Leaderboard

https://www.facebook.com/CubanAceSimulations/photos/a.138037220017331/1431287154025658/ " It is with great excitement that I let everyone know That I am officially a Systems and Flight model programmer Developer for our upcoming Aircraft that Eagle dynamics will announce on Friday. I highly appreciate everyone's support throughout the years. Best Regards: CubanAce."

Ladies and gentlemen, The OV-10A Bronco is finally available ! After 1 year and a half of hard work. Dikennek and the Split-Air share with you one of the most worked and realistic mods of our organization. We are proud to share our work with you and wish you wonderful flights with this magic aircraft. Fly Safe Mesdames et messieurs, L'OV-10A Bronco est enfin disponible ! Après 1 an et demi de travail acharné. Dikennek et la Split-Air vous livre un des mods les plus travaillé et réaliste de notre association. Nous sommes fier de vous partager notre oeuvre et vous souhaitons de merveilleux vols à bord de cet avion magique. Fly Safe https://splitair.gumroad.com/l/fwzxn

OnReTech Sinai map boundaries.

@everyone Thank you for your interest. In the near future we will make a FAQ with answers to all your questions.

Haha! I will begin QA this weekend. I've pushed on making a lot of assets, and now it's time to take a step back and make sure the quality level across them all holds up.

There are various optimum trajectories based on what parameter you're optimizing (minimizing), e.g.: Minimum time to climb (2) Minimum fuel to climb Minimum time to distance Minimum fuel to distance (3) Balance of minimum fuel and time to distance (1) The commonly defined climbs are the (1) MIL climb schedule, (2) MAX AB climb schedule, and (3) HOME schedule. As the name implies MIL/HOME schedule is the most efficient trade of fuel for position (range and altitude) and rely on using maximum dry thrust, aka military power, aka MIL power. In any jet airplane the most economical trajectory is at MIL power. The HOME profile is the actual (or best attempt) at minimum fuel and it's slower than MIL schedule. MIL schedule is slightly less economical than true minimum fuel but it's faster. They figure out how to use 103% or 110% or whatever of the true minimum fuel required and then figure out how fast can it be done with this reduced economy. So instead of climbing at 330 knots for 100% minimum fuel burned you climb at 440 knots for 105% (numbers for example only). MIL climb is based solely on drag index. More drag, more slow. I made a cheat sheet because it's faster to reference than the manual's big diagram. From drag index at bottom go up to the blue line and look left for airspeed, look right for Mach. To do the climb put engine in MIL and pitch to do the lower of the two speeds (airspeed will be lower to some altitude then follow Mach). For MAXAB climb (usual for interception mission getting up high fast) it's about riding the PSmax curve which is essentially M0.9 always so just full burner and pitch for M0.9. The fun one is to get a friend at 200 knots, 10,000' right beside you and have a race up to 35,000'. He will start climbing and you will descend first (to get on M0.9) and still beat him to altitude.

I just want to re-iterate that none of these changes have anything to do with CSGO-yeah. Pardon me if I got the username partially wrong. Not once did he present any data or factual reference that would have contained something we could act on. Instead he continuously expressed his feelings and opinions about the Tomcat, the Phoenix and us. His basic reasoning was very simple: "It was developed against bombers, so it should not work against fighters." and: "It was old, so it should be useless." and of course: "Heatblur made it 'op' to sell more modules." On top of that he used his comments to a) express his hate agains the phoenix, b) his hate against the Tomcat and Tomcat community and c) his accusations against us - which continued to show in his impulsive and negative behavior towards both us and everyone around. I use the word "hate" specifically, because he himself used it repeatedly in conversations with me/us/here. This is certainly not the kind of input we listen to, yet we have been patient with him for more than 2 years, despite repeated ban requests by forum users due to his continued negative behavior, which ultimately culminated in a barage of absolutely insulting and inacceptable PMs that led to his ban, after being warned several times, and given several chances, both by us and ED. His opinions had nothing to do with him being banned. The entire process of us refining the phoenix started already in autumn 2019, long before anyone made any such reference or claims towards what it should or should not be, based on their "impressions". And with this I would like us all to close the off-topic convo about CSGO, and return to the issues at hand. Thank you. When simulating such complex matters as missiles, data is what you can go by, and trying to make it achieve what (little or limited) is known from real life that could be achieved. We had to over-power it at first, which btw left it still underpowered at the time. With the missiles in DCS changing in the recent years, this offset its performance such that it became eventually overpowered, upon which we continued to dive in deeper, and with the help of your feedback (factual feedback by so many of you), the help of SMEs and by now years of research, we finally managed to learn what we did not know before, or only knew in a more limited way. But the goal was since the beginning: to make it perform as close as possible to known IRL shots. As @Naquaii said: we change the modeling when we have new data. This has never been, nor ever will be based on opinions, balance, feelings, complaints or any of that kind. But it will of course always happen, when someone presents us with evidence that either shows us what we can improve or what we got wrong or what we can change to make it even more realistic. The impact this has on whether the missile becomes "better" or "worse", is, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. And I, too, second the idea to not over-interpret too much into the pro and contra going forth between "opposing factions". It does not influence our development. What does influence it, is the many great input coming from you guys that for example showed the CFD being off, quirks in the guidance, in lofting, and in many many areas you have and continue to unearth. And we are, as always, very grateful for that. As mentioned at the beginning of this thread: it is a journey of learning, and without you guys being on board, we would never advance faster than we are now. And as long as we stand, I hope this journey will never end.

I may go back in time when I'm done with a couple of more modern assets.

There is no need to apologize at all, all good. It definitely is a problem, just as you describe it. It's not at all a real missile phenomenon, it is a bug in the guidance, or maybe a flaw in the logic, or a limitation of the current model, which is partially still unknown to both us and ED. We are currently trinyg to chase this down - if anyone has a short track with it happening, please share! - because it makes the missile do really stupid things, like weaving above a target to match the intercept course, but like, not even pointing down to make the actual lead intercept with just 500 feet left, etc.. These are guidance specific issues, which we cannot fix on our own, but we're working with ED on all of these. We take this matter very seriously (and so does ED), btw, because we think this is one of the last remaining major issues that hampers the phoenix (and missiles in general). Also noteworthy is that due to its long range, the phoenix pronounces such issues much more than other missiles, too. Which makes it double as important to find a way to fix this for the phoenix, because it is much more affected by it than shorter ranged missiles. A very good and recent example for that was the video shared by @Soulres - a shorter ranged missile would have likely ran out of steam before making it around that mountain and a faster missile may have lead more aggressively and crashed into the mountain. This particular issue (flying around a mountain) was believed to be fixed when the "magic INS" bug got fixed couple years ago, but now we know this still exists, too. And this all boils down to these guidance issues that need to be fixed both short term and long term. To be transparent on how that works - strictly speaking guidance related issues now that are generally out of our hands: we collect what we can find on the issue (and have been doing so for a long time ofc), then present the case to ED, upon which they propose a change, implement a fix themselves, or guide us in adjusting certain parameters, and then rinse and repeat. It is a very difficult and unfortunately time consuming process, stemming from the complexity of coding missiles and the unreliable reproducability of these issues: we all have seen them, we know they exist, we even experience them on a regular basis, but they do not happen so consistently that it can be 100% reproduced/debugged by the developers both from us and ED. I am not saying this to excuse the admittedly very slow process btw, just to explain to you how we go about it, so you guys understand what is going on behind closed doors in general. And it is also important to know that ED is very forthcoming and helpful in these matters. It is just a very, very painful process for all parties involved, as in difficult to solve. In that sense we are very grateful for your very kind patience. This particular phenomenon you mention is of course not all that remains to be fixed, but in our opinion it is one of the biggest remaining issues. I also want to add to the lofting debate: while some of the lofts are excessive at short to medium ranges at times, often times they are benefitial as are (provided you do not overpitch and the missile goes to space), and if you compare them with a more shallow or non lofted profile, arrive faster at the target, as if they would when travelling through thicker air for a longer time. Again, this is not to say that there are no issues with loft, there 100% are, and these, too, we are looking to change and improve ofc. Finally the transition to the new missile schema will get rid of some limitations the old missile API poses on guidance, missile logic, etc. and may additionally help to tackle parts of the above mentioned - which remains to be seen if and how much. We are not done with the phoenix, and we will continue improving it and working on the remaining issues.

Ag 90 anti material rifle team

На сколько я помню, вертикальная скорость на авторотации у Ми-24 не отличается (как минимум) от Ми-8. Крыло-то у него есть, но и несущий винт не 21.3 а 17.5 в диаметре, а массы +- одинаковые у них, ещё и сопротивление фюзеляжа меньше у Ми-24. Вот момент на кабрирование на авторотации, это вроде как не поправили ещё (он должен быть на пикирование). Так он ещё и при выводе из этого режима на шаге около 5° меняется с кабрирования на пикирование. То есть при посадке на авторотации меняется балансировка. К этому конечно привыкаешь, но это не правильно. Что до Петровича, во первых мне не нравится, что это Петрович))) во вторых, работал бы он нормально, а озвучка в принципе не интересует, скорее всего она надоест из-за однотипных фраз. Так же Ми-24 в ДКС очень плохо гасит скорость перед зависанием, точнее, он слишком иннертный. И вообще на висении он очень уныло себя ведёт, если сравнивать с Ми-8, очень заторможено, что опять же на деле не так. Обороты нв у Ми-8 192об/мин, у Ми-24 240 об/мин, соответственно, отклик на управляющие воздействия должен быть гораздо раньше и чётче. Сюда ещё стоит добавить САУ, которая очень сильно упрощает управление в реале. Я думаю вот эти проблемы первоочередные и плюс те, которые озвучены в предыдущем сообщении. На мой взгляд, сначала нужно заставить вертолёт летать правильно, а потом уже всё остальное.

Done some testing. 1. You can get random Rudder trim take off input on Take Off 2. On landing you can get random rudder input on short final then after landing need rudder trim to centre the surface. 3. If you deselect ANTI SLIP by selecting the switch to the Middle YAW position ... all this goes away, things are far more comfortable on the landing rollout. Conclusion: ANTI SLIP Rudder trim input is occurring on the ground ... it shouldn't.

и каждый требует регистрации хрен знает где, какие то привязки через дискорд (в котором я вообще ничего не понимаю) и тд и тп, сплошные танцы с бубном. почему бы не существовало официального сервера, где все интуитивно понятно и просто, будто запускаешь оффлайн миссию. я летаю с фланкера 2.5, но в онлайне был пару раз чисто посмотреть и ни разу не зашло, то зайдешь и выкидывает потому что нет регистрации, то еще что то. конечно может это моя проблема, но в тех же вар тандерах просто нажал кнопку и ты в онлайне...

He was never right, what he advocated was way worse than this, he'd have the AIM-54 be a nerfed Sparrow as in his mind the AIM-54 should just be unable to kill fighters period. I'm not even gonna talk about how he behaved on these forums while ranting about this. That said none of this influenced our research or decision-making. Is it so hard to believe that we continuously research and refine our models? That's also the reason for the implementation of the "active on it's own"-AIM-54C taking time. That we wanted to research and verify the information regarding this as the publically available information wasn't enough. Believe that if you want or not but we have really no reason to not be honest about this.

Great Release!! Thank you for hard work on the Bronco! The Trailer is so cool! You know your job…really well Done! is that dirt visible on the windscreen?

Found this in the launch trailer, and is this the Alpha jet?

Nice one ill get it downloaded now https://splitair.gumroad.com/l/fwzxn

Thx for your support guys, it s very cool !!

This is totally off topic. Stop spamming the forum, please.

Дабы не быть голословным, прикрепляю миссию и треки. Пехота стоит в 100 футах от гаубицы, при прилете Маверика по гаубице - умирает, от Х-25МЛ - остается стоять. Также прикрепляю скрины попаданий в полосу test25ml.miz test25ml.trk test65d.trk Попадание Х-25МЛ примерно на 200 футов в другую сторону от гаубицы относительно пехоты. Пехота цела. Воронка, как мне кажется, слишком маленькая для 115кг БЧ. Попадание Маверика в полосу на 400 футов в другую сторону от пехоты. Воронка тоже какая-то маленькая для такой ракеты. Пехоту ИСПЕПЕЛИЛО

Looks cool, but not official, it is a user mod

Хехей,Бредли на 3х км справа ))) Забыл-Привет,командир добавить))

Thanks! The sniper team is static at the moment. They need to be pointed in the general direction of the target and will make adjustments within a certain limit. I'm looking into making more movable infantry. I'm taking it step by step and learning in the process.

Going to slightly necroing this thread by stating that within both the F-14 NTRP 3-22.4-F14A/B/D Store Limitations (Appendix A) and the F-14A/B/D A/G TACTICAL MANUAL NWP 3-22.5-F14A/B/D VOLUME III NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1T-2, they mention the LAU-138 can be mounted on pylons 1A, 1B, 8A and 8B for ALE-39 equipped aircraft.

Dear Sorata: We are sincerely appreciate your trust and support. The lockdown is continuing, for how long? nobody knows so far. Fortunately the logistics has been restored, so you will receive you package soon I assumed.

If you nurse your fuel caringly (e.g. buster take-off), you can spend 2h airbourne in this configuration if you don't mind landing with about 700l. I did intercept a couple of Galaxies and Hercs today. I didn't quite stick around long enough to use the police light, though. Finding the island (Saipan, no TACAN) in the night with only a 60NM ground-radar setting is a challenge. Makes you understand, why Spain based their INS-equipped F1EEs at Gando, instead of the CEs. Anybody got any night-intercept photos?

Reported in the testers area. Suggested Work around for now. Take off and Land with ANTI SLIP/YAW switch in the middle YAW position. Once airborne select it UP to the ANTI SLIP position. Feedback in this thread would be appreciated.

I don't believe we are getting a hard wing at all. Far as I know we are getting retrofit slatted jets from the 66-69 serials without DMAS, and then later a 71- and higher with factory slats, DMAS, and TISEO.

Будет ДК, и всё это выше перечисленное (и многе другое) обязательно станет возможным. Я кстати, не так давно для себя открыл DCS Liberation (генератор кампаний) и могу сказать, что хоть эта штука и не без ограничений, но реально даёт понять каким интересным может быть геймплей (оффлайн или онлайн) когда есть ДК. Что касается паблик онлайна, то по-любому - это утопия, ибо там будет всегда беспорядочная война или тупое нагибалово. Взлёты с рулёжки, игнор элементарных правил и много ещё чего, что мы все неоднократно наблюдали. По-другому быть и не может, когда играют случайные люди. Про хоть какое-нибудь планирование миссий или взаимодействие - я вообще молчу. Исключение - приватные сервера для организованных сквадов, но это совсем другая ниша.

I'm going to post my youtube comment on that video here, I encourage Phantom lovers to have a stiff drink on hand So much is wrong here. This video started off ok but then took a very strange nose dive after the 6:00 mark (no pun intended). 6:20: Initial F-4's delivered to the Navy and marines did not include laser bomb guidance systems. 7:03 The F-4N upgraded variant of the B pre-dated the J 7:20 What is "operational lock on capability?" Acquiring, locking, and FIRING on a target without a human in the loop? Is this a confused misinterpretation of the VTAS system? That's my best guess at what happened here in the research phase. Or are you referring to semi-active radar guidance for missiles? In which case, that was not pioneered on the F-4J, or even the F-4 in general, it pre-dates the F-4. 5 seconds of google will clarify what SARH is, (and the pilot still needs to pull the trigger or pickle it off, folks) 7:44 No, the F-4N is a further development of the F-4B, and pre-dates the J. The S is a post-Vietnam upgrade of the J 7:50 How specifically did smokeless engine improve the reliability and aerodynamic capability? The performance of the engine was better, but not necessarily because it was smokeless. This is confusing 8:20 The F-4S did not serve in Vietnam 9:03 No. Incorrect. Iran does not operate F-4J's. They received F-4D's, followed by F-4E's and R-F4E's. They have never operated an F-4J. 10:33 Easily outmaneuvering and outshooting the MiGs after improvements to the equipment and pilot training. The initial reputation wasn't that good, and that is an important part of the history of the Phantom that directly led to the creation of TOP GUN by Dan Pederson and the rest of the bros. Would have been a nice tie-in here 10:47 What specifically about the Phantom was modular? It wasn't any more modular than other fighters, upgrades like slats and radars required substantial re-fit, it wasn't like you could just snap things on and off like lego. 11:11 From birth the F-4 Phantom was fitted with a PULSE radar, not a DOPPLER radar. It did see a doppler radar in later variants, but it absolutely did not start life with a doppler radar, this is just plain disinformation 11:28 You said meters per second but the screen shows mph 11:47 EIGHT air to air missiles total, not twelve. 4 sparrows in recessed fuselage nacelles, and 2 pairs of sidewinders on the inboard pylons. The Navy variants had launchers on the inboard pylons as well that could fit one sparrow each as well, so a total of 6 sparrows, or 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders. Unless you're referring to some modern frankenjet, there is no ordnance chart of a phantom with more than 8 A2A missiles 11:58 Initial production versions of the Phantom did not have a cannon. Initial prototypes did have colt cannons, but these were removed from the design. This is what was controversial - it was a fighter that went into production and hit the fleet without a gun. There are plenty of other sources that discuss this so I won't get into it here, but the way you present it in the video is incorrect. 12:10 Which historians? 12:29 Interesting that you mention this here, but you never once mention the F-4E anywhere else in the video up until this point, especially given that was the definitive export version and the backbone of the USAF until the Eagle came along 12:41 I am going to start a drinking game where every time someone says that their jet drivers coined the term "speed is life" I take a shot, as well as "one pass, haul ass". These did not originate in the Phantom community 12:45 in truth, it was true - Phantom drivers kept their speed up to both achieve their best rate speed, and out-energy their MiG counterparts with their thrust to weight gained from the J79's. Also, at 10:33 you literally said the exact opposite statement and you don't back it up either time lmfao 13:03 I think at this point my sanity is slipping away - THE F-4 PHANTOM IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN THE PRIMARY TRAINER OF THE USAF OR NAVY 14:45 They weren't RE-designated the F-4G, the F-4G WAS the wild weasel. YGBSM! 15:23 ………. No. Just no. They retired it in 2004. Phantoms are going strong in Turkey and Greece however. I need a drink

If by winning you mean arguing and whining for something and then declaring victory when given something completely different than what you asked for, sure. I'd argue that you're reading far too much into something that is really, really simple. We change our modelling when we have new data, that's basic and easy to understand. And none of what you listed above about old code precludes the possibilty of refining and improving what we have.

Hi, I'm editing my first night mission and noticed that there is an unnatural red color on the inside of the air intakes, sems that the top fuselage light bleeds onto the aircraft interior: Not a critical bug, but hopefully it can be easily fixed. I'm on latest Openbeta v2.7.17.29493 and no user Mods at the moment. Best regrads, Eduardo

Flying Vietnam map, with the most realistic flight model for a flying landmass ever made.

How much? Edit: see my post above yours.

I'm enjoying the challenge and quirks. Its like trying to fly a rocket, not an aircraft. But, once you fly it enough and learn the little things, it becomes more intuitive. Keep that throttle up or you'll drop like a rock. A/G bombs work well and the nuke is a fun challenge too. The A2A weapons are very short range (like sidewinders). But straight level flight the thing can haul. I have yet to land without burning up my tires. Probably the most challenging aircraft I've simmed in so far in DCS. I enjoy the challenge. I'm a glutton for punishment so I have been crying through the Mi24 and Mi8 of late while the Mig21 gets added to the MP server map I play on.

всё, что Вы указали - безусловно важно, и будет сделано. Но ..не "ломайте копья": Петровичем, его логикой и озвучкой занимаются совсем другие сотрудники, поэтому это никак не влияет на доработку динамики. Просто никак. насчет того, ЧТО важнее, так тут каждый находит то, что его вдохновляет больше. Некоторые вообще не стреляют с Ми-24, а только летают. Некоторым режим авторотации - "пофиг", ему важна увлеченность в М\плеере. Делаем то, на что есть ресурс и видение как это сделать. Если кто-то чувствует, что недостаточно делаем - уж простите!))) ПС про баг с ПМ на прицеле АСП-17 в мультиэкипаже - сделали несколько подходов - локализовать не удалось. "Спонтанный" баг... связываем с временем задержки пакетов в сети (пингом). Но поиски не оставляем.

Same here. Had ALT 2 fail on me twice yesterday. Changed the flight conditions (descent, acceleration) and was able to successfully reset ALT2. Twice. Had ALT1 fail later, too. Changing the flight-conditions yielded a successful reset as well.

I have a report open for this with the team already. thanks

Electronic warfare module? Official supported Voice command? Combined arms 2? DCS ATC? VULKAN ?

Das wird das Gebiet für die Sinai-Map sein (inneres Rechteck wird hochdetailiert sein):

You guys are confusing RADAR with antenna. While yes, the secondary RADAR is a different RADAR system from the primary one; because SSR transmits pulse encoded information the baseband system used for SSR it's different from a primary radar (and probably all the pass band processing is performed by the same system block that the PRI and SSR use); they both use the primary antenna. That's because SSR needs to know from which directions (which aircraft) are coming the "I'm friendly" responses (simplified). To do that you need an antenna with narrow beam width (well actually is more complex, the antenna has to be capable of transmitting a narrow beam for the P1 and P3 pulses of an interrogation, but also omnidirectional for the P2 pulse of interrogation, also called control. Doing so only aircraft inside the interrogation beam treat the interrogation message as for them, the rest of the aircraft treat the interrogation message as not for them). The only antenna, capable of doing that, is the same one that the PRI radar uses. Every slot (see radar image I attached) on the radar dish is an antenna. The use of all these small antennas, it's called an array of antennas. In order to modify the beam width, you can modify the phase of the EM waves that are transmitted or received from every small antenna, that is called phased array antenna. Doing that, you can also modify the electrical pointing of the antenna (the direction of the main lobe, simplified: the direction of the received and transmitted rays). So you could modify those phases in order to both scan the sky and also modify the beam of the array antenna. I legacy F/A-18 RADAR is PESA. So you may be wondering, hey PESA sounds like AESA, I know AESA. So what is the difference with PESA? Well the difference it's that in PESA antennas the all the antennas transmit the same signal. A better way to explaining it is that PESA antennas are "used like traditional antennas", with that i mean that once you have obtained the EM signal that you want to transmit or receive you connect it to the PESA antenna, but the system behind the antenna is the one that it's in charge of transmiting and receiving. On the other hand AESA systems use every single small antena (the slots on the RADAR dish) as a T/R system, EVERY SINGLE ONE, so basically an AESA system is a set of small antenna T/R (transmit/receive) systems that work together and lend a result. On the other hand, PESA antennas are antennas formed up by small antennas but that are not independent. At the end of the day, it means that AESA antennas can achieve narrower beam width than PESA antennas ( 1/2 narrower) , but most importantly AESA antennas (because each small antenna has its own RF frontend) have lower SNR constrains for detecting returns and overall are much more robust than PESA antennas (again with AESA antennas you have hundreds of receivers, one for every small antenna, VERY EXPENSIVE). AESA antennas also have a wider frequency range. Finally with AESA antennas you can perform electronically scanning much more easier than in PESA antennas (yes with PESA antennas you can electronically scan, moving the electrical pointing), but also perform much more complex beam forming than with PESA antennas. This means that AESA antennas should be able to perform much more complex tracking and guidance of targets, even with more than one target at a time. IN CONCLUSION: If you move your Primary Radar antenna (the Antenna dish of small antennas), you are moving also your Secondary Radar antenna. Case 1: You have turned off your Primary Radar (ONLY THE BASEBAND RELATED TO PRI RADAR, without turning off any component that may affect the use of the antenna dish) and you perform a IFF interrogation INSIDE THE SCANNING AREA OF YOUR ARRAY ANTENNA, you should receive an IFF response if there's a friendly aircraft even when you don't have a target track. Case 2: You have moved your array antenna dish (with the primary radar controls) in a way that there are no aircraft INSIDE THE SCANNING AREA OF YOUR ARRAY ANTENNA, then when you perform an IFF interrogation you SHOUDN'T RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE. If you are on Case 2, then it's well modeled. Any doubts, check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_surveillance_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_electronically_scanned_array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically_Scanned_Array

Trolling deeper through the Flight manual found a couple of interesting things. ANTI SLIP is actually done by automatic rudder trim. The ANTI SLIP system is deactivated by any pilot rudder input. So it cant interfere with pilot commanded rudder. It is also deactivated by Oleo compression (Weight on wheels) . So on the ground the ANTI SLIP function SHOULD not work. I think this is the crux of the issue ... its still doing its thing on the ground then the nose wheel steering amplifies it. This oleo compression cut out is not in the text portion of the manual but in the Rudder system schematics. So given what we are seeing in the sim is a Rudder trim input that is causing the mayhem I am firmly of the belief that the cause is erroneous inputs from the ANTI SLIP system on the ground. Interestingly I have noticed some tendency to drift Left o Right on take off... thought it was was just me, but now think it might be a similar thing. Will investigate further and report in the appropriate Test areas.

Simply saying "Fun vs. Realism" is too simplistic. Define fun, then define realism. We can go 100 pages on both. For my part I want a lot of fun and a lot of realism. I could define the terms but you don't want to read 10,000 words of my philosophical goop. So what do we do? In my case, I work with what is available, what is likely to be available, and balance expectations. The result is I get to fly my Ka-50 and have fun. And then when it comes on sale, my Mig-21. You may find your sense of fun in way in whatever way you choose. That's your business, my man. And you have as much right to state your case and others do theirs. Should the bugs be fixed? Yes. Will the bugs not being fixed stop me from enjoying my flight? No. I don't think either of us can say the other is wrong. The issue that may come into play, however, is the balance of money being put into DCS and the fun coming out of it for the flyer. That's also up to each persona to rationalize. For my part, I paid some bucks and I'm having some fun.

Well, this interesting discussion lets open an important question (already raised by Moonshine in this post): Why do EWR have pre-briefed HARM target codes if HARM are not supposed to deal with them? EWR 1L13 S --> 101 and EWR 55G6 S --> 102 If the HARM target codes list is correct wrt IRL, this is a proof that HARM should be able to detect and engage those EWR in whatever mode (SP, TOO, PB). Otherwise this list should be corrected in user manuals.

220кг - это масса ракеты, а не БЧ. БЧ у неё 57 кг

If you are in H-B mode, just select 0 altitude. It will take some time though.

Agree ... to say nothing of the users belonging to the meme generation, that seem unable to comunicate using just text.