SlipHavoc

You might find this video useful: I haven't personally verified what's shown in here, but it looks like it covers most of the yaw stuff.

As I said, not really an extremely high priority. But what can I say, I like saving time. Also, the CFTs are used up first as far as I know, so unless you're running deep into the internal tanks, most of the time you're refueling, it's at the slower 1,900 lbs/min rate.

Thanks! Not really an extremely high priority IMO, but just something that I've been curious about for a while, so it was interesting to run it down. That said, it *would* be cool if the F-15E refueled at the same overall rate as everything else...

Hm. And yet, it definitely takes almost 10 minutes to refuel 22,588 lbs, and not 8m41s. So I took a screenshot every minute and here's the results: Time - Fuel - Amount filled during last minute 0m - 200 - 0 1m - 2,800 - 2,600 2m - 5,400 - 2,600 3m - 8,000 - 2,600 4m - 10,600 - 2,600 5m - 13,100 - 2,500 6m - 15,000 - 1,900 7m - 16,900 - 1,900 8m - 18,700 - 1,800 9m - 20,600 - 1,900 10m - 22,400 - 1,800 Internal fuel is about 13,100 lbs, so it looks like it fills the internal fuel at 2,600 lbs/min, same as other airplanes, but it only fills the CFTs at 1,900 lbs/min. So the average refueling rate ends up at around 2,300 lbs/min. So the question is, should the CFTs fill that slow? Or is that correct?

Several types of bombs look like they're tilted too far down when they're on the rear CFT pylons. The rear shackle and the aft part of the pylon is actually clipped into the bomb, and in some cases the bomb fins are clipped into the CFT as well. Affected bombs: All Mk-84s and variants: -84 slick, -84 AIR, GBU-10 Mk-84 AIR GBU-10 Mk-20 Rockeye CBU-87/97 Bombs that appear to be correct: All Mk-82s and variants: -82 slick, -82 AIR, -82 Snakeye, GBU-12, and training variants Some pictures attached. Pic 1 shows the Mk-84 AIR and GBU-10 fins clipping into the CFT, pic 2 shows the shackle and pylon clipping into the bomb. The rear pylons are tilted in real life, which gives everything mounted on those pylons a kind of odd-looking downward orientation, but not this much.

Regarding #1 only (rate of refueling), I tested this a couple days ago and again tonight, and I got 2,285 lbs/min. Started with an empty, dry F-15E on the ramp, cold and dark. Max internal fuel weight according to the Mission Editor is 22588 lbs. On start, immediately went to comms menu, ground crew, rearm/refuel, selected 100% fuel. Fueling started at about 19 seconds into the mission. Fueling ended at about 10m12s. That's 9m53s total, or 593 seconds, so that's 38.09 lbs/sec or 2,285 lbs/min. Track file is attached. I tested several other planes a couple days ago (F-14B, F-16, F-18, and Harrier) and found all of them were just over 2,600 lbs/min. If the F-15E refueled at 2,600 lbs/min, it should take about 8m41s to refuel, but it definitely takes longer than that. If you land on fumes you almost might as well spawn a new one, because startup only takes about 4 mins... F-15E refueling speed test.trk

How did you get the unguided rockets to be intercepted? I tried shooting unguided rockets at a SA-15 from both a Harrier and an Apache, and it didn't shoot at them. How did you set up your test?

There's always a balance between fidelity on the one hand, and programmer time and effort on the other.

Just from a quick browse through the Quaggles datamine (assuming that's accurate of course), here are a few that don't have a "reflection" value: https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/Durandal.lua https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/GBU_24.lua https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/GBU_31.lua https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/GBU_31_V_2B.lua https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/GBU_31_V_3B.lua https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/GBU_31_V_4B.lua https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/GBU_32_V_2B.lua https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/GBU_54_V_1B.lua https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/LS-6-100.lua https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/bombs/Mk_84AIR_GP.lua I'm sure there are others. A developer with direct access to these files should, I think, pretty easily be able to find which ones have a "reflection" value. I may need to revisit the script I made to automatically extract data from the datamine though, to make questions like this easier to answer... Then there is the question of the APKWS, which being much smaller than even a Hellfire, let alone a 1000 lb bomb, seems like it should have a smaller RCS, but it's "reflection" value is 0.04, and the SA-15 engages it: https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/missiles/AGR_20_M282.lua And the BRM-90 (laser guided rocket carried by the JF-17) is 0.05, so the SA-15 should shoot at it as well, although I haven't tested that one specifically yet. https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/missiles/BRM-1_90MM.lua Are those the correct values for these small rockets? I also see that none of the Hydra rockets seem to have a "reflection", e.g. https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/nurs/HYDRA_70_M151.lua I will try to test this afternoon to see if the SA-15 will engage the unguided Hydra rockets, or maybe it's still coded to ignore those... Edit: SA-15 doesn't seem to engage unguided Hydras.

It looks like there might be other incorrect or missing RCS values for various weapons; will those be updated as well?

Looking through Quaggles datamine, there seem to be quite a few bombs that don't have a "reflection" value, but most missiles seem to. So far, that value does agree with the results we're seeing in game. I noticed that the SA-15 doesn't engage Hellfires (although I think it used to before this patch), and they have a reflection value of 0.3, but it does engage APKWS rockets, which don't have a reflection value and so presumably use the default. I see the LS-6-250 has a reflection value of 0.3, so that might be the best standoff weapon against SA-15s now...

Here's the kneeboard folder: C:\Users\username\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Kneeboard\F-15ESE

This surprised me as well, but I think I found the answer in this thread. Basically, the RF Hellfires can only be selected if your Sight is TADS or FCR. Pilot seat cannot select TADS as Sight, and we don't have the FCR yet, so the RF Hellfires can't be selected from the pilot seat.

This is interesting... The graphs on page 5 show the Mirage 2000 as having the highest sustained turn rate, higher than the F-18 or F-16. That would seem to imply that it should be able to out turn an F-16 in a level rate fight on the deck, and yet I don't think I've ever seen a dogfight video (e.g. Growling Sidewinder or similar) show that tactic being used. Instead, the Mirage 2000 is inevitably used as a one-circle fighter and when it gets dragged down to the deck by a Viper it's game over for the Mirage. Are people just missing a trick here and the Mirage 2000 has been a world-beater all along if flown properly? Or is there something I'm not getting?

I noticed this as well after this most recent patch, force seems very weak, with little or no centering spring. I haven't messed around with it much, but I did try with the FFB emulation checkbox in the Special tab in Options both checked and unchecked, and in both the F1CE and F1EE, and it seemed to be the same in all conditions. Edit: Of course right after I posted this, I found a reply in the main Bugs forum that says it's fixed internally and should be out in the next patch:

Unfortunately, since these mods change files in the Cockpit\Scripts folder, they will not be usable on MP servers that have the Pure Scripts option enabled.

Adding my voice to this as well... I have made a number of optimized autostart scripts (F-18, Ka-50, AH-64, C-101, Mi-8, UH-1, and Mi-24, all available in the User Files, and I have several more that I haven't published yet). I understand that the Cockpit/Scripts folder was added to the IC check in v.2.8.0.32066 in order to prevent some kind of MP cheating exploit, but there are no exploits in these customized startup scripts, they just use the exact same method that the default scripts use to press buttons in the cockpit in a specific order during the start sequence. I ask that you please prioritize making it possible to customize the startup scripts again without breaking IC, whether by allowing macro_sequencies.lua specifically (which is the only file that needs to be changed for these startup scripts), or by somehow limiting what can be called from that file so that the exploit can be prevented while still allowing custom startup scripts. Thank you!

I did try feeding them into Google Translate, and what came out didn't make any sense in English, so I assume they're abbreviations or acronyms. CNCT MSL PWR seems like it would work.

FWIW, the manual says (page 443) "НАКОЛИ НИП" means "CONNECT MSL PWR", "ЗПС" means "rear aspect", and "ППС" means "front aspect" or "head on". A bit more on that first line: I think I would translate "НАКОЛИ НИП" as "CONNECT NIP", "CONNECT PWR", "ACTIVATE PWR", or "ACTIVATE MSL", something like that. "ЗПС" could be "REAR" and "ППС" could be "FRONT" or "H-O". Disclaimer: I don't speak Russian, and am only guessing here based on the manual and what I've tested so far by flying around a bit.

I haven't had a chance to test the BS3 in MP yet, but I did find this bit in the manual, page 519: "Erroneous transmissions and inaccurate ABRIS positions will be displayed on the ABRIS if other players join with the same ID’s that are on the same frequency."

The IFE discord got a post a couple hours ago in the news channel:

Sorry I haven't had a chance to try this out yet, only just now got a chance to sit down and do some more testing. I actually opened Georgian Campaign-4-Ship SAR.miz in the Mission Editor though and I think I found my problem... After the rescue is complete and it says to RTB, I took that a bit too literally and headed directly back to Kutaisi, staying below 2500 ft the entire time as I didn't want to try a blind descent through the clouds. Therefore, because I never entered the "IP" trigger zone, the ATC_LAND event never fired, nor any of the following events including the mission ending. (Also the MUSIC trigger never fired since I was too low.) I'm pretty sure everything will work if I just fly the rest of the flight plan after the SAR mission completes. One other thing... Kutaisi only has ILS on runway 07, but the landing approach with the waypoints is to runway 25, so the player will not be able to do an ILS approach. And the wind at ground level is blowing to 330 deg (from 150), which should make 07 the "active" runway (at least from what I could tell in my ILS testing here) although barely.

For me, autostart is a big "yes yes", and I use it all the time, and have already made an optimized startup script for the MB-339, although I'll probably hold off from putting it up in the user files until the first MB-339 patch, as I expect that may change some bindings. However in the meantime, you can modify your Macro_sequencies.lua file, replacing all the cockpit-related lines with this block:

OK, I figured out why mine wasn't working... I forgot to set a wind speed and direction that made the runway I was landing on "active". Once I did that, the ILS worked as you described. I also noticed you have to set the HSI course to the runway's true (not magnetic) heading, and as you said, the instrument scan is not ideal, but it does work. Thanks everyone!

In mission 4 you try to find a ship in bad weather. Once found, a Mi-8 appears nearby to rescue the crew, and you are told to orbit until the helicopter leaves, then you are told to RTB. I flew back to Kutaisi and landed, but it never gave a mission complete message, and the menu says it's Failed. I tried playing it again and, after landing back at Kutaisi, using time accel to wait until the helicopter had also landed (at Batumi), but still got no mission complete message. Is there a trigger I'm missing somewhere? Also, and possibly related, when I tried skipping it in the menu, it shows Night Solo Trip as the next mission, even though that's mission 3, and skipping that shows Ship Search and Rescue again as mission 6. Skipping that one goes on to the next mission, TERRORIST BASE - SEEK AND DESTROY! Possibly something messed up in the campaign mission order? Thanks!