Jump to content

Wesjet

Members
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wesjet

  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
  16. Adding to this as I was just flying along in a long flight that will have a track too large to be useful but the parameters were as follows: F/A-18C, flying at ~30,000ft and 240IAS, originally carrying twin racks of GBU-12 on outboard stations - first two release were single and OK. Last two released as a pair, auto lazing, AUTO mode - bombs collided under air frame and destroyed it. I have also seen with friends that we can do ripple pairs releases of MK-82 Snake-eye or AIR and get the same issue - more prevalent with the F-16C. I was able to recreate the bomb collision explosion usi
  17. Can confirm NeedzWD40's report above about defective missions, I have a copy of some that he has built and was able to replicate the issue as described. I did not test the solution however. Similarly, I have not been able to create the issue from a fresh mission.
  18. Script Function: Administrative tools - Automatic kick / ban, mission change from within the simulation client side by registered admins, vote-to-change for non-admin clients to select a new mission, statistics. Script Tool: SLMod Notes: Not included with DCS, sort of a necessary set of tools for running a MP server.
  19. I figured that this likely would not entirely fall into the bug category, and that there should be some link capability between the sensors. You are correct in that switching to the A/A radar mode does return the radar to normal function including range scaling. It is when you not in either master mode, or in A/G mode but go to the A/A radar page that this occurs. I would have though there some indication that the radar is "not available" for A/A scanning due to the designation. At first glance, it appears to be "broken" until you realize what is going on. We don't always jump to A/A mode
  20. I was able to reproduce this, with a TGP. Any time I has a TGP designation point, I was unable to change the range scale of the radar in A/A or A/G mode. In all cases, undesignating with the pod and then going to the radar page solved. Screenshot attached showing missing OSB markers on the right side of the DDI, as would normally be there. I am currently flying right now so a track is not available yet. Edit: Video link. Edit 2: Link to track, 80mb. https://1drv.ms/u/s!Au6nuN4_FUp2grU1kH_qnXkD6kat-Q?e=mBYKRo
  21. My flight included HARM launches, followed by engaging Havoc’s with AIM-7. On initial RTB, the MiGs came in so I turned back to engage WVR using AIM-9 and Gun, so I know it was after the second engagement. The only other thing I can think of was after clearing the lock on the final shootdown, the radar did try to re-acquire the wreck as it fell to the earth. I did not pay attention at that point as I had to head for the tanker due to low fuel but it was as I climbed to the tanker’s altitude that I found the radar was dysfunctional. Behind the tanker I tried using boresight mode to lock
  22. Encountered an issue after engaging a pair of MiGs in multiplayer where my radar was not working correctly. My elevation scan acted as if it was the azimuth, while the azimuth sweep acted like the bar scan. This was to the point that altering the degree of azimuth sweep would actually adjust the distance the elevation caret would travel, and adjusting the bar scan setting changed how far the vertical line representing the antenna position would sweep across. The track is very large, as it was a long flight and can be downloaded here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Au6nuN4_FUp2grUuRcZmVBfkTj6eUw?e
  23. Simple as the title, although through my testing this does not occur with all bridges - some smaller bridges don't cause the crash. Have a column of vehicles crossing the bridge and then hit it with something and knock it out. Game crashes almost immediately. Have done this in MP (track too long to upload) and reproduced in SP. Crash file uploaded via in-game upload tool but also included here for reference. Also to note, despite the column of vehicles being spawned on the road - if you look at the vehicles before they get underway you can see that they are not sitting in the lane properly
  24. I can confirm that the autorudder system seems to still be taking effect with the settings disabled. While online on my server, it is interfering with the rudder during taxi. Auto-rudder and Takeoff Assistance are set to off. Trying the other WWII planes I own (Spitfire, 190A8, 190D9 & 109) the Mustang is the only one exhibiting this problem. I have also had a friend sign on and confirm he sees the same issue with his Mustang. Track included. You can see I make a right hand taxi turn - then my input is dampened suddenly. Allowing the aircraft to roll across the field, I am fee
×
×
  • Create New...