All Activity

'Post your log and track file' - is that ED's version of kicking the can down the road for another 2 years?

Hello. Just started to follow the manual and compare it to the module, so some more question will follow. For now I have this one. I think there is a misinterpretation from my or ED side about correct sequence of engine start. Manual says that ignition is switched off when 35% are reached and APU and starting system are shut-down when 50% are reached. In auto sequence LHenginestarts after the 10sec rest of APU. In module we can see that this 10sec rest period starts at 35% when the RHENG START (lit when ignition is running) goes off, but not 10sec after the 50% reached

No, that's not it, I'm more looking for a reasonable speed to perform basic maneuvers (loop, looping, split S for example).

Как в настройках они называются,не нашел У меня РЛЭ по 9-13,там мрк по-другому работает.Наверно 9-12 еще был сырой а с секундомером что? А я все настроил,включил джой в другое гнездо и все слетело…

nullВ настройках карты которая идет на опасити, выбрать параметр alpha для mono channel output

You can edit the mission file directly. Rename from miz to zip. And then in the mission file, you can swap out modules. (Careful when you write mods, that's something different ). Maybe someone has made a script. Not sure.

3 сек, как и положено. А чуть ниже, это уже на брюхе практически ползти надо, тогда да, может подальше захватит, но дальше 20 срыв практически гарантирован, стоит боту в сторону уйти. Я примерно на 1500 м иду, а Л-39 ведомому отдаю, чтоб в зад не орал своей РЛС.

Why? Latency? Frequency limits? What's difference with how radar deals with HPRF shutoff signal?

Not quite sure what your looking for. Best sustained turn rate should be in the 850-950 km/hr range.

Is there an update for the latest version DCS 2.9.20.15010?

А что если использовать 27Р? Попробовал ДВБ с Р-27Р. Условия те-же. Сбить F-15 с помощью Р-27Р не смог в болшинстве случаев. Я пускаю первую Р-27Р на Др max или чуть меньше (около 20-17 км) - противник начинает отворачивать ( и даже не пускает ответку по мне), потом срыв захвата. Пока пытаюсь перезахватить для пуска второй Р-27Р, дистанция боя сокращается до БВБ. И там уже идет обычный догфайт где режим "шлем" и Р-73 рулит и F-15 сбивается без проблем. Вот пример типичного боя: Tacview-20250923-194202-DCS.zip.acmi Резюмируя - Р27Р в ДВБ это средство перейти в БВБ. В БВБ МиГ сильнее и 90% побед.

Hi! My name is Michael and im 3D-Artist (my Work:https://www.deviantart.com/animaniacarts) and Beginner in Modding for DCS. I work currenntly on a Independence-Day MOD and have finished the Fighter and some Buildings, Citys and Tech-Stuff which i have brought into DCS and all works fine.Now I´m on the City-Destroyer and a Dead end. How i bring i the Animations into DCS? I know its a Scripting-Thing but how. Must i make a seperate LUA for the Animations or wrote it into the Description-Lua of the Aircraft? I have a bit knowledge of the Mission-Editor, but i never get a Unit in the Play-Arguments Description. Any Detailed Help where much appriciated. Thanks in advance and Greetings from Vienna/Austria Michael aka the Animaniac Credits for the ID4 City Destroyer to jafell Aufzeichnung 2025-09-20 135057.mp4 Aufzeichnung 2025-09-20 135749.mp4 Aufzeichnung 2025-09-20 140256.mp4 Bildschirmaufnahme 2025-09-18 131148.mp4

There is multiples topic about KA-50 laser code for years... I think ED must be clarify the 3 laser code using by the KA-50 Topic that talk about lasers code :

For information, since thoses interrogation, ED have made a rework on Kh-25 and increase the seaker's range. It a good thing, now the range limitation ok the Kh-25ML isn't about a misile who failed to seek but because laser cooling, so it work well now!

@BIGNEWY Is it possible to implement a simplified version of this logic for AI MiG-29s? This would go a long way to make single player feel more alive and variable instead of just fighting a slightly different version of Generic Opponent with slightly different FM characteristics.

Hello, I need advice on maneuver training. (For comparison, with an F14, I set it to 350 knots, 15,000 feet.) I would therefore like to know the values that correspond to this MIG 29. Thank you in advance, Sincerely, Michael

Проходил её много раз. Километров с 50 проходит захват уже, если лететь чуть ниже целей. Там сразу и пару Л-39 видно правее грачей. С 25 уже повторный иногда требуется при срыве. Кнопку захвата прожимаете долго?

Oh happy day!

Hi all, Firstly regarding the device limitations and how the device handles launch warning. The detection of launch warnings is handled by the subsystem called "Type 10 forming system" on board 55. This system actually does two things. - It receives raw pulse train envelope as well as information from board 57 (threat program) about detection of type N (Nike-Hercules) in track mode, and tries to detect the pattern of coding pulses corresponding to guidance commands sent to the missile through the MTR. If detected, it sends a signal labelled "Type 10 impulse" which triggers the launch warning. - It processes raw pulse train to detect M/HPRF signals, as the regular PRI measurement circuit cannot process signals with PRF > 10kHz due to aliasing (the reference clock is 100kHz and the measurement procedure is suboptimal as it was not designed for M/HPRF signals, requires picking up the same PRI at least 3 times in a row). Keyword is detect not measure: it can only determine if PRF is lower than 26kHz and if it's higher than 50kHz. That means the ability of a production SPO-15LM to categorize the threat based on PRF is limited to 3 bins, 10-26kHz, 26-50kHz and above 50kHz. The threat program board (57) would require a major redesign to handle more PRF bins, rather than the typical modifications it was designed for to update the threat type assignments. The bins themselves could be modified by doing some rewiring, (100 and 200kHz for instance could be achieved) but that wouldn't change categorization of typical gen 4 fighter radars at all (these are above 200kHz in HPRF modes). See the excerpts from signal flow schematic (from Polish docs available at MUT in Warsaw where the documentation is declassified there). Board 55, specifically the specimen we've seen is dominated with discrete logic gates packed by 4s into ICs, with the remaining space filled by printed circuits. With that, in addition to the above board 55 implements a lot of binary logic including 2 bit memory for the elevation channel (and handling of that channel in general), synchronization of individual azimuth channels with sequential part of the processing, part of the PRI measurement logic for signals below 10 kHz PRF, etc. As for what would need to be done: to detect AMRAAM or PD variants of AIM-7, the whole board would likely need to be replaced with a new one, as it would require measuring frequencies that aren't multiplicities of the reference clock - it would require pretty much another copy of the entire PRI circuit from board 56, but using a different measurement procedure. It would be difficult to squeeze 2 more counters on this board (board 56 uses 8 bit counters built with 4 bit counter ICs, so that's what was originally available). For older SARH missiles that use CW illumination for guidance, it could be possible to rewire board 55 in a way that outputs simultaneous CW and pulsed detection as Type 10, effectively causing presence of type P to also trigger launch warning every single time (but with more false positives). This was not done originally because at the time the device was designed, the CW illuminators were typically controlled manually by the operator. And we do not currently have any evidence this was done. But this is the most realistic modification that could potentially be implemented as an option. As for systems that use CW exclusively absolutely nothing can be done - the device simply doesn't capture any information about the CW signals other than their presence and average amplitude. Changing this would require such a major redesign of the whole device that it would no longer be the LM variant. AIM-54 is likely similarly undetectable, likely due to parameter overlap making it indistinguishable from AWG-9 even with potential modifications, it is listed as a known threat in a lot of MiG-29 documentation but with no launch warning for it, it is simply thrown under "type F". Alternatively to the above, a separate board could be designed that would take any necessary inputs from around the device and then trigger launch warning by directly sending the signal to the threat priority circuit of board 59. We're talking fantasy modifications here however. The launch warning can also be by an external MLWS connected to SPO-15, but the MiG-29 doesn't have one - it's basically the same situation as above. Command signals are out of the question for most systems as even if they were powerful enough, they're way out of band. NH is special in that the command signal is encoded in MTR's tracking signal. Overall, there's not enough info to implement any of this, if docs were produced for an upgraded cartridge 55 it could be considered as an additional threat program option, but pilot anecdotes are not a viable source, especially since it could be explained away by proper training and interpretation of incoming signals. A TWS capable fighter suddenly producing a lock on usually means that either they're about to launch a Sparrow or an AMRAAM went active. The same is the case for most SAM tracking radars: in DCS in particular a lock by a SAM almost always means launch. As for the device itself, it absolutely is hardwired, all logic is implemented directly in hardware. As for synchronization with radar, SPO-15 features a synchronization circuit on board 51, but it was designed for older radars such Sapfir-23. The principle of operation is the same as in older SPO-10, the receivers are blocked in rhythm with own radar's pulses. It cannot handle CW or HPRF signals (which trigger CW circuits anyway, followed by them being disabled completely in all channels once HPRF is recognized), so if they are emitted the affected hemisphere is shut down completely. According to electrical schematics for the aircraft, the N019 produces a single signal wire, which is used to block forward hemisphere, so that SPO can be left on and at least the rear hemisphere remains usable. Radio equipment manual confirms this. Full synchronization would require additional signals, so even if Cartridge 51 was modernized it would also require additional changes to wiring and to radar itself. Additionally every single channel in forward hemisphere on both boards #54 would need to be modified, so only CW signals were blocked, which is not avoidable. Failure of this system would cause the device to be flooded by own radar, making it completely unusable with radar on. hope that helps clarify some points. thank you

Thanks for your post Toriy. As I mentioned to BigNewy, I did a bit of digging on google and apparently external lighting for the Yak is optional and I managed to find pictures to prove this. I just thought it would be nice to have. As you pointed out, it would also be nice to be able to mount the NS430 somewhere too. I generally fly in VR and it is quite difficult with the virtual gps in the middle of the screen.

This help?

To solve the issue with scripting : a scirpt I have made that kill AI helicopter stroke by missile or 30mm guns Enjoys ! IAHelicoptersDamage.lua

After takeoff my stick deadzones and curves are not applied, and the roll axis in particular is extremely twitchy. There is also some uncommanded left roll which disappears some time during climbout. It isn't until I'm established level at 15,000ft that my deadzones and curves are applied. Large track so hosting on Google Drive, flown on Germany map.

Ohhh... Thanks!