Kormorant

Pretty much the same thing. The last patch have caused ground units to disappear and not spawn when using this mod, Su-57 mod, Mig-31K-BM mod, VSN F-4 mod, and a couple more. Solutions? None I am aware of. Wait for mod authors to fix it. Or pray that next patch will somehow fix this issue.

Hi Ansirial, Could you please look up the problem of "ArgumentOutOfRangeException" error when accessing Leadership DCS Greenie Board (by any user) and my character page? (http://logbook.ansirial.it/Character/3180). It seems LSO grading uploaded in my old debrief contained some kind of broken value that collapsed the whole server ranking system.

This is a weird thing actually. I had the same problem at first (and well... all sorts of things with them missing ships by a narrow margin, tracking problems, etc). Then out of a sudden, it all stopped and they began to hit them normally, track, lead and home in as they should. I have no explanations why they behave this way.

Thanks for the explanation! Well, that's pretty much what I expected. Trying to circumvent limitations of DCS is not an easy task.

Any plans, by chance, to tweak Swedish IRIS-T (RBS-98) into using proper heat-seeking guidance? Right now, it is active radar seeking (Head_Type = 2) which is a bit odd, to say the least. Thought at first it is again caused by sensor limitations, but you did a perfect job with NASAMS AIM-9X with correct heat-seeking head (Head_Type = 1).

Judging by the little information we have, that 250nm test (against a ground target) was more of a missile RAero rather than Rmax, so it is almost impossible that an air target could be engaged on such a distance (still can increase range for ASh SM-6s). Besides, they used guidance from other vessels, a thing that is notoriously absent from DCS (to be honest, the whole way sensor and weapon guidance logic works here makes any Aegis simulation... extremely arcade. No AESA multi-tracking, no problem with terminal AN/SPG-62 guidance bottleneck, etc,etc). In-game Tico radar gives 200nm detection range against aircraft (Burke has 240) which is waaay better than RL ranges (at least from open sources). And ground targets are capped at 100km (~50nm). So, expanding range to AA SM-6 will turn them into wunderwaffe (and also will be much less realistic that the numbers we have now due to the whole sensor thing). And making AShM SM-6 250nm would require expanding SS radar range to 250nm which in turn can break a lot of other things in unit logic. So... not really worthy. Sadly, in DCS we always have to compromise between realism and game engine limitations, and I think CH got it right in case of SM-6s. Anyway, SM-3s still break realism and engage lofting ASMs (like Tu-22M X-15s) at 25k+ while in reality they are purely exoatmospheric. But since DCS engine has problems with exoatmospherics and missiles have to "flatline" themselves, you again have to compromise. I tampered with the config file just a little (hope Currenthill will forgive me for this ahahah) testing SM-3s with their H_min set progressively to 30k, 40k, 50k - and I still have no coherent answer as to which one is better (personally just for me, I think 30k will do a bit better but still).

Ran into this problem after uploading my latest debrief. Now it shows every time I try to load my character. It seems something is off with LSO grading capture (?) - had several passes (OWO, WO, then wingman cut the line before me in the groove so I ended up foul decked, Supercarrier ATC broke so I had to re-run the whole "inbound" procedure). P.S. Now the Leadership Greenie Board shows the same error any time I try to access it. It seems I broke it for everyone - now THAT is a "All Fouled Up" approach.

Found link on this planner in user files. Was not disappointed. Exactly what I need. The only problem is: for some reason, the downloaded version won't work on any program I use and your website is the only place where it works as intended. Microsoft Excel is understandable, since my (legacy) version doesn't support IFS function, but I tried it in LibreOffice, OpenOffice and online Microsoft 365, and every time there are errors in functions, won't process coordinates inputs, etc. Re-typing/re-formating the functions helps to resolve some errors, but not all of them. I tried every download format available with the same result. This may be because of different localization settings, I tried to change them too, to no avail. And of course, all checkboxes are missing, replaced by FALSE. Still puzzled by this weird compatibility issue, will try different programs with different settings and post any solutions I can find. Took me some time to realize you can also type raw coordinates directly in the input field (for example, ctrl-c ctrl-v from combatflite mission profile), without any need to put link to google maps every time. I think it would be nice if you could put a disclaimer explaining this possibility and compatible coordinate formats (I suspect . P.S. Sorry for interfering in your work on it today, 6 hours ago I opened it on your website and began typing my mission data before noticing you making edits on the sheet just at the same time.