All Activity

That's great. But the custome is to mark that post as the solution, not your post where you say it's solved. Cheers!

Do you have any recommendations on where else I should be looking if I can't find the autoexec.cfg file in the Config folder?

don't know how difficult this is, but there is a suggestion for developers to make an optional SPO. As an INS for the KA-50 III. Some people are interested in flying and making corrections, while others have GPS in their car phone. 1. The version as it was conceived in the USSR 2. The version of how it really happened. This will balance the dogfight multiplayer, which will indicate which version is being used. Those who are interested in flying with the version that was in real life will use it. DCS will kill two birds with one stone in this way, disputes will subside and sales may increase.

Yeah honestly a tic-box solution of pick your own version to this seems to be the best answer given how contentious and unclear the data is.

I don’t know about peak power, and the N-001 is basically a larger N-019, but average power of both radars is identical. “Hey it’s ‘Operational validation and testing by MOD to get it approved for service’ day” MOD: “Why doesn’t the RWR work when the radar is on? Can’t this be fixed??? How does this happen after all this time and money????” MiG: “uhhhhhhh. I guess we just didn’t think it a priority! Should we fix it for service entry sir?” MOD: “I mean if you think it’s low priority……. Why not……. It’s only a defensive system!”

nullThen you should probably be capable of translating this And with this document in mind we can say that the SPO-15 IS CAPABLE of filtering out radar signal from the aircrafts radar. And we can assume that IRL it was either never properly implemented due to, eh, fruits of updated soviet politics and further dissolution of the country, or it was actually made workable, but for the same mentioned reasons there was no way to support the system and it quickly became partially inoperable.

All good thanks guys! It was indeed a double bind!

Found it! Double bind was Correa, thank you.

I don't know how difficult this is, but there is a suggestion for developers to make an optional SPO. As an INS for the KA-50 III. Some people are interested in flying and making corrections, while others have GPS in their car phone. 1. The version as it was conceived in the USSR 2. The version of how it really happened. This will balance the dogfight multiplayer, which will indicate which version is being used. Those who are interested in flying with the version that was in real life will use it. DCS will kill two birds with one stone in this way, disputes will subside and sales may increase.

Here is the DCS Log, the track file is too large to attach right now. There was a bug when I opened the rearm menu in the Apache. It showed the F/A-18 livery in the pull-down list. I wasn't able to recreate my initial discrepancy because the base from which this was observed was not captured yet. However, refer to the screenshots from the Mission Editor. That is more of the tell than any track file or log could show. dcs - PG Livery Issue.log

Ahh, 50,000 loose rivets all flying in formation.

I will take a look!

Well, except some of the accounts of the warnings working while they were running the radar are in fact from Serbian pilots that survived to tell the tale. Supposedly there is an actual GCI recording or transcript of this somewhere. Honestly I look at this from an occams razor approach. 1. How likely is it the soviets designed a system that purposefully would be useless with the radar on (given that it worked fine on many other jets)... Pretty low/non existant IMO. 2. How difficult is it to design a blanker circuit that works on these freqs/prfs. Not really that hard on a basic electronics level to do this with 60's/70s circuits, and we have evidence from repair manuals of how out of synch things were fixed. (so its unlikely a design fault, and we have evidence it was supposed to get blanked). 3. How reliable was the circuit for the blanker... (apparently not very reliable according to several sources) 4. The mig29 was in service for a short time before the fall of the soviet union. Meaning, it would have early "teething" problems with various equipment likely breaking pretty often (this is a near universal truth with new jets). So, limited spare parts, limited or poorly trained technicians. After the fall of the SU, most client nations certainly ran out of parts/trained techs to work on them in the 90's. 5. In the 90's or early 2000s, where I assume most of the various SME's were flying the 9.12, aside from the Serbia war, it was peactime. So chances that anyone cared about the RWR being broken or partly inop was probably pretty low. And we have at least one account of it actually working during that war, presumably because someone hoarded enough spare parts to get at least a few RWRs operational, for however briefly they would work (again, this seems very plausible IMO). So the simplest explanation for this (occams razor). is that simply most mig29 pilots flew with a broken or partly working or out of synch RWR most of the time. So they are "correct", but they are also likely "wrong" that the system didn't work as designed, because its unlikely to have been designed to "not work", there is no good technical explanation I've heard thus far as to why "it doesn't work". And therefore the simplest explanation is that it was simply broken most of the time on peacetime jets because it doesn't really matter during peacetime. And if the blanker circuit has an MTBF of 10 hours or whatever its gonna be real expensive to keep it running. Thanks for the clarification. thats interesting. Given the mig29 radar is also weaker in terms of peak power it might be even lower in the 29. But so this document is saying it will give spurious readings, not "it will show nothing". Also from a processing standpoint if you know your own radars operating frequency, its probably pretty easy to ignore that strong signal at the known operating frequency of the radar. But maybe not if these docs are right.

This is a document. As an aviation engineer I know told me, such documents are written in order to cover your ass with them if necessary. Therefore, the Russian word "maybe" in this document means to me that this thing will most likely not save me and I was warned about it.

These edited screenshots show the radio frequencies of my template aircraft depicted in the track file.

Winwing's customer service sucks. They wanted a video of my packages not being delivered! After almost two months still no resolve of the issue. See CAVEAT EMPTOR in this forum.

This is the one MiG-29 manual it’s mentioned in. in Su-27 manual it says it is 5-8 signal strength of type X. So you would think if you had a higher priority lock that it would show that instead.

Here is my track & log file to document the radio freq not matching the Dynamic Spawn template. DCS Log-Track Files.zip

The EDM can't be opened in a 3d program.

Yeah, the problem is that thats not how its modeled in the 29 currently. It just doesn't work at all. And the key word in that translation is "may" show incorrect information. Which is very different than it does show that all the time. The most likely cause of the that is blanker going out of synch with the radar as has been discussed previously and this would cause strong spurious signals. But if its working correctly it would not, hence the word "may". This is also a Su-27 doc IIRC. So much stronger peak emissions than the N019, but it probably wouldn't matter too much.

My mantra for the last 20 years has been "It's always the simple things that cause the most problems". It's true most of the time. Glad you got it sorted. Enjoy. Sing out if you need any help with anything. Our Discord is good for quick turnarounds with troubleshooting as well.

There has been a lot of discussion around the current state of the targeting pods available to the F-16. I was wondering if ED has some plans on the roadmap for adjusting the ATP to have a further zoom than the legacy TGP, or have it be able to properly focus using the focus option? One thing with the Legacy TGP is that it zooms 5x further than the sniper pod currently (4x zoom) and it has a significantly better clarity overall. This isn't the case in any IRL scenario, the Sniper is supposed to be leaps and bounds better than the litening TGP right? but most people are finding the long warmup time and lack of clarity/zoom of the ATP to be less desirable than just swapping back to the Litening and staying with that. I understand that the ATP warmup time is said to be realistic, which is fine, but dropping to a solid 5 minutes would make the game much better. I mean we don't make everything "realistic" in DCS right? for example the HARM/MAV..etc.. batteries just run forever rather than having the limited runtime they would have IRL. It would be a solid QOL update to drop the warmup time to something less than 10 minutes for the many that don't typically do hot starts. It would be great to use the ATP in a non-TV-XR/WHOT-N/W-XR mode to see any clear picture. Especially in the integrated IR mode. I added an image of the integrated mode. From what I understand this was supposed to be IR+TV? like, you can see through clouds possibly? (someone keep me honest here), but this appears to simply be WHOT in TV mode and its extremely blurry at 8.7nm and clouds still very much block visibility. The focus mode can be set to blurry, or more blurry, but at any different distance it really doesn't do much? Not complaining, just trying to see if I am just crazy for thinking the ATP should have much better optical resolution than the Litening pod.

It's not off-topic. I was just reading a Russian forum on this issue and came across an interesting document. I am translating to you what is highlighted in yellow, but in the translation version it sounds softer. than if you correctly convey the meaning in Russian using obscene expressions.) "When switching on the radar for radiation, it is not possible to use information from the SPO-15LM indicator due to its inaccuracy, and in some cases, its randomness." It shows errors and chaos occurs on the device!

This is really amazing. Did you buy some parts or make everything yourself? Very good, congratulations

I second this, it would be much helpfull if we could please get the manual early, thanks for all your great work with the C-130!