All Activity

Их на Оригинальном 9-12А нельзя подвесить. То что с фотками - это модернизации. Насчёт резкости тримирования ничего не скажу (хотя даже при полёте в строю удаётся самолёт тримировать. Ну и на посадке он уже давным давно не сложный. Кстати на этой ФМ стало ещё проще совершать посадку. Мне эти срывы вообще не нравятся. Да по сравнению с фантомом они выглядят хуже. И на реальном миге такие "облака" появляются только в очень влажных условиях и при больших углах атаки. А тут просто в любую погоду и при относительно небольших углах атаки уже эти облака. Лучше бы просто "жгуты" длиннее сделали. (фото ниже для примера), но опять же они не всегда такие длинные. Проще просто "Облака сделать" только для углов атаки после 15, и желательно привязку к влажности(облачности) сделать. А жгуты оставить прежними. Так уже есть же звук нажатия гашеток. А ещё вариант - "Уже выполнена полная выставка, но необходима коррекция") Носки двухпозиционные, как и закрылки. Так что разницы нет. (Пусть эксперты подскажут)

Ok then, what if you turn away and/or point the radar to a section of the sky where there are no targets, and then flip the radar switch to dummy and back to illuminate? The radar and WCS were not designed to work the way US systems do. Was it ever used independently of GCI to control/sanitise a piece of sky, successfully?

It’s great to know there’s more content for a module coming, even if it’s announced months or more before a release is feasible. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

Почему тему CH-47 не выводят отдельной веткой? Боятся, что она будет мертвой?

Since the last 2 updates the "Pigs" have not been hitting the 'Waypoint Designated' target, not even close. I've been using this method for at least 4 years. I have heard there is a bug associated with this issue, so I just wanted to know if there is an in-game fix? Thanks.

Well TWS works off speed divided by range. Whichever target has the highest is highlighted. It should still work in ZPS

Were you in the f14?

Just to give some background. Mirčeta Jokanović, pilot of first group of 16 trained 29 pilots in Yugoslav airforce, stated specifically that they had problems with electronics and degradation, whit electrolitical capacitors being blowing up. They were offered in 1998 the replacement of these boards at cost of $200k per airplane. 3 most common failures of systems in 1999 war were: 1. Radar 2. SPO 3. Navigational sistema SPO failures came in 2 flavours: straight failure on start, and more subtle with no warning, but SPO going crazy all the time. To me it looks like fumctional failure got modeled as design flaw in DCS. This can easily happen if the failure rate is so high that it eventually ends up in pilot's manual.

Кто знает, за что отвечает тумблер КОМП (компенсация) на щитке радара? В мануале не разъяснено, а очень хочется понимать.

Sono un utente con diverse periferiche e una buona conoscenza di informatica e per sopperire a “lacune” di DCS oltre ad inserirle puntualmente nella wishlist mi organizzo per sopperire a tali mancanze con programmazione e applicazioni esterne… Negli anni mi sono fatto degli script (pure abbastanza complessi) con AutoHotKey per gestire le comunicazioni radio IA mediante l’HOTAS passati alcuni anni finalmente lo implementano nativamente, ma lo scopro mesi dopo perchè non ne danno sufficiente evidenza. Stessa cosa per la gestione dei comandi mi sono dovuto fare degli script per tutti gli interruttori ON/OFF e ON/OFF/ON che non erano implementati di base su DCS, e ad ogni patch li dovevo configurare nuovamente… poi oggi scopro che la funzione pulsante_off la hanno rilasciata (già da qualche patch ho sentito), ma non ne trovo menzione da nessuna parte. Ora se mi inseriscono, la possibilità di utilizzare gli assi del joypad come trigger a due stage del TEDAC e la possibilità di avere due comandi diversi in base alla lunghezza della pressione del pulsante, sempre che non la abbiano implementata e non ne sono a conoscenza posso finalmente togliere tutti i programmi e script esterni che mi sono creato… Anzi no ho ancora il VAICOM e se mai rifaranno le comunicazioni e metteranno il riconoscimento vocale integrato… beh sarà un gran giorno.

Thanks for the unexpected, but excellent update to the Viggen, my first hifidelity jet in DCS. Any news on the AI Draken? I was a little surprised that the A6 AI might arrive first.

Yes I get that, but if there are either no other contacts, or all of the contacts are nose hot, what will the WCS do then? It is not meant to auto-highlight high closure-rate contacts, as you say.

This is what I assumed when I saw first mentioning of this. Still encounter where SPO-15 worked with radar on head on is here. Not to mention that SPO-15 saved him a life when GCI officer gave no warning of attack. From: 00:19:53 to 21:06 19:53 Boro Zoraja: The SPO device stopped showing a threat and there was no more sound in headphones 19:57 Boro Zoraja (radio to GCI officer): "Orao 356, I dropped outside of the lock, report the information on the enemy!" 20:03 Boro Zoraja (radio to GCI officer): "Olymp, Orao 356, do we hear each other. Please, Olymp 356, confirm if you hear me!" 20:11 Boro Zoraja: I repeated these messages several times, and while doing so, I started a free hunt, to scan and seek for the enemy 20:19 Boro Zoraja: I came to 6000 m and was on course between 130 and 140, and I detected 3 targets. 20:25 Boro Zoraja: I selected the nearest target and established the lock, the radar switched from scanning into targeting mode. 20:34 Boro Zoraja: That mode allows me to see the range of the targets. 20:38 Boro Zoraja: The target was at a distance of about 35 km, and was moving toward me. 20:43 Boro Zoraja: My next action was to flip the cover for missile launch trigger up, since we had a very high closure rate. 20:51 Boro Zoraja: It was just a few seconds and in the meantime he was already at a distance of 30 km, and at that moment I got spiked by them again, and SPO started to indicate I have been locked, while radar dropped the lock. 21:06 Boro Zoraja: My next reaction was simply to escape the missile launched at me. Keep in mind we are talking about badly maintained 29s, where they used spare parts were taken from other airplanes.

Yes, it's past time to award points for shooting down drones, missiles, etc. It is being done in RL. I figured you'd want proof....

The specs for the Dream Air look spot on. I’m still seeing far too many complaints about the Pimax solution to blow £1k on a maybe. I’m going to wait to see some balanced reviews before making a decision, ie not some sponsored video by an influencer

I mean, I will try this, but the thing is down is still TWS for ZPS/MPRF/Dogon/Pursuit mode

It would be nice if the nations of the MiG-29 and Su-25 also were JTAC comptabile...

Did you turn compensation switch on? I know it’s supposedly unavailable but just wondering

Will it auto-highlight a new contact after the first one is taken out, even with the switch in the down position? It is something to test… For now I’m still building muscle memory on actually flying the plane and some basic emergency procedures such as 1-engine operations. I prefer to focus on aviate-navigate-communicate for the first week(s) or so after getting a new module. I’m in no rush to start blowing stuff up

The point wasn't that the US doesn't or can't use GCI, it's that US planes were designed to be able to operate autonomously WRT target aquisition in the first instance, and could be supported by GCI if available, whereas Soviet aircraft were designed to not work autonomously, but instead be the sharp end of an integrated system starting with EWR systems. it comes back to the force projection / home defense doctrinal approach mentioned above. If the purpose of an aircraft is to fly deep behind enemy lines to attack the enemy at its heart, then the aircraft has to be able to find and prioritise targets itself - if it's in a position where it can be supported by other assets (AWAC / GCI), then of course you do that. Why would you not? (& as you said, if you're tasked with a mission by a central command, that's what you do, not head off at your own whim) Flying deep into enemy territory was never the intended mission of the MiG-29. Think about how short its legs are. It really is just there to quickly get missiles to where the GCI intends them to be - which is why there are better radar scan rasters available to GCI operators on the '29's radar than to the pilot themselves...

I'd love to see a map of the US Pacific Northwest (WA, OR & Idaho) with Victoria + Vancouver, BC added. Great training ranges out there - not to mention bases for the Apache, Chinook, Eagle, Hornet, and Warthog to play out of.

I think it’s just unfinished so far. A lot more will come, like COOP mode

Yeah, I always thought it was a three position switch. So no idea how to turn TWS completely off.

Hi gizmo, It mostly depends on what you use your PC for, and the sound outputs you have. For DCS only, your mobo integrated output is probably enough for DCS. If you watch vids/movies or listen to HR music you might want to go for either dedicated soundcard or USB dac, whatever is more convenient for you (no need to spend more than 150 for either option, exceot if you want to setup an Hi-Fi system ) Again it all depends of what you do with your new PC My soundcard is a Creative BlasterX AE-5 Plus, outputting to active speakers and it works great

It has been requested before, and the need has been acknowledged by ED. Funny thing is, that on my end the MiG-29’s cockpit is a mix of metric and imperial: HSI says miles but is using kilometres, fuel gauge says NM but is using KM, airspeed indicator is in KPH, true airspeed indicator is in knots, radar altimeter is in feet This truly shows how poorly thought out the system is, and highlights the need for special options. Or they simply could have left the system as is was, then it would have worked perfectly, instead of trying to make an ‘80s Soviet aircraft display imperial units…