Leaderboard

Long post, but it's important that we get this out of the way now. TLDR: If you get stuck and you think the triggers stopped firing, post a screenshot of the last few lines of the message history menu, and I'm happy to help figure out where it all went wrong. So just a few days after release, MIG Killers is shaping up to be a lot like the Speed & Angels campaign. And I take it as a compliment. It has had 2 kind of players: those who said it was the most realistic experience they had in a flight sim, and it taught them more about flying the Tomcat and military aviation in general than they could ever hope for, and otoh those who gave up after a few missions, blaming the triggers, the AI or the mission design for their poor performance. Just like Speed & Angels, MIG Killers was thoroughly tested by some players and none of them ever got stuck. Ever. You're not flying a Sopwith Camel over no man's land in 1917. I assume you bought MIG Killers because you want to experience what it was like to participate in the first Topgun course ever, in a study level environment. The word study entails paying attention, discipline, and learning. You either play along or you're not gonna have fun. I've already received a lot of suggestions that the mission design is too fragile, or unforgiving, so let me show you how "unforgiving" it is: When your instructor wants you to do an egg, he says: "OK, plug in the blowers and pull, let's point the nose straight up." I need to be able to rely upon you doing that. Straight up means 90 degrees of pitch, yet the next trigger will fire within a cone of 30 degrees of leeway. Surely I can expect you to be within that, you do have an attitude indicator in the cockpit with a large black dot indicating 90 degrees. Just put the thing on the thing. Or Nellis control will hand you off to Indian Springs Tower over nav point PIUTE. But I don't expect the player to overfly it exactly. You need to be within a 4 mile radius circle. That's an 8 mile wide zone. Surely you can hit that? It's not irrationally unforgiving is it? You think real life ATC would give you so much slack? BUT: Some players ignore explicit instructions, or choose to do a stored heading alignment, and due to the INS drift miss PIUTE by 6 miles, failing to double check using TACAN, or just feel like not turning on the landing light today. Everybody has a different 'meh I don't wanna do this', part, so at the end of the day I either make all 500 triggers per mission optional and skippable by introducing another 2000 in each, or you do what the mission tells you. Another example: Fam flight, loop: first the instructor tells you to start pulling up to 15 degrees of AoA. The second trigger fires when you're above 14 units of AoA or, as a failsafe, when you're over 80 degrees of pitch ( you should hit 15 units AoA before 40 degrees if you do it right). The instructor says: "Transition to 15 units of AoA, nice and smooth. Look back up to visually catch the horizon". Then, the next trigger fires as you go over the top, so pitch is between 0 and -60, and 6 seconds after the previous voice over in order not to overlap: Out of burner, let the g-s build up to 5 and keep it there. Then your instructor considers the loop finished 10 seconds after this voice over when you're flying straight and level again, less than 10 degrees pitch and bank. If you do it right, you feel like you have a real life instructor in the backseat coaching you through the maneuver. Very immersive. But if I cannot be sure you're gonna hit these very basic checkpoints throughout the maneuver, all I can do is tell you to go do a loop, and that's it. Not so much fun anymore, is it? Mission building is a very simple equation: the more things/ parameters the designer can assume, the more details they can introduce. The less things I can predict, the less triggers/ stuff I can set up. A free flight will never have so many voice overs because I wouldn't know if the player is doing loops over one place or bombing another. My campaigns are at the very end of this scale in favor of details. This campaign is full of extra "failsafe" triggers, in case the AI messes up, or something doesn't work out, to make sure it still progresses. But it does not, and will not have fail safes for the player ignoring explicit instructions. This campaign carefully explains what you need to do exactly, it has chalkboard drawings, and all the instructions are available in a pdf format under mods/campaigns/ MIG Killers/ doc. If you really must do something, a message will linger on your screen until you do just that. You either play along, or you don't, but it's your call what you make of this campaign. I realize it may have sounded like a rant, it's not. I'm 100% sure that this campaign will make everyone a better and more lethal F-4 pilot, and teach you tons about the Phantom and military aviation in general. I want you to succeed. But you need to do the work to get there, you won't get good by acting like a lawyer and negotiating why you didn't do anything wrong. Bottom line: post that screenshot, I'm here to help.

And here it is... the long awaited CRV(T) replacement... the Ajax. It comes in three outfits: green, two tone and desert. I also added the two tone camouflage to the Boxer AFV in the German asset pack, which now emulates the British Boxer nicely. And I did the same with the M270 GMLRS. I even included the poor little guy getting replaced in the picture.

Made a little video about the Loach:

I agree on your general conclusion. In a perfect scenario I would make the 9M723 more intelligent, it should be able to have waypoints and have more of a ballistic trajectory. Unfortunately DCS is what it is, especially for us modders. I'm glad that I managed to even get the 9M723 working again after the updates that broke all these missile types. Since I can't make the 9M723 better, my only option would be to make the SAM systems less good. And I don't want to make them too bad, since they have more target types than missiles. What I think I will do is this. In my asset packs I have now a very good mix of different era Patriot systems, from the old MPQ54 to the latest LTAMDS, from the old PAC-2 GEM to the newest PAC-3 MSE. I will try to differentiate the versions better from each other. Like in your opening statement "Patriot eat Iskander like piece of cake", you can't really just say Patriot because of the vast different in technology depending on which version of radar and missile you are using. I'm pretty sure a PAC-3 MSE combined with the LTAMDS radar would stand a much better chance of defeating an incoming missile than the old PAC-2 with the MPQ54 radar. I will take this into account in the next updates. In regards to your request of cluster munitions, unfortunately it's not that as easy as you think. If that were the case, I would already have done it. The Smerch MLRS uses a rocket weapon scheme and can't be guided. Using that would make an ever more worse Iskander missile. And since ED recently encrypted all weapon scheme files I can't really research new ways of implementing more modern weapons. We're stuck where we are now. We'll see, the ships are a lot of work, and I will try shorten the development time between releases. Otherwise it'll take me years to get through updates in all packs.

There was a period where the supercarrier was amazing for single-player, but it's always been a crapshoot in MP and now its basic SP functionality is broken too. And NONE of the bug reports that have been filed this year have been acknowledged. Nor have the beta testers bothered to test basic functionality like CASE III in daylight bad weather, or VR mouse interaction in the Airboss slot, before the last few patches and hotfixes.

I added the two tone British camouflage as an option.

Yes. Will display on the HSD in either Full Page or Half Page format. Will be located on the left side of the HSD, ie. 270/15. Will also display a wind barb on the HSD indicated where wind is coming from and what speed. See attached example from a flight I had the other day. Winds were a little spicy.... Not modeled yet in DCS though.

look in the key binding section and bind a key to it.

If it can help: I suggest focusing on the symbology at the bottom of the MFD, the blue caret. Looking at it, it will be evident that in A3/6 it moves freely until it touches the edge of the screen, while in A1 the scan is forcibly shifted, forcing the blue caret to a limited movement. If in A3/A6 the blue caret was able to scan at that angle, there is no logical reason why in A1 it cannot move the scan to that point. Thankyou and take care guys.

I don’t wanna start a battle about who is better. Just keep in mind there is not a single radar operation interception proof about nothing against Islander, just Ukr side telling you stories and showing debris

I’m beginning to wonder what is being tested lately. Apart from our patience with all the stuttering and crashing going on. I was really impressed with what I saw of the carrier before I bought it. When I started to use it I was fresh to doing anything in DCS and spent most of my time in props. I had the jets hangared but after a while I started trying my luck at getting off and then back on the boat. I spent half the night going around in circles trying to hook up properly. I didn’t know enough about it all to realise some of the trouble I was having wasn’t my fault. Had a lot of laughs though. It’s great when it all goes well. Like the devs for it I haven’t been near it in a long time, I should have a go again.

Right Ctrl + [ or ] to walk the Engineer to each station in the Chinook. Just remember you have to hit the 3 key to go to the Engineer. Cool stuff in VR!

They still consistently don't accept aircraft. Its comical at this point.

The SA-11 in DCS World is unique for one reason above all else, in my opinion: it is essentially a Medium-Range SAM that incorporates TELARs. All other Medium-Range SAMs are static (eg HAWK, SA-2) and the SA-6 leans closer to being a Tactical SAM and still uses TELs guided by the STRAIGHT FLUSH anyway. As a mission creator, I would also appreciate having a SAM available that is higher capability than an SA-11, but can still redeploy. Many DCS players are familiar with the SA-10, the S-300PS. However, many may not have heard of a project which arose in tandem for the Soviet Army: the S-300V. I myself had not heard of it until I downloaded the High Digit SAMs mod some time ago. Background Whereas the S-300P met the requirements of the Soviet air defense forces, which only specified faster deployment than the SA-2 in contrast to other requirements with respect to missile tracking and performance, the Soviet army wanted a system that was CBRN-resistant, mounted on treads, and capable of engaging ballistic missiles as well as maneuvering aircraft. They also wanted the S-300 to achieve similar deployment times to the SA-6, being ready for action minutes after coming to a halt. As the Army's requirements differed most significantly from those of the Air Defense Forces and Navy, the S-300V was born: though arising from the same concept and being of the same generation as the SA-10, I think it's accurate to consider the S-300V/SA-12 to be a different beast entirely. The S-300V, and its Chinese counterpart HQ-18, are in service with a handful of countries today including Russia, China, Pakistan, Ukraine, and Iran, with Russian S-300Vs seeing service in Syria. Russia, Egypt and Venezuela use the S-300VM (SA-23), an upgraded version. Left to Right: GLADIATOR TELAR, GIANT TELAR, GRILL SCREEN Radar Implementation into DCS I wish to see all elements of a standard SA-12 battery incorporated: the command vehicle, both GLADIATOR and GIANT TELARS, and all three radar types: GRILL PAN for target tracking and designation, BILL BOARD for general search, and HIGH SCREEN to improve capability against ballistic missiles. The multiple radars is for similar reasons as to why we have BIG BIRD, CLAM SHELL, and TIN SHIELD all available for the DCS SA-10; each have their own specialization and mission creators can set the battery's capabilities in part by incorporating various radars into the system. As these missiles likely have long reload times, I would also like to see the Loader-Launcher vehicles present and perhaps their presence would boost the rearm speed of adjacent TELARs either in or out of their group. The Loader-Launchers could also act as TELs, firing with the assistance of nearby TELARs. There are many SAMs in DCS which would have them but don't - it is unprecedented, and could be perceived as less important for the sake of DCS, so I recognize that as a stretch. The GLADIATOR and GIANT TELARs guide their own missiles to the target semi-actively via the illuminators atop the masts. They receive support from another radar to receive target designations, so a command vehicle and a single radar such as GRILL PAN can orchestrate an engagement against several targets by designating different targets to different TELARs. In turn, the BILL BOARD acts similarly to a BIG BIRD giving large scan volume at the regiment level; and the HIGH SCREEN will focus on ballistic missiles. Some sources say the TELARS cannot engage targets without the GRILL PAN, others say they can; I imagine a DCS incarnation would allow them to but with difficulty, and this behavior is already present on other SAMs in DCS. The range of GLADIATOR is about 35nmi and GIANT about 50nmi. The reality is probably more blurry than that, but nevertheless in DCS it could boast a range greater than older systems such as SA-2 or smaller contemporaries such as SA-11. Its range is said to be roughly on par with the SA-10, although its usage of semi-active missile guidance instead of PESA (as found on FLAP LID) might still manifest some important differences in DCS. Although it was developed with a higher focus on the anti-ballistic missile role than the S-300P was initially, the SA-12 is certainly still very capable against aircraft. Left to Right: HIGH SCREEN ATBM Radar, BILL BOARD Search Radar, GLADIATOR TELAR, GIANT loader-launcher, GRILL PAN Engagement Radar Benefits of Adding the SA-12 to DCS I enjoy the SA-12 featured in the High Digit SAMs mod, but that is a mod. I think there is still significant benefit for the SA-12 being added to the base game, particularly for environments which do not use mods. Having a fourth option for a "long range SAM", with different typical deployments and setups than SA-10, SA-5 and Patriot, would make this SAM unique among the others currently in DCS. In particular, mission editors could tune the system's ability to engage objects at various ranges by adjusting how many GIANT TELARs are in a group. It is also of similar era to the SA-10 and SA-11 so would fit in well for the setting. I could see the SA-12 being of interest due to the new "ARM Evasion" behavior, as this battery could relocate when threatened. In the future Dynamic Campaign, SA-12s would be of interest as they could easily relocate based on the movement of the front lines, and I have no doubt that mission creators could use a relatively mobile strategic SAM system today. While SA-10s could be set up to do this (I believe Eagle Dynamics has said that is the intent for S-300P?) the SA-12 is certainly more oriented to this sort of action, capable of relocating more quickly than an SA-10, and would cover a larger area than the SA-11. Being a tracked system rather than a wheeled system, it can also appear in more austere locations. Lastly, it has been some time since a new SAM was added to the DCS core game - about two years since the SA-5 was added. We've only seen the FIRE CAN + KS-19, technicals with ZU-23-2s, and LPWS C-RAM added since then, and a facelift for the SA-10. All are lovely additions but not as impactful as a new SAM system to fly against. So I think the community would enjoy having a new type of SAM. A GLADIATOR TELAR in the field, in the process of deploying its canisters and radar. Shout-out to Militavia who recently made an excellent video about the origins of the S-300P family and mentioned the S-300V branching from the main S-300 project. So, please consider adding the SA-12 GLADIATOR and GIANT to the DCS Core! Video of the S-300VM during a live-fire exercise:

16 August 2024 Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, We are celebrating the Panavia Tornado’s first flight that took place on the 14th of August 1974. The Tornado was specified in response to the need for a versatile, multi-role tactical fighter that could perform equally well in high speed low-level penetration, reconnaissance, air superiority, and air defence missions. The collaboration between Germany, Italy and the UK, formalized in the late 1960s, was very ambitious and aimed to pool expertise and resources to create an aircraft that would serve multiple NATO air forces and fulfill varied roles. The multinational team worked tirelessly, overcoming linguistic, technical, and bureaucratic barriers, driven by a shared vision of innovation and excellence. AviaStorm have prepared a development progress report on the status of their Tornado for DCS. Please read the details below. Please note that this is your last chance to enter the DCS Screenshot Competition 2024 and submission will close on the 23rd of August at 15:00 GMT. Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics Tornado 50th Anniversary On the 14th of August 1974, in Manching, Germany, the airfield roared to life with the sound of the Tornado taking to the skies for the first time. This marked the culmination of years of rigorous design and engineering efforts by three European nations: The United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy. The Panavia Tornado was destined to redefine modern warfare and aviation for decades. The 50th anniversary of the Tornado's first flight was not just a celebration of a remarkable aircraft, but a commemoration of spirit, innovation, and resilience. It was a reminder that when nations come together with a shared vision, they can achieve extraordinary things. Development Report The last 18 months of work on the flight model has seen the inaccuracies of the transonic aerodynamics resolved. Aviastorm has worked on fully simulating the unique flight characteristics of all wingsweep positions. The module’s aerodynamic model is matched with a detailed recreation of the mighty RB-199 engines which also power the electrical and hydraulic systems. The team have also simulated the generator electrical loads and the hydraulic pressures required to move the flight control surfaces and other mechanical systems. The modeling of the complex flight controls and Control And Stability Augmentation Systems (CSAS) is now the biggest task still remaining to ensure correct aircraft handling, ready for comprehensive flight testing. Accuracy is important to mimic the unique flight performance and characteristics of this complex variable geometry aircraft. The 3D model is also nearing completion and we are delighted to share these work in progress screenshots of the “First flight” Livery. For more updates visit the Aviastorm discord. Screenshot Competition Last chance This is your last chance to enter our DCS Screenshot Competition 2024. Don't miss out on the opportunity to showcase your skill and creativity with the DCS community and win fantastic prizes. Good luck! We look forward to seeing your incredible work. Thank you again for your passion and support, Yours sincerely,

Getting old saying the same thing, but last time. BIND A KEY.

It comes with the mod. on mariannas

Send me £50 and I will provide an excellent vibrating object to keep you happy !!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, therein lies the danger with mods. As wonderful as they are, (and I use lots of them), trying to keep up with ED's changes must be hell on earth for the guys making those mods, never mind the rest of us who just get to play with them. Enormous credit to CH and all the others for the effort, I'm not sure I could do it. BZ Boys ... BZ.

что лучше - видней тому, кто идет по пути, а не тому, кто от него за многие километры)) И напомню, над всем перечисленным работают различные команды внутри одной большой команды. И тот, кто делает окна не сможет асфальт укладывать также хорошо, как предназначенный для асфальта человек. А баги даже в Visual Studio (среда разработки ПО) имеются, не смотря на то, что в компании Майкрософт над этим продуктом работает команда в несколько раз больше, чем вся команда ЕД.. и что?)) теперь это данность для любых сложных продуктов ПО... и мы с ней будем жить. А разочаровываться или нет - это устремление ума человека.. Куда вектор этого устремления, так и воспринимается Мир))

Triggerjo23

Yes its sad, myself and others have repeatedly brought this up .It's supposed to be addressed at some point but who know's when, we might see the second coming of Christ before anything gets done. I figure once they run out of aircraft&helo modules for $ they might update the paint on the carrier so we can see the non working cat's better.

It's awful, I'm fed up with these optimization hacks. It worked very well in the penultimate update and since Ch47 and the Spawn dynamics updates it's been a disaster. I miss the stable version. We spend more time making adjustments than flying.

fisadev

WIPs. Targeting to upload next week. Like my other skins I'll have configs for blank fuel tanks and ED's default tanks.

Just a minor bug in the CAT I Limiter. The blended AOA feedback bias used in the g-command system is not correct for the FLCS version we had. According to Figure 3.1 Longitudinal Control Block Diagram from the DTIC paper 'F-16 Simulator for Man-in-the-Loop Testing of Aircraft Control Systems (SIMTACS)' (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA189675), the AOA bias used for an initial g-command reduction should be 15.8, but not 15.0 as currently is in DCS. This results in a lower AOA limit than expected. The figure is also backed up by the publicly available FLCS flashcard (https://quizlet.com/309832047/flcs-flash-cards/), which states that the G command system decreases available G when AOA > 15.8 (CAT I). The current 15.0 bias is seems to be used by a very old version of FLCS. 16CM g-command should not be reduced until 15.8 AOA.trk

GAMBIT76

@Lekaa How to adapt the current version (Release 202401.01) of CTLD work with dynamic slots. (Will only work with players. Will not work with AI if you change this) Regular slots will also automatically receive CTLD menu if the unit type is in the "ctld.allowedTransportAircraftType" table. 1. Download the CTLD version above. 2. Edit CTLD function : function ctld.getGroupId(_unit) Search for it with your favorite notepad program. This to circumvent the MIST DB lookup. Dynamics slots will not exist in the MIST DB. Change to look like this: function ctld.getGroupId(_unit) if _unit ~= nil then local _group = _unit:getGroup() if _group ~= nil then local _groupid = _group:getID() return _groupid end end return nil end 3.Add this to the very end of the CTLD lua fil : -- WG Dynamic Helicopters ctld.dynSpawnLog = false function ctld.findValue(checkArray, checkName) for currentIndex = 1, #checkArray do if checkArray[currentIndex] == checkName then return true end end end function ctld.findIndexOfValue(checkArray, checkName) for currentIndex = 1, #checkArray do if checkArray[currentIndex] == checkName then return currentIndex end end end ctld.allowedTransportAircraftType = { "UH-1H", "Mi-8MT", "Mi-24P", "CH-47Fbl1", } ctld.ClientHandler = {}; function ctld.ClientHandler:onEvent(event) if (world.event.S_EVENT_BIRTH == event.id) then local BIRTHclient = event.initiator if BIRTHclient == nil then return -- error! end local _redPlayers = coalition.getPlayers(1) local _bluePlayers = coalition.getPlayers(2) local _validPlayer = false for i = 1, #_bluePlayers do if BIRTHclient == _bluePlayers[i] then local _group = Unit.getGroup(_bluePlayers[i]) local _groupname = _group:getName() local _groupid = _group:getID() if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info(' -- ctld - _bluePlayers - _groupname: ' .. _groupname .. ' - _groupid: ' .. _groupid) end _validPlayer = true end end for i = 1, #_redPlayers do if BIRTHclient == _redPlayers[i] then local _group = Unit.getGroup(_redPlayers[i]) local _groupname = _group:getName() local _groupid = _group:getID() if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info(' -- ctld - _redPlayers - _groupname: ' .. _groupname .. ' - _groupid: ' .. _groupid) end _validPlayer = true end end if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info(' -- ctld _bluePlayers - count ' .. #_bluePlayers) env.info(' -- ctld _redPlayers - count ' .. #_redPlayers) end if _validPlayer then if (BIRTHclient:getGroup() ~= nil) then local BIRTHgroup = BIRTHclient:getGroup() local BIRTHgroupname = BIRTHgroup:getName() local BIRTHgroupId = BIRTHgroup:getID() -- local BIRTHunitname = Group.getByName(BIRTHgroupname):getUnit(1):getName() local BIRTHunitname = BIRTHclient:getName() local BIRTHfortype = Unit.getByName(BIRTHunitname) if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info('--- BIRTHunitname Name: ' .. BIRTHunitname) end brithClientName = BIRTHclient:getPlayerName() if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info('--- Birth Player Name: ' .. brithClientName) end if brithClientName ~= nil then local BIRTHtype = BIRTHfortype:getTypeName() if (ctld.findValue(ctld.transportPilotNames, BIRTHunitname)) ~= true then if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info('__--__ CTLD Dynamic Spawn - Unit Name not in ctld.transportPilotNames : ' .. BIRTHunitname .. ' - GID: ' .. BIRTHgroupId ) end if (ctld.findValue(ctld.allowedTransportAircraftType, BIRTHtype )) == true then if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info('__--__ CTLD Dynamic Spawn - Unit type : ' .. BIRTHtype ) end table.insert(ctld.transportPilotNames, BIRTHunitname) end else if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info('__--__ CTLD Dynamic Spawn - Unit Name found in ctld.transportPilotNames : ' .. BIRTHunitname ) end if (ctld.findValue(ctld.allowedTransportAircraftType, BIRTHtype )) ~= true then if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info('__--__ CTLD Dynamic Spawn - Removing - Unit type : ' .. BIRTHtype ) end local pilotIdx = ctld.findIndexOfValue(ctld.transportPilotNames, BIRTHunitname) if ctld.dynSpawnLog == true then env.info('__--__ CTLD Dynamic Spawn - Removing - Unit name : ' .. ctld.transportPilotNames[pilotIdx] ) end table.remove(ctld.transportPilotNames, pilotIdx) end end end end end end end world.addEventHandler(ctld.ClientHandler) Hope this helps until a possible new version of CTLD is released.

All of those were filmed in action with real humans, not AI and no editing Username: Galki3

Daily MiG-29 Russian 9.51

https://lco.global/spacebook/sky/using-angles-describe-positions-and-apparent-sizes-objects/ The human finger tip covers about 1º to 1,5º. The moon has 31 arcminutes or 1/2°. If the VR hand is in proper scale, it is possible that it can be off by a little too for usability, DCS seems correct. You can try to photograph the moon at 1x at any day of the year, the results will always be mediocre if the composition doesn't ask for a tiny satellite. Been there, done that.

Il mio sogno e un g.55 O un mc205 Ma purtroppo volere e dovere a volte non coincidono.

I saw something similar to this recently. Was only getting it in track replays and SP content. Turned out after deleting the OH-6 mod, I still had mod .lua files leftover in the savedgames>DCS>Scripts>Hooks folder. Deleted the leftover mod .lua files (the loaches AI gunner hook lua can cause issues iirc) and that sort of stutter disappeared. I will say though anecdotal, I've seen lots of user reports of increased memory usage since the Afghan patch (2.9.6.57650) I think as well. I know the patch notes did list changes to the terrain render tech, so it could be related.

It's worked,thanks bro!

It is, in fact wrong. The NORMAL shutdown procedure does require the APU and APU generator. But the APU/APU GEN do not need to be running to shut the engines down. This can be proven with some logic, as the emergency engine shutdown procedure does not task the pilot with starting the APU first. The APU is started primarily to maintain electrical power and flight control hydraulics during the shutdown. The FADEC system uses a built in alternator to power the FADEC in a complete loss of power. So shutting down with no APU generator the pilot should see a complete loss of electrical power, around 85% rotor rpm, with the battery remaining as the only source of electrical. The engine shutdown should still proceed normally, as the FADEC powers itself, even without a battery installed ***. In real life, the FADEC primary stepper motors can not completely close the fuel valves. The FADEC backup system (reversionary mode) secondary stepper motors are the only way to completely stop fuel during shutdown. Therefore FADEC backup power MUST be on, or the engines will receive enough residual fuel to damage the engine, and keep the rotors spinning at a low but steady speed. This is why with a FADEC primary failure, the procedure to shutdown the engines includes pulling the "fire pull" handle. I haven't had an opportunity to test it, but ensuring the FADEC backup power is on, would be the obvious fix to the OP, if the system is accurately modeled Will do some testing and report back. To the other point raised about rotor coast down time: as is, it is unrealistically long. *** Anecdotes: Through a comedy of errors, I watched this FADEC phenomenon unfold twice. The first was a junior PC who torched an engine on shutdown with a primary FADEC failure. The command grounded him, and threatened to hold him financially liable for the entire 1.2 million dollar price tag. Not joking. At the time we had no procedure for this and assumed the primary system could shut down the engine just fine. Why wouldn't it? I dug up the Service Bulletin Boeing had sent the Army detailing the problem, the Army never implemented, and he was off the hook. Two days later an Army wide pen and ink change to the checklist came down, creating an entirely new emergency procedure - Engine shutdown with a FADEC light. The other, a neighboring crew chief had "borrowed" his neighbors battery without informing the crew. Their bird sprung a hydraulic leak, and upon performing an emergency engine shutdown, they lost all power to include the missing battery power, and therefore intercom. All would have been fine, except they missed turning the FADEC backup power on during runup. Both engines glowed red hot for about ten minutes with the rotors continually turning, maybe 5-15 rpm. We eventually dispatched our crewchief to go pull their manual fuel shutoff handles, as the pilots were baffled up front, and focused why the now inoperative fire pull handles weren't helping. Their flight engineer almost certainly knew what to do, but without an intercom, he had no idea what was happening.

According to the log-analyzer over on the ED discord, you still have the remnants of a lot of mods in your Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\ folder.

If you ask James Brown, it is a Mans world. But today, it is a Woman's Army!

IDK, some of the critique is too harsh. Sure, the MiG-21 is a very old module, some things are simulated in a wrong way, some bugs are there, and I sure as hell want a completely new MiG-21 2.0 that is done right to the DCS standard. No, I cannot fly ARC approaches with it, which is a bummer. But RSBN works reasonably well on Caucasus (taking the bugs in the system into account), and I highly doubt that the Syrians or the Egyptians had RSBN and PRMG at all, correct me if I'm wrong though. But: Of all the MiG-21s we have in DCS, this one is certainly the best. Petitions certainly won't change anything. We're stuck with what we have, unless another developer with more manpower and expertise takes up MiGs. With the RB MiG-23 dead for good, I put my hopes on the ED MIG-29...

Overcast and Rain 3 is the closest thing to IMC we can get, but there are weird clear pockets that move with the wind. We need a true Overcast and Rain preset that is 100% IMC everywhere.

I was working on installation automation and it was easier if I had an official release on GitHub. So there's now an official, pre-1.0 release!

They then later changed it to be either a Whiskey or a Sierra model because that poll suggested thats what everyone would appreciate the most. An updated Whiskey model with the new 4 bladed rotors and flat engine exhaust would be the most appreciated in our current DCS world quite frankly.

And beyond… I shouldn’t laugh. I paid for it too.

One of the most awaited modules for me!

New campaign - DCS: F-4 MIG Killers Campaign by Reflected Simulations DCS World Rearm Refuel weights do not update correctly in the interface window - fixed Weapons. incorrect bomb fuze visuals being displayed in some cases - fixed Weapons. AGM-86D almost indestructible - fixed Launcher. Modules card, non-format screenshots- fixed Launcher. Files page refactoring GUI. Lag and Performance issues in certain cases at “Select Role” screen - optimizations are added we expect it to mitigate the issue and we are working on more fixes for it Cargo. If player despawn while carrying cargo, cargo then do not drop on the ground - fixed Cargo. Dynamic cargo can be created when in flight - fixed SP. Loading Debriefing Error “Can not open debriefing file” if player name has single quote in it - fixed Aircraft qty is not returned to warehouse if taken through dynamic slot and user closed DCS without releasing slot - fixed Player score in SP Missions not being registered - fixed EVENT_KILL and onGameEvent('kill') are doubling - fixed Controls input being active while user work with text field in Select Role screen or Route Tool resulting in controls input bindings being registered - fixed MP. Regular slot not being released on server side if user switched from it straight to dynamic slot - fixed MP network protocol changed Known issues: DCS window can blink in simulation when GUI scale 1.25 is used (also for example ESC menu or Input assignment window) DCS: F-16C Viper by Eagle Dynamics Fixed: RWS target symbols no longer show altitude when cursor is hovering over it DCS: UH-1H Huey by Belsimtek Corrected rockets placement in XM158 launcher DCS: CH-47F by Eagle Dynamics CH-47 Crash while entering ICAO code in DIR mode CDU - fixed IA missions update DCS: Sinai Map by OnReTech Northern Israel returned Fixed airfield model LOD Fixed viaduct near Cairo

Who knows at this point, I was very excited about this module but Im finding it more frustrating over time. AI does not follow any real life procedures for departures and arrivals, comms are still simplified at best. They deployed the airboss station which I opened checked out and closed likely to never use again unless I join a squad. I think the priorities are just not aligned with actually flying aircraft from the boat. At this point if they dropped the yellow shirt directors and just completed accurate flight ops near the boat and comms I would be happy. If they added fire fighters, brown shirts as placeable static objects, and implemented a functional barricade I would be elated.

Dutch is welcome as well

Absolute nonsense.

Dear all, With the next DCS: AH-64D update, we will be releasing the RMAP mode for the Fire Control Radar (FCR). Due to illness and time limitations, I was unable to create an instruction video for it. My apologies, as it's a very interesting features that a lot of time has gone into. In the meantime, please find attached a section of the DCS: AH-64D Guide pertaining to this new feature. Kind regards, Wags DCS AH-64D FCR RMAP Mode.pdf

roobarbjapan. vVF-142. Dakota 1 heading out on CAP.