All Activity

How many people do you think are in that situation? Most of the potential customers could have bought one when they were available and didn't.

As an example the AN/APG-65 and APG-72 RADARS and the ALQ-126 deception repeaters max power is 1000 Watts or 60dbm. For every +/- 3 dbm you double or halve your power... ie 63 dbm = 2000W or 57 dbm = 500w. The RWR receiver doesn't care about the power level of the received TTR signal. However your ALQ deception repeater does. It's what trips your transmitter to respond, or stop responding when in Repeat Mode. It's called Sense (On) and Snap (Off) setting. Ground based TTRs will probably have more max power, depending on the system, than airborne TTRs.

Glad to spark some discussion and curious to see how the C-130 FARP system is implemented. For reference, the OH-58 could be forward deployed via C-130 and ready within 10-30 mins to fly a mission. It seems to be a capability which was at least practiced by the US Army. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/printable/204642 https://www.army.mil/article/121011/troop_trains_for_rapid_deployment_capability

If the AoA indicator is off, is the Hook height off? Has anyone tried passes at 8 degrees under the donut? Or using a hard IAS reference?

Cams.... I didn't like them at all. They are supposed to be for the M2000. Don't waste your money.

Is this fixed? Or at least turn off easy comm in the mission setting as they are designed in the way that the player should tune the Freq

This is just my late night opinion, after having a few drinks, but the F-5E and the C-101 aircraft couldn't be more opposite in flying character. The C-101 is like you're floating in the air, and couldn't be more docile. The F-5E, by contrast is "oh F***, I'm behind the power curve!". So I think if you want to become an F-14 or MiG-29 pilot, and fly a very capable pussycat of a fighter, then the C-101 would be the closest trainer in handling. If you want to fly a brick like the Phantom II, and don't mind dying a lot during final approach, on your way to getting good, emphasize the F-5!

What setting do you have them set to on the AI gunner panel? Long or Short. When on "long" my testing has them firing almost continually as long as there is an active target. It modifies the CH-47 to define the attachments, so unfortunately no.

Aah - so the Huey shot was of <another game> - not DCS. OK - thanks for confirming! Pity - I didn't mind HIP previously for information. Now it seems to be going the direction of click-bait for views instead of being informative.

Prior to the above drama (admittedly I somewhat created, I will stop) thanks for the heads up Nineline. Good to know this is in the works. Looking forward to it and I appreciate the response.

Okay time to amend my previous statement. It seems to work a very specific way now. If you have laser range for the entire targeting process, CCIP, it seems to work perfect for anything now However, unless you have a target altitude set relatively correctly, it will not work for CCRP. And it’s pretty easy to tell, without target altitude set it’s wildly off, and with target altitude it’s spot on This seems to even give a range advantage. I can do CCRP way beyond laser range as long as I have a relatively correctly set target altitude. I wonder if the real 29 is like this. My impression from reading combat manual was that it “remembers” the coordinates of the lasered target when pitching up for CCRP. But it doesn’t mention anything that directly opposes this, and it has 0 mention of a set target altitude.

@Renko sir, I think you've found something truly interesting. And I think it is modeled correctly in DCS (not a common occurence) My theory is this: the bombs are bursting open in a height below to what is set on them in the Mission Editor and in the cockpit because the FMU-140 sensor does not measure distance to the ground, but to the target. The FMU-140 fuze sensor information I took from this web page (https://navyaviation.tpub.com/14023/css/Fmu-140-B-Dispenser-Proximity-Fuze-32.htm). It states that the FMU-140 is a doppler radar. It does not show the radar pattern, but I believe it projects forward of the fuze, similar to the M20/M20A1 main lobe projection, forward of the bomb axis, as shown in the picture below, taken from the same web page. (see pictures below) So, my hypothesis is this: what the bomb fuze is seeing is the slant range to target, not the height above ground, as one would expect. Let's take the first example, HOF set at 1,500 feet. From the track, we gather that the bomb pitch angle is - 35 degrees at the moment of the burst. The burst altitude AGL is around 900 feet, as stated before. The bomb scheme can be simplified as a right triangle. The bomb pitch angle is -35º at the moment of the burst. Let's disregard the negative sign. So if the external angle to a right triangle is 35º, in order to both sum up 90º, the internal has to be 55º (let's call it Alpha). In order for the angles of a right triangle to sum 180º we have: 90º (from the right angle) + 55º (Alpha) + internal angle 2 (Beta) = 180º. Thus, the Internal angle 2 (Beta) is 35º. Using sine, we have that: sine of 35º is equal to the burst height h (ft AGL), divided by the hypotenuse, in this case, the HOF (same as the Slant Range). Adjusting the equation we end up with h = sin 35º x S.R. (Slant Range) Doing the math, we have: h = 0,57 x 1,500. Thus h = 855 ft. Which is consistent to the results we see on the tracks provided. For the other drop, with a HOF set at 3,000 ft, we can use the same logic: In this case, h = sin 44º x 3,000 . Thus h = 2,000 ft AGL. Again, consistent to what can be extracted from the track files. The solution? Either drop from a steeper angle, or from level flight at a higher altitude. I usually use CBU-99s with the FMU-140 from 10,000 feet with a HOF of 3,000 feet, and they work most of the time.

.

A thunk on weapon release is realistic.

Worked for me yesterday?

Any update?

When I had that issue, it was a mod for me. Once that mod, forgot exactly what mod but it's on that post, was removed from my tech folder, it started working again. Just start with a clean mods folder and start putting them back in until you find the problem file. Can be time consuming but it works.

Yes, I know. Some of the above was hyperbole, though I have had it happen. Very disconcerting when it does.

I just found another bug in Russia Mod that the coastal missile systems like Bastion and Bal-E won't fire at target ships, they only deploy to combat-ready status ( both Radar and Launcher) and just sit there watching the target.

If, as it says in the manual: "When a helicopter is starting from a “cold” state at the beginning of a mission, it is already connected to external power supply by default. Therefore, there is no need to explicitly request to connect to it." Then if there's a reasonable possibility that an aircraft will have to 'scramble' in a hurry, shouldn't it - wouldn't it - be possible for systems that take a long time to initialise - like the full INU alignment - to have already had this done & be sitting hot running off ground power while the engines are cold ?

I know you said you had a 5090 but what is the vram usage at the point it stutters? Also do you know your Frametime during this as well? You might just have the resolution on the headset too high..

I accidentally ended up in a 2v2 instant action in my faithful Diesel Missile Truck running an interception on two bombers, excuse me, TWO FULCRUMS. We picked up the contacts at maybe 30 miles in the clutter. I think we we're in loose formation around angles 18 they we're around angles 25/30. I wasn't expecting this, I was expecting BOMBERS so you can imagine my surprise in my virtual flight suit realizing how fast the closure was head on. That was when I realized it wasn't the bombers. I popped the interlocks off, bore sight, NOSE, point the LOCSS at some pixels and ripple off a few Great White Hopes. Blew straight through the merge into two dead fulcrum falling out of the sky much to my surprise. In the excitement as I looked behind at the burning wreckage I lawn darted straight into a mountain ahead of me. Is was pyrrhic victory but for a few seconds I was in shock. I not only survived the merge I technically splashed a Mig 29s in my gas guzzling lead sled. I seriously doubt I could replicate it on demand. Too many variables just worked out. The shear amount of switch-ology and hacks those guys had to know back then blows my mind. So much seat of the pants and muscle memory. The crew really had to be in sync and there is no forgiveness. "Fighter Pilot <profanity>". I was flying with Jester and 1 Veteran AI wingman against 2xMig-29s we started at 80 miles. They we're jamming too. I tried again and again and got killed every time I would try a turn or go vertical. Best Advice is what others have said. If you have the time to do anything just throw whatever rocks you have in their direction and go fast and keep going.

@BIGNEWY @Wags @NineLine Should probably find someone who interacts with your customer basis better if they are going to represent ED by presenting your information on the Road Map. Especially since wags just bragged about your renewed standards on how you approach bringing on third party devs and people to represent ED to include their social media posts and how they behave with people on the forums and others. This is not the first time SD has jumped in with wild accusations and sierra talk when he was proven wrong. I will accept my firm response to him above as a provocative measure, but he consistently likes to antagonize and kick the hornets' nest with unfounded opinions and what clearly appears to be a lack of real-world experience, which I have plenty of. Just sayin.