All Activity

Первый пост откорректирован в связи с продажей некоторых позиций.

Hi, requesting an automated ATC system for approach, departure, ground and carrier operations, instead of constantly needing to use the F10 Menu ATC. Kind regards, RWC

Hi, I'm trying to use this amazing script, and loaded the Demo mission OK, replacing the default F/A 18-C by the CJS Growler, as a client named 'Growler'. The mission launches correctly and everything seems fine, including the message 'jamming submenus created', I can never invoke the jamming dialog . Do I correctly invoke the F10 menu by the usual '\' key ? Or do I need to wait for some delay for the EW jammer to spool up ? Thanks for your help.

The control mode for man-in-the-loop weapons can be changed in the JF17's dedicated settings. Simply set it to designated. However, the issue of the ground not being displayed at long ranges will need to be resolved by ED.

That require ED implement them first.

Maybe we should have a checkbox, then. A brand new (or at least properly maintained) Soviet MiG-29 would have the radar working OK with the SPO-15, but for most of the jet's lifetime, it seems that it was a common problem which was very often left unfixed. That said, if we're being consistent, this should just work. DCS doesn't simulate bad maintenance, deterioration due to conditions (big issue for F-4 and its missiles in Vietnam) and other such concerns that often determine real world performance much more than factory E-M diagrams do.

Hi, please include a track replay on Caucasus showing the issue and we can review it. If you have any public evidence to support your claims please dm me, but comparing to other modules isnt probably a good idea, each aircraft has its quirks and characteristics. thank you

Premise, I fly almost all DCS modules and I have 5+ years in the sim to what I consider a professional level. I am also a student pilot. I understand the flight model is the same as FC and it was considered more than good and realistic already, but right now the MiG-29A behaves completely different from any other module. For example: - it's very difficult to bleed air speed, even when idle and pitching up. And it seems it never really stalls and not even buffet. I could fly at around 120kts easily but it seems a very low speed to me - because of the difficulty of bleeding air speed, landings are weird and generally flat and it float forever - you can flare on land and then keep the nose up almost forever - you can sustain AB climb, sometimes supersonic, way past 35,000ft - the jet overall seems faster and agile of anything else out ther in DCS. I don't know how a MiG29 is in real life and to be honest I would expect this kind of performance from a modern military jet, but then all the others modules like F/A-18 and F-16 must be wrong then as they have less performance than the MiG29. In general I find F-16, F-14 and F-4 (in general Heatblur modules) to be the best transmitting realistic reactions and performances when it comes to modern jets....so TLDR, this MiG29A left me perplexed as it feels very arcade to me

THX! Oh dear, it's getting more and more fun in DCS.

Did they? Admiral Helsey, who was ultimately responsible for the decision to press on into the storm, and not to take precautions earlier (to be fair, weather reports were contradictory), got away with no real sanctions for his 'error of judgement'. If anyone else got punished, that would seem unfair. In addition to the many damaged ships, three destroyers were sunk, 802 seamen lost, and 146 aircraft destroyed - most due to breaking loose in hangers due to extreme rolling. USS Monterey (CVL-26) suffered a fire as a result, fortunately brought under control. I suspect most DCS players think little about this aspect of warfare: extreme weather, or even just enduring cold for armies ill-equipped for it, sometimes inflicts more damage than the enemy. Not something you can simulate, or would really want to (though proper pitching decks for CVs would be nice), but a sobering thought.

Sorry but changing labels isn't something that is going to happen, not many people look at labels and it has no effect on the weapon in game, reporting this and assigning dev time to it would be a waste of resources. thank you

No problem for me

9.12 avionics manual, SPO-15 maintenance manual. Also SME ground technician said their pilots used SPO-15 in type-similar BVR training.

So it’s NOT my targeting ability at fault!

Yes, same for me. After restart it is back to no sound.

Hi, I dont think this is a bug, it is a day attack helicopter as far as I am aware, but I will check with the team. thank you

Wow

Current situation GBU-54's tail guidance kit is labeled as 'Dummy kit, KMU-572(D-2)/B' But according to congress record, KMU-572(D-2)/B is Dummy set for load training. First Material CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE April 28,2025 In this record, They mention two KMU-572s "KMU–572(D–2)/B Trainer (JDAM)," and "KMU–572 JDAM Guidance Kits for GBU–38/54;" Both are handled separately, and KMU-572(D-2) is specifically mentioned as dummy/training kit. Credit : CREC-2025-04-28-pt1-PgS2597.pdf Second Material In this image, Label is same as in game. And there is stencil "MK82 LOAD TRAINER NOT FOR FLIGHT" on other side of label. Even the wings are welded. And using common sense, Using Dummy kit on live ammo does not make sense. Third Material DVIDS - Images - Munitions Systems Specialists Assemble GBU-38 [Image 7 of 15] Label should be like this image (GBU 38 also use KMU-572B) 'Guidance kit KMU-572B' TLDR; Label on tail guidance kit of GBU 54 should be fixed. Also, add label same to GBU-38 since both are same tail guidance kit.

The first 4th gen, because we already have full-fidelity MiGs: 21, 19 and 15.

Manual filament swap during print.

I have seen several of them with no mentioning. 347 I could not find in them, but it sounds as if it is part of sections with updates and failures (e.g. 347 for my 9.13 is fault error table). Might be interesting to see how Soviets maintained theirs (LOL). They tended to treat airplanes as consumables, so likely 10 year old aircraft is something that was supposed to be replaced all together. Nations with less resources were more interested in keeping them running longer, which is why MiG had upgrade options for them. In Soviet system they would simply move from 9.12 to 9.13. Just for the record: the 29s donated to Serbia from Russia were all wearing different liveries and were looking from outside worse than our own 29s. The Belarus did look better, but still worse. I would not be surprised if they just decided to keep the aircrafts with known faults and updated one revision of the manual with the description of the fault. IMHO: this is a problem that plagued the aircrafts when they reach certain age. Deterioration will occur even if you do not use them, but more frequent and aggressive usage will wear them down faster. I got an interview where the pilot state that original range of the radar got reduced down to 20-30km for detection and tracking. These birds were in a sorry state. Even after the war the situation did not change much, with whole remaining fleet being grounded due to not having startup batteries. Around 2008 the repairs and overhaul started, with another in 2012.

Может ещё не доделали? Будем ждать ответа Fighter29

Pretty sure you use the circle to the edge of the HUD for that purpose.

Not as far as I am aware. Most modules have a Off/Idle(HOLD) binding, which works very well for most hardware. I had to use the 2 separate bindings as well on my CM3 throttle. I think you misremember: as far as I know, the only limitations with the centre tank is APU exhaust gasses couldn't exit (that was later fixed), and the inability to operate the air brakes. Or perhaps I misremember and it wasn't APU exhaust gasses but gun exhaust gasses... Either way, it is fixed and you can see that by the hole in the fuel tank, which you can see in this picture (black round hole in the tank):

Would like to ask the same question. Hopefully it's just an easy port from the already existing FC MIG ?