All Activity

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

Thank you all for the support! For weeks thought that I'm the only one noticed the missing points. If I could choose I would give my full support for Zahedan airport. My reason is because ED actually placed their beacon in Afghanistan map and it is on the border between two maps, i.e. H3 for Syria and Iraq and they actually populated Iraq map on request recently. And then is a military installation and who knows what asked ED so they must obey by law. In matter of fact I'll make a request on Zahedan latter! I would imagine that having a AB in the middle of the dunes is an epic experience no doubt

https://www.dualshockers.com/tokyo-game-show-flight-simulator-razbam-eagle-dynamics-dcs/ Bye Phant

I do have this all over the place. NTTR, Caucasus, etc. But it doesn't bother me too much while patiently waiting for the new ATC. Thougg, can't say that anything changed with the last patch for me

Можно ссылку на тот инструмент,который поддерживает моды?Я правильно понял что его нужно установить отдельно в уже имеющиюся версию программы.В моем случаи ето стабильная версия.

Noticed it, too.

Доброго времени всём. Планируется, обновление с поддержкой нового МиГ-29?

Likely the first two would be closest… however, the reality is i have a life and a family, even though I’m retired and I play most days, turning up at a regular time just doesn’t work for me… which it does for most other people… I have little or no interest in PvP never have in any game. I’m introverted by nature and whilst I have friends and enjoy their company, but, I grew up gaming solo, and honestly have very little interest in gaming with others.

Hello, Compared to the MiG 29 FC3, the R73 missile of the FF version has issues in the frontal aspect. It's difficult, if not impossible, to obtain launch authorization. Is this a bug or my fault? MiG29 FC3 R73.trk MiG29 FF R73.trk

As ED has said, it is not up to the same standard as their newest R-27R/ER release in tens of seeker. But I don’t think it should be that hard since it already has all the advanced FM stuff done

I for one am simply not interested in MP. Speaking PvE: I want to fly, when I have time, not when a server happens to be full. I want to fly what (plane and mission) I want, not what is on the menu for some virtual squadron. Speaking PvP: I am in no mood to spawn, do a lime consuming cold start only to be blown to pieces on the taxiway, by friend or foe. And yes, my aged brain is simply too slow to compete with teens who spend all their time in front of screen. In short, I simply don't miss anything in my SP world.

No pressure - I mistakenly thought this was the much hyped dynamic campaign offering (hence the FOMO as you can imagine).

I've been keeping my eye on this thread, and was suprised there was no discussion about it. I am a novice at the CH-47, but I've noticed this as well. And I'm thinking, "wait, the Chinook shoud be much faster than this!" The LCT becomes saturated at around 140 Knots. Now, it's not like I'm Mr. Helicopter here or anything, but my guess is that once the fuselage starts to pitch down, it becomes a bit unstable. 140 knots is like 260 kph. The Hind, the Hip and the Hokum are also considered fast helicopters, and they are rattling your teeth out at that speed. It would be interesting to hear what somebody that actually knows what they're talking about weigh in on this.

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.