Skuva

Any aircraft with a jammer is currently capable of jamming the TWS2 on the MiG-29S indefinitely, even at extremelly close range. TWS1 works normally and AI only jamms it when you try to STT at a far enough range. But with TWS2 the AI will jamm even if no STT is atempted, which is unrealistic as it shouldn't be able to differ TWS1 from TWS2. EDIT: Also, is TWS on Su-27/33 and MiG-29A/S really suposed to be completelly unfuctional if any aircraft in the region is jamming? Whenever there is a jammer turned on inside the radar zone, it will just auto-switch from TWS back to SCAN, regardless of distance. If somehow it is like this irl (weird weakness for such an important function but you never know what the soviets were thinking) and is being simulated, ok, but just in case I'm adding a second track for it. TWS2_AI.trk TWS_jam_autoswitch.trk

Screenshots were taken at the Senaki airbase (Caucasus). But this sort of effects should NOT be map dependant (I believe even on PG they should look exactly the same). But as I don't have PG, here is a comparison at the Beirut airport Hind Off - Hind On - Hip - Mig null For reference que runway number is about 130m away.

Compared to the other soviet modules the Hind headlights seem to be way too dim, to the point it can't even acomplish its main job as landing lights, let alone as search lights. I know the Hip and Fishbed are old and their headlights might be far from realistic. But still, I think the Hind should be able to illuminate further than my car with its puny halogen lamps. Here are some screenshot comparisons (gamma=2.8)

After acquiring the Hind, I got surprised by the fact this module, even though is now more than 2 years old, has no official missions or a campaign. All we got are Instant Actions. But as ED is still sticking the WIP stamp all over it and promising a campaign soonTM, I can overlook it for now. What I can’t overlook is the state of the Instant Actions, specifically the combat ones. There are so many wrong stuff with those, it seems to be done done in a rush, like when I were in high school finishing my homework as the teacher was collecting it. Whoever made these missions hate the Hind and knows little about the aircraft. This is clear from the scope of the missions and the choice of weaponry. I doubt the individual tested any of these missions even once. I’ll point out most of the wrong stuff I found with 3 of them (because I only have Caucasus and Syria). And I’m posting my Miz files attempting to solve these problems and improve some aspects of these missions. Battle of Zugdidi This one is basically impossible to be completed given the number of enemies, time, loadout, and wingman/Petrovich incompetence. It has no Mission Goals. So, no points to indicate progress. Along with no messages to communicate mission success. The GUV is INCOMPATIBLE with the ATGM. So, by default the player can only use 4 out of the 8 missiles. Also, who in their right mind would think the GUV have any use in a mission like this? with almost all targets being armored and with a lot of stuff to shoot back at you? Also, why the 9m114 instead of 9m120? In the mission you face 5 T-72’s, which need 2x9m114 each to destroy, even if you and your dumb wingman manage to perfectly hit all T-72’s (which is almost impossible because of threes and buildings) you still have only 6 missiles left (provided you removed the GUV) to deal with all the other units (that can shoot from way too far to allow you go guns/rockets). SET FLAG VALUE trigger for the center Buk group spawn is wrong. When this group gets chosen by the RNG, there will be no message to indicate the player accomplishing that bit of the mission. There is an allied BMP group south of the FARP serving absolutely no purpose. Seems like the idea was for it to advance and help defend the FARP. Kodori Storm This is the worst offender. It seems to have been reused from another mission. A lot of incomplete things, triggers that do nothing, triggers missing, etc. There are Mission Goals, but they are all nonsense. Honestly, I won’t even try to write everything wrong with it, it would be more than the other 2 missions combined. Why bombs? They are already difficult to use in flat terrain, It’s basically impossible in the middle of the mountains with Petrovich in his current wobbly state. Switching the FAB’s for S-8 makes everything easier. I did my best to fix it, but there could still be malfunctions, as I was unable to completely understand this mess. H-4 Take Down This seems the least problematic of the bunch. Can be completed in its original state if you use your imagination enough. Because there are no Mission Goals. Along with no message indicating whether or not the player achieved success or failure after ground units enter H-4. The Hawk site never engage the player (even above 500m), because whoever made the mission forgot to push the Red Alert task. Many of the armored units on H-4 frontline are positioned inside the dirt pile of their ditches. Causing problems with the AI, both the ground AI and Petrovich, who seems unable to fire missiles at units with even 10cm of terrain/water covering them. This problem gets worse as those ground units have Disperse under fire On, so when you hit the first missile, they will scatter around, some get out of their ditches, some shove themselves even deeper into the dirt. Sometimes the artillery will not fire at H-4. That happens when the first allied armored group fails to reach the zone. The zone should include the path of the second group. Also, the target area is too small and at the wrong position to have any effect on the thing it is supposedly trying to shoot. Flag 150 has no action to become ON, affecting one of the artillery’s message. The Player loadout comes with only 8xATGM. I added a side gunner to make the H-4 clear out more fun. Mi-24P_CAUC_IA_Insurgent Attack .miz Mi-24P_SYR_IA Peer Attack.miz Mi-24P_CAUC_IA Peer Attack.miz

yeah, but for ground units at least they only shoot at slow moving targets, have angle limits, miss a lot if you pull even 1.1G, and if the unit dies during guidance the missile goes straight or balistic. The Hind AI is literally just "built different". My guess is that the guidance logic for ground units does not work properly on aircraft. So they just copied from some self-guided missile. It could be an understantable workaround if it at least had a G limit or something. But currently, as shown in the track, it can pull 5G's and guide itself into a target going 750kmh laterally also pulling some G's.

I always thought something was off with the Mi-24 AI gunner (not petro) and its magical hands capaple of tracking planes going at transonic speeds (and in many cases way off the pitch/bank limits of periscope/radio-emitter). Today I got proof the AI has no hands on the tracking of the missile, but the missile is guiding itself with IR-seeker-ish logic. The track below shows a headon of a F-15C vs Mi-24p. The F-15C does a pass and damages the hind a bit with guns. Then on the second pass, both of them fire at eachother. The aim-120 reaches first and obliterates the Hind, but magically the Ataka keeps a perfect track, pulls a lot of g's and still hits the Eagle a good few seconds after the Hind destruction. The game clearly declares that AI as killed (it only says "pilot dead" because the AI is not programed as 2-crewed, but as a single entity). null mi-24_AI_A2A_dead.trk

Nice, but considering there are multiple missiles plagued by this problem I'm inclined to think there is some underlying problem that could well be affecting other systems not yet observed, so I think ED should maybe look somewhere else instead of just individual weapons values. Maybe we should open a more general Thread? Otherwise ED might endup only fixing the ones expecifically reported, so we will get only one missile fixed at a time every few months, and probably there will be a bunch which will never get fixed.

Nice to see the patriot fixed. But what about all the other SAM's affected by this kinematic bug? The Hawk being the most atrocious of the bunch. I have made a post few months ago pointing how many missiles in the game have this weird unrealistic speed cap (as shown by @Default774), This problem is affecting not only SAM's but also some air launched missiles. EDIT: As an afterthought, I'm adding a track file showing how messed up the Hawk is currently with this bug. The speed cap makes the missile do a wrong impact point calculation, so when it finishes the burn it suddenly recalculate and feel the need to do a crazy turn to hit the target. So in the end it is basically unnable to properly hit any straight flying non-reacting target flying with an impact parameter greater than 20km (12mi). Hawk_bad.trk

Upon firing its first missile at ranges above no escape zone the AI will always lose lock and the missile will go dumb. This problem is much more noticeable when the target is cold. Tested multiple times, the AI will always miss the first shot, while the Player always hit the target on the first shot. I'm posting 2 tracks. One with the AI set to launch R-27's at a big target from halfway max range. The other is me trying to replicate the same engagement. This behaviour could be related to this other problem: Although it has been observed to also happen with AI carrying Aim-7's (to a lesser extent). Fox1_AI.trk Fox1_Player.trk

Sorry, I was not familiar with that term and thought you were being stuborn. In a literal translation in my language that reads very much like "I'm still correct/right"

How do you "stand corrected"??? I showed how every point you made is wrong.

What is this mental gymnastics of yours? I said "H" just as an example, it happens with all modes/shortcuts. Your trackfile clearly show the problem. Look at the stick shaking and the trim lights going crazy. Also of course it will look smooth flying high inside clouds, you cant see anything apart from your cockpit. The scenario I was referencing was the same depicted by OP, flying low above 650kmh (not that the problem simply disappear below this, it just less noticeable). Also you CAN reset the trim (LCtrl+T). And the autopilot is messing with the trim, because on most modes (if not all) when you disengage the autopilot, the sitck WILL get trimmed at whatever position the autopilot left it, which due to the shaking will always end up offcenter. Here is a proper track showing it better: MiG-29 AFCS.trk

Yes, the aileron wiggle waggle. All it takes to reproduce it is spawn on the mig and press H. Not only it makes unbearable to use at speeds above 650kmh, it also mess up your trim, requiring you to always reset it and adjust againg after disengaging the AP.

As of 2.8.4.39313, this is still a problem. It happens with all variants at all speed on all Autopilot modes. Can be instantly reproduced.

This problem has been reported before DCS World as even called DCS World. It currently stands on ED's list of "problems we know, but we don't care". A few years ago they gave a low effort excuse, claiming the shaking problems of the Su-25T (and FC3 planes) was dificult to solve due to its code being "partially inaccessible", bc the people who originally made it were not reachable anymore. You can interpret it as "someone made an spagetti code long ago, and we aren't willing to invest a single development minute into trying to understand and fix it".

I think its because you've been gatekeeping this thread for so long you became susceptible to the whoosh.

In today news: "DCS player is capable of identifying an enemy jet fighter at 5 nautical miles, but is unable to spot a joke right in front of his eyes and proceeds to cite the same source the joke came from."

The only variant I'm really willing to pay extra for (the forbidden one)

Adding to it. I've also spotted this same weird hard coded speed limit behaviour on many SAM's, like SA-2, Patriot, but most absurdly on Hawk (which gets locked at mach 1.75 for most of its flight at 1000m). But this limit is not present for SA-10, maybe the coded value is higher than its Q limit. In the case of the S-25L it's quite easy to see the problem firing it in a very steep dive. You see the missile gaining speed, then when it reach the speed limit it starts to slow down, while still burning in a dive, because the speed limit seems to be coded as a function of altitude. From my understanding this behaviour could not come from just dynamic pressure, as the transition into max Q would be smooth and not a sudden flat line after a point, even worse if you consider twr should increase as fuel burn.

The S-25L seems to have a burn profile that makes no sense to me. It's peak velocity gets capped at around mach 1.3 for about 3 seconds of burn, regardless of lauch parameters (high or low, slow or fast, level or steep diving). Compared to its dumb brothers the S-25-O and OFM, which can easily go mach 2 in a shorter burn. Sketching their speeds would look like this Yes, it gets a very flat line, it accelerates gradually and upon reaching that point the velocity gets completely fixed. Isn't it suposed to just be the same rocket (booster) but with a laser sensor? So burn profile should be the same. There are a few info out there claiming the S-25L reach mach 2, which could just be a copy paste misunderstanding and there is actually some differences the soviets engineered for some reason. I remember when I started with DCS many years ago, I read on some ancient thread people discussing how the S-25L could be better than the Kh-25ML in very short ranges because it had a shorter time to target due to its faster burn and initial acceleration. S-25.trk

Also noticed it. I thought it had something to do with the new multiplayer RWR bug. But tested it in singleplayer and basically any missile that lofts is broken. The KH-58U need to be launched at 2/3 of max range to have nay chance of reaching the target, and if you launch it under 700m it is sure to head straigh into the ground right bellow you (even damaging your own aircraft depending on how low you are). Welp. I guess I'll be playing Stable for the foreseeable future.

I think this would have better chances of being seen by ED if posted in https://forum.dcs.world/forum/489-bugs-and-problems/

Stuttering and movement lag with head translations are commonly consequences of high latency. I noticed with VD, after some update (not sure which, cause I didn't use it for months) my latency went from 40ms to 80ms, for no aparent reason. Even tho fps is good, gpu and cpu usage with plenty of headroom, tested with various bitrates. VD's overlay says the latency is coming from the "game" and not from "decode" or "network", so i'm sure it's not my router. It might be something wrong with VD, it might be something wrong with DCS changes on vr api. It might be both. For now I'm using airlink, it still has its problem, but at least I don't feel like throwing up.

I did some testing, comparing top speed (IAS by status bar) at 2000m level (Mil power, inf fuel, w/ center tank and flares), in various R-60's layouts. I'm led to think if there is suposed to have more drag then it is not modeled. Altough the weight is modeled, it add an extra 5kg for each double rack compared to 2x singles. So for all pratical purposes you can take into account just the weight and drag of the missiles itself and difference in performance should be unnoticeable for layout with the same number of missiles. Here are my results: EDIT: EXTRA ABSURD TEST: I tried equiping 8xR-60's in 4 double racks and just fire them all, and then measure the top speed again. And God there is something very wrong here. The top speed was 1008 km/h. More than without any rack/missiles equiped. Then I tested 4 single racks, after firing them all the top speed was 967km/h, virtualy the same speed as with all the missiles in them. So I don't know what to think of it. With the double racks there is some imaginary negative drag after firing, in the single one it seems the R-60's have no drag. And it gets even weirder when you drop the racks... the... plane... loses... speed... when... the... racks... are... ditched... Desktop 2022 09 09 14 12 50 226 _comp.m4v Anyway. I guess I'm deviating from the topic. There is clearly some fuckery going on with the drag models, and that should be reported.

I'm not asking for the 4 double racks to be included. They already are. I'm asking why such inconsistency in what R-60 variant can go in it. Also after some research I found the double rack's name is P-62-II. And it is very much a soviet invention, not invented "later on" but a few years before the Bis debut (It began prototyping on the 21S as far as I could find) in parallel with the r-60 development. So I think it's safe to assume the Bis was designed with the rack in mind or at least had an immediate retrofit. About the wiring. I'm inclined to believe it was originally design to only support the rack on the outer pylons. Although there is some pictures of foreign variants carrying it in the inner pylons. But I haven't found any carrying on all 4 of them.