All Activity

I've read that most DCS players prefer Single Player. I've also seen many posts from people who tried Multiplayer but, for various reasons, decided it wasn't for them and stuck with Single Player. If that describes you, I’d like your input: What would make you consider joining a DCS multiplayer server? Or, what would a multiplayer server need (or avoid) for you to try it? For example: A PvE campaign where you only play with friends you choose. A community that carefully selects members to ensure maturity, or one that offers real human ATC 24/7. Servers that automatically match you with players of similar skill for fair PvP. Or do you simply prefer flying alone, with no interest in playing with others? I’m curious whether players avoid Multiplayer just because they prefer flying solo, or because a suitable Multiplayer environment doesn’t exist for them.

Yes that is a great idea! I am thinking sneaking low under him, to avoid his radar, then as I pass under him, I go full afterburner straight up to high altitude and attack from his 6. Many pilots BVR from high altitude, a serious drawback is that you are clearly painted against a big blue sky.

The APG-63 radar was more advanced than the N001 in every respect. It had a more advanced antenna with lower sidelobes, a better signal-to-noise ratio, and better digital processing. The Soviet Tikhomirov Research Institute used the APG-63 data as a specification for the development of the "Mech" radar. However, they failed to fully complete the task, and as a result, they had to create a radar based on the N019 from the MiG-29, scaling it up. You're mistaken. Interception control involved displaying control markers on the aircraft's instruments. In other words, the pilot was shown where to fly and when to turn on the radar using an indication. Exactly the same as was later done in the USSR, including on the MiG-29. All missiles in the world have a certain percentage of launch failures.

It has significant launch failure rate in 1991, when some F-15C in combat with MiG-29 wasn't able to properly apply 1/2 or even 3/4 of its missiles.

You continue to perpetuate myths. The birthplace of the GCI and AWACS is the USA. They were the first to implement the F-102/106 semiautomatic intercept system back in the 1950s. This system was in use at NORAD even before the Soviets copied it. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment

Using Leap, the virtual gloves perform any real physical movement that you make with your hands. You can give a thumbs up, an OK sign, a number, or anything else.

Found this in the Alan R. Wise version of the manual Page 131: "The input of ballistic data for the aerial bombs is carried out before flight from the monitor centre by the ground crew setting the wafer switches (coded input) to positions corresponding to the code of aerial bombs used. Depending on the conditions of combat use and the bombing mode, additional information about the target vertical separation relative to the departure airfield and the selected drop angle of aerial bombs in toss bombing is entered from the input monitor panel" So my take on that is that certainly for toss bombing on a pre planned target the system knows the difference in height between the departure airfield and the pre planned target... a +- DeltaH. Now whether that has any input in the other bombing modes in OPT who knows. More info required as to exactly how this works.

Found this in the Alan R. Wise version of the manual Page 131: "The input of ballistic data for the aerial bombs is carried out before flight from the monitor centre by the ground crew setting the wafer switches (coded input) to positions corresponding to the code of aerial bombs used. Depending on the conditions of combat use and the bombing mode, additional information about the target vertical separation relative to the departure airfield and the selected drop angle of aerial bombs in toss bombing is entered from the input monitor panel" So my take on that is that certainly for Toss bombing on a pre planned target the system knows the difference in height a +- DeltaH between the departure airfield and the pre planned target. Now whether that has any input in the other bombing modes in OPT who knows. more info required.

Hi, Thank you for your message. Operation Iron Tide is a single player campaign. It is possible that you may play it in multiplayer and at least most of the triggers should work. But it is not tested for multiplayer so nothing is guaranteed. I also would like to have this kind of campaign made for multiplayer. Unfortunately the amount testing needed in development phase and after any change made to the code would be overwhelming. You are free to try it. I think that both players need to have the module. If you try please report what happens.

What is wrong with AIM-7?

When I talk of imbalance, I don't mean giving each side weapons with the same range or capabilities. I mean in terms of options. With the reveal (perhaps unintentional, but still) that a Rafale is coming to DCS, it appears that yet another BLUFOR aircraft is entering the DCS hangar. That's great new for DCS, especially for BLUFOR pilots, but leaves REDFOR feeling unloved (regardless of the many, legitimate reasons why). The BLUFOR line up looks like this (in no specific order): -F-100D Super Saber -Tornado IDS -F-15C (AIM-120 and AIM-9X capable) -F-35A (AIM-120 and AIM-9X capable, GBU-12/31/32) -Typhoon (Meteor, IRIS-T, AIM-120 and AIM-9L capable) -Rafale (meaning MICA capable, at a minimum) -C-130 (Release soon) -A-7E -A-6E -A-1H Skyraider -Kfir C2/C7 The REDFOR line up, as far as I am aware, currently looks like this -MiG-29A (Released in EA at time of writing) -Su-25A Grach (ED has hinted, but not committed to/announced officially) With the Dynamic Campaign coming to DCS in the near future (release still TBC), anyone wishing to play 'REDFOR' in a Dynamic Campaign is going to either be a) relying on more sophisticated AI-only aircraft (such as the Tu-22M3, Su-24MR, Su-34 and [graphically hideous] Su-30) for much of its high-performance SEAD, anti-ship and all-weather strike capabilities, b) being unable to undertake particular mission sets (such as SEAD and all-weather strike) with the full-fidelity modules they have or c) relying on Flaming Cliffs 3-level aircraft modules - particularly the Su-25T and Su-25 - to conduct any form of guided/precision strikes or SEAD themselves. REDFOR needs a Cold War-era Flanker. The most obvious and "quick win" Flanker for ED to produce as a full-fidelity module is the Su-27S Flanker-B. It is essentially to the FC-3 Su-27, what the MiG-29A Fulcrum is to the FC3 MiG-29A: A full-fidelity module of the same aircraft, but with better presentation. The Su-27S was capable of unguided ground-attack - they were, by treaty, later 'upgraded' to Su-27P standard to remove their ground attack capability. If the MiG-29A Fulcrum was well-received, a full-fidelity Flanker is going to exceed that. REDFOR needs a modern Flanker. The Su-27S will scratch the Cold War itch however, when you place the MiG-29A and a hypothetical Su-27S into a more modern scenario - they show their age against post-2000s BLUFOR AMRAAM-capable (or equivalent) jets. The most capable/advanced full-fidelity 'REDFOR' jet currently is the JF-17 which doesn't even belong to a major 'Cold War' nation. To compete against BLUFOR in this manner, REDFOR needs a more modern Flanker. To this end, I propose the Su-30MKK. -It is an early 2000s-developed Flanker. -It is a non-canard (i.e. not MKI-derived) Flanker that doesn't have thrust-vectoring ("simplified" development). -Uses the N001VE Mech radar (an export version of the Su-27s radar, modified for China specifically - for use with R-77) -Despite being a Chinese-specific variant, it uses predominantly Russian weapons systems already in DCS. -It is a two-seat Flanker intended for both air dominance and ground/sea attack, a REDFOR option for a Strike Eagle. -Utilises R-73, R-27, R-77, Kh-29T, Kh-31, Kh-35 and Kh-59 in addition to Russian unguided and laser/TV-guided ordnance. -It is capable of in-flight refueling - a first for a full-fidelity Russian-designed REDFOR aircraft. -By having a second seat, it enables the development of an AI 'backseater' - which alone justifies a 'new module' and not a 'modernised' old one. -It is capable of using and firing the AA-12/R-77 - making it the first full-fidelity REDFOR aircraft capable of doing so. -The Su-30MKK is the base model for variants of the Flanker used by Vietnam, Uganda, Venezuela, Indonesia, China (obviously) and Russia. -Russia uses the Su-30M2 (which is a 'Russianised' Su-30MK2 - a more advanced variant of the Su-30MKK) in its air force as a lead-in trainer. Why I see the Su-30MKK as being more viable than the more advanced Su-30MKI (or an MKI-derviative) is because it's an older export aircraft, its systems are less capable than the Su-27SM, Su-35S, Su-30SM/SM2, Su-30MKI, Su-30MK2, J-11BS or J-16 - but it still provides options that aren't available to other REDFOR modules based on its intended role - air dominance and strike. It would draw massive interest due to having an AI-backseater (which ED is no stranger to, for helos - and ED could draw from Heatblur's experience in fixed-wing AI-backseaters to expedite development). The aircraft could be used (by players) as a stand-in for countries that use MKI-derived Flanker variants, including Russia. While, "pound for pound" it might not be the exact equal of post-2000s BLUFOR aircraft, it is certainly a dramatic step-up in terms of full-fidelity capability for REDFOR aircraft enthusiasts. Thank you for reading.

Use RCtrl + RShift + Keypad * and / to move your head position back and forward

I hope so I think you are wrong. I have enough technical literature to make a statement. I don't make unfounded statements, unlike you.

В документах по боевому применению на МиГ-29 и Су-27 сказано вполне однозначно.

Yeah I did, and I even uninstalled the module then reinstalled.

additional note. Playing an instant action mission in dcs with the f14 i get temps around 87 to 97 with moments at 100c Playing something normal like KCDII I see temps mostly around 75 to 85c at idle doing this its about 50c Seems normal to me as these are temp limited CPUs if Im not mistaken (if needed just crank it up till it hits tjmax)... Let me know what you think and ill try running the stress test longer

Now had a response from Winwing via FB page. I’m away on holidays so can’t assist with some of their requests to help resolve. Link below should you wish to add to the post. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1K9MR3RMyg/?

Exactly, not even mentioning the SPO-15LM to my knowledge was the better varraint of the SPO-15 family of its time (for example: SPO-15LE) I could see that being the case of having a run down export varriant, since the soviets ripped things such as like the LAZUR/LASZLO GCI datalink from the export ones. And there are records of German MiG-29 pilots talking about after the reunification of Germany, LASZLO system got removed from the jets before it was given to them. But I don't even see any records of the SPO-15LE having such a issue with the radar that it needs to completely block the whole frontal section off.

не обязательно,нужно подключать просто в тот же роутер,в который ПК подключен патчкордом

Доброе утро. Провёл вчера ещё один эфир по МиГ-29, уже создав миссию без модификаций, которая предполагает работу по воздуху и земле. (Кавказ) Ещё пара багов и вопросов: 1. После "холодного старта", при страгивании самолёта с стоянки происходит жёсткий лаг. Иногда на 2 секунды. И при этом часть АЗСов на панели навигации перемещаются сами по себе в "стандартное положение", а именно - я выставил АЗС КУР 180-360, а он в процессе лага ушёл обратно на 0-180. Или же АЗС выбора аэродрома/ППМ у меня выставлен на ППМ в процессе запуска, а после лага этот же АЗС обратно уходит в режим АЭР. На всех трёх вылетах это было замечено. Тайм-коды прилагаю. 29:03 - первый. 1:40:11 - второй. 2:30:16 - третий. 2. При использовании NS430 (который по-прежнему забирает много FPS) есть баги при отображении карты в режиме NAV при определённом масштабе. Т.е. вместо участка карты - просто чёрный прямоугольник. Тайминг 23:18. Так же 23:44 - видно, что всегда подгружается корректно карта высот(?). При определённом масштабе она и вовсе исчезает и просто остаются ЛЗП да ППМы, без "жёлтых и красных областей". 3. Баг при рулении ботов после посадки на аэродроме Бамбора (Гудаута). После посадки часть ботов заезжает на пятачок с КДП, сносит его и взрывает статичную технику. Этой проблеме уже много лет точно... Тайминг - 3:07:36. 4. Бот на МиГ-29 использует тормозной щиток даже при наличии ПТБ. Тайминг - 2:46:00 5. Лазерный дальномер включается сам даже без достижения тангажа в 10 градусов. Это нормально? И отключается ли он сам во избежание перегрева? Тайминг - 2:47:21. 6. Вроде как правили с крайним патчем удержание цели при захвате РЛС, но на деле - срывы происходят постоянно. Не важно стоит ППС или ЗПС, не важно какая частота импульсов. Тайминги - 55:59 и 1:52:13. Пробовал захват в режиме АП, чтобы зацепиться за помеху - захват есть, пуск километров с 25 а то и ближе...и потом опять срыв захвата. По наблюдениям - будто РЛС очень сильно, если не безумно, зависит от включённого РЭБа противника. (в условиях миссии у Миража 2000 и Торнадо с контейнером - РЭБ молотит постоянно). Любой РЭБ давит РЛС МиГа настолько сильно, что применять 27Р/ЭР результативно - почти нереально. Ну и непонятно есть ли смысл от АЗСа, который отвечает за "прожиг" (как я понял) помех. Может есть советы какие-то? Или это ещё всё настраиваться будет? У ботов, кстати, тоже много промахов этим ракетами... 7. Есть какие-то советы по стрельбе 27Р/ЭР в ДВБ и ББ(РЛС) по вертолётам? В рамках миссии заходил на звено "Газелей" - РЛС не видит их не при каких условиях. Вертолёты двигается со скоростью 200-220 на малой высоте, 50-100 метров. Заходим сбоку чуть выше их или на той же высоте, спереди, сзади - не важно. Ставим разную частоту импульсов, меняем ППС и ЗПС - не помогает. Пробовал захват в режиме ББ при помощи РЛС - тоже не видит цель, бесполезно. Понятное дело, система старая и специального режима под винтов нет...но вопрос в том, что вертолёты для РЛС и Р-27 на 9-12 вообще неуязвимы получается? Только через КОЛС работать? ТП видит их нормально, хотя и дальность замеряет порой долго. 8. Визуальных Баг с выпуском тормозного парашюта после одного вылета. Первая посадка - всё штатно, анимации корректные. Вторая, третья и вероятно последующие посадки (только с перезарядкой и дозаправкой, борт тот же) - при выпуске парашют волочится по земле, будто сброшен, хотя самолёт оттормаживается. Тайминг - 2:12:18.

OCCT question. With the 13900k running system stress test and ram test im observing temps holding steady at 100c. TJMax for this cpu is listed at 100c and throttling should occur to maintain this temp. This actually appears to be working as I never see temps over 100c. This is water cooled with a 3 fan 420mm rad. Care was taken when installing the block to the CPU. Im using noctua paste. Im assuming these results are expected and normal but i wanted to ask before I let it run too long. Thanks!

I think the main thing to keep in mind as far as range is never to launch between 20 and 30 miles. Preferably, launch inside of 20 miles, or outside of around 40. 20 to 30 is not far enough to take advantage of a loft, but far enough that the missile will run out of fuel and quickly slow down before getting to the bandit.

Seems that total keeps logging, but Mig-29 time does not show. Me or is it a known issue?

I had the same known issue. However playing with external stores and with a little offset aileron trim, there seems to be a correlation there. Firing S80 rockets with empty launchers these hunting with AP on ATT and ALT HLD stopped.