Gecky

I've stopped playing because of this, It's terrible

this prevented me from going to beta, and now it's in stable too. it's fugly, I've stopped playing

2 tracks, both landing in the same flat field in Crimea, both aircraft no weapons, 40% fuel. no use of brakes. The A10 didnt even damage steering BTW. A10 field landing.trk Su25 field landing.trk

Ok, sorry for using "off-road" unable to think of a better word better word, "off pavement" handling is more of what I meant. Also the Su-25 manual says it was designed for "unimproved" strips rather than "unprepared". So maybe I got a bit enthusiastic there in what I wanted to ask for, but still in the state it is in now it is relatively more fragile than other aircraft, which can't be accurate for what this plane is supposed to be. Definitely the gear modeled now is incapable of the takeoff in the video and picture I supplied in the first post

This has probably been discussed already, but I just want to express my frustration in the brittleness of the landing gear of the Su-25 / Su-25T and its inability to move over grass even when empty. My frustration in it is compounded by the fact that the real plane is even designed to have tougher than normal landing gear and was was specifically required the ability to take off/land in ill prepared dirt/grass fields by Russian Air Force as a front line attack aircraft (along w/ the ability to run on diesel). It would have been less frustrating if it were made to be just the same with other DCS aircraft, but as it is now we have to deal w/ the fact that it probably even has the most fragile landing gear in the entire sim. If you fall off the narrow taxiways in a Su-25 (due to lag or for whatever reason), it's almost impossible to get back on without breaking your nose wheel steering and blowing a tire (having to repair or respawn). This is if you can even get back, as it gets stuck in the grass regardless of weight! I just tested this in the grass beside the Gudauta runway: a Su-25T w/ no weapons, 50% fuel wouldn't budge even at full throttle and wiggling the front wheel. The Mig-29 seems even better modeled for it, which defies logic just looking at those tires compared to the extra fat ones on the Su-25. If you do get it at speed over grass, it currently also has one of the worse off-road ability in DCS. In DCS landing a Su-25/T on grass or getting out of pavement at speed is suicide (even in the flattest, most even grass beside a runway)). I'm surprised to find out by accident in an online server yesterday that I am even able to land on the grass beside the runway in the A-10 with minimal damage, despite its evidently flimsier gear (I haven tested what other aircraft could do this). In this video: a SM3 frogfoot is shown to clearly have this ability, with the bounce in the landing gear even suggesting that this is a much less even surface than the typical grass strips for small aircraft in flying clubs. I think this issue really betrays the character of this aircraft. In the internet, I even spotted this picture: https://preview.redd.it/fjya7i4rkl731.jpg?width=524&format=pjpg&auto=webp&34c0f4c0 which really gives the nickname "frogfoot" justice. If the DCS frogfoot will be more accurately modeled in this aspect I think it would be a perfect balancer for the aircraft which is already handicapped to begin with (having no air radar, no afterburner, and minimal A2A ability). If it could take off and land in at least the flattest grassy areas in the map, and rearm/refuel in FARPS, it would certainly introduce a welcome (and realistic) added dimension especially in online play. BTW I have many aircraft in DCS but find myself often going back to the frogfoot because it is where I started and have much love for what humble airplane it is. I am very thankful that it (and other FC3 planes) have received some attention in the last updates.

Hi. After a long discussion with members of a multiplayer group, this is what agreed upon as a feature that will enable creation of a balanced scenario without affecting accessibility. For example if we want to create a pre-1991 "cold war" scenario, we wish to be able to filter out post-1991 weapons (no JDAMs, AMRAAMs, JSOWs, AIM-9X, R77, late Mavericks variants), while still allowing use of F18C lot 20 and F16CM. We think that such an option being separate from the current aircraft/equipment historical filter is important because we want to still maximize access for users with only one or a few aircraft, and in the example given, both aircraft (FA18C, F16CM) happen to be extremely popular aircraft so banning them will really affect a server's population. It might need to be implemented as a mission option instead rather than a per unit filter as with the current historical filter because the restriction needs to carry over to the in-mission reload options. Also, in the same example given, both aircraft were in service anyway before 1991 albeit in earlier versions, and we think that the weapons restriction will suffice to simulate that. We think a pre-1991 cold war scenario w/ F18s that carry only Fox-1s, GBUs & Mavericks is still more realistic than the current ones which completely ban them. I know many servers implement ways to achieve the same, such as banning certain weapons in the server rules, imposing weapon quantity limits etc., but an ME option will make it a lot easier for scenario makers and will promote uniformity. And again on being a separate option to the aircraft filter - If a scenario maker needs to completely eliminate an aircraft from the usable options (e.g. JF-17, or a future Eurofighter from a cold war scenario) it's easier to just not put them there to begin with, rather than try to separately implement a weapons filter from a single filter that filters both aircraft and weapons. PS We know it is difficult if not impossible to model newer redfor aircraft and systems (such as Su-30SM, Glonass guided bombs) because of restrictions, that's why we think a feature like this can really make more balanced interesting scenarios/events and actually save gameplay from falling into the typical >70% flying hornets and spamming each other w/ amraams and JSOWS

couldn't quite make it happen today. I really wonder now what was causing it then (the SU-25s taxiing before my flight of MiGs). Anyway, am I correct to say that Triple Buffering should not even be doing anything to DCS since it's nor OpenGL?

Ive taken note of the suggestions here, Thanks! will produce the tracks (granting this will happen again, will also inform if my conclusion is false). Sorry that I had limited PC hours this week..

I want to do this to the second screen of an omen x 2s, just keep it focused on one part of the cockpit like the skval scope on the Su25T

it doesnt seem to be happening anymore since 2.5.6

Weird observation i was able to replicate many times when experimenting with fast sync and vsync. I was using a mission in "over the hump" Mig29S campaign (the 2nd I think) where there is a flight of Su-25T that will conduct SEAD against SA-11s to test for smoothness of the settings. For some strange reason the Su-25s move and taxi ahead of my flight (causing collisions with my wingmen too) when Im on normal vsync and without triple buffering (triple buffering off). when in fast sync or vsync+triple buffer, they behave as supposed to, taxiing only after my flight. I've replicated it again and again for half a day, and they keep doing it only in normal vsync w/ triple buffer off. I honestly don't understand how this happens

I can't find anything similar reported, but this one is rather easy to replicate. Fire a few unguided rockets (don't expend all) then go straight to A2A mode and lock on to something. When you fire, the sidewinders fire like rockets - instantly, no button holding required, and in pairs too. sometimes one sidewinder kills the other. it's funky. Could be avoided by going to nav mode from A2G before going to A2A.

Yeah! Thank you, I thought no one would ever do this for me! So it is the same one. The only other campaign I finished is Mig 29 "the hump"

I noticed just today that it is actually there in the edge but your face will have to be a lot closer to the HUD than the cockpit default position to see it, which is pretty hard for somebody with no IR tracker or VR like me. Yea, this could be a bug

Can somebody please be so kind to post (or PM me, so as not to spoil it for others) a screenshot of the Su-25T Georgian campaign win picture and message? I just finished the last mission with near 100 success rate, but the loading forever bug happened when I ended it. I just found out the campaign is done when I restarted DCS, and I feel like I didn't get the full sense of achievement / satisfaction out of it having missed the win message and pic. Those 23 missions were pretty grueling, a few times I got home with one or even both engines out. This would really be a great big favor for me. Stats Missions: 23 Deaths: 0 Success rate: 98 AG kills: 338 AA kills: 2

was about to ask about this too, I found that 3 tanks had minimal advantage over 2 wing tanks in ferry range though. the drag I guess. 3 tanks only increased range by 100km when doing 500ktas at 35000 ft. (2000km 2 tanks vs. 2100km w/ 3 tanks)

AI Mig-29s can open airbrake even with centerline tanks

I found the override to work, but a bit rough and might need work. The moment you release it it seems to initially want to snap back to the original hold attitude, and takes a few seconds before it corrects the trim to the new desired attitude. It costs a bit too much energy from the aircraft sometimes, especially when cruising in thin air above 35k feet

Hi guys, it's my first post. I have an inquiry about the Mig-29 radar and HUD display. I'm not sure though how accurate this would be in relation to the to the real aircraft since I'm really just an infantryman and only a pilot in DCS. Also please tuck this in into another thread if it should belong there, but so far I had no luck searching for something related. Here's the concern: I noticed that the Mig-29 lacked any steering indicator for a radar or IRST target that is outside the HUD. I find this rather hard to deal with in BVR mode where the target aircraft is indeed BVR, in a dogfight where I am losing sight of a nimble target that still am somehow able to track somewhere above my HUD using the "3"mode, or simply during bad visibility or weather. I find myself prone to losing radar lock on the targets as they move out of radar limits, as I am guessing where to point my nose at. I really don't know if such feature is present in the real airplane, but I just thought it might be. With the free trial, i found that even the F-5 has a steering cue in its radar scope which helps the pilot steer to the target and get it within seeker limits even in the dark/bad weather. I imagine in the Mig-29 HUD it should be a diamond or circle (whichever mode) with an "X" in the edge of the HUD indicating where the tgt is, something similar that in the SU-25T HUD when an ELINT pod target that outside the HUD. I'm not sure if everyone will agree but I think I think the radar would really be a more useful with this. I also did notice though that it's a very basic radar that doesn't even have vector marks for targets during search mode, so please also correct me if such feature really doesn't exist in the real Mig. BTW like others I also noticed how the Mig-29 doesn't have waypoint no. indicators, and read somewhere here that this may be a bug that will be fixed. That prompted me to write this, thinking it might also just be something inadvertently omitted. To ED guys, the FC3 Mig-29 is still such a superbly modeled airplane in my opinion BTW, and is my favorite aircraft in the game because of its simplicity and because it complements the SU-25T in my "budget air force". I also wish we could get an "M"or "K"model someday. Thanks!