Patch/Hotfix Dec 23rd 2020 Feedback Thread

[Alphabet_Ghost]

hmmm , is this a texture bug or real jet scanned ?

 

[*Aquila*]

18 hours ago, UWBuRn said:

 

• Trying to perform PDSTT engagements ends many times with Jester losing lock: i don't have enough experience in the back seat to know the tricks of ho to keep lock in edge cases, but i keep reading here and there that a capable RIO should be able to do so... Jsester for sure it's not. Even disabling the option to swith automatically from PDSTT to PSTT and commanding him to switch while most appropriate doesn't seems to help. I want to stress that with difficuilties with a stable STT i only refer to favourable conditions (targets above or high alt engagements, where clutter should not be too much of a problem)

I think we need the Jester functionality to manage the MLC filter.

[Skysurfer]

14 hours ago, Alphabet_Ghost said:

hmmm , is this a texture bug or real jet scanned ?

 

Seems like a bug to me. The whole lighting rework seemed pretty rushed anyway as can also be seen in the way too dim AOA idexer and some washed out caution lights here and there.

[UWBuRn]

On 12/29/2020 at 10:07 AM, *Aquila* said:

I think we need the Jester functionality to manage the MLC filter.

 

There's already the auto MLC in the WCS, the auto setting should be good enough in my opinion. However, and i wrote it on some other topic also, sometime looks like to me that even with the MLC off (antenna looking up because you're well below of the target) the radar it's still quite prone to notching. I will try to pay more attention to it.

 

Then there should be a whole chapter on Pulse modes, thoose need tuning to work, usually asking jester to go in PSTT results in a lost lock. Honestly i tried to play with them in the backseat, but i don't have enough experience on what settings are most effective in which situation... maybe @QuiGon can chime in and list a few of them (maybe also for PDSTT), as per other posts he seems to know them quite well.

 

Anyway, i wouldn't like to access many more additional setting through the wheel, it's impractical in my opinion. What i would like is to be able to define some kind of "standing" for Jester and let it act accordingly. Otherwise, if that's not possible/viable, maybe a a small buff on the radar/WCS when Jester is in the back seat could be a workaround... i mean, it's not that bad when you get used to him, but any improvement would be welcome.

[QuiGon]

2 hours ago, UWBuRn said:

 

There's already the auto MLC in the WCS, the auto setting should be good enough in my opinion. However, and i wrote it on some other topic also, sometime looks like to me that even with the MLC off (antenna looking up because you're well below of the target) the radar it's still quite prone to notching. I will try to pay more attention to it.

 

Then there should be a whole chapter on Pulse modes, thoose need tuning to work, usually asking jester to go in PSTT results in a lost lock. Honestly i tried to play with them in the backseat, but i don't have enough experience on what settings are most effective in which situation... maybe @QuiGon can chime in and list a few of them (maybe also for PDSTT), as per other posts he seems to know them quite well.

 

Anyway, i wouldn't like to access many more additional setting through the wheel, it's impractical in my opinion. What i would like is to be able to define some kind of "standing" for Jester and let it act accordingly. Otherwise, if that's not possible/viable, maybe a a small buff on the radar/WCS when Jester is in the back seat could be a workaround... i mean, it's not that bad when you get used to him, but any improvement would be welcome.

 

I haven't done any actual tests on the effectiveness of the MLC filter, but in my experience playing around with the MLC switch in multiplayer, I find the auto setting works fine in most situations. I usually only deactivate it manually in look-down situations when I'm flying over water. Over land the ground clutter is too much. It's even more rare that I force the MLC filter on, which I only do when I'm flying in a valley below the ridgelines and have to target a bandit flying slightly above me with the ridleline behind him, to avoid the ground clutter as the auto setting would turn the MLC off in such a situation.

 

In regards to switching from PDSTT to PSTT this can indeed be quiet tricky as the lock can get lost in the process if the criterias for a PSTT lock aren't matched. From my experience the most important factors to avoid lossing the lock when switching to PSTT are distance (don't switch to PSTT at distances of more than 20-30nm), angle (don't switch to PSTT if the azimuth offset is greater than 20°) and background clutter (open sky or water preferable). If you keep those factors in mind you can avoid lock loss on switching to PSTT quiet reliably.

[IronMike]

On 12/29/2020 at 5:40 AM, Alphabet_Ghost said:

hmmm , is this a texture bug or real jet scanned ?

 

 

 

That's a bug. Thank you for pointing it out. I thought this was fixed a long time ago..

 

On 12/29/2020 at 8:20 PM, Skysurfer said:

Seems like a bug to me. The whole lighting rework seemed pretty rushed anyway as can also be seen in the way too dim AOA idexer and some washed out caution lights here and there.

 

It was anything but rushed. It cost us a significant amount of time and lots and lots of work...
 

On 12/28/2020 at 3:51 PM, UWBuRn said:

Had some time to do some more testing, nothing systematic but i flew plenty of time on some PvE server with many different situations plus some SP.

 

Overall, in my opinion, this is the best update of the Tomcat since a long time:

(...)

 

Thank you for the great and detailed feedback, UWBuRn!

[gulredrel]

Don't know, if it's helpful or you have enough data.

I saved a track having that TIT spikes at around 30000ft while trying to push through M 1.1 in the F-14A.

 

Was able to accelerate in a dive below 30000ft to M 1.2 and than climbing back up. There are two flights in the trk. The first one without the TIT spikes, cause I was low enough. The second one after refueling where I tried between 30000 ft and 35000 ft and had to throttle back fast out of the TIT spikes.

 

Hope this helps.

Regards

Jens

F-14A_TIT_spikes_M1.1.trk

[Skysurfer]

1 hour ago, gulredrel said:

Don't know, if it's helpful or you have enough data.

I saved a track having that TIT spikes at around 30000ft while trying to push through M 1.1 in the F-14A.

 

Was able to accelerate in a dive below 30000ft to M 1.2 and than climbing back up. There are two flights in the trk. The first one without the TIT spikes, cause I was low enough. The second one after refueling where I tried between 30000 ft and 35000 ft and had to throttle back fast out of the TIT spikes.

 

Hope this helps.

Regards

Jens

F-14A_TIT_spikes_M1.1.trk 1.3 MB · 1 download

 

Yup, had exactly the same experience and reported the same above. There seems to be an altitude band where you seemingly get stuck at 1.1 due to some drag-wall and have said TIT spikes.

 

 

11 hours ago, IronMike said:

 

It was anything but rushed. It cost us a significant amount of time and lots and lots of work...

 

No, I get that it is a lot of work and that it really was something that ED "broke" in the game, globally that everyone needed to address, and hence was not expected. But why not get this right the first time? A simple, last glance over at night if everything looks like it should could have avoided all of this. This is the very basic of qualty control. I have done texture work and mods for other sims and I never pushed or uploaded something without giving it the final thorough review to make sure everything is correct. Maybe that's just me kind of being a perfectionist with small details. Regardless, as a customer having to deal with these "issues" for over 6 months now is really annoying - I know how that sounds but this is how I feel about it. I do appreciate the tremendous effort you guys put in, but sometimes it seems like there is no structure or clear internal roadmap to what you fix or include, since most of the oldest bugs/issues have been seemingly forgotten or simply weren't addressed yet. Exactly the same way you can still click the jettison buttons in the Viggen through the cover since release.

Edited December 31, 2020 by Skysurfer

[IronMike]

3 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

No, I get that it is a lot of work and that it really was something that ED "broke" in the game, globally that everyone needed to address, and hence was not expected. But why not get this right the first time? A simple, last glance over at night if everything looks like it should could have avoided all of this. This is the very basic of qualty control. I have done texture work and mods for other sims and I never pushed or uploaded something without giving it the final thorough review to make sure everything is correct. Maybe that's just me kind of being a perfectionist with small details. Regardless, as a customer having to deal with these "issues" for over 6 months now is really annoying - I know how that sounds but this is how I feel about it. I do appreciate the tremendous effort you guys put in, but sometimes it seems like there is no structure or clear internal roadmap to what you fix or include, since most of the oldest bugs/issues have been seemingly forgotten or simply weren't addressed yet. Exactly the same way you can still click the jettison buttons in the Viggen through the cover since release.

 

 

 

How should I put it? It is always a bit dangerous to judge someone's job, if you don't know what it all includes, if you haven't walked the path to its full extent. While I have no doubt that your texturing work and mods were of the very best kind, it is still a different level than doing something like the F-14. I don't mean that as much on the level of texturing work done or that kind of sorts, that doesn't matter. I mean it is more like apples and pairs, it is a whole different league of maintenance, complexity and responsibilities, all limited by time. This is why prioritizing is necessary, and a bug that is annoying to the user, but not game breaking, gets pushed down for months, even sometimes after its "part" of the module, where it was found, has just been touched upon. Else, other things get pushed back, which have either been waiting longer to be worked on or became more pressing, or because they need to be done first, so other stuff can continue or gets started upon, or maybe due to game mechanics changing, or the community itself discovering something, or a myriad of other reasons, which are impossible to list all. Sometimes a lot of things, like the AOA indexer light, get branded as a "bug" by users, but they are not. The indexer light is not bugged. It is a preference. We respect these preferences, which is why we say "yes" in the end to many things, but suddenly we have something on our platter again, that has no time allocated to it. So it gets pushed back. The "turn" indicated on the selector wheel is one of those pesky things which you fix 3 times, and they appear again, and yet again you ran out of time for it... Juggling like that is common, but while the structure might not be obvious to you, to us it is ofc.

I know your feeling: "But why?" I mean, we all know it. And we all can appreciate it. It is much harder for you guys to appreciate why we have to do things a certain way, because you cannot have the same insight. IMO you also should not need it. You should not concern yourselves with how things are made or what is happening behind the curtain at all imo - unless ofc you have a particular interest in development. IMO you should have fun with the game, play it, enjoy it, and be reassured that things work as they should. Unfortunately in such complex environments like DCS this is rarely the case, and it would be unwise to expect a 100% stable sim platform across any of the sims at any point in the future. The downside is that the customer is unwillingly confronted with the development process through bugs. Imagine we would be a theatre play, and you guys kept walking in after every act, asking why Kushkin's two thousand rubel brooch wasn't real, and if we could rehearse the 2nd scene of act 3 again and also the light guy is shining too low.. Talk about breaking the 4th wall... It's a pitty like that. And no one regrets it more than us. But there is an upside to this as well: sims evolving means long term planning and sustaining platforms (at the expense of not being able to always plan for short term eventualities), growth over time, improvement and novelties, breaking new grounds. Likewise the 4th wall breaking apart demands for more transparency, which equals in more inclusion of the community into the process, which leads to growing communities and a more and more educated customer base with higher expactations leading to higher standards which results in overall better products. But: it takes time. All I can promise you, is that we strive for that. To be transparent as much as we can. But it is also honest to say, that not everything can or wants to be shared always, and that thus we sometimes ask for your kind trust that we know what we are doing. We most certainly thank you for that and all your endless support and good will.

Happy New Year!

[Skysurfer]

Much appreciated response, Mike, and a Happy New Year to you and everyone at Heatblur too! 

[IronMike]

3 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

Much appreciated response, Mike, and a Happy New Year to you and everyone at Heatblur too! 

 

The same to you, bud! May it be prosperous and just so, so much better, for you and your loved ones!

[captain_dalan]

On 12/30/2020 at 11:55 PM, UWBuRn said:

 

Then there should be a whole chapter on Pulse modes, thoose need tuning to work, usually asking jester to go in PSTT results in a lost lock. Honestly i tried to play with them in the backseat, but i don't have enough experience on what settings are most effective in which situation... maybe @QuiGon can chime in and list a few of them (maybe also for PDSTT), as per other posts he seems to know them quite well.

 

Anyway, i wouldn't like to access many more additional setting through the wheel, it's impractical in my opinion. What i would like is to be able to define some kind of "standing" for Jester and let it act accordingly. Otherwise, if that's not possible/viable, maybe a a small buff on the radar/WCS when Jester is in the back seat could be a workaround... i mean, it's not that bad when you get used to him, but any improvement would be welcome.

New year's eve was last night, and with socializing restrictions at hand, i finally had enough time to do some actual missions and test the AWG9/AIM-54 combo in action.

Only flew VS AI's, i don't feel comfortable with the new modeling to go MP yet. My impressions this far (about 8-10 hours of fighting):
- PD-STT is less stable then expected, but not more so then it used to be. Anti-notching maneuvers can work on occasion. More alarming is missile (AIM-54) performance while in PD-STT. The missile PoK seams lower in this mode, even if lock is held all the way to "impact", when compared to its use in TWS-AUTO. Combine this with the ease of lock and PD-STT becomes the least preferred method of employment instead of  the most preferred. Maybe it's the way DCS treats FOX-1's? Dunno.....
- AIM-54 overall performance: about 50% against non-Ace AI's. These are shots in crowded environments, at least 2 tracks held (or at least attempt was made to hold them) at any time. Shots against ACE  level AI's, even single targets are extremely unreliable. As of this moment, the hit ration is 10% and dropping. The AI's are set to actively evade and CM of course. I'm curious to read about reports against human opponents. Apparently, CM works differently for AI's.
- AIM-7's are within the area of expectations. If launched around the number or higher, from medium altitudes, at closing targets, ranges of  12 or less NM, the missile hits often enough. Launches from 8-7 NM or less are almost guaranteed hits.
- Haven't yet tried mad-dogging 54's in P-STT, ACM cover-up, or TCS locked targets yet. Anyone tried this yet? What are PK's if used as such?

Haven't yet experienced any engine overheats and explosions as such. Never been higher then 30000ft though.

EDIT:

Limited experimenting with target size inconclusive. Looks like leaving the thing in default works best for fighters thus far.

Edited January 1, 2021 by captain_dalan

[Kula66]

A couple of thoughts on your points:

* AI at ace level cheats and evades as soon as you fire - I always use veteran

* DF switch up shots work as expected - pretty lethal, but very easy to see coming.

* Long range TWS-A shots seem pretty reliable if you can catch you opponent by surprise  This was in MP

* Gave up on 7s a while ago.

* BFM has completely changed for the 14 ... need to learn again. I really struggle against the 18 - would be interested to hear if anyone has any success.

 

Generally, looking pretty good (from a non-pilot 'gamer' POV).

Edited January 1, 2021 by Kula66

[captain_dalan]

8 hours ago, Kula66 said:

A couple of thoughts on your points:

1.  AI at ace level cheats and evades as soon as you fire - I always use veteran

2. DF switch up shots work as expected - pretty lethal, but very easy to see coming.

3. Long range TWS-A shots seem pretty reliable if you can catch you opponent by surprise  This was in MP

4.  Gave up on 7s a while ago.

5.  BFM has completely changed for the 14 ... need to learn again. I really struggle against the 18 - would be interested to hear if anyone has any success.

 

Generally, looking pretty good (from a non-pilot 'gamer' POV).

 

1. Yep, that's why a specifically separated ACE from non-ACE targets. It's not just when the AI evades, but also  how. The ACE level almost always enters a perfect notch thanks to its ability to know exactly where the missile is (or so it seams).
2. DF?
3. Ah, good to know!
4. Man, Fox-1's are fun! (when they work)
5. It has. Not as bad is it was before the fix, but still not there. You can win most fights, but if a IV-th gen bandit is at his/her A-game, you are toast. Every prolonged fight (what the F-14 was best at) is now against you, as those degrees per second add up every second you spent not shooting down the other guy.

[Kula66]

Sorry, DF = ACM switch - mad dogging 54s

 

Shot a very impressive, high aspect 54 mad-dog shot yesterday while turning hard in a 2v1, unfortunately at my wingman ... but to be fair, he did fire a 120 at me first! He didn't survive

Edited January 2, 2021 by Kula66

[captain_dalan]

7 hours ago, Kula66 said:

Sorry, DF = ACM switch - mad dogging 54s

 

Shot a very impressive, high aspect 54 mad-dog shot yesterday while turning hard in a 2v1, unfortunately at my wingman ... but to be fair, he did fire a 120 at me first! He didn't survive

 

LOL!
Warning taken.....seriously.....quite seriously!

[UWBuRn]

On 1/1/2021 at 7:32 PM, captain_dalan said:

New year's eve was last night, and with socializing restrictions at hand, i finally had enough time to do some actual missions and test the AWG9/AIM-54 combo in action.

Only flew VS AI's, i don't feel comfortable with the new modeling to go MP yet. My impressions this far (about 8-10 hours of fighting):
- PD-STT is less stable then expected, but not more so then it used to be. Anti-notching maneuvers can work on occasion. More alarming is missile (AIM-54) performance while in PD-STT. The missile PoK seams lower in this mode, even if lock is held all the way to "impact", when compared to its use in TWS-AUTO. Combine this with the ease of lock and PD-STT becomes the least preferred method of employment instead of  the most preferred. Maybe it's the way DCS treats FOX-1's? Dunno.....
- AIM-54 overall performance: about 50% against non-Ace AI's. These are shots in crowded environments, at least 2 tracks held (or at least attempt was made to hold them) at any time. Shots against ACE  level AI's, even single targets are extremely unreliable. As of this moment, the hit ration is 10% and dropping. The AI's are set to actively evade and CM of course. I'm curious to read about reports against human opponents. Apparently, CM works differently for AI's.
- AIM-7's are within the area of expectations. If launched around the number or higher, from medium altitudes, at closing targets, ranges of  12 or less NM, the missile hits often enough. Launches from 8-7 NM or less are almost guaranteed hits.
- Haven't yet tried mad-dogging 54's in P-STT, ACM cover-up, or TCS locked targets yet. Anyone tried this yet? What are PK's if used as such?

Haven't yet experienced any engine overheats and explosions as such. Never been higher then 30000ft though.

EDIT:

Limited experimenting with target size inconclusive. Looks like leaving the thing in default works best for fighters thus far.

 

 

Eh, we're with pretty tight restrictions also here, i'm getting "drunk" on flying DCS as i ad to expend some days off and i don't have much else to do, that's the only good side of the situation. 

 

The PK against AI is really dependent on the AI level... i think that on the PVE server i'm flying upon it's at "trained" level, so missiles are very effective. Honestly i don't care about Ace anymore, they keep acting dumb in a lot of occasions and they cheat in others.

 

I agree that STT is not the prefered mode for engagement, and that's bad, because at some ranges would be just much better to lock on the target and have the possibility to fire maybe more than one round rather, than fighting the WCS in TWS-A. In general, i feel that STT is very sensitive to azimuth: this makes sense (at leats for PD), because as the azimuth increases, the target closure decreases and you get closer to the rejection thresholds. This is pretty evident when foing F-Poles, as you take max azimuth, usually the bandit does the same, so you end up in the worst possible situation with a closure speed close to zero. Nonetheless i have seen plenty occasions of lock lost without apparent reason (target above me, closure in the range of 1000 kts, hot).

 

I tend to agree that for DCS Fox1 are worse than Fox3, even if all the rest is the same.

 

What i'm really struggling on are Sparrows: i'm not fully understanding how the behave in the recent updates (basically after they were broken and fixed). They seem to go off the rail and go straight for quite a bit, then sometimes they steer on target, sometimes not, as if after going straight they are not anymore in a position and direction to see the target. Some times i had the impression they were missing the CW illumination as if they were fired in flood mode and i was not pointing straight to the target - even if i was rather sure they were fired in PDSTT.

 

BTW, Phoenixes in PSTT and TCS get the angles from the WCS and fire active off the rail, i'm unsure if they do get the angles with BRSIT, i think not. Anyway at active off the rails ranges they are pretty deadly.

[captain_dalan]

5 hours ago, UWBuRn said:

1. I agree that STT is not the prefered mode for engagement, and that's bad, because at some ranges would be just much better to lock on the target and have the possibility to fire maybe more than one round rather, than fighting the WCS in TWS-A. In general, i feel that STT is very sensitive to azimuth: this makes sense (at leats for PD), because as the azimuth increases, the target closure decreases and you get closer to the rejection thresholds. This is pretty evident when foing F-Poles, as you take max azimuth, usually the bandit does the same, so you end up in the worst possible situation with a closure speed close to zero. Nonetheless i have seen plenty occasions of lock lost without apparent reason (target above me, closure in the range of 1000 kts, hot).

 

2. What i'm really struggling on are Sparrows: i'm not fully understanding how the behave in the recent updates (basically after they were broken and fixed). They seem to go off the rail and go straight for quite a bit, then sometimes they steer on target, sometimes not, as if after going straight they are not anymore in a position and direction to see the target. Some times i had the impression they were missing the CW illumination as if they were fired in flood mode and i was not pointing straight to the target - even if i was rather sure they were fired in PDSTT.

 

3. BTW, Phoenixes in PSTT and TCS get the angles from the WCS and fire active off the rail, i'm unsure if they do get the angles with BRSIT, i think not. Anyway at active off the rails ranges they are pretty deadly.

1. That's what i get also. Lock gets dropped fairly easy at time, even with positive closures. Unfortunately i haven't analyzed enough tracks to figure out why or when. So far it just seams fairly random and it's bothering me somewhat as STT is supposed to be pretty solid. But that's not my main issue with STT and the 54. It's that it looks like when fired in STT (PD of course) they seam less likely to hit, then when fired in TWS..... at least in my limited XP. Need more shots though.......

2. CW is definitely here and working. Shot down a MiG-today with a boresight flood mode only. The missile tracked off the rail. It was an M or MH, i don't recall. You just need either visual or TCS lock in order to keep the bandit inside the flood area. Can be tricky at times.

3. Yeah, just tested the 54 in a TCS lock for the first time. Against another 29 that was flanking. The missile did track and splashed the target, around 7 miles away. I must have been between 10 and 15 when i launched. Very neat feature. I can see it being put to great use with a competent RIO. Alas, i fly solo.

[Zhivuchiy]

I was playing Blue Flag a couple of times recently. I used TWS-A, a  single target was all the time hot with good closure rate for a reliable track, but Jester all the time was loosing target and reacquiring again. Does anyone else experienced the same? 

It is not the first time I experience that tracks are being lost with no obvious reason. 

Is it a known problem or should I provide a track for analysis?

 

I wonder, if one track (30nm) is seen on TID, which Jester set for 50nm and the other one is not seen on TID, lets say 70nm, will Jester in TWS-A mode still try to track both, or only the closest one within TID range? 

Edited January 5, 2021 by Zhivuchiy

[UWBuRn]

Once in TWS-A, Jester is not affecting things out anymore. It's all on the radar itself to sort things out.

 

As for the discussion that has been running for quite a bit, TWS-A will struggle keeping track of maneuvering targets. Also it will struggle when you maneuver: for example, when you shoot, if you want to do an A-Pole or F-Pole (turning from the target as much as possible to reduce closure rate), you have to maneuver gently or it's likely that the track will be lost. Maybe HB is still going to tune things a bit, but thoose seem to be realistic limitations and are likely to stay. (Also the Hornet int TWS has some resembling behaviour when maneuvering hard, expecially if the PRF is not set to the optimal option)

 

As for the TID range, from my experience TWS-A takes into account only target within TID range, so setting it at 50 nm will make it ignore the 70 nm target, even if the radar it's still detecting it.

[Skysurfer]

Can we expect the early -A in the next patch?

[IronMike]

23 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

Can we expect the early -A in the next patch?

 

Unfortunately not, this patch was mainly devoted to fixes and with the holidays in between we didnt have enough time yet to finalize the early A.

It will bring a surprise novelty for the TID though, a SC version for the campaign and a COOP version of it, too, plus multiple fixes.

Here's a little sneak peak for the TID, you will be able to assign distance and heading from your waypoints.

[Skysurfer]

6 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

Unfortunately not, this patch was mainly devoted to fixes and with the holidays in between we didnt have enough time yet to finalize the early A.

It will bring a surprise novelty for the TID though, a SC version for the campaign and a COOP version of it, too, plus multiple fixes.

Here's a little sneak peak for the TID, you will be able to assign distance and heading from your waypoints.

 

Cool! Hope a lot of fixes are included then. The 14 really needs a "cleanup" update to address all the numerous small issues, bugs and visual stuff still from day one.

[Uxi]

Is it possible to get any small amount of bindings added at some point?  A couple more axis here and there, especially so don't have to keep frankensteining the lua.  Tacan CRS HDG, volume knobs, etc.  ALMOST done using the mouse....