All Activity

I'd have to ask, but he might have the blue angels spring mod. I know he has it, but I don't think he had it active because this was a combat mission, not formation.

Don't have time to look at the tack right now, but what mods does the problem player have installed. This isn't widely reported which suggests it's a specific user issue. The SuperHornet mods have been causing assorted issues lately. Also have them try doing a repair of their DCS. Is that track from you or is it a track from the user with the issue? If it's yours it's not going to show much of use.

Perhaps it's from that early radar receivers use oscilloscopes screens that literally gave you a 'spike' for a radar target: Figure 3: Circular display of German Wurzburg radar; AT marking target ‘blips Figure 2. Screen display of British 1940 ‘Chain Home’ radar, showing four aircraft represented by downward-pointing ‘blips’. The upward-pointing trace is a marker which can be moved along by turning a pointer moving over a scale which shows the target’s range. (Image credit: Plate V, J.G Crowther and R Whiddington, Science at War, London: HMSO, 1947; Crown Copyright now expired) Dreams and Visions: The Development of Military Radar Iconography and User Reaction, 1935-45 – Technology's Stories

The VOR/DME station down there operates at 112.40 MHz. This VOR frequency is paired to the DME channel of 71X (which is what TACAN uses). As an additional example, the VOR/DME station at Beirut is on 112.60 MHz, this would correspond to DME channel 73X, or the VOR/DME station at Larnaca on Cyprus is 112.80 MHz, paired to 75X. Carrier TACAN channels should be selected to avoid existing DME stations in their operating area to avoid confliction.

Even the SPO-15 (which is mostly modeled correctly in our MiG-29) could detect the F-14's radar at a much longer range than the F-14 could see anything on it. The simple reason is, an RWR needs to see the radio signal that has traveled from the radar to it, while the radar needs to see the signal that traveled from the radar to the target and back. However, with no launch warning for the Phoenix, seeing the Tomcat on RWR doesn't help much. That said, lack of AWACS at sea doesn't mean the Russians would be blind. It can be expected that the bombers would coordinate with surface warfare assets that would provide radar updates to them. The attempt to sink a US CVBG would likely involve a huge, coordinated salvo of ship and air launched cruise missiles. Aircraft would be working with their surface assets on both sides, and this would mean a huge bag of EW tricks in store for both of them. And then, underneath all that, you've got submarines sneaking around. Of course, my comment applies to ships, as well. You don't have to sink the CVB, a gaping hole in the middle of the flight deck is almost as good.

Wags mentioned it in the interview, they'd like to look into it at some point, but it's way down on the list of priorities. ED knows it's a big issue with ground units. Worth noting, there's a chance that it'll still cause some randomness. For instance, if the rounds gut the troop compartment, but spare the forward part where the crew are sitting, the BMP would still shoot back. It might even remain drivable. With spall liners everywhere, an AP round might just punch a hole. SAPHEI rounds aren't particularly common on aircraft, it's usually regular a mix of AP and HEI. The former punches a hole, the latter detonates on impact.

True a denial works as well as a kill. They just have to believe you can hit them to turn tail.

Other aircraft such as the F15E for example in the external view you can see the combustion smoke from the engine and other dcsworld aircraft as well and that is why I do not know if in the Mig29A fulcrum you should see or not Of course in startup and takeoff

With AP rounds the crew would get killed by shrapnel as you mentioned. The engine and other mechanical parts would get damages. They could implement a simplified"crew kill" that would prevent the BMP to shoot back once hit. With SAPHEI rounds it would eventually catch fire. It would just take more rounds to go through. I hope this damage system gets improved as it would solve the GBU99s, guns and rockets issues at the same time and make it far more realistic.

I also think it's more likely a problem specific to this Microsoft page (https://login.live.com/). I haven't encountered this issue anywhere else. This particular Microsoft page seems to be polling joystick inputs. Moving my joystick's axes on this page has the same effect as pressing the arrow keys; i.e., moving the joystick forward results in pressing the up arrow key. Moving my Virpil Collective's axis cycles through the individual active or interactive elements on the Microsoft page, from top to bottom or left to right. I have two computers (both with AM4 sockets) and experience the same problem on both, even though different USB devices are connected, but both have a WinWing Throttle and a WinWing Base. P.S.: The problem also occurs with different browsers (tested with Chrome, Firefox, and Edge).

Hits, yes, but not penetrations. The angle means the round has more armor to go through and is more likely to bounce. That is modeled in DCS. As mentioned, DCS does not account the roof is just some 15mm of aluminum alloy. In fact, I don't know if there's more than a single armor value for the BMP-3. It might be surviving things it shouldn't due to simplified modeling. Also note, a single 20mm AP going through the infantry compartment won't cause the BMP-3 to explode into a fireball (though anyone sitting inside will have a bad time). In DCS, it won't take off all its hitpoints. That stuff is simplified to the point of inadequacy, strafing with 20mm in particular gets hit hard (30mm usually kills light armor reliably).

SO SAD I pay the money to get the MiG-29, but all I got was a useless R-27 missile. No wonder I get beaten up by the blue team on popular PvP servers. Please, ED, fix this as soon as possible so the red team can have a fighting chance against the blue team. PLEASE PLEASE

I might be wrong but I think it would definitely go through the side, the top and the rear of a BMP. Only the front might resist a little better to a single impact but not much more. They are designed to survive 12.7 not 20mm canon. Furthermore coming at a 35-45° angle almost guaranties some hits on the top just like in the YouTube vid. I definitely hope the damage models could be improve to reflect the reality and reward real tactics.

@currenthill thanks so much for all this! Just one question, will these new additions be added directly to the DCS native core in the future?

This is still an issue as of today. Had the boat set to 71X and it was reading all the way down at that radio station... Change the boat to 73X - works perfectly.

Worth remembering, the damage model for ground units in DCS isn't that great. In particular, IRL the top armor of almost all pre-2010s armored vehicles is paper thin. They're basically protected against small arms fire, maybe .50 if it's a particularly thick skinned vehicle, but not much else. Depending on the angle, the A-10 could punch through most tanks of its day with 30mm AP, as long as it hit the top armor. DCS doesn't model any of that, I'm not sure if there's any difference at all between where you hit, but even if there is some accounting for direction, the armor model is simplified, making top armor way too strong. I suspect that's in play here, realistically putting 20mm rounds in the side of a BMP probably shouldn't work, but they should go through the top no problem.

So long as such a thing is not a requirement, I'm not even 100 hours into MSFS2024 and it's already annoying AF.

Everything is same...

Nice catch! Hope this get fixed too.

I would suggest also reaching out to Microsoft. Have you identified the device that's causing the issue?

Each module has unique clickable items, so you'll have to do this by trial and error using both files as a reference. (Unless someone volunteers to spend an hour or two doing this for you.) Mind that the "Exterior Lights Master Switch" already exists and can be assigned the usual way. Alternatively, try contacting the devs directly (here or on Discord) and ask them to implement this in a future update.

We could say the same about the MiG-29A, you just need to learn Cyrillic and the metric system. But there is an option for an English cockpit, and so on, even though something like that never existed in this variant. DCS is just a game, and in multiplayer, sometimes American aircraft are used on the Red side. Imagine AWACS giving you everything in metric units while you’re flying an F-15 or your wingman is trying to explain you how far away bandit is.

I would also like to note that for an accurate representation of 9.12A, we need the option to leave HUD symbology in Cyrillic. As far as I'm aware, German/Polish MiG-29s never got their HUD symbology changed to Latin characters, so while it is a nice addition for players who do not want to learn what the Cyrillic characters mean, the accurate model, post NATO adaptation would have: HUD: Cyrillic Labels: English AEKRAN: English Units in the HUD and Speed/Altitude gauges: Knots and Feet 'Natasha' voice: English (even though I think Germans had it in German) At the moment, setting Cockpit language (for labels) to English also changes to a 'fictional' English HUD. Therefore, I'd like to ask you to add these options in the 'Special' menu of this module.