Leaderboard

South Atlantic Changelog as per RAZBAM_Prowler on Discord: Added: Santa Cruz Airfield Comandante Luis Piedrabuena Airfield Aerodromo de Tolhuin Airfield REIL lights for runway 25 at El Calafate International Airfield Various new models across the map, which include but are not limited to: a new shipping container model and a new gas tank model. The Normal maps previously pushed are now enabled for the whole map (see know issues). Improved: Video memory usage which should improve performance across the map. Detail maps for the low level terrain have been improved. Towns around the new airfields have been tweaked for a better look. Adjusted blue parking area lighting at Puerto Williams. Fixed: Threshold lighting at El Calafate Airfield set to correct direction. Known Issues: Normal maps cause a discolouration around the Falklands Islands Cliffs area (ED working on this issue (probably fixed at end of year). Map grid misaligned (ED working on this issue (probably fixed at end of year)).

I can confirm, but as you know, no hard promise, things can always happen, etc. We will have more and bigger news for you guys soon.

RAZBAM F-15E

It's a common misconception that the Phoenix couldn't be effectively used against other fighters. It was tested against small, maneuvering targets back in the 70's and again with the C-model in the 80's. Yes, it's primary role was a long range carrier defense weapon against bombers and it was reserved mainly for this role (at least the A-model) because it was large, expensive and no other missile could be effectively employed in this role. This doesn't mean it somehow cannot hit a fighter. Here's an article where Dave "Bio" Baranek talks about the Phoenix vs fighters thing. He mentions how the Phoenix repeatedly hit fighter-sized targets in tests and that they trained using the AIM-54C against simulated Mig-29's. https://jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279 "Smokin" Joe Ruzicka mentioning how remarkably agile this missile was for its size: https://jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625 Quote: "---They reported back that the first Phoenix was "Boola Boola", meaning a direct hit and completely destroying the drone. They said what happened next was pretty amazing. The second Phoenix quickly made an adjustment off what was left of the drone and hit the largest remaining part. Remember, this 1,000lb missile is traveling at Mach 3.0 and only a couple of miles behind the first missile, so there was very little time for the missile to react." The two first USN Phoenix shots didn't work simply because the missiles were improperly armed and as a result, their motors never ignited. This doesn't tell anything about their actual capabilities. I don't know much about the third time the Phoenix was used in combat by the USN, but it seems the target was well outside the missiles no-escape zone when it made a U-turn and ran.

I have bumped admin for the request. thanks

The manual seems outdated on this one. Reset is not used to reset the radar settings for the current weapon. It's used to: Clear the L&S and DT2 target designations. Clear any trackfile ranking biases and resume normal trackfile ranking. Unbox the HITS option in TWS. It should also return the L&S to the highest ranked trackfile in TWS (TWS should always have an L&S and ranking should not be affected by designation, but this doesn't work in DCS now). Exit TWS BIAS, SCAN RAID and EXP.

The asset list is frozen for version 1.00. I'm doing release version 1.00 testing in iterations right now. Fixed a large number of issues the last couple of days and have found more today. Small things, but since it's 37 assets by now, there are a lot of test cases. These are the version 1.00 assets.

Today i've heard my virtual Hind mate for the first time. He has such a nice calm voice. Great job ED recording his lines!

Download | Discord | Youtube About IDF Mods Project We are a group of hobbyists and aviation enthusiasts with an aim to develop an accurate representation of the Israeli Air Force within DCS We are working hard on a lengthy roadmap of several kinds of mods ranging from 3rd party module mods, to AI ground sea and air assets. Features F-16I Sufa F-16D bl.50\52 F-16D bl.50\52 ( No Spine ) Two Seater F-16I\D Cockpit With Multicrew Capability New F-16 Weapons -Iris-T A\A Missile -Python 5 A\A Missile -Delilah Cruise Missile -Spice 2000 Bomb -Spice 1000 Bomb -GBU 39 SDB Clarification: New Weapons Replace Existing Weapons AN\AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod CFT + 600 Gal Fuel Tanks FAQ 1. Is the mod standalone or based on the F-16C? The mod is based on the F-16C you must buy the Official Module, But you can fly on both aircrafts at the same time. 2.How accurate is the F-16I\D models? The model of the F-16I\D is 100% accurate, we have made many efforts for it to be and look like the original, including textures. 3. Which liveries are included in the mod? At the moment, there are liveries for all the squadrons in the Israeli Air Force. liveries of other air forces are added by the community. 4.Is there a clickable rear cockpit and multi-crew capability? Yes. There is a rear cockpit that have multi-crew capability. 5.Will there be a change in the cockpit? The new cockpit has a few changes that exist in the real F-16I. We made the cockpit from scratch so these changes were added. we tried to be as precise as possible. 6. Does the Lantirn pod function in DCS? The Lantirn pod is not active in DCS, however its weight and drag exist. 7. Do the weapons function as in reality? Our weapons have a unique and accurate flight model that suits them, according to the type of weapon. The weapons replace other weapons in DCS so the systems on the plane remained the same. 8. Does the mod corrupt the integrity check? Yes, unfortunately the mod corrupts the integrity check. 9. Is there a paint kit to create liveries? yes, this is the F-16D Paint kit download. liveries examples available on our discord. Cockpit Sync FAQ Unfortunately, part of the synchronization in the cockpit does not work, that's why we created a FAQ that will cover this part 1. Startup Desync The pilot starts the plane as usual, the WSO performs an auto-start (Lwin + Home). 2.In Cockpit Sync / Desync MFD screens are desyncing, which means that both the pilot and the WSO can use their MFDs separately, including their systems. Some of the buttons in the rear cockpit do not have a physical button on the plane, to activate these buttons the button must be keybind (laser arm, master arm, and master modes) all analog gauges are synchronized with each other. 3. External Model Sync The entire external model is synced, including the wheels, flaps, air brakes, and afterburner 4. Payload Desync If the plane starts off on the ground with loadout on it, the WSO has no ability to see the loadout, in order to solve the problem re-armament must be performed. 5. Fuel Desync There is no synchronization in the aircraft's fuel systems For More Updates - Join Our Discord

If it's all so hopeless and you are done with DCS, why are you still posting here? We're all eager to hear or see any news about the DC, but ranting about it won't help.. Oh and are you really calling all those kind people that spend so much time to create missions for the community: "lazy"?! I'll just assume that I misunderstood what you meant..

I extended the script with some other weapons that were missing: ["AGM_65D"] = 130, ["AGM_65E"] = 300, ["AGM_65F"] = 300, ["AGM_65H"] = 300, ["AGM_65K"] = 300, ["AGM_65L"] = 300, ["HOT3"] = 15, ["AGR_20A"] = 8, ["AGR_20_M282"] = 8, -- A10C APKWS ["GBU_54_V_1B"] = 118, ["CBU_52B"] = 32, -- CBUs ["CBU_87"] = 32, ["CBU_97"] = 32, ["CBU_99"] = 32, ["ROCKEYE"] = 32, ["MATRA_F4_SNEBT251"] = 8, -- Mirage F1 Section ["MATRA_F4_SNEBT253"] = 8, ["MATRA_F4_SNEBT256"] = 8, ["MATRA_F1_SNEBT253"] = 8, ["MATRA_F1_SNEBT256"] = 8, ["SAMP400LD"] = 274, ["SAMP400HD"] = 274, ["SAMP250HD"] = 118, ["BLU107B_DURANDAL"] = 274, ["FFAR Mk5 HEAT"] = 8, -- Rockets ["FFAR Mk1 HE"] = 8, ["C5"] = 8 -- Mig19P Rockets Splash_Damage_2.lua

Virtual Voltige Victor

Hi All just ran the same test as the screenshots show, on the same hanger, (yeah i know right spooky how I know which hanger was used lol, spent too many hours in DCS I think) first screenshot is without a F16 and the second is with a F16 First screenshot shows FPS at 87 second screenshot shows FPS at 83 Note: I am running a 3090TI and have everything maxed out for every single setting within DCS (can't have any higher for what I want turned on) running at 4k on a 43" monitor Next Update In the next update I have performed some optimisation on the map and am just slightly above the video memory goal that ED sets for every map We continue to optimise the map and looking for ways to improve performance. Thanks Specter null My DCS Settings

Speaking for myself, this is good enough. Thanks, IronMike. I know you guys are making the best effort.

Ah yes, the brick that can't hit fighters. About 7:20 shows a 54C shot against what apparently was a maneuvering F-4S drone.

Nope. This is one of the challenges of close combat. It all comes down to situational awareness, crew coordination, and good communication to avoid fratricide. The "IFF functionality" of George (or Petrovich in the Mi-24) isn't like an IFF transponder in fighters that relies on technology, but it simulates the "situational awareness" of the AI crewmember. FYI, George and Petrovich are not fool-proof either. They can make mistakes like a real person.

Там ещё Разбамовцев спросили, почему у Миража 2000 вираж лучше чем у F-16. Они ответили, что по характеристикам, доступным в интернете, F-16 должен быть лучше. Они не знают, насколько точно смоделирован F-16 в DCS и не могут настраивать свою ФМ на основе других модулей. Так что, по мнению Разбамовцев, у них всё правильно, это у других модулей ФМ не правильная Интересно, что скажут ED на то, что, по мнению Разбамовцев, у них F-16 не правильный? Вот ссылка на комментарий

Yea, I dont have hope about F-16I (because of classified stuff) but imagine we have different fully functional flyable F-16C and D's; like BMS. For example Israeli F-16C Barak with Spice, Popeye and Python 5 or Greek F-16C/D with IRIS-T or Turkish F-16C/Ds with SOM, HGK, KGK etc. Even just a normal D variant would be wonderful addition enough for DCS F-16.

Тогда может и нашим "пересчитать" в большую сторону? Если каждый будет приводить расчёты, непонятно на что опирающиеся и оспаривать графики, взятые из реальных характеристик, называя свою симуляцию более реальной, чем реальность, то я требую выхода в космос для Су-27 и МиГ-29, а так же полного оборота за 4 секунды. Думаю, разработчикам стоит проявлять куда более жесткие требования, ибо с такой вольностью вида "Мы тут насчитали реальнее реальности" сторонние модели "очень далеко" уйдут. А я-то думал, у нас тут DCS, а не вартандер... А оказывается, в онлайн весьма вероятно теперь встретиться и с "вартандеровскими" самолётам.

i hope ED to include this mod as official cooperation with IDF dev team , The team has been given a lot of effort and spend many hours of searching and developing so far for this WIP F-16 module , ED will get only benefits and sales from that, since many of F-16 users wants the missionised D models and C per country variants 3d models and avionics-weapons specialty. Imagine if the ED unlock some features or better work together with the team , we will have another level of realism and satisfaction for F-16 and not only lovers.

да-да, я упустил еще пару моментов из описания и видимо ввел в заблуждение из-за этой "однобокости"))) балансировочное положение РППУ по крену для ГП на различных скоростях имеет вид некоторой кривой. на скорости от 110 и выше, балансировочное положение РППУ для полета без крена больше влево, чем на скорости 40-90. Поэтому, если перемещать РППУ строго на себя, то при достижении скорости 70..40 knots (ручка-то больше влево, чем требуется для полета без крена) -> начинается плавное кренение влево)) Тогда это надо компенсировать движением ее вправо, но соразмеренно, что не просто, т.к. выше описывал разбалансировку по каналу направления и крена от изменения тяги РВ. Кроме того, добавляется отсутствие ориентиров привязки (если нету VR или тракИР), что сильно затрудняет выдерживание курса и крена. Еще один аспект связан с тем, что каждый вертолет имеет свойство: борт, который обдувается потоком при наличии скольжения вызывает кренение в противоположную сторону (например, "скользим" правым бортом на поток, вертолет будет испытывать желание крена влево). Но это при положительных или околонулевых углах атаки вертолета. Довольно сложная, меняющаяся от скорости (читай - от точки, которую сейчас "проходит" вертолет в петле) картина из взаимоисключающих влияний)) В общем, надо как канатоходцу - балансировать и РППУ, и педалями (даже если ОШ НВ имеет постоянное перед фигурой значение) во время быстропротекающих переходных процессов. Думаю лучшего способа, чем просто "набить руку", т.е. отдать на чувство- нету))) ПС. Рулевой винт в купе с килем и ГО имеет достаточно сложную картину обтекания, если рассматривать изменение его тяги во всем диапазоне скоростей полета, а также во всем диапазоне углов атаки и скольжения. Т.е., если не меняя шага РВ, просто "дуть" с разных сторон на хвост (причем полностью с разных: и слева и справа, и сверху и снизу...и смешанно), то его тяга весьма значительно нелинейно изменяется. Изменение шага РВ еще добавляет нелинейности. Потому изменяются и моменты относительно OX (продольной, по крену) и OY (вертикальной, по направлению) осей. Это не к тому, чтобы "поплакаться о сложностях жизни", а чтобы вам была более ясной картина, для учета при пилотировании!)) Т.е. РВ - одна из самых "головных болей" при моделировании, если пытаться приблизится к реальному образцу во всех его проявлениях)) и он еще будет правится!

This is a temporary implementation as George AI is improved. For him to be able to search based off where you are looking, you will need to be set to TADS for the time being. In reality, the Pilot's ACQ selection has no bearing on the CPG being able to slave the TADS to the Pilot's Helmet (PHS). So this will be corrected in the future; but again, just temporary.

Maestro, even the old sparrow would open up the doppler gates if it couldn't detect a target using pre-launch information. This is the real problem with dropped tracks, the missile will drop certain constraints and you may have unexpected results, ie. it now gets to choose what it locks onto - with enough intelligence it may be able to choose one among many targets that best fits the criteria, or just the first thing it sees. AIM-120 has a search mode; I know it's not represented in the game, but I want to point out that CHEAPSHOT tactics are real, and they have a place (maybe not quite how DCS players use them, but they exist). In addition, there is an 'infamous' British experiment where they did not want to buy the data-link for the 120, and the Pk ended up being about the same as sparrow. With datalink it is twice as good as sparrow (this is 120A/B era). I know Pk is pretty nebulous but at least it gives an idea that something more is going on in there, so I think any target in a 120's search basket should be in danger. Let me know if you need the relevant info as proof - again I just have sparrow docs, not 120 ... but we're talking old sparrow (7F) and you might imagine a 120 would do much better.

As of right now, it is possible in the mission editor to enable various system failures as long as the plane in question is set to "player". This is fine for single player missions and while it does rely on a individual module's specific implementation of system failures, it works rather well. Sadly, this option is simply not present for "client" aircraft in a multiplayer mission. Now, to be clear, I understand the thought behind this. Obviously such a feature would not be useful for larger public server scenarios and the like but since that system needs to be manually enabled by the mission maker, it is easy to not use such a feature if the server's usual visitors would not like it. All that said. There are mission makers and even smaller private groups that would really enjoy having the ability to enable random failures for "client" aircraft. It would make a great training tool or even act as a way to spice up co-op missions. You could even argue that having such a system justifies doing proper start-ups that include system tests and the like. Again, I know that this kind of thing would not be of any use for big public servers but since it would essentially be the same as the "player" set aircraft option, it would be something that a mission maker would have to specifically set out to enable and thus would only become a factor on servers that desire it. Please. This would be a great way to give smaller groups more mission creation options without having to create a whole new thing. The system already exists for aircraft set to "player", why not allow it as a option for aircraft set to "client" as well?

It's been quite a while since release now. I remember seeing someone saying it was going to be implemented but here we are. Scrolling through the "others" isn't really ideal. Cheers Bullets

Really good question its so pointless to read posts from people that don’t really fly this Sim.

Thats exactly what I am looking for.Thanks ! (BTW your kneeboards are amazing )

We usually wait until they are released, but will mention it

THIS! Everyone knows that the Phoenix, like the Moon landings, "was a brilliant piece of propaganda, so that the Soviets bankrupted themselves, pouring resources into rockets and other useless machines..."

Early morning hours in N'Djamena.

Yeah when I first started in the huey I went by the ball indicator, after a few weeks of that in VR I started getting serious back-ache problems lol. Now I know just to ignore it, which is unfortunate as it'd be nice to have an accurate indicator.

The only titles which were feeling like empty/boring are **************. They were the most unfun sims for me, completely sterile, boring and literally empty. DCS got worse because everything seems so mixed up in terms of eras, dislodged. Compare flying DCS F-14 with ******** gets everything right in terms of atmosphere, the right era, right foe, right equipment. ******* as well. Something very essential is missing here which other sims (a lot of them) delivered in the past and were a foundation, especially for good memories. Now everyone here acts as if nothing was missing and go nuts reg. modules coming out. I always wanted a ******, it's coming. My friend goes nuts about this aircraft as well. But there is nothing to do with it. I dislike the editor... creating missions for myself and act surprised about bandits. Or flying the ***** in some modern maps in (year 20xx) and not in some 70s/80s maps. The whole concept doesn't work for me. That's why I never could have much fun with like I had with almost any other simulator in the past. It's just sandbox. Why is it so hard to add some fun elements to the game? I don't think that this dynamic campaign will surpass ****** with it's "out of cockpit" experience, 2D maps with recent actions happening over Korea, comms running etc. ... why must simulations be so sterile? No news, nothing to share. =\

i ordered "F16 ICP LT USB Controller" July 21, 2022. it was supposed to be shipped sometime in september. they are in italy so the atlantic ocean is in the way.

For what it is worth any given flags state is saved in the debrief.log file on mission end.

Please not this tangent again. There is a lightyear of nuance between a barely capable brick that only ever hit bombers in testing and a 100nm laser beam of death. The Phoenix is neither extreme. Like most of the guys here - I'm really pleased with where the missile is kinematically. If you can show me NASA documentation vs in-game that close - I got nothing. I do expect some range / terminal velocity can be found in tweaking loft profiles, so let's see where that takes us in time.

Undo / Redo functionality with history states would be tremendous for mission builders.

The issue is demonstrated here, it is the action of slewing before depressing the TDC that causes the drift. As for evidence, none is required as this is not an 'inaccuracy' report. It is a straight up bug report, a failure in the games code.

FTR надо отпускать после стабилизации угловых положений, затем вернуть джой в центр. Для этого тоже достаточно ослабить руку, пружины сделают остальное. Но, при отпускании мы получаем новые центры и отрезанные «ходы отклика» со стороны, противоположной отклонению крестика. Поэтому, при адских манёврах целесообразно FTR зажимать ещё тогда, когда крестики триммеров близко центру, например на висении. А отпускать после того как безобразие окончено, параметры стабильны, и впереди более спокойный полёт. Да, держать кнюпель постоянно неудобно, но можно же назначить какой-нибудь переключатель.

OK - I heard you out... now for the pitchfork. (just kidding) But to throw a thought in - it seems there'd almost be as much work involved in getting this to work as a full AAR assist system that hooks a player up too - so I don't see why this would be proposed differently. In fact, you could do what you want with a full AAR system, but simply just not 'engage' the AAR assist until after you've hooked up, so it only takes over from there. So, not to shoot your idea down, but from that perspective I wouldn't support what you're proposing but if the effort was going to be made, I would rather see a full AAR assist system as opposed to this where players can choose at what point it kicks in. (If my hunch on dev effort is correct that is) Secondly - what you're asking for would require devs to take time away from other things in order to accommodate this. When it comes to such requests, I'm not against them - but want to make provision that good number of players would actually use and benefit it from what tasks the developers may alternatively work on. In this intance - I don't have a clue as to how many people this may assist, but I would support a full AAR assist system (full, not partial so you can have both) if the player base warrants that. I myself find great satisfaction in doing it for real and accomplishing it to a point where I can do whenever I need, but I have seen some players spent countless hours and never being able to achieve it successfully, and the ability for them not to have to miss out on certain MP missions because they can't AAR would definitely be a plus - so figure there would probably be a number of players in this situation - but how many I don't know. Probably would have been worth creating this thread as a poll instead.

Sorry, my earlier statement about future DCS-COINS releases not supporting certain aircraft modules was made prematurely. I was thrown off by the unexpected errors encountered with the listed modules in my quick-and-lazy tests, and had concluded hastily. Now that I have dived deeper into the issue, I discovered that Flightpanels' developers occasionally change aircraft lua filenames in between DCS-BIOS releases. This means that the library of PP files bundled with the plugin need to be tied to a specific FP's DCS-BIOS release. The dependency is such that the selected aircraft must have a DCS-COINS PP file mapped to a set of DCS-BIOS lua and json files - all must have a matching filename (minus the file extension). Otherwise, the DCS-COINS setup or the TP plugin installation will fail. Bottomline is to avoid DCS-COINS installation issue, use the DCS-BIOS version (including BIOS.lua) which is the same as the one bundled with the DCS-COINS package concerned. Future DCS-COINS releases will support aircraft modules supported by the latest version of DCS-BIOS of the day. Yes, you should upgrade to DCS-COINS version 3 and the latest DCS-BIOS when the former is released. If L-39C and L-39ZA are supported by the same file set (pp, lua and json) per the DCS-BIOS concerned, you should not lose any functionalities you currently have. Instead, you will gain access to analog controls (currently disabled or restricted to a small number of controls) in both button and slider modes, updated DCS-BIOS, and other back-end fixes (incl. TP API). The cons are that you will need to test and may need to re-do (remove and add back) some of the controls (if they fail to not work with the new version). Anyway, do a backup your BIOS.lua and DCS-BIOS in your DCS script folder, custom TP pages and TP Munt.G_DCS-COINS plugin folder, before you try out the new version - just in case you want to revert back later.

So it seems like in the past few years, there have been headaches for dev teams and ED, with how things have been. And after having thought of it, ED has made some policy changes to reflect the current reality. An example might be the Kiowa PC project itself: for some time now, there's very little we the public can see as far as screens and dev progress details. Yet in the first year, the Kiowa project had lots of nice screens, many detailed streams showing entire mission profiles. And then it stopped. So why did the project continue but the screens and streams stop? That'll be for PC to decide about sharing. They DID tell us about personal life issues, and medical issues... real world that hurts projects of all kinds, especially ones with just handfuls of people involved. It would seem that ED may well be concerned about the greater community getting all this hype built up, whipped up into a frenzy... only to then be acting all desperate, pleading begging for screens and updates... junkies wanting that next "hit", suffering a mild form of withdrawal. Maybe the new strategy is: the minute ED approves of a module's development for DCS, the announcement is made so that others don't duplicate (this was laid out by an ED moderator last month), show off a few screens showing us what that might look like, but after that, so silent or mostly silent, no idea of timeline or estimated release date. Spark interest, gauge that interest from forum posts, but then don't build massive hype, let people get on with their lives, enjoy the modules you have. Then, when ED is happy with progress, and sees the project finishing up, has met quality control tests, and looks to be soon ready for release or early access... then and only then will they be allowed to release 200 screens, multiple videos, tutorials and so on. Enlist DCS focused "influencers" to promote or review the new module, maybe make tutorials themselves. Or something sorta maybe vaguely a bit like that. As opposed to watching streams of doing full mission profiles... and then silence. For months at a time. Just a few words "yep, still working on it". We as consumers ought to have a little more patience ourselves too, often real world can't match the timelines we would like... I mean, this isn't EA putting out yet another annual sports game for console, with where the budget for marketing swag is many times larger than the entire dev budget for a DCS module... with literal armies of humans to make it all on a super-tight timeline. Ultimately we need to manage our expectations in terms of time required. This notion of "silence = dead" has happened MANY times now for the PC Kiowa project. And each time, after a week or two of no response, people conclude it's dead. And then someone says they heard from one of the devs that it's still being worked on.

Glad to see a new official thread for the excellent mod I highly recommend it

Точно! Причем вращается по крену влево. Не соображу почему. По идее должен развиваться правый крен. Что я предпринял: не гасился до самого нуля скорости и достаточно резким рывком вправо парировал сворачивание по крену после переворота на спину. Помогает появляющаяся разметка тангажа и крена в этот момент. Вроде поровнее стало получаться. Шаг вообще не трогал, и без него хватает приключений). Видео прилагается. Выводы из петель в стиле "ЫЫЫТЬ!" Просто мне удобнее в качестве опорной высоты ввода и вывода использовать землю, поэтому так.

Speriamo di no onestamente [emoji23] Il 339 è stato il nostro primo modulo e siamo passati da essere modder a sviluppatori. Abbiamo incontrato tante difficoltà, nuovi standard qualitativi da rispettare, vecchio codice non adatto all'implementazione con le SDK e per ultimo, decisioni della ED sul lancio commerciale. Col G91 non si ripeterà la stessa cosa in quanto sappiamo già come muoverci qualora dovessimo incontrare ulteriori blocchi di qualsivoglia natura ;) Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

this is a 104S ex Turkish Aviation now used as a gardian gate, unmistakable the finn in the tail typical of the S version

That's why the CR and CT could carrythe dispensers in their armpits: https://www.airliners.net/photo/France-Air-Force/Dassault-Mirage-F1CT/1305896/L Dayum, I'd love to have those dual bomb-racks!

Already did, just didn't have the time to reply proper yet. It is on the list, albeit a slightly lower priority currently, we have a ton of stuff going on as we speak, but hopefully within the next 2 patches or so. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

Strange, I've tested your datafile/mission and it worked fine as a single player mission and after joining the Growling Sidewinder Open Conflict Server (Caucasus) using a Beslan M2K slot. Growling Sidewinder before loading datacartridge - HSI distances are zero and Kneeboard WPT's are empty. Growling Sidewinder after loading datacartridge - • Kneeboard lists 3x WPT's 11 (Beslan), 12 (Kutaisi) and 13 (Turning Point). • DEST 12 selects WPT 12 Kutaisi: the HSI shows the expected bearing (223°M ) and distance (113.8 NM) to Kutaisi All I did was insert the datacartridge, wait for the MIP light to stop blinking and then the cartridge to "self-eject" after another 5 seconds or so. Should I make a video or are you good with using the Mirage's DTC in single player ? This is my datacartridge folder structure for the Mirage. Tested DCS Open Beta 2.7.18.30765

DCS: AH-64D Mini-Update Following some time off, I’d like to update you on current AH-64D tasks and priority tasks following those. Current tasks include: Yaw SAS behavior. Improving Vortex Ring State characteristics. Complete Image Auto-Tracking (IAT) and Multi-Target Tracking (MTT) for the TADS. Complete the Performance (PERF) page. Complete the new Pilot and CP/G models 1st person view. Improved Datalink Modem (IDM) that will include LB Net and the ability to share targeting between AH-64Ds. Additional crew radio messages. Additional external model Levels of Detail (LOD) for improved performance. Continued “George” improvements. "Robbie" fuel tank option. Following the above, priority items include: The Fire Control Radar (FCR) and AGM-114L radar-guided Hellfire. SAS collective channel behavior. Radar altitude hold and altitude hold stability when outside ground effect. Adjust SAS/saturation tones. Uncommanded pitch and roll behavior in some conditions. Please note that the above list is not 100% inclusive, but rather the most important highlights. Kind regards, Wags

Life has been very busy the last year (wow!). I haven't bee able to document progress very well, but progress has been made. The switch layout is on its third and hopefully final iteration. Panel bases have changed from plastic (prototype) into mirror finish aluminum. This is nearing final iteration and will post some more in the coming months. null null