Operation "Blue Flag" - 24/7 PvP Campaign - ROUND 9

For people complaining about mirages on red being french and such, this is due to things that are going on in the mission editor. Currently only the french mirages can select all skins (as in they need to belong to the country france), so the red "iranian" mirages only have one selectable skin...which is a french one ): and switching coalition manually for a country after you have creatted a mission is a bitch, so unless someone is expirienced with the editor, just hold your horses, it is sadly very limited in some respects.

It's possible to use them with other countries also.

These is a workaround which we didn't use until now. One way is to do it through the server by adding countries in the skins lua. Clients will see the correct ones even if they have the default files. There is also another way which I need to test first before posting.

Greg

Thanks! We will check out the skins after we will find a permanent solution for the user timeouts which is the highest priority for now.

 

A new round will follow once we fix it.

 

Greg

Thanks, I always felt the skins are kinda odd, but haven't bothered much. It would be nice if they're going to be changed to more realistic and immersive ones :thumbup:

The timeouts are indeed more important. Thanks for the hard work!

Hi There,

With the new function "ground start" for heli, any chance to get more helicopters on Farps ?

We aren't connecting anymore because squadron level heli-ops is tough when you only have a single Mi8 available - and obviously mig21 is broken so we can't fly that one either.......

Hi There,

 

With the new function "ground start" for heli, any chance to get more helicopters on Farps ?

 

We aren't connecting anymore because squadron level heli-ops is tough when you only have a single Mi8 available - and obviously mig21 is broken so we can't fly that one either.......

Tried that but they were exploding when placed near the FARPs. Didn't have time to find an alternative though. There should be a better way. Adding it to the "to do" list ;)

Greg

Yesterday I had 3 disconnections in the first 3-5 minutes while on server...SRS was ON

I then turned off SRS and was able to fly for hours and finally got that 1 damn FARP :)

Maybe you wanna look into SRS when troubleshooting the disconns.

My traffic isn't go through Cogent and i have same problems.

Either way, voting for round restart after "fix"

Again, just because you can't play round 9 shouldn't be restarted to suit your needs.

This does not fix anything, there are no latency and loss issues on the cogent link.

Originally I had all the disconnect woes of everyone else from Bluefor to Redfor. I could barely get my aircraft started before I'd be disconnected. I started doing the same ping/traceroute tests as microvax and determined Cogent was dropping packets. I used the VPN I pay for to change my route across the internet to avoid Cogent, and I haven't had a single drop since. You can read into that any way you want.

Tried that but they were exploding when placed near the FARPs. Didn't have time to find an alternative though. There should be a better way. Adding it to the "to do" list ;)

 

Greg

I second this. We really need more than two transport choppers at our FARPS. The limited 3 hour window doesn't give us an opportunity to accomplish much with what we have. We need a minimum of four.

Again, just because you can't play round 9 shouldn't be restarted to suit your needs.

 

 

Originally I had all the disconnect woes of everyone else from Bluefor to Redfor. I could barely get my aircraft started before I'd be disconnected. I started doing the same ping/traceroute tests as microvax and determined Cogent was dropping packets. I used the VPN I pay for to change my route across the internet to avoid Cogent, and I haven't had a single drop since. You can read into that any way you want.

I explained this earlier, they are not dropping packets, the traceroutes shows that they are forwarding the ICMP correctly, they are only dropped or high latency when they enter the equipment itself, this is very normal on enterprise routers that does not have alot of CPU power left.

I explained this earlier, they are not dropping packets, the traceroutes shows that they are forwarding the ICMP correctly, they are only dropped or high latency when they enter the equipment itself, this is very normal on enterprise routers that does not have alot of CPU power left.

As I said, take what you want from it. The result of changing my route is a stable connection with a better latency to the server. I can now happily play with the only fear being DCS itself crashing.

I explained this earlier, they are not dropping packets, the traceroutes shows that they are forwarding the ICMP correctly, they are only dropped or high latency when they enter the equipment itself, this is very normal on enterprise routers that does not have alot of CPU power left.

I have 10-20% PL to the Buddyspike server, from DFN I have 0%.

I agree that the 50-80% pl on one router on the way are probably just discarded ICMP packets, but the 10-20%pl pretty much exactly levels out to be the same as the Cogent node connected to the GEANT network. [talking something like 30k requests here]

And as forwarding ICMP packets is just the same as forwarding any other IP packet that pretty much matches what I observed and you told about le non hardware implemented ICMP handling.

I never flied the Mig-29A but i read that it does not have external fuel tanks, keep the Mig-29S and remove the 29A, the S is better in every way with better radar and such.

Maybe you should fly it before you throw your decisions around. The MiG-29A has the same radar, avionics, EO sensor, ext. The only differences between the A and the S are:

The A is much faster

The S carries slightly more internal fuel

The A has an updated model

The A can not carry R-77s

The S has a jammer

The R-77s is the biggest advantage of the S, and there's no point since the S can't use them anyway. Really though give the A a fly it has a beautiful external model and it's faster!

Thanks! We will check out the skins after we will find a permanent solution for the user timeouts which is the highest priority for now.

 

A new round will follow once we fix it.

 

Greg

Thanks Greg, I appreciate it! I hope you solve the lag issues soon :)

Maybe you should fly it before you throw your decisions around. The MiG-29A has the same radar, avionics, EO sensor, ext. The only differences between the A and the S are:

The A is much faster

The S carries slightly more internal fuel

The A has an updated model

The A can not carry R-77s

The S has a jammer

 

The R-77s is the biggest advantage of the S, and there's no point since the S can't use them anyway. Really though give the A a fly it has a beautiful external model and it's faster!

 

 

 

Thanks Greg, I appreciate it! I hope you solve the lag issues soon :)

I don't believe the A can carry wing tanks whereas the S can. Also, how is the A faster? I can get the S so fast in level flight the control surfaces will no longer deflect.

Having a few A's up close would be fine, but you're being a graphics whore. Back before the A got the new model no one wanted to fly the A because it is inferior.

I don't believe the A can carry wing tanks whereas the S can. Also, how is the A faster? I can get the S so fast in level flight the control surfaces will no longer deflect.

 

Having a few A's up close would be fine, but you're being a graphics whore. Back before the A got the new model no one wanted to fly the A because it is inferior.

See:

https://webmshare.com/play/gBmOy

The A can in fact carry wingtanks. You're right the A is inferior because it can carry R-77s, but since we don't get R-77s anyway the only advantage is a jammer that noone uses and a good 10 seconds more worth of fuel. The A fits the timeframe much better.

29A can carry fuel tanks on wings. It is also lighter overall.

Does anyone here do research before posting?

We ferry flight them from Krymsk because I refuse to fly the abomination that is the S. A

model that disgusting should not exist side by side Su-27's and MiG-29A's

Also UAE doesn't recognize Israel as a state, but they fly side by side on blue flag lol.

I know liveries are the last of the problems, but not being able to fly the updated MiG-29 model is upsetting, and so is still flying Finnish MiG-21's 9 rounds into blue flag.

I don't believe the A can carry wing tanks whereas the S can. Also, how is the A faster? I can get the S so fast in level flight the control surfaces will no longer deflect.

 

Having a few A's up close would be fine, but you're being a graphics whore. Back before the A got the new model no one wanted to fly the A because it is inferior.

How can one man be so wrong.

Wanting a period correct model doesn't make us graphics whorls.

One question: How can I distinguish the red M2000 and the Blue M2000 during a dogfight, without IFF ? What kind of paint have the red M2000? Thanks ;)

It's possible to use them with other countries also.

These is a workaround which we didn't use until now. One way is to do it through the server by adding countries in the skins lua. Clients will see the correct ones even if they have the default files. There is also another way which I need to test first before posting.

 

Greg

If all else fails there is another solution, albeit not the most elegant. Keep the UAE Mirage on Blue and use this livery for RED:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1810818/

If people have it downloaded they will get that Russian livery, if they do not have it downloaded it will default to the French one. Although I have a feeling that you can get the countries.lua thing working as long as the countries.lua file isn't edited for the host because I've messed with it before and it obviously will not pass integrity check.

One question: How can I distinguish the red M2000 and the Blue M2000 during a dogfight, without IFF ? What kind of paint have the red M2000? Thanks ;)

Currently, blue mirages are tan UAE Mirages while red Mirages are light blue French Mirages.

If all else fails there is another solution, albeit not the most elegant. Keep the UAE Mirage on Blue and use this livery for RED:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1810818/

.

That skin is awesome!

Why is it so hard for red team to finish this round ? There are only 3 airports left for Blue team. Finish it already so we can have new round of trouble free disconnect (hopefully) :D

Gam Zeh Ya'avor - King Salomon

Why is it so hard for red team to finish this round ? There are only 3 airports left for Blue team. Finish it already so we can have new round of trouble free disconnect (hopefully) :D

 

Gam Zeh Ya'avor - King Salomon

We tried.

Every field spawns two F-16's. These are taken care of easily, but they take multiple missiles each due to AI knowing everything, etc.

Every field has multiple forms of every air defense in the game.

Basically the only way to capture these fields is a massive coordinated attack in which:

-Fighters sweep entire area clear of all enemy CAP

-At least 6+ SU-25T's perform a giant SEAD strike

-Ka-50's and Su-25T's to mop up remaining ground units.

-Mi-8's roll in

This would take almost an entire team of players, probably around 30, all working together at the same time.

Its like a raid in an MMO. You need numbers, you need good players, and you need good timing and coordination.

I like that it is hard though. Both sides have an incredibly tough time capturing the last few fields. Its pretty neat how the map naturally allows for that.

Our best hope is to keep blue team contained, and we win the round when the days run out.

I wish I could join you. Have connection problem like everybody. Good luck :)

As I said, take what you want from it. The result of changing my route is a stable connection with a better latency to the server. I can now happily play with the only fear being DCS itself crashing.

Listen, the ICMP is forwarding just fine, NONE of the cogent equipment is dropping packets so stop blaming cogent, the address "geant.demarc.cogentco.com" means that the IP address is terminated in customer eqipment (where cogent is the transit provider and therefor supplying the IPs on the linknet for the BGP session).

There are no loss on ICMP on other than the one hop everyone is reporting loss on, for the last time: This is not packetloss, the only reason this hop is dropping ICMP is because the hardware running there is old or overworked, this is completely normal for network equipment older than 10 years.

I did the test using Hibernia networks ring server, Hibernia is a level 2 provider and buys transit from Cogent, the routes for the DCS server goes completely over cogent as you can see.

When looking at an mtr you have to see at the loss after the initial loss, as you can see there is no loss after pop 17. and there is 0% loss on the box itself, this means there are no packet loss.

If we ignore the traceroute for a while we also see that there is no packetloss to the server itself (even tho this is shown in the traceroute above i feel its better to simplify it with this picture)

This number here, its all you have to care about, a traceroute will show you where there is congestion or the problem is down the line but the ping as you see here is the absolute truth. There it is, clear as crystal that there is 0% packetloss to the server over cogent.

For the sake of argument i have included the stats from my server in Norway.

The conclusion is that the addition of a VPN will only make it worse (because of MTU issues) and any perceived benefit gained by using is nothing but placebo.

This test was taken at roughly 11:00-11:30 GMT+1 2016-10-18, i will repeat this test at 21:00 GMT+1 which is where the internet is at its peak in terms of bandwidth to rule out any suspected link congestion.

Well from what someone has written here he solved it with VPN as the VPN is not going via grnet.gr (which shows the 77.8 % packet loss) so it helped some...

When was your traceroute done, Cisco?

I'm basing my assumptions on what is found on post #49, by microvax : https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2923442&postcount=49

On this MTR, all hops before the Cogent-Geant link show zero packet drop, and all hops from the Cogent-Geant link and after show packet drops

While I agree that single hop showing packet drop are completely unconclusive due to the many ICMP throttling in place, the probability that all hops before one point never throttle ICMP while all after said point do throttle ICMP is really, really low.

The only possible throttling explanation would be that all hops showing drops are managed by the same entiry, thus may be the same hardware with the same configuration.

That's not our case, as at least 2 orgs are routing after the Cogent/Geant link, GEANT, the entity aggregating europeans university and research networks, and GR-Net, the Greek university network. Seeing the varietty of networks aggregated by Geant (like RENATER that I know a lil bit :) ), I'm confident Geant and GR-Net are pretty independant from each others.

So based on this traceroute, I'm logically going for the conclusion that the Cogent-Geant links really looks faulty.

At what time was your MTR done? I've tested as well last week, going through Cogent-Giant link, didn't see the PL listed in microvax post. I tested at 11AM. I assumed microvax tested at european "Internet business hour" (18:00 - 00:00) where traffic is way higher than the rest of the day.