Torbernite

Abstract of the bug The knob position seems to have some offset from where it should be. The problem is common in default RU cockpit and EN cockpit. Screenshots and .trk file included. The bug cause The problem rises from that position "external power" positions are put at wrong angle. As shown in the screenshots below, the knob points at the edge between "C-A" and "B-C" when it's actually "B-C" and "Generator left A-B" when it's actually "C-A". The bug affect The screenshots below were taken with fully start-up state and no ground power connected. So the "external power" positions should shows 0V and the "generator" positions should shows a little more than 200V. In fact, the knob seems to be pointing at "Generator left A-B" position when it is actually set at "external power C-A" position, and shows 0V, until it is visually set at "Generator left B-C" and actually "A-B" position to show the actual voltage between A-B. All the subsequent positions are offset, when it points at "115" the actual position is "Generator Right C-A" and shows 200+V. and when it is actually set at "115" position, the knob in game points at the edge of "off" position. Further evidence For more evidence, we can shut down the right generator. now the "generator right" positions should shows 0V while "left" positions should shows 200+V. But what we get is 200+V for "Generator right A-B" position and 0V for "Generator right B-C"(because they are actually "generator left C-A" and "right A-B"). Surely the "115" position would give a 0V for that it's "Generator right C-A" in fact, which is not shown here. Possible solution I found a post about a similar problem on another knob selector. Maybe a similar solution could be applied here, but I don't have more time to test it. 24bugAC.trk

I'm not in such a hurry to see a new Ka-50 and don't ask for a totally new one either, but I quite want to see some new things from the red, a Ka-50 or MiG-29 after that. The short of new full fidelity red models these days is such a pity for me. It's so boring to get new toys only in blue style. Now I would accept even a pure recon new plane if possible, and certainly a Ka-50.

When flying on smaller screens (laptop screens), the PDI lights of KC-135 is often hard to distinguish at some light conditions. Could we have a stand-alone of that like the IFLOLS lights?

Yes I have 2 aircraft on my list and can't wait. Alright I'll go sleep now, time difference makes it so painful.

Sorry but the steam Halloween sale has already started, while the price seems to be unchanged.

I see, so how could we use the function "slew TDC to change scan sector/patch continuously "?

It seems only a modification for AI units.

Seems that there're more problems in this update. SPI preserve, continuous scan section slew, problem came out and functions in changelog are not in the game. Maybe they would realize what happened later.

in Changelog 2.7.7.14727, "Updated: in AG radar EXP/DBS1/DBS2 mode, pilot can slew TDC to change scan sector/patch continuously" I tried and can't find how to use this function. Is it needed to slew TDC with any button pushed? Besides, is it normal that TDC disappears in MAP FRZ mode?

A rough guess here. Could the bug be that all trimming of Mi24 is wrongly realized through FFB method once any one FFB device is detected? As a result, the rudder with no FFB would just turn back to center and give inputs in according with their physical position (of center), instead of staying in position by FFB like the program "thinks" it should be.

Fortunately Deka just said on their Chinese social media, that the radar AG mode is fixed through crazily great efforts and they are pushing on the manual update. I don't know to what extent the radar function is fixed ,or their exact progress on the manual, but this is surely good news anyway.

When pressing Right MPCD button 3 and 4 to zoom in TPOD page, the function of the buttons seems reversed. Pressing button 3 at the lower position with the downward arrow makes it to zoom in and button 4 to zoom out.

But now the manual lasing procedure is "press MFCD button to change AUTO to MAN, then press 'Laser Designator ON/OFF' or RCtrl+O on the keyboard". The MFCD button can only toggle AUTO/MAN mode but don't actually turn on the laser. Laser can only be finally triggered through RCtrl+O and we have no MFCD button to finally trigger the laser firing. Shouldn't there be a button or switch somewhere in the cockpit, or a button on the MFCD to trigger the laser? Real pilots don't have a keyboard with RCtrl+O right?

So have anyone got more information after so long? Or should we @ someone from deka?

It's a very interesting question. I have never thought to start up in this order before. Theoretically it might be not so ridiculous to align with batteries (but only logically possible, I'm quite not sure). Basic problem may be whether the design, the program and battery capacity of JF allow to power so many systems and computers with batteries for enough time, like in game. Intuitively I don't think this is true as F-16 and F-18 don't even lit up an MFD with batteries. But if this feature is accurate and most systems can be really powered, maybe the INS alignment can also be carried out. JF uses ring laser gyros and likely strapdown INS similar to those on F-16 and F-18, which involves no rotating gyro or adjustment against great rotational inertia. The INS alignment procedure is only the alignment of a virtual platform in computer instead of a physical platform on earlier aircrafts, thus may require lower power supplement. Besides, alignment of JF is quite fast. So MAYBE the power consumption is not remarkably higher than many other systems. Another problem is whether avionics can be properly cooled without bleed air from the engine. We already have the feature that avionics crash when ECS isn't set properly in certain time limit. If alignment brings heavy computation load, maybe thermal load SHOULD also increase and the time limit will come earlier.(But I don't know how heavy the actual load is, or if the correlation between thermal load and running time allowed without bleed air is simulated.) Anyway, these are all "maybe" above. I'm also curious about it. Let's wait for the check conclusion from Deka.

Sorry but I don't think those media are often believable on topics related to Chinese Mainland. Let's just calm down and wait for more news. In my impression, when most of them talk about those on the opposite bank, on Mon. Wed. and Fri. they just say they are fierce and invasive, on Tue. Thu. and Sat. they say they are clownish and weak, on Sunday i don't know maybe they have the day off.

When editing an OAP, the elevation seems can't be set to a negative value. As in the trk, nothing happened when clicking the left arrow key of last row of UFC, the elev setup stay positive value. OAPelev.trk

I have some more results now. If you are sure about the performance of R-60 and 9M in earlier versions, I think everything has changed now, not only the PL-5E. Tests before were taken on some AI in defending maneuver which is unwise in fact. I set the AI to keep straight flight at 350 kts and 1000 ft no matter whatever happens(even attacked), and none of them(R-60M, 9P5, 9M, PL5E) can maintain speed above 350 kts until hit. Test was taken in summer Caucasus with no weather setup changed. So maybe the fact is, all of them have their aerodynamics changed (even in the same way, or maybe ED changed some more basic calculation model they used) during several updates, now none of them can hit such a target which they could before. No problem with your impression nor the performance of PL5E (but with my memory that they couldn't hit such targets from long ago). Here are the tacview files of the tests. R-60 still showed the worst performance. (I checked the changelog and found R-60 range changed in Oct 2020 and sidewinder drag changed in Dec, reasonable to suspect PL-5E uses same aero parameters with original sidewinders and changed together, besides there were some fix about drag of PL-5E earlier in this year.) AIM-9M.zip.acmi AIM-9P5.zip.acmi PL-5E.zip.acmi R-60M.zip.acmi

I have to say it sounds very strange. This missile works totally correctly for me, I mean comparable performance with a 9L/M. In my situation it's not a useless thing so I never wonder a question like "Why they don't use something better". This question should be discussed in real world and it's intuitively different from this report. I'll do some more test with human targets later. But the situation you met was quite strange and beyond my experience. Do you have any tracks of that? Maybe the problem is "Whether all the missiles are behaving as it's supposed to in the specific conditions you experienced". Are you sure with the range or even the unit(no offence)? In my test and impression R-60s in DCS surely slow down before hit a cold target 3 miles away. Maybe ok for 3 kilometers. If everything verified maybe you found some unknown problem.

And PLA never use R-60 just because they don't have a good relationship with the Soviet Union at R-60's time. (but at that time they have PL-7 based on R550, only for export use) When the relationship with Russia was improved in 1990s they have access to better R-73 and Israeli Python 3 (PL-8) and later newer independently developed missiles, and PL-5E is only needed to equip the second-line J-7s and JF-17 for export, as these two missiles are both too large and heavy for these light fighters ( for this purpose PL-5E is enough and no new missiles needed).

At first I thought it was no surprise for me since PL-5E is just a modified old missile. After reading and testing (on an AI with on flare loaded @350kts & 1000 ft, missiles were launched @450kts & 1000ft), I think it's just too far for an IR missile. Low altitude and cold target would decrease the range at an incredible degree even with 100 kts closure. At low level it just lost enough energy to keep tracking for 3 or 5 miles. In fact PL-5E's performance is comparable with original AIM-9M in my test. PL-5E and 9M could merely keep enough speed to hit at 3 n miles range & 1000ft altitude, but if the range is a little more longer (for example, 3.5 or 4 miles) or the AI target maneuvers more wisely to bleed the missile's energy like a real human, they surely can't hit either. And I'm sure an R-60 would never make it to hit. Maybe you misremembered it or some conditions were different. Just try it yourself, R-60M would lose speed even when condition changed to 3 n miles & 6500ft. At 5 miles range, none of these missiles can hit.

Nice work! I love this camo. But there seems to be some problem with my AAR probe, totally right without that. Besides, we usually also carry insignia on vertical surfaces such as side of vertical tail or fuselage. It would be nice to have it.

Same problem with A-10C II and F-5E, I'm using a G940. update: I might have solved that. According to this post Stick not centered with 0 input - Controller Questions and Bugs - ED Forums (eagle.ru) (sorry I don't know how to cite it more beautifully) the problem comes up when: 1. the mod support FFB; 2. the stick is set with "centering spring force" or a non-zero curvature; 3. the aircraft itself has an asymmetric y axis range(different range in positive and negative directions, that's to say the zero position is not in the center of whole range). When these factors come together, we get different zero positions for the physical FFB joystick and the "stick" on the plane. When the joystick is released back to center, the "stick" in the game would never be in center. So just disable the "centering spring force" option in the profiler(or something like that name, I'm not an English speaker, not using EN version profiler and don't know the EN expression for this option),and use a purely linear curve, this problem should be solved. You might have a try but I'm not sure if it also works with spit 9. I don't have a spitfire and just came here by searching "FFB trimming problem".

Tested today on F-14, hornet and F-15C, found all 7M and even 7E from 15C works now but 7F from any of them still no tracking in the exactly same condition. Seems that now 7F tracks nothing beyond 6 nmiles without ECM, 7M tracks from longer rage but nothing with ECM, 7MH works even with ECM.

src=http___img1.gtimg.com_news_pics_hv1_164_237_1993_129655424.jpg&refer=http___img1.gtimg.jfifCorrect.