Skuva

Whenever you try to equip a 2xR-60 or 2xR-60M on a wing already containing the same missile rack the game just erase the previous one. But having one of each on each wing is fine. Also having one 2x + 1x of the same variant (totalling 6x) in fine. I looked into this forum, reddit and manuals. Couldn't find an explanation. And for me it doesn't make sense, if the plane is really capaple of carrying the double rail in all 4 pylons at the same time, why would the systems have such limitation? One could argue the M variant having some peculiarity in the way the sensor works, but then what would limit a 8xR-60 (non-M) layout? For reference, an image with the possible and not possible layouts: null

Don't know how to exactly solve your problem. But if its of any help, this is the curve I use to get a brief stop at mil power, AB is engaged in the last 8%.

I can't believe I completely forgot about that pesky hidden switch.

None of the bombs I launch from the 21 work (at any launch parameters). All of them just hit the ground and do nothing (as the video shows). It works on all FC3 aircraft, just not in the mig21. Can anyone else confirm? Last time I used bombs was a month ago and they worked fine, so not sure if the recent updates did something or I did something in this mean time I can't recall. Have tried verifying files, reinstalling the mig only (haven't got the time to fresh reinstall the whole game yet). Dcs 2022 06 29 20 24 14 185_cmp.m4v

Upon reading a good chunk of the flight operating instructions it realy seems that the UUA-1 gives a very drastic deviation, at least for the low speed scenarios mentioned. I encountered the same lift coefficient graph Frederf posted (but translated). And that got me thinking, isn't this basically supporting KenobiOrder's argument? at least for low speeds. It suggests that at mach 0.5 the stall occurs at well above the indicated 33° (I would guess above 40°, or 20° on the convertion to "real" AoA). Is there another effect that would cause the rocking in this situation before reaching such point?

Can you recommend a good book/article that teaches this sort of stuff? That preferably touches the topic here. I'm not accusing anyone to be wrong, sorry if it sounded like it, I'm genuinely in doubt, I'm reading what to me looks like very different answers to the same question, and they mostly disagree with what makes sense to me.

There is no need to be salty. I'm not advocating on anything here. Just trying to understand how things work (and if something doesn't work, express my concern, as I paid for it). I get even more concerned when looking at many other similar threads (there are dozens of them at this point), because they all go the same way. Someone asks something about the 21, then a bunch of "experts" come and give the wildest explanations for it (not getting near a consensus), then a dev might or might not come, talk some pr stuff along the lines of "it is what it is". And there we have another thread without a proper answer to the question, not getting anywhere or getting anything done, wasting everyone's time.

According to manual the indicator shows the exact angle of attack (in degrees) measured by the vane (idk if it's the one in the fuselage or the one on the pitot). I understand such measurements are deviated from the real value due to the airflow being influenced by the surfaces, but I don't understand how wing characteristics could influence a device in the front of the plane. But I still doubt it's just a matter of taking the real AoA and applying a 2x factor (as it seems to be in the case of the mig-21). No other redfor aircraft have such a drastic deviation, the worst of them have about 5° extra at high AoA (and at 10° less it's almost margin of error). In fact all of them can pull higher AoA (measured by the game) than the 21 (which can only do 16° before the sudden stall). So at the end I don't know how some sources claim the 21 is capable of achieving AoA's comparable to "modern" fighter jets. While the one in the game can't even do better than a su-25. Just out of curiosity I took some close screenshots of both pitot and fuselage vane at high AoA. The fuselage one has an extra 5° (which don't add up to the 20° on the indicator, considering near 10° pitch). I'm pretty sure the pitot one should be very well aligned with the horizon, but all of it could be just a 3d model oversight.

You don't even need to go that far to conclude the AOA indicator is very wrong. The most... "sane" (huge strech on that word)... explanation I read for that was that the soviets intentionaly made the indicator give higher values just so it would scare pilots and force them to better follow "by the books" procedures (????). But if the FM realy takes that value as the "true AoA", them from what I understand, the plane will never be able to achieve those 25°+ of AoA both soviet and american sources claim to achieve. Not only that, but it would greatly affect how drag is calculated, messing up low speed characteristics, which is another problem recurrently brought up by players. As I'm no expert on any of this. I can just hope after the Corsair launch M3 will go back to research and iron out all the 21's FM weirdness, or at least give reasonable explanation on why it is the way it is.

It seems to get damaged when setting "ON" before proper cooling in "STBY" (in that case you need to repair). Not sure if it's suposed to be like this or just another bug for the pile.

Already discussed and reported https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=1169

This has been discussed already https://forum.dcs.world/topic/196643-vanilla-r-60-has-all-aspect-capability/

I still believe the shaking just got worse along the years. Because if you go back and play the older campaign/missions, you will notice many of them have set routes with speeds and altitudes that induces those shakings during a good portion of said missions. So only 2 possibilities comes to mind. Either the extreme shaking wasn't there back then, or ED simply didn't give a damn about testing those missions to ensure players wouldn't have a seisure while following waypoints. Anyway, I stopped caring about the shaking as now I only play in VR, and there is no shaking there. EDIT: On second thought, I think part of the problem with older missions might come from the default payloads that got messed with updates (changed from its original setup). And different payloads might give you worse flight caracteristics. I need to play it again to be sure.

Any skillful modder out there willing to strip the ABRIS from the Ka-50 and put into the SU-25?

Dcs 2022 02 15 10 40 43 033_cmp.mp4 It seems to be just a VFX problem. You still get the thrust. Example: Manual RATO start, you can see how the plane keep speeding up for about 8 seconds. I made a report on their bugtracker, lets hope its something trivial to fix.

Can confirm, only on low settings. Have also tried deleting the bazar/shader folder and verifying integrity.

The MAX ATTACK QTY option is suposed to tell the AI how many runs on a target it shall do with specified armaments. The mentioned option works perfectly on "Attack Unit" task but not with "Attack Group" task. Below is a simple mission with 2 Su-25, one set for "Attack Unit" the other for "Attack Group", with every parameter within those tasks exactly equal (WEAPON = Rockets, REL QTY = One, MAX ATTACK QTY = 1). The "Attack Group" AI, although following the specified WEAPON and REL QTY (initially), will ignore MAX ATTACK QTY and keep firing its armaments on multiple runs until it's completely depleted. AI_QTY_Tests.miz EDIT: Additionally the AI won't obey any of those 3 parameters (WEAPON, REL QTY and MAX ATTACK QTY) when ordered to attack more than one unit along its flight plan. Happens both with "Attack Unit" and "Attack Group". Below is a simple mission with a Su-25 instructed to do a single run on the first enemy group, then retreat a bit before engaging the second enemy group (with the same instructions). But what happens is that it will do the first attack as instructed and then go rogue. AI_QTY_Tests2.miz

I guess the AI FM does not take into account engine thrust being affected by low speeds as Player's FM does. I saw before AI F-4's going from scissoring at 400km/h to climbing in a vertical at 1:1 thrust to weight ratio like an UFO. If you fight an AI mig-21, you will see the same sort of bullshit, maybe even worse.

You can solve that by simply changing the Receive Mode (RShift+M) until you get Player's Communication only. This campaign is older than some DCS players, so there is a lot of problems that never got fixed. If you are interested, in april I tried to fix problems in this campaign for myself and ended up getting a nice result which convinced me to share with everyone. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3316283/

I tried the simplest setup possible. - A starting point without any actions. - A Ingress point with the Attack Group action. WEAPON = Rockets, REL QTY = Quarter, MAX ATTACK QTY = 1 - And 2 other waypoints guiding it back to an airbase. Instead of doing a single pass and being done, it keeps doing runs over and over, using a quarter of the rockets each time, until it get out of ammo. Mission file example bellow (should have posted it from the beggining). If someone manages to fix it, please share the file. Or in case mine works for you, share the replay: AI Test.miz

I've been trying to set an AI to fire half of its rockets at a target group in a single pass and then RTB. So: - WEAPON = Rockets - REL QTY = Half - MAX ATTACK QTY = 1 The Max Attack Qty doesn't seem to change anything. The AI will always keep attacking until it runs out of ammo (of the specified Weapon, in this case firing half its rockets on each run) or destroy all the targets. The only way I found to make them stop is by setting a timed Stop Condition (which becomes a pain for large missions and it makes AI go nuts before it triggers). From the User Manual it says "MAX ATTACK QTY. The maximum number of attack runs cleared for this action.", so what am I doing wrong? I have tried with the CAS task on and off as other related topics suggested, but the result is the same.

Thank you so much, this solves most of my problems and gave me some new ideas. The mudspike AI callouts I managed to create a menu toggle. Adding "1. Silence=off" and "2. Silence=On" to the Triggered Actions of the player's flight, then creating a trigger to add radio options to mute and unmute (with their respective flags), and 2 other trigger for each of those flags with Task Push action. This completely mutes the wingman, but at least the player gets to choose when to hear it.

I'm making a campaign in which some missions are mostly calm flights. But as there is an AWACS and some ground radars, when you play it you get the typical radio spam from AWACS every minute telling you there are bandits 300km away and RWR noises from friendly stations. Most of it can be solved by manually toggling the "RWR Mode" and "Receive Mode". But I want those to be already properly set when the player hops into the aircraft. That means when the player starts the aircraft electronics the RWR is "off" (lock/launch only) and the Receive Mode is in "player's communication" state. I also would like to know a way to shut up the wingman calls on mudspikes, If I set RWR to only function when I'm being painted I don't want the wingman calling out every single radar in the entire map every 10 seconds. Is it possible to do any of this just through the editor, or will I need to get into lua scripting? Complementary info: The AWACS is already in a different frequency from the player's flight, but it still keeps getting in contact about bandits.

I've been ripping my hair off because of this, doing a lot of tests on both su-25 and su-25t thinking I'm doing something wrong. Now I'm sure it's just a 3 years old reported bug that breakes a core function of a paid module. And we have 0 clue if it is even on the list of "maybe fix someday".

Here's a comparison with how it used to be: 2.5.5 2.5.6 Images link, in case it doesn't show properly: https://imgur.com/a/qfrhn4J