GumidekCZ

I managed to fix this by my self, but other users may be don't want to messup with Lua scripts.

Sadly, no one find this before A-10C II was released and same issue is now copied from old A-10C :(

I found yellow commands in conflict in A-10C Control setup: Boat switch Pinky switch Left Ignition Problem is located probably there: Throttle - HOTAS Warthog.lua ED please make fix as soon as practical , thanks.

Shilka dont have in real world any rangefinder and cant lock radar on ground vehicles, so the firing solution reticle is a science ficition feature, that must be deleted from game.

Still there:( confusing, because of that I sometimes accidently neighbor FLIR switch from STBY to OFF, instead of ON. Than Need to wait for TGP countdown again :mad:

As title says, I have problem to setup bomb ripple QTY, INT, MULT setttings via Editor Sript. I know that some buttons needs more time than just click to be activated (some UFC buttons), but also with that knowledge Im unable to set via UFC bomb settings. Now it goes like this: UFC bomb ripple menu shows and QTY option slected, but just after selection before actual number of bombs is added, the UFC menu dissapears and the bomb release number is pressed into blank UFC :doh: I really dont know where the fault is, could be BUG also.. Here is the mission with script in it. Please if you can try to find my mistake or confirm the bug, I would be very very glad.:thumbup: ___SAT_10LAHD_Gumidek.miz

I made a research mission with single L-39 flying about 1,5km around battle position of all types of ZU-23 present in game. The result was stoning! How AI is precise and accurate, be able to shoot down something flying with easy maneuver 1,5km away at 700kph. Bullets flying in close vicinity of airframe and with bullet dispersion, there is very good chance that couple of them will hit. If the L-39 will be shot down or not, is not aim of this discussion. Than I made my another mission, where I added Shilka and Vulcan, by this mission I proved with my friends, that Shilka and Vulcan has only slightly better chance to shoot L-39 down (taking account better rate of fire). The thing is that Human with only optical sight can barely estimate range and even worse speed and lead angle. I studied sensors.lua DCS script and found the source of problem. Very accurate coefficient for human gunners without range finder and without radar guidance. WSN_3.deviation_error_azimuth = 0.001 - inaccuracy of 1m at range of 1000m - would be very good result on static target of good shooter equipped with laser range finder to calculate ballistic drop. But, overall inaccuracy is combination of all 5 coefficient down in lua script. And there comes into equation the speed of the target: WSN_4.deviation_error_speed_sensor = 0.2 - sadly I don’t know, how big inaccuracy will this value give us, but I know, that only after I changed this to value around 0.4, I started to observe reasonable aiming skills of trained army soldier. Well, OK, but what about Insurgents? They are very well know shooting on something far beyond effective weapon range without any skills. Yes, DCS need to be simple, and that’s why he shoot same way as his well trained friend from army. What about stability of ZU-23 system mounted on vehicle? We all know the pickup trucks can almost flip over :lol:, WSN_3.deviation_error_stability = 0.04 ... when comparing ZU-23 on ground and mounted on truck I was not able to recognize any difference, even when raised this value to 0.4 (x10). How should result look like at the end? ZU-23 able to shot down helicopter, but chance of hit or even to shot down plane needs to very very low. By thinking now, new parameter raised in my mind. Target Angular Speed around all three axes of ZU-23. Less speed = better chance to hit. Could this be already existing parameter WSN_3.deviation_error_speed_sensor = 0.2? I gues that not. Will add my mission with track later today.

What about to search steep ramps and other geo errors with position given by coordinates and post them all here for Caucasus or for other map to section of the forum according to its developer? Lets call this "Ramp Hunt Competition", the guy who will send most of it will be awarded by DCS B-2 module. ED team will have than "easy" job to repair all founded.

Hello devs, I tried to search any info about current state of Hornets CBU-99 and Mk-20 development (corrected type of fuze and HOF fuze setting, timing settings), but without any luck, there plenty of Hornet's players discussion on forum , but non official statement. Like here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=217264 Can you please help me to receive an official answers about development of FMU-140 and MK-339 fuzes? Thanks very much.

Screenshot from that mission I send to Martin2487. Only Osa and Tor columns was able to detect.

I have to ask forum admins same question, Why wishlist? I created this thread to get answers on things included in DCS World, I didn't wish anything new. Believe me, if wanted to, it would be long list, but then we will need 2 computers to run DCS. If the hunger for answers also counts as wish, please ED, make my asks answered please.

Finally an answer, which make at least some insight into one of my points. Thanks AeriaG

Any response from any ED team member? They must be really busy these days.

OMG :megalol::lol: I just peed myself. They took MiG-21 design and added some of F-16 design, blended together with redesigned engine intakes + nose and you call it "no comparison"? This way I can say, that our Czech Aero L-159T2 Alca has no comparison on field of light attack and training jet planes, just because it was finished two years ago.

This should be our evidence and proof to jet plane lowest RCS value of 3.0 (shared with Viggen and MiG-21)??? Did PAF measure detection with all these airframes clean without loadout, or a similar one? We all know that loadout makes huge impact. M2000C now have RCS 5.0 in DCS. As a Mirage DCS pilot, I would be disappointed when compared with JF17. Just because somebody (PAF pilot may be) said some think, without trying to find a proof or evidence in even very simplistic measurement. I heard, that ED devs are discussing some of DEKA given performances to adjust its level to be at least believable. Hope ED will do good job in it.

Show us real picture supporting your statement. Behind WOODEN nosecone there is always radar antenna and behind it aluminium plate again, both perfect for reflecting radar engergy back to enemey radar. I have picture from MiG-21 service, and except of fibergalss antenna covers all around the plane, there is NON of compisite material. Now back to JF-17 RCS topic.

Im sorry to hijack this topic and noticing SD-10 missile here, was a big mistake. Also I edited my original post and added

Edited because missing = absolut irelevant to RCS = will help reduce RCS only from frontal direction edit:like 20° azimuth (as I already written) ? Weak up from your dream boy! Some minor panels may be made from composite + part of vertical stabilizer and nose cone from fiberglass. All other parts mostly from Alu and Steel. Watch the pictures from links: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4102558&postcount=704 https://defence-blog.com/news/assembly-line-of-pakistani-jf-17-block2-fighters.html :lol: :doh: edit: Same as SD-10 are ultimately better missiles than any other in DCS :mad: Almost every member of any nation which build or participated on production of a fighter jet, will claim his fighter is the best. If you can't step aside and look on design objectively, than do not try to at all.

Why JF-17 has three quarters of F-16 RCS? Any evidence for it? They are same size. If have better covered engine intake blades, but there it end. F16 has better designed clean engine outlet, lower RCS from from any angle than from front - JF has circular shape of fuselage, not very good if compare with sleaky Viper. From my point of view, they need to have same RCS value.

Just try to keep vertical limit of all screens same for all screen used for DCS and export screens. Exported mfds will be ok, but 800x600 was only good to resolution for old Flanker sim :D

Reported many many times before, now still status of [REPORTED] still waiting to be solved, but more important things has higher priorities. All text font and readability is about different screen vertical resolution used for MFD exports and primary DCS screen. Mine main screen has 1200 vertical and secondary MFD screen has 1080 - results in non-readable exports. When editing text lua scripts, than its affecting text on main screen. This is very annoying and should be resolved with high priority. When I downsized main screen vertical to 1080 to match secondary screen used for MFD export, than everything is OK, except low vertical resolution on main screen. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=226340&highlight=fuzzy

I hate FB, I delete my profile like 4 years ago and Im glad I did that.

RAZBAM, hello, ... wake UP! Can you please tell us what protection systems on Tarawa we have today and when we can expect to other RW defence systems like RIM-116 and mK 36 decoy launching system will be implemented? https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lha-1-up.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile

Ability to achieve with MiGs delta wing as much as 20 degree according to real pilots, not possible. Maximum is around 15 degree which is even less than F-5 without delta. We want this fixed more than any other bugs or external 3d model or textures. Edit: Delete this post, found how to achieve such high AoA without big problems.

This is true only as your speed is decreasing. Initialy after touchdown, there should be ground/cushion effect present. As far as Im aware of most of DCS modules, no one simulates this effect and if, than incorectly (example Hornets inverted ground effect which will drag you down into ground). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aerodynamics)