk... Again, no idea how your HOTAS is mapped, but to designate a target you normally use TDC-depress (Throttle) 2. SCS to the direction of the corresponding DDI has put the focus on that DDI/sensor before the update as well. And the laser had been on the trigger ever since. Only change is the added auto-mode and the auto-laser-off after impact. From what you write I'd guess you mix up some A-10 and F/A-18 procedures maybe?
  23. I don't know whether this has been adressed already or not. I didn't bother to read the whole thread to be honest. But the introduction to weapons shows a table of the available bombs. There it reads that the LGBs require a MFUZ NOSE setting. Wasn't it MFUZ OFF and EFUZ INST to avoid it being DUD? Or am I mixing things up here?? :helpsmilie::music_whistling:
  24. AI AIRCRAFT! EA-6B is not a submarine... :music_whistling:
  25. Don't want to push further OT but: That's because the water is just one continous surface underlying the terrain elevations. It's not some kind of water engine that calculates aqua-dynamics and how the water should look in different environments. Would be a bit too much strain on the CPU these days to ask for that accuracy.
  • Create New...