Skuva

Its hard to believe, when even the MiG-21 has a safety lock, that the design wouldn't have any sort of safety system, if not mechanical, then electrical. And that this decision would be applied to ALL red aircraft as if out of a sudden the soviets decided that accidental landing gear retractions weren't a problem anymore. Anyway, this is now on my list of "FC3 weird stuff that are probably an oversight from ED" to check if they will make it different for the 29 FF.

The MiG-29's cockpit received absolutely no changes. You can check it for yourself looking into your game files how every FC3 modules got their files updated, while the MiG didn't. ED didn't update it because it already have been updated recently (if you consider 2018 "recently") to work with the newest lighting system. All other FC3 aircraft were still using outdated lighting, and it probably started becoming cumbersome to have aircraft relying on deprecated stuff, so I guess this was the biggest motivation to refresh these cockpits but leave the MiG-29 alone. There could also be something to do with the FF, but that would be an even bigger speculation. Although I wish they would at least make a "factory new" version. Welp, I guess I'll have to make it myself.

From my observations, this works on all planes. But not on helis, which is sad, because it is where the trick would be the most significantly useful (eg.: skiping Ka-50's insane alignment process). Fun fact, they Hip gets happy when you do RAlt + J.

I'm also seeing this texture overlap both on Aged and Factory New. a10acompassredpointer.trk

I would assume the marketed values are for ideal conditions and probably max altitude (5km). But still it is impossible to get 10-12km in-game, doesn't matter the mission setup and approach. Weird enough I tried from 5km, I got a flashing LA at around 12km, which means you need to point towards the target to get a proper fixed LA, but as soon as I pitch down and get within the sensor gimbal limit (~20°) the LA disappears and only comes back at around 9.5km again.

Both the TV bomb and missile got significantly nerfed in some of the last year updates. the lock range got almost halved and they lost the ability to track any moving target. I don't know if this is intentional to match irl specs, or if it is an overcorrection, or a bug, or just a mid-stage change of their saga to revamp some of the soviet/russian weaponry that is being made in parallel with the MiG-29 development. To this point I found no info from ED apart from some vague announcements of changes to these weapons. I'm inclined to think something is wrong. Given the Max Range indicator is very overestimating even on ideal conditions, and not so long ago the the 25T's missiles were behaving very weird lofting downward, or lofting into the aircraft and exploding right after launch damaging or killing the player. There is either a lot of changes going on behind the curtains that are causing these issues, or maybe negligence. EDIT: Upon doing some tests I could confirm the game takes absolutely no variable other than sun position in the range formula. And the best range I can get is at peak summer at noon, getting LA at 9.5km, and stay above 9km from 08:00 to 17:00, outside this time window it starts to drasticaly lose range until it goes under minimum range. On winter the max range seems about the same but the time window is much smaller, and it creates some silly situations in which you can't get LA even if there is still daylight and the target is a huge black dot on a white snow field. This all applies to the Kab-500kr too. And none of them will track if you force a launch even slightest further than LA range. The export catalog claims the range should be up to 12km, not sure if it consider sensor capabilities or kinetics.

Are you 100% sure you are using the default textures? Because that extremely dark cockpit with the foggy instruments is exactly the symptoms of a custom skin in the new lighting system. I know that because I made a custom cockpit for the Eagle and mine had exactly these problems, I had to do a lot of editing this week to get it working properly. EDIT: Here is an example comparing a custom texture on the left and the new default one on the right EDIT 2: In case you are sure the Default skin is selected in the Special Tab. Then you could attempt checking if the texture files really where updated. in the game directory "\DCSWorld\Mods\aircraft\Flaming Cliffs\Cockpit\Textures", see if the zip file was modified recently (all of them except the mig-29 should be modified after february 22th), if not, you can delete it and try verifying files again.

The only aircraft in the game that manages to shake more than the Su-25A/T while rolling is the MiG-21. You can have the smoothest flattest taxiway/runway in existence, these mfs will shake like they have square wheels. If they really shake like this irl, Soviets/Russians might have a very strong titanium spine disk replacement program for the pilots, because they would really need it by the 5th mission.

Because I eject the canopy.

I'm having the same problem. I managed to Delete some stuff, but not Edit. I get the green "File Uploaded" message, but nothing changes. Tried on Chrome and Edge.

For the cockpit textures: The A-10A saw a complete remake of the textures. Any older one will simply not work. The F-15C will work with custom textures but there will be serious problems with things like instruments glass. The Su-25/27/33 are working a little better with custom textures, but due to the new Lighting, they look way darker than before. I'm editing my custom translated Su-25T to have better brightness/contrast and will update as soon as the User Files come back online. The Mig-29 changed nothing, any custom texture you might have will continue to work as always.

I had hopes today's update would fix it. Someone at ED went on making a lot of changes to the cockpit textures and lighting and didn't notice the problem. My bet is they only used the model viewer, where the problem doesn't happen, because as stated above, is an external geometry clipping into cockpit view.

fixed

I'm not advocating for all liveries to use the Default roughmet, just those that are already using a perfect copy of it, or the ones that change way too little (like in the example given in 3.2). The VF-301 is suficiently different to justify having its own roughmets. For the VF-301 my concern is, why so many duplicates? Like if all use the same helmet, why not have just one of them (ND101) carry the helmet files, and edit the others (ND104/111/113) to call those files through description.lua? {"HB_F14_EXT_PILOT_HELMET", 0 ,"../VF-301 ND101 HiVis/HB_F14_EXT_PILOT_HELMET",false}; would do the trick. It reduces the size, and if there is more than one aircraft in mission/server using those liveries it actually saves on memory. Regarding resolution, big parts like EXT_01/02/03/04, Tail and Wings make sense to use 4K diffuse, but 4K normal/roughmet becomes debatable, and for smaller parts like the phoenixpylons even the 4K diff stops making sense. As I said, this is something that could be settled by putting side by side (4K vs 2K) and trying to guess which is which. Please, take a look at the VF-301 part in Section 4, there is a lot to improve. I'm not sure if the VF-301 came first, or the others using similar assets, but it sure shares a lot of identical assets to other families of liveries. And adding to the list I just found the TF30 diff is a copy of the Default one at "Coremods/aircraft/F14/Textures/A". So this makes really hard to believe the VF-301 is entirelly made of 100% new assets.