All Activity

Hi guys I wanted to know more about the new Mig-29A so I just signed up for the forum. I used Mig-29 FC3 module before, and I liked close combat by using HMS. I looked at the new Mig-29A, and it seems there are some differences in how radar and HMS system works. Below is what I learned about each module, and can anyone tell me if I'm missing something, or wrong about something? 1. Mig-29 FC3 module BVR There are radar modes(scan, TWS) for bvr, and IRST for bvr. When they lock a target, they change to STT mode. Once STT mode is active, IRST lock can be changed to radar lock, but not vice versa. I can fire missiles at this point. 2. New Mig-29 modules BVR Basically same with FC3, but more switches and procedures. 3. Mig-29 FC3 module WVR There are radar close combat mode(Vertical scan), and IRST close combat modes(HMS, Vertical scan, Bore). HMS only uses IRST, and has no way to begin with radar. However, all modes including HMS modes change to STT mode when the target is locked. Once STT mode is active, IRST lock can be changed to radar lock, but no vice versa. I can fire missiles at this point. 4. New Mig-29 modules WVR Basically same with FC3, but HMS can start with radar?

im flying 160 - 180 without any issues. Im Trimming with the Force Trim

Does it work with flat screens? Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Pretty sure we'll get both FF Su-25 and FF Su-27 if the MiG-29 sells well. So, do your part everyone! I truly wish we could get more Cold War aircraft. Oh, ok and BTW. You can add the F-8 to your list I suppose. Even if it hasn't been officially announced yet. Cheers! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

After some test, I can say that the bug is still exist. Place an EWR, in SP works fine...in MP dosen't. As my post here:

And save with RAlt + Num0. [emoji6] @Furiz No point in reinstallations. Perform a full repair. Same thing, only quicker. It won't touch Saved Games though. To my knowledge. You have to have snapviews save enabled, and you must save a snapview before the file gets populated. Cheers! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Nothing. I did enjoy that helicopter SAR server, and I dable into other servers from time to time. Not at all interested in joining any squads, because I fly whenever I feel like it, without constraints and commitments. MP can be lots of fun. My first experiences were EF2K, some DI and Janes games over Kali, before IP was widely supported. Yeah, and FPSs like Doom, Descent, Nukem 3D, some Starwars etc. But that was way back in the 90s. There was a warbirds game that supported IP and only MP. The name escapes me, and was subscription based, so I gave that up very quickly. After the 90s I was a console user for 10+ years, and played a lot of MP with my X. But we had multiple TVs and consoles. Spent countless hours in MP on some PS3 game pleasing her I can't remember. Some FPS something. I have nothing against MP, and I will probably eventually come back to it. But I have too much fun learning all the modules in SP. [emoji4] Cheers! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

I agree but it's not that simple to just throw some model there. Every soldier is expected to have his own hit box/DM (if you kill the crew the unit is not dead but is not active either and it changes the gameplay) and IR layer. Its placement may collide with rotation or elevation of the unit/gun unless smartly connected. Anyway I support.

F1M?

Σας καλωσορίζουμε στο δεύτερο φροντιστήριο για το FA-18C Hornet που πραγματεύεται τις δυνατότητες πλοήγησης του αεροσκάφους. Το παρόν video παρέχει συμβουλές ΑΠΟΚΛΕΙΣΤΙΚΑ για εικονικές πτήσεις!

Προστέθηκε 4ο tutorial για το Mirage

Damn, where'd you get this? Can we have it? Damn, where'd you get this? Can we have it?

Dear Eagle Dynamics Team, While exploring the Afghanistan map, I noticed that Zahedan Airport (OIZH) is already partially represented with a functioning TACAN beacon. What immediately stood out is that this beacon perfectly aligns with the Persian Gulf map, meaning Zahedan sits in a unique geographic position that could serve as a bridge between the two maps. Currently, players who own both maps face a limitation: each map is vast, but they exist in isolation. Adding Zahedan as a fully modeled airfield would allow us to land and take off from the same location when transitioning between maps — a feature that would dramatically enhance immersion and realism. We already have precedent for this kind of implementation. For example, when the Syria map was released, H3 Air Base was later recreated for the Iraq map after players requests. This demonstrated how shared airfields can increase value across multiple maps, especially when they touch or overlap geographically. Right now, older maps such as NTTR and Persian Gulf are often described by the community as “complete,” which sometimes translates into “no longer updated.” This has created a perception that ED isn’t investing in improving legacy maps, despite continued demand from players. Addressing requests like this one would be an excellent way to show that older maps can still evolve in ways that benefit both new and existing products. Why Zahedan Matters: Strategic Location: Connects Persian Gulf and Afghanistan maps. Immersion & Continuity: Enables realistic long-haul flights and operations spanning both maps. Precedent: H3 AB demonstrates feasibility and value of shared airfields. Community Benefit: Owners of both maps gain an additional layer of realism and utility. Soviet Tech Relevance: The region is historically tied to Soviet-built aircraft. Many of the flyable Soviet airframes in DCS (Su-25, Su-27, MiG-29A, etc.) lack aerial refueling capability, making local forward bases like Zahedan critical for realistic missions. Module Synergy: With the released the MiG-29A Fulcrum as a full-fidelity module — a platform strongly associated with this region. Zahedan would give it a natural and historically plausible operating hub, tying new content directly into the map ecosystem. Visuals & References Coordinates (Google Earth): Zahedan International Airport (OIZH): 29°28′00″N 60°54′00″E Runway: 13/31 (4260m x 45m, concrete) Map Overlap: 1: Location of Zahedan on the Afghanistan map with TACAN visible. 2: Same TACAN on the Persian Gulf map, confirming geographic overlap. 3: Google Earth overlay showing Zahedan’s position between Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf theater. Immersion Example: Image: Route example from Al Dhafra AB (PG) to Kandahar AB (Afghanistan) with Zahedan as a midpoint. This demonstrates how it could serve as a natural operational hub for aircraft with limited range e.g., MiG-29A, Su-25 or F-16C even the possibility for deploying helicopters exploiting FARPs positions. In short, implementing Zahedan Airport would not only increase the longevity and value of the Persian Gulf map but also strengthen the Afghanistan map by giving it a natural gateway to the west. This single addition would create a much more seamless and immersive experience for the community, while also directly supporting the use of newly released modules like the MiG-29A. Thank you for considering this request, and I hope you’ll take this opportunity to show the longevity of your existing maps.

Dear Eagle Dynamics, While exploring the Afghanistan map, I noticed that Zahedan Airport (OIZH) is already partially represented with a functioning TACAN beacon. What immediately stood out is that this beacon perfectly aligns with the Persian Gulf map, meaning Zahedan sits in a unique geographic position that could serve as a bridge between the two maps. Currently, players who own both maps face a limitation: each map is vast, but they exist in isolation. Adding Zahedan as a fully modeled airfield would allow us to land and take off from the same location when transitioning between maps — a feature that would dramatically enhance immersion and realism. We already have precedent for this kind of implementation. For example, when the Syria map was released, H3 Air Base was later recreated for the Iraq map after players requests. This demonstrated how shared airfields can increase value across multiple maps, especially when they touch or overlap geographically. Right now, older maps such as NTTR and Persian Gulf are often described by the community as “complete,” which sometimes translates into “no longer updated.” This has created a perception that ED isn’t investing in improving legacy maps, despite continued demand from players. Addressing requests like this one would be an excellent way to show that older maps can still evolve in ways that benefit both new and existing products. Why Zahedan Matters: Strategic Location: Connects Persian Gulf and Afghanistan maps. Immersion & Continuity: Enables realistic long-haul flights and operations spanning both maps. Precedent: H3 AB demonstrates feasibility and value of shared airfields. Community Benefit: Owners of both maps gain an additional layer of realism and utility. Soviet Tech Relevance: The region is historically tied to Soviet-built aircraft. Many of the flyable Soviet airframes in DCS (Su-25, Su-27, MiG-29A, etc.) lack aerial refueling capability, making local forward bases like Zahedan critical for realistic missions. Module Synergy: With the released the MiG-29A Fulcrum as a full-fidelity module — a platform strongly associated with this region. Zahedan would give it a natural and historically plausible operating hub, tying new content directly into the map ecosystem. Visuals & References Coordinates (Google Earth): Zahedan International Airport (OIZH): 29°28′00″N 60°54′00″E Runway: 13/31 (4260m x 45m, concrete) Map Overlap: 1: Location of Zahedan on the Afghanistan map with TACAN visible. 2: Same TACAN on the Persian Gulf map, confirming geographic overlap. 3: Google Earth overlay showing Zahedan’s position between Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf theater. Immersion Example: Image: Route example from Al Dhafra AB (PG) to Kandahar AB (Afghanistan) with Zahedan as a midpoint. This demonstrates how it could serve as a natural operational hub for aircraft with limited range e.g., MiG-29A, Su-25 or F-16C even the possibility for deploying helicopters exploiting FARPs positions. In short, implementing Zahedan Airport would not only increase the longevity and value of the Persian Gulf map but also strengthen the Afghanistan map by giving it a natural gateway to the west. This single addition would create a much more seamless and immersive experience for the community, while also directly supporting the use of newly released modules like the MiG-29A. Thank you for considering this request, and I hope you’ll take this opportunity to show the longevity of your existing maps.

Strange, so, did they only solve this for the new MiG? I've been on several maps and it was fine. I didn't see this message. Out of curiosity, I'll check another plane in the same situation. Wags's video with the take-off on the MiG-29 and the map of Afghanistan is also ok.

Thanks for that and I agree

Yes, but it seems that if I delete all the mods, it doesn't happen, if I keep any mod, and I mean any, this happens

Yes, would be nice and is of course requested for years, every week but the reasons are still the same: redfor sells worse that US made aircraft docs and SME's are more hard to find and use as a source legally even looking for it may endanger ED - especially its russian/belarus employees If it's in newsletter then it's official but mind it won't be full fidelity. Moreover ED claims that they'll look how MiG-29A Fulcrum sales go and if it's good they'll reconsider doing more/modern redfor aircraft.

Its the reason I dont fly Iraq, even with the latest update the textures are messy and blurry when down low, Urgia Medi proved with CW Germany that really they should be the only ones allowed to do maps for DCS as it was was released in a much nicer state than both ED latest maps, also the update for Normandy 2 is looking fantastic, if only ED used the same techniques for their maps. I will say that Afghan looks great now after the last update.

How many of them have documented in-combat cases? So, as for now in DCS we have failure-proof weapons. Same for most of RWR. But not for one specific version.

You missed the point. I never said he works/speak for ED, so don't look for it. I said he doesn't. I don't work or speak for ED either so I refrain from spreading misinformation that ED would have to clarify later.

I mainly fly the A-10 and the Hornet and sometimes the Mudhen. Happens with all. Mostly I experience that at NTTR. I get clearance, taxi to the numbers and then I get an 'Unable'. As I proceed with the TO run I'm again getting clearance.

You said you bound Jester Context Action to A? That wouldn't be the right bind for bringing up the menu. The menu one is called, I believe, Jester Ui Action, not Context Action. It would also be interesting to know if other HB UIs work. Press M to bring up the ingame Manual. Or click on the right canopy spot to bring up the Grease Pencil menu. Or RCTRL+V for the virtual browser or RCTRL+L for Jester Console. Do these work? If those work then it must likely be an issue with your Jester binds. If they do not work, its likely an issue with your graphics settings. Either case, share some screenshots of the corresponding stuff and we can probably get you back on track within a few minutes :)

Hey there, this is an already reported issue, cheers. It was done on purpose to prevent silly looking abrupt and jumping animations as can be seen in those other modules you referenced. It will be revisited and improved eventually. You mentioned that you are aware of the previous posts on this topic, so I am not sure why you are creating a new one. FYI that wont speed up things, cheers.

With which plane? With MiG-29A is ok now.