All Activity

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 ?

Don't think I have either

@NineLine could you find time to check the track file?

It does, yes and after start up it is no problem at all to use this button but if you‘re in flight and trimmed with pitch and/or rudder….you‘ll be messed up with all trims just because of the aileron trim is apparently not neutral even though the lamp is illuminated

What is interesting, I have been seeing a lot of talk, and also snippets of a bigger tech manual showcasing the timing that is specificly between the radar and the SPO-15 so they will be in sync. Especially to avoid interference of the radar and the SPO-15, and I have not been seeing any information so far that the radar completly cuts off the frontal lobe of the RWR. Only interference that could happen what is a maintenence issue, hence why the sync is needed. Not a RWR design flaw, such as like this currently. When installed into aircraft, SPO-15 is connected to the radar with a sync blanking line which makes SPO ignore own radar when antennas catch radars sidelobes or structural elements pass the signal. What makes complete sense in the matter. This cut off implementation makes the SPO-10 look superior since even that has sync lines.

Hey! That's not necessary since you can do that in Saved Fames folder which won't be overwritten each update. Path is the following: C:\Users\yourusername\Saved Games\DCS\Config\F-15E\ALE45_PRG.lua If there is no such file - create it or copy from main folder in Program Files. You can also put NCTR table there.

I don't know how latest version of DCS Hind works, but earlier night engagements were possible with illumination rockets. We would either work in pairs, with one bird illuminating and other shooting, then switching roles, or you can illuminate for yourself, but it really does not give plenty of time to engage targets. EDIT: After quick test, Petrovich found target with half moon. With no moon he was not able to find that same target. I'm not sure whether this is a bug, since even the best optics in the world will have some percent of light attenuation and I don't think Soviets put the best optics in Mi-24. @BIGNEWYcan you check with the team if this is a bug or not?

I would like to add to this wish about blurying the wish to also blur the visible part of helmet in VR. Maybe real polot can see in focus from zero to infinity, but not most of the people. Plaese blur the monocle and the helmet in VR. At the moment it is very distracting this sharp.