All Activity

CrazyGman that is an interesting explanation Off to go try again.

That helps with the FFB forces being applied wrong, but not with this issue. This happens when you are trying to cold start the aircraft and you do the BIT for the autopilot. The game detects joystick inputs and fails because in the real aircraft you can't move the stick during this process. The only way to get it through the Autopilot BIT successfully is to erase the axis assignments for the joystick then remap it when it's done.

Any chance of getting the updated Apache manual?

Ahh…OK. Well one one hand poo - on the other I guess then I have a surprise in store. Looking forward to finding out. DCS really does helos well.

Para los que no tengáis la versión: v250921-1, bajaros esa versión ya que es la que tiene un control de versiones y os avisará en caso de que meta algún cambio. Edito iré poniendo la última versión en el primer mensaje, ya que voy encontrando errores y arreglándolos, y lleva mucho curro. slds.

А ничего что эти процессы как раз и отслеживаются СОС?

Just put english hud at options and see what it means, you can revert it when you want. But it says pause in "Rusky", so I think it displays this word when you are not able to fire . You can find the description at page 8-7 in the ka50-3 manual : "‘PAUSE’ cue - cooling cycle of the laser range-finder in the Target Marker (“ПМ”) targeting mode "

Ever since the stated 2.9.19.13478 changelog quoted above by Actium - HARMs are able to hit a radar even when it's been completely turned off. @BIGNEWY @NineLine

Слушайте, я не говорил что СОС управляет положением закрылков в выпущенном состоянии. Прочтите пару страниц выше с моими постами то. Там пружина этим делом занимается. Про то как работает СОС я же текст не из головы придумал. В другом посте ещё одну страничку привёл, коротко: СОС определяет по углам атаки и скорости когда вываливать механизацию и толкать РУС. Просто прочтите ещё раз мой пост где приведено две странички. Я вообще не понимаю почему вы пытаетесь спорить со мной опровергая литературу из библиотеки МАИ по этому ЛА,

I will note that the NASA AIM-54 is simulated as none we fired by NASA and the Mach 5 numbers are only for a significantly lightened missile (-250lbs) fired at 45 degrees, Mach 1.2, 45000ft with no guidance and locked fins. The current missile matches pretty closely to the NASA flight profile and speed for a typical Phoenix load.

I cannot find description of this in the manual or chuck's guide, or searching internet. What does this word on the HUD mean? null

I noticed this as well.

No one states that MiG-29 is the explorer of the worlds. However, stating that it has short legs is stretching it, because it can go respectably far, for an otherwise insanely versatile airframe. F1 is a cruiser, but a horrible dogfighter. Again, it was built for a particular job, but not it's not a one to rule them all. Mirage 2000 (more appropriate in function and time aspect) is surprisingly versatile, but as a delta, doesn't have the power to maintain it's maximum turn rate and even stated sustained (given higher altitudes). It also has very high landing speeds (you cannot land it anywhere unless you always use the chute) and it's engine will potentially give you a catastrophic failiure given, at times, light to medium abuse. For comparison, MiG-29 didn't have a section on engine limitations because there were none in the envelope it was designed to operate in. That alone, is a first for the history books, and highly regarded by combat pilots, as I've heard. It seems to me that the MiG-29 might just not be for you.

This never even crossed my mind. I did not know they did that based on coalition! I assumed it would stay with the selected 'general settings' measurement system. I do not fly much as red except for the Hind so I guess I've never noticed the change before! Thanks! Please close!

So I was trying to place an AI F9F Panther to land on the Essex carrier in mission editor and I was able to place the second waypoint on the carrier so that the mod can land on it but once I select it to land, it just gone back to being a turning point when I click on the aircraft again

Would any professionals or experts know what the parameters in the configuration files for A2A and A2G missiles signify? I've recently tried to create an A2A missile, but it's clearly unsuccessful. At the start, the missile climbs excessively, then performs meaningless maneuvers at the highest point, and finally, there's no turning or guidance at all when approaching the target. The G-force remains unchanged, even when the target isn't making any maneuvers and is just flying straight toward me.

You are comparing! I mentioned F-16 as anecdotal and MiG's natural counterpart. I cannot comment on your performance as a pilot, as I haven't seen you fly, but 2000ft is a very low altitude for these engines. They are efficient up high, but down low, you pay a massive penalty for carrying the power. Still, they are different designs, so treat them as such. On the other hand, F-16 isn't underpowered, but MiG-29 - it is not. If you want to fly at 2000ft, then I'll be straight forward with you - accept what you got, or else the MiG-29 is not for you. The moment you wish to travel further, is the moment you have to accept that "high" has to be incorporated into your flight plan. It's that simple. Even though emergency drops for fuel/weapon stores exist in the aircraft, doesn't mean that a mission relies on them being used. It is in the name - an emergency. Remember, that you might be caught very quickly in an uneven fight (WVR/BVR) and be forced into a defensive (high-G) position. There are pre-requisites when using emergency drop. It's not something you can do in the majority of the flight envelope due to the hazard of hitting your own aircraft/other potential self-threatening situations (partial jettison/uneven jettison/etc...). Hence, you cannot rely on it as a be all saver. I'll tell you this though: the sheer simplicity/ruggedness/automatization in MiG-29 won't be truly appreciated until we get more realistic damage modelling in DCS. Razbam did a fantastic job here with e.g. F-15E, to show how quickly you will bend the airframe (and ruin it) by running down low and fast (a typical on quake servers). When, due to bad piloting, you'll be able to cause a critical failiure to an airframe among all aircraft, you'll finally realize what was so revolutionary about these aircraft. Flaming Cliffs has given a bad perspective of that so far, because everything is stupidly simple and effects not simulated. It's much the same with e.g. helicopters, where you won't truly grasp where the value of co-axial lies, until absolutely all effects get simulated (including tail rotor vortex ring state). Only then, will you finally start to respect which way wind blows, and focus like you never have in your life, when transitioning to a hover. Until now, many people in this community have the wrong sensation that the AP and co-ax is trying to kill them, while IRL, nothing could be further from the truth. Not to divert the discussion, but you seem hung up on a particular with the MiG-28, which I told you that you can mitigate with altitude and lower average thrust, yet you somehow have made up your mind that you want to fly it low and do Magellan across continents. It's no different than trying to use a Sa342 with Mistral as a dedicated dogfighting platform, be cause you want it to... That's my point. It's the wrong mentality.

I'm really enjoying the MiG-29, but I think some people need to realize that there are still a few missing features when it comes to the IRST, radar, and helmet-mounted sight. Currently, the COOP switch in the MiG-29 is non-functional. With it enabled, the two sensors are supposed to work together: depending on which sensor you’re using, the other will automatically slave to it. This means you should be able to lock a target with the IRST, and then have the radar lock as well, without needing to manually switch sensors and relock the target. As for the helmet-mounted sight, right now you need to achieve a target lock first, and only then will your IR missiles slave to it. However, according to the manual, by using the helmet-mounted sight and holding the lock-on button, the missiles should be able to target directly, irrespective of whether a lock has been achieved through the optical locator laser station or the radar.

[FEEDBACK/BUG REPORT] F-14 Supersonic Performance & AIM-54 Missile Speed Module: DCS: F-14A/B (Heatblur) Version: [DCS 2.9.20.15010 (not open beta)] Date Tested: [September 19th. 2025] Environment: Single Player, Caucasus maps 1. Issue Summary The F-14A and F-14B appear to accelerate far too slowly at supersonic speeds compared to both historical reports and available engine data. The AIM-54 Phoenix consistently underperforms in maximum Mach compared to declassified NASA test data and operational reports. Both issues may stem from excessive modeled supersonic wave drag. 2. Detailed Description F-14 Supersonic Performance In DCS, both the F-14A and F-14B struggle to accelerate past Mach 1.1–1.2 at altitude, even in afterburner and at reduced fuel weights. Sustained acceleration from subsonic to Mach 1.5 is unrealistically slow — in some cases nearly impossible. Historical reports (e.g., Iranian Air Force accounts during the Iran-Iraq War) describe the F-14 rapidly accelerating from Mach 0.4 to Mach 1.5 while climbing from 35,000 ft to 45,000 ft, closing distance on a MiG-25 that was already at Mach 1.8-2.2. In real-world service, the F-14 was considered exceptionally fast at altitude, often leaving F-4s and F/A-18s behind. This is not reflected in DCS, where the jet feels drag-limited. Notably, the F-14B in-game sometimes appears slower than the F-14A at high-altitude acceleration, despite having significantly more powerful F110 engines with better engine specifications. Engine Comparison (sourced via NASA / manufacturer / Wikipedia data): TF30-P-414A: ~20,900 lbf thrust, BPR 0.878, PR 19.8. F110-GE-400: ~28,800–29,000 lbf thrust, BPR 0.87, PR 30.4. The higher thrust and pressure ratio of the F110 engines should give the F-14B a clear supersonic acceleration advantage, which is not seen in-game. AIM-54 Phoenix Maximum Speed The AIM-54 in DCS rarely exceeds Mach 3.4–4 in optimal launch conditions. NASA test data confirms the AIM-54A routinely exceeded Mach 5 in development launches. Multiple operational/training reports describe Phoenix reaching Mach 4+ in real-world firings. The in-game missile performance, particularly in maximum Mach achieved, is significantly under-represented compared to these sources. 3. Steps to Reproduce F-14 Load clean F-14A or F-14B (>12000lb of fuel). Climb to ~35,000–40,000 ft. Accelerate through Mach 0.9 → 1.5 in full afterburner. Observe acceleration rate vs. expected performance and historic documentation. AIM-54 Load F-14B with AIM-54C. Climb to ~36,000 ft, Mach 1.2. Fire Phoenix at long range (>60 nmi) at target with similar altitude and speed Track missile speed via F10/Tacview — note maximum Mach achieved rarely exceeds ~3.4. 4. Expected Behavior F-14 The F-14A should achieve Mach 2.3–2.34 at altitude clean, per NATOPS. The F-14B, with F110 engines, should outperform the A in high-altitude supersonic acceleration. Rapid transonic/supersonic acceleration should be achievable under favorable conditions. AIM-54 Test and operational data indicate Mach 4+ routinely, Mach 5 in some cases. In-game performance should reflect this in high-energy launches. 5. Actual Behavior F-14 struggles to pass Mach 1.2 in a timely manner; feels drag-limited. F-14B often does not outperform F-14A in supersonic regime. AIM-54 rarely exceeds Mach 3.4-4, well below documented real-world performance. 6. Evidence NATOPS & NASA propulsion data (TF30/F110). NASA AIM-54 flight test data (public domain). Iranian Air Force operational accounts of F-14 vs MiG-25 encounters. DCS Tacview/track files with a notepad file with data (The F-14s in the tacview will all have a loadout of 2xAIM-54C-mk60s, 3xAIM-7P sparrows, and 2xAIM-9M Sidewinders with no droptanks at 12200lb of fuel). 7. Additional Notes Both issues suggest possible overestimation of supersonic wave drag effects in the F-14 and AIM-54 models. This may affect not only top-end performance but also intercept mission viability (especially vs. fast, high-flying threats like the MiG-25/31). 8. Supporting Sources Iraq-Iran War National Interest – “When Russia’s MiG-25 and U.S. F-14 Tomcat Fought to the Death”: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/when-russias-mig-25-and-us-f-14-tomcat-fought-death-172204 Aviation Geek Club – “Tomcat vs Foxbat: The story of how IRIAF F-14 crews learned to shoot down the MiG-25 Mach 3 fighter jet”: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/tomcat-vs-foxbat-story-iriaf-f-14-crews-learned-shoot-mig-25-mach-3-fighter-jet AIM-54 Maximum Speed NASA:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070025193/downloads/20070025193.pdf Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix INSTRUCTIONS - READ ME.txt Fighter aim-54 launch data.acmi Mig-25 aim-54 launch data.acmi SUPERSONIC ACCELERATION DATA.acmi I forgot to mention this issue seems to plague the supersonic performance of other jets made by Eagle Dynamics but I didn't want to put it in the main forum since, well, those are ED modules. Here's hoping the F-15C full fidelity is done right, and reworks of the hornet and f-16 would be nice as I strongly believe they are all underperforming to SOME extent (be it greater or lesser than the F-14 who knows I haven't looked into it as much as I did the tomcat) in supersonic acceleration.

My Ultrawide is about to ship and I had the G2. Will let you know. I might also get the 57PPD. Stay tuned...

Bye Phant

I did on a topic I started but I'll still attach it. This log file is from this morning and the last time I tried to open her up. The game was working fine last weekend when I played before the update but this morning after the update, nada... dcs.log

One does not equal the other

Not really. Just did a high altitude test with the 29A and F1CE - both with two heaters and a centerline tank plus pylons. The route: Pferdsfeld - Jadebusen - Damgarten -due south- Erzgebirge - Pferdsfeld. MiG-29A flew at 40.000ft and Mach 0.85 (~250KIAS). F1CE flew at 34.000ft and Mach 0.9 (~300KIAS) - the F1 can't go much higher without blowing the alternators below 300KIAS. MiG-29 started up with 10.000lbs of fuel and landed with about 2750lbs => 27.5% fuel remaining F1CE started up with 9370lbs of fuel and landed with 3770lbs => again about 40% fuel remaining The gap closes somewhat in relation to the numbers at low altitude, but that's also with the F1 flying 6.000ft lower and 0.05 Mach (~50KIAS) faster. While the fuel economy improves a lot at high altitude, the 29 is not a range wonder up there either.