All Activity

Neither, guns only.

I mean the other half of this, is doctrinally, the soviets were having GCI run encounters so you didn't need SPO if GCI could call a missile launch for you which AFAIK is still very much a thing today. But we have neither some AI GCI to do this for us, and lazur isn't implemented yet either. But keeping it to the SPO, it was one part of a series of systems. And the other part of it is that aside from the mig29/su-27 it seems to have generally worked well on other jets with radars of their own, albeit lower PRF ones in the case of the 23MLD or in the case of the SU-24's ground attack orion that likely worked at MPRF at least, and AFAIK there aren't any comments about the SPO not working with that.

What you're missing in part is that the Litening in DCS was (and is) WAAAYYYYY overpowered to what it should be. So it's not really an ATP problem, it's a Litening problem.

Here are 2 screenshots that has 1 minor livery discrepancy and 1 major discrepancy. The Apache rearm screen shows "Item 1" in the drop-down menu for liveries. It should read "Apache Desert". I also confirmed the livery ID from the MIZ file. The Tomcat livery should be the "default", 01 - VF-102 Diamondbacks 1996 livery. Instead, I get the VF-103 Jolly Rogers. Now, this is where the problem gets strange. In the MIZ file, the livery id shows up as VF-103 Last Ride. However, in the Mission Editor, the livery should be 01 - VF-102 Diamondbacks 1996. The livery IDs are messed up bigger than a soup sandwich. Here is the Item 1 choice on the rearm menu. Here is the VF-103 livery, when it should be VF-102 livery.

Exactly. Marking the confirmation of the solution would give most credit to users that have the most questions not the most answers

That's great. But the custome is to mark that post as the solution, not your post where you say it's solved. Cheers!

Do you have any recommendations on where else I should be looking if I can't find the autoexec.cfg file in the Config folder?

don't know how difficult this is, but there is a suggestion for developers to make an optional SPO. As an INS for the KA-50 III. Some people are interested in flying and making corrections, while others have GPS in their car phone. 1. The version as it was conceived in the USSR 2. The version of how it really happened. This will balance the dogfight multiplayer, which will indicate which version is being used. Those who are interested in flying with the version that was in real life will use it. DCS will kill two birds with one stone in this way, disputes will subside and sales may increase.

Yeah honestly a tic-box solution of pick your own version to this seems to be the best answer given how contentious and unclear the data is.

I don’t know about peak power, and the N-001 is basically a larger N-019, but average power of both radars is identical. “Hey it’s ‘Operational validation and testing by MOD to get it approved for service’ day” MOD: “Why doesn’t the RWR work when the radar is on? Can’t this be fixed??? How does this happen after all this time and money????” MiG: “uhhhhhhh. I guess we just didn’t think it a priority! Should we fix it for service entry sir?” MOD: “I mean if you think it’s low priority……. Why not……. It’s only a defensive system!”

nullThen you should probably be capable of translating this And with this document in mind we can say that the SPO-15 IS CAPABLE of filtering out radar signal from the aircrafts radar. And we can assume that IRL it was either never properly implemented due to, eh, fruits of updated soviet politics and further dissolution of the country, or it was actually made workable, but for the same mentioned reasons there was no way to support the system and it quickly became partially inoperable.

All good thanks guys! It was indeed a double bind!

Found it! Double bind was Correa, thank you.

I don't know how difficult this is, but there is a suggestion for developers to make an optional SPO. As an INS for the KA-50 III. Some people are interested in flying and making corrections, while others have GPS in their car phone. 1. The version as it was conceived in the USSR 2. The version of how it really happened. This will balance the dogfight multiplayer, which will indicate which version is being used. Those who are interested in flying with the version that was in real life will use it. DCS will kill two birds with one stone in this way, disputes will subside and sales may increase.

Here is the DCS Log, the track file is too large to attach right now. There was a bug when I opened the rearm menu in the Apache. It showed the F/A-18 livery in the pull-down list. I wasn't able to recreate my initial discrepancy because the base from which this was observed was not captured yet. However, refer to the screenshots from the Mission Editor. That is more of the tell than any track file or log could show. dcs - PG Livery Issue.log

Ahh, 50,000 loose rivets all flying in formation.

I will take a look!

Well, except some of the accounts of the warnings working while they were running the radar are in fact from Serbian pilots that survived to tell the tale. Supposedly there is an actual GCI recording or transcript of this somewhere. Honestly I look at this from an occams razor approach. 1. How likely is it the soviets designed a system that purposefully would be useless with the radar on (given that it worked fine on many other jets)... Pretty low/non existant IMO. 2. How difficult is it to design a blanker circuit that works on these freqs/prfs. Not really that hard on a basic electronics level to do this with 60's/70s circuits, and we have evidence from repair manuals of how out of synch things were fixed. (so its unlikely a design fault, and we have evidence it was supposed to get blanked). 3. How reliable was the circuit for the blanker... (apparently not very reliable according to several sources) 4. The mig29 was in service for a short time before the fall of the soviet union. Meaning, it would have early "teething" problems with various equipment likely breaking pretty often (this is a near universal truth with new jets). So, limited spare parts, limited or poorly trained technicians. After the fall of the SU, most client nations certainly ran out of parts/trained techs to work on them in the 90's. 5. In the 90's or early 2000s, where I assume most of the various SME's were flying the 9.12, aside from the Serbia war, it was peactime. So chances that anyone cared about the RWR being broken or partly inop was probably pretty low. And we have at least one account of it actually working during that war, presumably because someone hoarded enough spare parts to get at least a few RWRs operational, for however briefly they would work (again, this seems very plausible IMO). So the simplest explanation for this (occams razor). is that simply most mig29 pilots flew with a broken or partly working or out of synch RWR most of the time. So they are "correct", but they are also likely "wrong" that the system didn't work as designed, because its unlikely to have been designed to "not work", there is no good technical explanation I've heard thus far as to why "it doesn't work". And therefore the simplest explanation is that it was simply broken most of the time on peacetime jets because it doesn't really matter during peacetime. And if the blanker circuit has an MTBF of 10 hours or whatever its gonna be real expensive to keep it running. Thanks for the clarification. thats interesting. Given the mig29 radar is also weaker in terms of peak power it might be even lower in the 29. But so this document is saying it will give spurious readings, not "it will show nothing". Also from a processing standpoint if you know your own radars operating frequency, its probably pretty easy to ignore that strong signal at the known operating frequency of the radar. But maybe not if these docs are right.

This is a document. As an aviation engineer I know told me, such documents are written in order to cover your ass with them if necessary. Therefore, the Russian word "maybe" in this document means to me that this thing will most likely not save me and I was warned about it.

These edited screenshots show the radio frequencies of my template aircraft depicted in the track file.

Winwing's customer service sucks. They wanted a video of my packages not being delivered! After almost two months still no resolve of the issue. See CAVEAT EMPTOR in this forum.

This is the one MiG-29 manual it’s mentioned in. in Su-27 manual it says it is 5-8 signal strength of type X. So you would think if you had a higher priority lock that it would show that instead.

Here is my track & log file to document the radio freq not matching the Dynamic Spawn template. DCS Log-Track Files.zip

The EDM can't be opened in a 3d program.

Yeah, the problem is that thats not how its modeled in the 29 currently. It just doesn't work at all. And the key word in that translation is "may" show incorrect information. Which is very different than it does show that all the time. The most likely cause of the that is blanker going out of synch with the radar as has been discussed previously and this would cause strong spurious signals. But if its working correctly it would not, hence the word "may". This is also a Su-27 doc IIRC. So much stronger peak emissions than the N019, but it probably wouldn't matter too much.