Skuva

As of today (10th june 2025) I'm not making my custom folder available anymore for the following reasons: - I need space on my personal drives (cloud and physical). By this point I believe anyone who had interest in checking my work would/should have done so already. - I don't care about DCS near as much I used to when I wrote this essay. Because in addition to all the problems and drama around the game, HB hasn't done anything about this issue yet, and even though they took some good measures regarding the F-4E it still has much of the same problems. - ED is making the life of livery makers harder and harder. Even though I've been only messing with textures from older aircraft that are not being restricted like the newer ones, I feel like it is not productive to invest my time learning to do things in this game when there is a high probability of it being wasted in the future.

On the 2.9.14.8222 update they claimed to have "Corrected flight dynamics and motor of SAM Hawk MIM-23 missile" but from my tests the bug is still there, and not only that, now the thing just refuses to launch at any target not flying directly towards it. I managed to make the AI fly 13km from it and not a single missile was fired, the TR unit tracked it through the whole flight. Track: Hawk_speed_bug_2.trk EDIT: The missile is now a little bit faster (0.2 mach faster), and the sustained phase seems more realistic, with it initially losing a bit of speed then gaining speed again as the missile gets lighter (or propellant burn faster). But it is still doing well bellow specs. The system also for some reason can't shoot targets flying directly above it at 14km+ altitude.

Would anyone have reference pictures from inside on the tinted version? Because I found pictures with very different tones, and some as strong as this I'm curious if this is for sun shading, front rcs reduction, the museum putting a yellow film to look cool, or just severe degradation.

The workaround I think would be to change the Default files on the main directory (Not Saved Games) at DCSWorld\Mods\aircraft\Su-27\Liveries\Cockpit_J-11A\default

The F-5 FC, F-86 FC and MiG-15 FC have pilot bodies. The F-5 FC kneedboard is functional.

If by "visible when looking right or left" you mean like an HMD, you might have the Mini HUD option enabled in the Gameplay settings.

And with this reasoning we can conclude DCS has never had an oversight in its development history.

Weird, it works for me. Are you sure you made the 13th line of the description.lua from the Default folder (not the "lua bak" folder) as {"F-15C_Mirrors", 0, "mirrors" , true}; and restarted the entire game to apply the change?

The creator probably forgot to properly configure the description.lua and the mirror got messed up I ended up making an edit to a friend who really like the sukhoi's orange filter If you want I can send you the files. EDIT: Looking at that creator's description.lua, It seems they forgot to change the name of the mirror, he left as "su27_cpt_mirror", but it should be "F-15C_Mirrors". You can try changing it yourself and see if it solves the problem and you like it.

I battled against the F-15C hud when I was first editing the cockpit, trying to make it more readable, in the end I only found 2 ways of improving it. The first was darkening either the hud glass or the canopy glass, so the symbology gets better contrast. This works very well for flatscreen users, but for VR it is terrible because the streaming compression hates any non-100%-transparent surfaces. Here is someone's edit in the user files (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342860/) if you want to try. The second way is to make changes to the font. I found this better to make the symbology better to read from further away but doesn't improve the contrast, so it just marginally improves readability against the bright sky. Here's a user edit I found https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3330017/

For me the logic seems to apply upwards too. There are numerous FC2024 owners out there, there can be a significant portion of them who would look at a discounted F-5, F-86 or MiG-15 and go "hmmmm, I never thought about acquiring these, but this is a good opportunity". And doesn't matter if they buy by impulse and never even learn to fly it, ED can make revenue from that with the correct sale strategy. EDIT: Even if ED would give a discount on the same value as the FC2024 upgrade, in the end they would still be using assets from a dead project brought to DCS basically for free to convince a non-zero amount of people to buy modules they most probably would never buy. EDIT2: As an example of sale strategy I just thought using the F-15C and its upcoming FF. They could release the FF as any other module without a discount. Then, after all the people who really really wanted, and could, bought it, they could start giving discounts for the FC owners to push whoever was over the fence.

Well then, if you don't think it is up for comparison, then nothing is and nothing should ever be done about it. Again, I believe if ED really wanted to make some easy money, they could well offer discount for owners of the FF version, there are numerous FF Tiger owners out there, wouldn't surprise me to know a fraction of them wished to either collect the FC version or just use it to play with the simplified systems, and a discount would motivate some of them to buy it. Now how much of a discount ED would need to accomplish a positive return from this tactic, only they can know that, I don't have their internal financial report here.

It really concerns me how people in a supposedly highly dedicated community take one random user's word as gospel a jump into conclusions so easily. Unless ED comes out and show data on how their customers behave, it makes no sense to treat it as a binary possibility of how much players like FC or FF, instead of treating it as a unknown spectrum. In most cases these modules don't have "very different characteristics", and even in the cases where it has significant differences, like the F-5 lacking some functionality and weapons, it still doesn't compare to the difference in modules upgrades, like A-10C and Ka-50, both of which offer discounts to old owners. So if I who bought the Ka-50 for essentially U$7.57 in a discounted bundle, got a generous discount on the upgrade, why wouldn't it make sense to give someone who for example bought the FC Sabre, get a discount upgrading to the FF one, or even for those who owned other modules just like I owned a very cheaply acquired Ka-50 for so long. This is common practice across the software world, they offer users that already pay for their products an apparently exclusive discount and this push a lot of people on that unknown spectrum to spend more. And even treating the problem based on a unbased assumption, you still felt the need to invoke a straw man about radars. That's very much your opinion and not a fact. I definitely wouldn't be able to enjoy this game as much with only one module, but you do you I guess.

By now it is clear that releasing FC versions of F-5, F-86 and MiG-15 in DCS was not the intended plan. They did because those were made for the MAC project which didn't go well and had to be scrubbed. The thing that bothers me with the presence of both FC and FF versions of the same aircraft is how it is not being handled with an upgrade program in mind like other modules. Every owner of an FC module should be offered, even if small, a discount on the FF version, because it feels a really bad purchase decision when you buy one of these aircraft and suddenly you feel like you need to pay for an entire new module just to click buttons so it is better to just stay with the FC version, and this feeling could end up cannibalizing ED's sales of the more expensive FF versions. And most threads on the Su-25 subforum are about the T variant. So it is even worse than it seems.

You can answer it just by looking at the amount of reviews each plane has on Steam and guesstimating how much it sells. F-15C: 369 reviews Su-33: 203 reviews MiG-29: 140 reviews A-10A: 120 reviews Su-27: 92 reviews Su-25A: 22 reviews So in all of these 12 years selling on Steam, the Su-25A sold basically nothing as a standalone module. And you can bet it is also not convincing enough people to buy the whole FC for it. So handing it for free alongside its fancier brother Su-25T has close to zero impact on ED's bottom-line, while positively affecting the perception of new players trying the game for free. Now, why they are also giving it a rework? I don't know. I would assume it would be in their interest to at least have a initial capitalization on this work. Or maybe this rework will be accompanied of a Su-25T rework too that they just didn't feel like announcing yet. But I also think adding just a worse version of the already free aircraft has very little impact on the freeware experience. And they should either offer the Su-27, giving new players a taste of air-to-air combat, although this could impact Su-33 and MiG-29 sales. Or offer the A-10A, giving a bluefor CAS experience, although this could impact A-10C sales. EDIT: To clarify, I don't believe adding Su-27 and A-10A into the free package would be remotely beneficial economically in the current state of the game. As offering more experiences to new player would strip from the desire of experiencing more with a paid module. Because this would accelerate that process most of us go through, of trying most of what the game has to offer and start to notice how the core of the product has problems and is lacking in important areas. So a significant portion of potential buyers could be swayed way too early. This might have sound like bad business practice, but every free sample should taste good, while also leaving most to the imagination of what else there is to the product.

A few years ago I attempted to fix the problems with this campaign. If you are interested in trying it here is the link https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3316283/ I can't promise it will still work 100%. If you try it and find problems feel free to criticize, I've been taking notes and might one day make another fixing pass. EDIT: Another thing related to what you posted on another thread about tips on finishing the missions. The original intent was for you to just go to the objective, make a single strike pass with unguided rockets and RTB. I tried to enforce this giving the proper default payload, but you can change it and try using guided weapons on multiple strikes, tho the AI is set to make a single pass and head out.

I know of a famous big developer studio on the combat flight game genre, which also claim they develop vehicles based on non publicly available (but legal) documentation, and in their case it has been proven to be just an excuse to model it however they like. I hope this isn't the case for ED.

You don't need to know how off the angle was. You can see at 00:18 how the antenna position indicator starts wiggling because it is trying to regain lock, and it does that for about 2 seconds before going back to vertical mode. And it does that as soon as the target goes below the nose as the pilot has only IRST active.

These paragraphs come from the 29A combat manual: I can understand the first variants, that had the main role of GCI Interception while having easy operation in mind, getting such a feature. But neither the Su-27SK's flight and technical manuals mention this "automatic switch", even though it mentions all the other stuff like priority target logic, auto-boxing and general TWS functionality with both PRF modes: And It would be reasonable to think, given the different role of the Su-27, it would be more focused on independent interception features, and not having the pilot flying and finding targets on such a on-rails manner as the MiG-29A. It is even more confusing when looking at the J-11 and MiG-29S, which supposedly were upgraded with fox-3's and BVR in mind, why would they program it to not give any room for the pilot to choose, switch and lock targets at will in TWS? Meaning if there is a single aircraft unknowingly flying inside your WEZ, you are unable to use TWS to track any other aircraft, because it would prioritize that target, auto-box it and then imediately auto-lock it? I'm not talking about 4-5km ranges, who would chase a target at that distance using TWS? I'm talking about the most common situation, flying high and detecting hot targets far away, thats where the R-27ER will normally have 40-50km range and you will be forced to switch to a smaller range missile if you just don't want to scream into the enemy's ears that you are locking them until you get closer to the optimal range, or if you just want to keep a soft-lock on a target that is changing altitude and not bother with constantly changing radar elevation in SCN mode. On a historical note, I imagine this particular situation wasn't a perceivable problem back on the 29A because it would primarilly use the R-27R (even the manual you cited doesn't account for the ER), so the WEZ, being almost half of the ER's, would give no problem to the radar auto-lock as it has when it tries to auto-lock with the ER selected at these very long ranges. I know TWS is not suposed to work when jammed, I'm just saying that adds insult to injury with the current AI bad ecm modelling.

I'm really pressing the "Doubt" button on that. It makes no sense and serves no purpose. So if a pilot wanted to use TWS for any target closer than 40km he would either need to change to a closer range missile (I personally just leave at the R-73 and change it in the last second) or turn off the weapons system (or even worse, jettison all his weaponry)? On top of that, in DCS most of the times the aircraft atempts to auto-lock it just loses lock immediatly (specially the Mig-29) and then you need to move TDC again over the target, and don't even get me started on AI that insta-jamm you on lock and puts you back into default radar settings (SCN + MED). EDIT: This is all specially infuriating on the 29S, when you are trying to launch the R-77 at 2 targets but the thing decides to just lock the first target instead of soft-locking the second one.

I only wish ED would make it not autolock the targets as soon as it get inside wez.

In the last update they changed some stuff on Korodi Storm, it is slightly better now, but it still on the same level of quality as the other ones, which I consider bad. And all my complaints about it still hold true. Weirdly the biggest improvement came not from changing anything in the mission, but from them fixing the god awful AI that was unable to cross bridges. So now you can at least consistently progress past the first 2 minutes of the mission.

My brother in Christ, I have already posted a video showing it, and a track would do the same as anyone going into Instant Action or creating a new mission with a client slot, I have specified the steps to replicate. And that is definitely not "correct and intended lighting" because: 1) It behave differently from Player slot to Client slot; 2) the one that loads after a few seconds loses a lot of shading and doesn't match the rest of the scene. EDIT: Also a track not only is useless in this case, it is straight up counterproductive, because what is seen in the track can be different from the gameplay. In the case of the mission from the video I showed, if you save the track and watch it, the lighting is actually fixed, like in the Right-side image on my first post. test mig-21 textures.miz Here, try it if you have the mig-21. When you play the mission you see the lighting changing to the "bad one", then exit and save the track, then watch the track and see how the lighting is very different (because the track behave like the Player slot case). You can printscreen it all and compare it. You can try it with other aircraft, but it can be very subtle, the 21 is the only one I have seen such a big difference. EDIT 2: Here is a comparison for the Mi-24p And thus you can see why players normally don't notice it, because it makes little difference on most aircraft, and even then which one you consider "correct" can be very subjective. If we take the MiG-21 to go by, here the left Mi-24p would have the "wrong" lighting (although I find it nicier). Another reason why I believe I'm right about which one is "incorrect" and which is "correct", is because ModelViewer agrees with me.

Changing to F10 and back does not affect anything in this case. The problem mentioned on those threads look similar but it is no the same, I have also observed the problem in those threads during VR and the brightness always fix itself after a few seconds. The problem I'm talking about here is global (2D and VR), it is not about brightness (which affect both the cockpit and external scenery), it is about shaders not loading properly specifically for the cockpit. Another weird behaviour I noticed is that when you enter the plane through a Client slot, you always see the cockpit properly lit behind the Briefing window, but as soon as you hit Fly it gets messed up and Shift+R does not solve it for some reason. Here is a demonstration taking the same Free Flight mission and just changing it from Player to Client: Digital Combat Simulator Black Shark 2024.10.03 - 09.37.36.02.Dvr.mp4 You can clearly see it is not just an increase in brightness, many portions of the cockpit just lose shading (or contact shadows). And the fact the problem behave differently from simply changing the spawn method, indicates it is not just a problem with the game being unable to fetch some file from my computer, because that should happen during loading screens, and in the Client case we see it manages to do it properly momentarily, meaning whatever needed to be loaded has been loaded, the game just decides to throw it away right after.

This happens on every plane and every map, and there are some situations where the lighting fix itself after a few seconds, but in most instances I can go entire missions with it bugged. If by AV you mean antivirus, I use none.