IceFire

Of course :smilewink: We've just been busy collecting data and preparing for this re-structure. Glad you like the videos. We will put more out there for sure!

Good afternoon everybody. The CVW-11 Staff and I have decided the following changes to our organization that we are excited to announce! CVW-11 will remain, unaffected under a new parent organization. "United States Atlantic Command" USLANTCOM will include USAF Units such as the highly anticipated DCS: F-16. First operational squadron for the USAF will be the South Carolina ANG's 157th Fighter Squadron. The Swamp Foxes Later additions will include the A-10C once we bring our first USAF squadron up to speed. Web address unchanged pending review and purchase of a new domain. We will not be recruiting for this side until we have everything lined out and ready. We will make an announcement when we get our house in order for this change in our operations.

I've ran DCS successfully on windows server 2012 and now 2016 on our dedicated. works great, no special tinkering required.

Guarantee that it does.. I also attempted a workaround in the following post. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247569 Posted tracks. If that trigger could be repaired the workaround would be viable until ED fixes the parking. It's a pain in the rump to trigger but it would absolutely work.

I was going to release a workaround today from an idea I had. Essentially place a moving zone around the boat and any aircraft within that zone is invulnerable. It would be a great workaround for the problems we're having with MP spawning on deck. However, the triggered action "Invulnerable" only works in Single Player. If this were to be fixed the workaround would be viable. *edit* Added track files. Deck Spawn test.miz server-20190813-103205.trk server-20190813-103912.trk

That wouldn't necessarily be a good thing, that removes the ability to kill people on the carrier if you want to and removes gameplay. 10 seconds is enough for the connection to stabilize I'd say.

I understand the need for a track file and I will certainly be getting you fellas very many here very soon from my own experiences. But I can tell you the following. A. my server is run on a dedicated fiber 1gb/s up/down B. regardless of ping it happens Now I'm not gonna sit here and complain without a simple solution either. Wanna know how you fix this? Code in an invulnerable state for say, 10 seconds upon spawn in. Like Super Mario Brothers of old. Warp all you want to, you will just pass right through everyone else with no harm done.

Nobody is whining, and I'm not threatening ED in any way other than voting with my wallet and the wallets of 80+ pilots in my organization. I'm simply stating that if a paid-for module of the boat is not able to be parked upon in a decent fashion. Meaning that parking locations on the deck are able to be used in the appropriate way without people spawning on top of each other, as is the way on every other airbase in DCS, then I will not be making it a required module for CVW-11. It's not a threat, it's not meant to be a threat, and it should not be taken as anything other than simply a statement of fact. But I can promise you that I'm not alone in this and the other online organizations are likely thinking the very same thing I am about module requirements for their groups. I want the sim to thrive, not to be at odds with the community. I want to support the sim with my wallet, I throw it at the screen regularly. I have no interest in flying P-51's or FW-190's, But I damn well have purchased them to support ED because I enjoy the sim in its entirety. That is all.

I can think of an acceptable compromise, to just allow placement of manned aircraft the same as you do with static aircraft, full on parking spots would be better. Obviously I don't know what this entails but it sure would be helpful.

DCS: Carrier Hey ED. I love what you guys are doing the new carrier looks amazing. Speaking from running a very large online organization, and I know I'm not alone in this. The chief concern that my colleagues and I have is parking, parking, parking, and oh yeah parking.. The reason this is so is quite simple. I can't get more than a few people on the boat to spawn in for a mission without explosions of various types, mostly because aircraft are spawning on top of each other. The other concern is that I cannot ramp start multiple aircraft on the boat because the only way to avoid explosions currently is to have them spawn hot on the catapult, get them off the deck as quickly as possible so the next 4 can spawn. The online community is severely missing the ability to ramp start on the carrier and have it work properly and safely. I've searched the forums extensively and every time it's mentioned it seems to have not gotten a response as to whether or not the parking situation is going to be fixed, overhauled, or otherwise improved. All other concerns are secondary to this as far as the majority of the online community is concerned about this new module. I for one cannot justify saying "Yes CVW-11 we're going to be switching to this new carrier, and it's going to be a required purchase, because it offers us more capability and not just eye candy." unless the parking situation is addressed in the paid module. Can we get a nod, a wink, or a confirmation that, yes indeed we will be able to park the amount of aircraft (player parking spots) on this boat that the real boat would be able to handle? Thanks ED!

I cannot confirm if the bird is actually holding onto this weight, or if it's just the checklist page being incorrect with AMRAAM on the cheek stations. But what I do know is that when 120's are loaded on the cheeks, the weight is completely wrong, the jet will not shed the weight of any ordinance dropped with AIM-120's loaded on the cheeks. tpod_test_weight_with_aim-120.trk tpod_test_weight_with_aim-7.trk

Bug still present Open Beta of 07/31/19

Same, TACAN information does not save.

Ah ok, thanks I'll give that a whirl.

So, exactly as the title says. I noticed this while I was trying to use some moose scripts and I was racking my brain as to why they would not engage in MP. In SP it works just fine. So to test this I built a mission with no scripts, just various IR sams. They engage in SP but nothing in MP. Radar SAMs seem to work fine. I'm using this on a standard install of open beta with the webgui with the no render option enabled. I would use the normal openbeta full dedicated option but it does not seem to like MOOSE or MIST so that's out of the question. IR SAM Test-20190727-131402.trk

Yes please!

Was doing some retexturing and noticed this. Tiny thing but may wanna fix it :thumbup:

Thanks for that, that'll be useful with other missions I'm working on :D What I'm trying to do is incorporate mist.tostringBR into CTLD in place of the MGRS coordinate. That would be ideal because it gives bearing, range and msl afaik but of course it's not that simple. cuz reasons lol

Quick question. Is there a way for the JTAC, in addition to giving coordinates, to have him call out the elevation of the target? Would be useful for JDAM strikes and such.

The trim speed and sensitivity was recently changed afaik to allow for smaller more precise trim movements. If you want large trim movements I believe it gets faster when you hold it down for a pre-determined period of time. But as far as being able to move the trim while manipulating the stick it is working, at least for me. I held full aft stick, as well as forward stick and everything in between while holding the trim and watched the stabs move on the gauge and outside with the jet responding.

Gotta be a bug, can we move this to bugs?

Because the F-14 is not an ED product, that's why. The F-18 is theirs and the carrier is theirs. Heatblur is making their own with the Forrestal

Not unusual. F15 can do the same among other fighters like the MIG-29

Disregard. Built a new mission same parameters and it worked... Mission must have been bugged somehow.