All Activity

Yes I did! Did you do the same for mine?

Yes, I will focus on fixing wmd7 bugs till the end of 2025 (probably overhaul since SDK is always updating with new features). Sorry that we are a small team and part time for DCS JF-17, I will try my best to enhance player's game experience during my free time.

what is AV in this context?

Something about the Kiowa FM has bugged me since it came out. When hovering with a moderate tailwind, or hovering backwards, the aircraft does.... something I don't understand. The rotor RPM spikes off the chart, the aircraft starts falling as if it's in VRS (but it's not), and yaw becomes nearly uncontrollable. I feel like this might be trying to simulate LTE, or VRS. But it can't be VRS because it occurs with no descent rate, and it can't be LTE because the pedals are still effective. Neither explains the spike in rotor RPM. I've attached a track. What the heck is this??? In 2000+hrs flying real helicopters I've never seen or heard of anything like this. Please tell me it's a bug and it will be fixed, it's extremely annoying - combat does not always allow one to hover into wind (the enemy could be downwind from you!) kiowa tailwind.trk

It would have been so much cooler if they had named him "Bob" instead of "George".

Hi, Thank you for your message. As in many scripted campaigns also in this one there are custom AWACs calls on dedicated frequency. As default AWACS calls are not wanted to fill the frequenqy the custom AWACS is not on same frequency. You still may use build-in picture and bougie dope requests but you need to manually change the frequency as you said.

Hello, Really like the campaign so far. Nice work! If I might make a suggestion: I understand why you separate each mission into segments. For me though (and I'm sure others) would prefer each mission segment to not to be separated. I like to have my HMCS setup a certain way as well as other things on the MFDs. When the first part of the mission "closes" and goes into part two, it defaults to the "air start" profile and I have to set things up all over again, which is a little annoying. The separation also breaks the immersion for me. Not a deal breaker, and I know it would probably be too much to do, but maybe make an option for both separated and non-separated missions in the future (if that is possible)?

Well it looks like you get launch zones just fine with radar. If you flipped coop switch forward the IRST will pick up a lost radar pocket if it can. Laser has short 3-6.5 km range in IRST mode. After 8 seconds you should get radar ranging but not sure that’s implemented yet. With IRST lock you can always go to coop mode ( coop switch forward and radar to DUMMY) then you will get instant radar ranging and launch zones to launch R-27R/ER when you want Radar can also switch to IRST if you select IRST mode with Radar lock when IRST is in range and coop moved forward

Yes don't worry there won't be a subscription. I just used the default version in the C-130 for testing.

+1 for making this an active airfield in the PG map! Based on my research, this airbase has 2 names: Qusahwira Air Base and UM Elzumol 1. If this airfield in the Abu Dhabi Emirate doesn't exist in the game, then why does it have parking slots? Since it is modeled, it would make more sense to just add it to the list of airfields and warehouses. I'm unaware of how much work goes into making all the logistics for a base work but it looks like most of the hard work was done! As an interim, laying down invisible FARP pads in several locations can replicate the refuel/rearm functions. The "invisible" airfield that represents Qusahwira Air Base has at least 16 parking spots. Here are 2 satellite images with ID labels. 1st label is Um Elzumol 1. The 2nd satellite image has the ID label of Qusahwira Air Base.

That's fine. You'll find it in your YT algorithm eventually.

Modern NVGs that pilots fly with today will automatically adjust gain their gain so the full moon isn't overpoweringly bright. I would guess that ideal conditions for NVGs would be something less than a full moon, but they are not as bad as what we are seeing in the game. They are also generally black and white, not green anymore. They still make green NVGs but most units have gone away from them.

I guess that works, until the missile stops tracking Anyway, for the time being I am swapping them around

Here are some screenshots from the replay. At some point the radar stops track and IRST takes over. Why? never dropped the lock never changed the radar setting. Then as seen on the last screenshot, distance is 4 km head on and all stations are highlighted indicating there is a weapon solution for all weapons but could not launch any of them.

The gain of the antennas is easily known. We know the threshold of signal strength needed for detection. They then just need to know the radiation pattern of the 50-70 antenna to know what level of signal strength is needed to be detected by its sidelobe in conjunction with mainlobe of rear antenna

Okay one last question about SPO other then if 16-30 kHz MPRF really can’t he blanked The Su-27SK manual says with radar on you get front hemisphere warning and X category with strength of 5-8 signal strength. The one MiG-29 manual mentioning radar interfering SPO says it causes “chaotic” readings. Why is ours shut off then? I would think with 5-8 signal strength of X category, there is still possibility that a higher strength radar could become priority.

I agree. Using clusters on Bluefor jets leaves you in awe of the destructive effect. Especially how they modeled the realistic effect of the subs hitting the ground sequentially. The Redfor RBK clusters just suck, the sub-munitions all magically hit the ground at the same time creating just a single impact event, (instead of the awesome spectacle as they hit the ground one by one, as per many sources of visual reference). The KMGU seems a little better but the RBK's are pretty ordinary, I feel like using the OFAB250-270, is more effective.

Have no reason to believe that the proper antenna gain patterns aren't modelled considering all of the statements made by ED through the whitepaper and other places like the interview answers in the flyandwire video.

They have achieved that very well

To be 100% clear: the map/editor will be free and included with the plane, and well also be removing the branding. This ZERO subscription/ongoing cost to this module. Not optionally, not required. None, whatsoever.

I have no idea what you are talking about to be honest.

How many horizontal antenna inputs are presently implemented in SPO-15 of the module (not counting vertical direction antennas)?

Okay. Only seems to happen when you take off from a NON-airbase location. Taking off from the ground at a FOB seems to have it happen the most.

After Enigma's (insightful at times) "leaked" video last week: I'd just like to say, DCS still has no rival. It will NEVER be bug free (it is WAY too complex and comprehensive), never. Most of the negative comments about DCS underneath his video are absurd to me. The constant comparison to BMS is mind-boggling. If DCS was an F-22, BMS is a Cessna 152 by comparison. The Dynamic Campaign is really very cool, but you're talking about a platform that had one archaic map and one aircraft. Try pulling that off with 50+ high fidelity aircraft, dozens of different maps, with exceptionally high graphic standards, controllable ground vehicles, and wildly compl....oh, wait. ED is ACTUALLY trying to do just that! My only real criticism has been that they've spread themselves WAY TOO THIN! But I do not fault them for being ambitious. Have they blundered some 3rd party business? Yes, it is impossible to be a business for decades and not burn a bridge now and again. Can they reconcile those differences? Of course. At the end of the day, DCS is the only air combat simulator right now that is cutting/bleeding edge in my book. Period. Dot. Keep up the good work, team.

Include a page on the kneeboard that lists airfield radio channels/frequencies (inc. ADF channels from mission editor)