Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wesjet

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/10/1994

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World
  • Location
    Brampton, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    Military, Transportation & Communications Technology
  • Occupation
  1. One thing that I have thought may be useful to users is to have the Region dropdown on the server browser function as a series of checkboxes - a multi-select option for the filter. I say this because I have noticed from my own list, as a North American user that I see servers in Asia load before I see some nearby North American servers populate the list by more than a few seconds. Servers within the Asia-Pacific region for me have too high of a ping to be properly playable anyway, so it would be nice to filter them out and see more of the ones I could potentially make use of &
  2. @RAZBAM_ELMOI just wanted to add that I was doing some tests with @NeedzWD40today where I flew a Hornet and he flew the Harrier, line abreast formation attacking the same targets with GBU-32's. We have noticed that when the Harrier finishes counting up to 100, you are still slightly outside of the max range LAR for the Hornet and the difference can vary with speeds and altitude on how far outside that is. Test was conducted at 34,000ft and Mach 0.77. On the short range end of the stick, if the Harrier releases close to the second zero at the end of the count down then you will pret
  3. I have sent some information regarding this to BigNewy a while back now as even the range that you can shoot in DCS with the F-16 and F-18 is different, the F-18's gun shoots shorter under the same conditions (as close as is reasonable). Seeing as how this thread covers nearly the same topic I figured I should add my prior findings to the pool of information that everyone has. I saw this a few days ago but haven't had the time to get to it, so excuse the late addition. You can also take a look at the Jetstream episode where the rookies do the gun training and see they are shooting with the
  4. See if this covers it - previously reported: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285643 Basically if the target is flying towards you and you towards it, switch from Interleaved to High PRF and it should be OK. What can happen is the target is detected under high PRF, but the lock occurs with medium PRF and therefore fails. Manually toggling to high or medium as needed solves some of it, for now.
  5. Yes, LTD/R Cycle works as desired, but usually this type of switch assignment is under the "special" commands, such as the APU switch or the External Lights switch. "Cycle" usually means like a toggle, press on, press again for off. That would be that Special AFT/SAFE one then I guess. So they should be tidied up a bit, I guess.
  6. Yes, all my test were done with the A/G mode active, TGP on, and FLIR page active. That is how I found the one assignment method to work (just not as expected based on the label) and the other (first) to not function - it would not turn the switch to ARM, and when the switch was set to ARM manually by the mouse it would not return it to SAFE either. I have had enough frustration with that switch when I first learned how it worked to not forget that! :thumbup:
  7. This is definitely a wishlist item, but I feel it is worth asking. I am using the autopilot mode switch on the TM WH throttle for my Master Mode buttons. ALT = A/G Master Mode PATH = A/A Master Mode To cycle out of the active mode, I have to toggle the switch again - to the mode to be deactivated, and then to ALT/HDG (neutral) so it is ready for the next use. I would like to request a SPECIAL type binding that would function as follows, if possible: ALT = A/G ALT/HDG = Neither / NAV PATH = A/A Thanks!
  8. Question on if anyone can reproduce this and if it's a bug or labelling issue. I was pleased to find that the external lights now not only have separate bindings for ON and OFF, which took two switches on my HOTAS but there is now a SPECIAL category binding that can allow me to use one single position toggle switch (one of the ENG switches on TM WH throttle) for both. Since I had a free switch I wanted to employ the same strategy for the LTD/R switch. It appears to have a SPECIAL AFT/SAFE binding available but when I assigned it and tried it nothing happened (issue #1). Now I had misrea
  9. After some testing with friends online we have found that using Hydra rockets in CCRP results in the rockets pretty consistently falling short of the target when using single or small quantity ripple releases. This is while using the M151 HE rockets. For the purpose of this test, I used a longer ripple (pairs/42) and so the second half of the volley manages to be close to the target and over it - to demonstrate the spread. If you were to take a shorter ripple (single/7) all rockets would be well short of the target. Another thing I am not sure on is that despite being CCRP, release is co
  10. I would be all for a server level option to disable the scoreboard. +1
  11. I agree with Viper, with a minor modification. Rather than link the old thread, merge them and move it back to the “active” folder for visibility and ease of access.
  12. I was testing into this again and found that Svend_Dellepude's method can reliably recreate this issue both in SP via the ME, and in MP with a client-hosted server. Additional track attached plus the associated mission file. server-20200910-205926.trk Hornet_Radar_ScanBug.miz
  13. I can confirm this as well in a recent multiplayer mission I had two MiG-29s approaching hot at roughly 40nm and the lock failed each time immediately going to MEM and then releasing until I was under 30nm. Due to the timing of my attempts, the first successfully held lock occurred at 26.7nm - so it is somewhere in that range.
  14. Nineline, Based on your update provided in post #172 I could change my vote from No to Yes. I still believe the operational component could be bundled in as a component of combined arms (and that again could be a paid upgrade to “CA:2” as the original investment for CA was very low so a paid feature expansion wouldn’t be unreasonable to me), but if the pricing was reasonable I would be ok to purchase this as it’s own module. I look forward to the feature set regardless, as playing as air defenses in CA is already a lot of fun - so more air defense play would be excellent!
  15. I am voting NO on this for the same general reasons as people before me. These are great features and ideas, and I would certainly welcome them into DCS World. However, they should be a part of the base game (core) and the command features could be bundled into Combined Arms (or release a much updated Combined Arms 2). If it must be done as a paid module, we cannot have it in anyway act as a block to multiplayer gameplay. The WWII Assets in this regard was one of the worst decisions ED has made. (Having the assets and their detail level is great, though - and I say this as an owner of s
  • Create New...