jojojung

Yes of course. But we dont get the launchers with 4 missles at one pylon, which were used in the GDR but only the double rack. In that config you could equip 16 AT missles.

I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon. Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

Since now I tried landing without the yaw autopilot engaged. For a rolling landing this works very well and was very successful. But for a hover / vertical landing it is like hell especially when you get out of translational lift into the hoversate with all the torque you have to compansate with your rudder padels. I want to fly the bird like the real pilots without any help. Now I tried the YAW AP and it feels like cheating... I think you know what I mean, right? Question: Is the effect of the YAW AP such strong IRL? Or is it extra strong in DCS to avoid frustrated players... Thanks a lot!

I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon. Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon. Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon. Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

Hey I want to push it in one direction, thats OK but I can play that game too but that does not make any sense does it? There are enough photos for the opposite but thats not the point. You say "that ED has only chosen the most accurate representation of those in service today" but no Mi-24p would be in service today with these old systems that are in the DCS Mi-24P. All are modernized many times today, so your argument doesnt work. EDs Mi-24p should represent a end of the cold war / early 90s Mi-24p. And thats a good dicision! But if that discision is made you can not say only in view for the Ispanka we will model it the modern way (without it) for all the other systems we stay in the chosen timeframe early 1990s. Nobody doubt that its useless today and its removed from the modernized Hinds today. But please stay in the discussion point and take photos of that particulare timeframe, please! Its like comparing apples with oranges just like it fits. We want a heli for a 1980 war missions, so the Hind is not an Apache, right? But in the 1980 the Ispanka was used! So why model an old bird and take off features because that one particulare example as real life reverence doesnt have this system. What if the dome light is out of service in this particulare real life MI-24p? Will it put out of the game? Whats about the AGM 62 Walleye for the hornet? Nobody doubt it was put out of service in the 1990s after the golf war and the modeled hornet is from around 2005. And guess what... Its in the game! Because someone might want to fly with a 1991 loadout. Why does the same principle does not work for the MI24p in an afghanistan scenario? When ED says its because the 80s IR missiles doesnt exist at the moment and the system will be added when the SAM systems are modeled too its fine for me. Otherwise same prinicples for each modules! There are Mi-24p with the jammer, its proofen many times and it should be in the game!

Thanks! The answer here was that we dont get it as dicussed in other threads. Uninstalled is not correct so far. There were some Mi24p with it still equiped in the late 1990. If it was not used I'm not sure but as I said equiped for sure. There are many Fotos out there. I can't understand the logic behind that. ED decide to model cold war Helikopter and if you want to play cold war senarios the systems are not there.

Can please somebody sum it up, why we dont get it? In the german wikipedia article its cleary said that it is on Mi 24 D (L-166W-1AE „Ispanka“) and on the Mi 24 P (SOMS L-166W-11E „Ispanka“ or SOEP-W1AE „Lipa“) The german Army tested both types after reunification, so they might know. So why we will not get it? Because its useless againts the MANPADS in DCS now? Come on, thats not an argument. There might be an afganistan map in the near future. Whats up with ED? Link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#cite_note-boopidoo.com-14

Hey guys I just do some testing at the BETA and give you the simple test mission and the track file. I would be happy if someone could confirm the results! Discription of the testing visible in the trackfile: I fly at 20.000 ft straight to a SA2. In the beginning I set up the CMDS Mode to SEMI and leave the programm to 1. I put ECM XMIT to 1 and activate 1-5 ECM modules and pull the CMS aft to activate the ECM. Then i try CMS up to check up (programm 1 is released) and then I try CMS aft a few times (no reaction). When I got looked and the counter warning is heared i pulled CMS aft which pushed out chaff till the look is broken. The next to counter warnings a repeat the CMS aft. To the end when a do a break to the left a puhed CMS up two times for check whats happening with CMS up with an active radar look and again programm 1 is released. Summary: Settings: In CMDS mode "SEMI" with programm 1 selected against an SA 2 with ECM XMIT 1 and Active: 1) Without a look (very beginning at the track file): CMS forward: Just active the selected programm just the same as it would do in MAN mode; CMS back: activate the ECM to active after that no function without a look 2) With a look SA2: "Counter" warning, CMS forward does activate the selected programm 1 but CMS back does only release chaff until the look is broken and than counter is call out again as the SA2 gets a new look, but the CMS aft doest push out any flares. Conclusion: So first the CMDS does choose a programm depending on the thread and dont push out flares because its a SA2 in the open beta. Second: the HOTAS CMS commands are the same as in the manual! To do the automatic release based on the threat in SEMI you have to CMS aft not forward. It verify the information given by the T.O.GR1F-16CJ-34-1-1. There it is said on page: 1-207 to 1-208 "When CMS forward is selected and the CMDS mode is MAN, SEMI, or AUTO, the CMDS dispenses the manual program selected on the CCU. [...] CMS right disables the automatic dispense function of the CMDS, regardless of the position of the MODE knob on the CCU. CMS aft gives consent to the CMDS to dispense when the mode is SEMI. CMS aft also enables the automatic function again, if it was disabled, regardless of the position of the MODE knob on the CCU." So it worked perfectly as it should at the moment. Very nice! PS: The only thing that confuses me is the statement of @Wags in the Video and the post in the Viper Updates thread. Maybe it would be usefull for ED to clarify the HOTAS commands because the video and the forum thread is misleading a little bit, because I think the automatic reponse based on the threat itself and the hotas reaction in SEMI mode is not mentioned in the right way. CMDS test.trk CMDS test.miz

Please can you give us your reference for that. Because that would make no sense because then you could do it manual by yourself, the only difference would be the "counter" audio. Why should someone develop auch a semi mode. By all the documentation I read the semi and the auto mode should choose a programm depending on the thread. In the beta semi does not use the selected programm. Maybe @BIGNEWY or @NineLinecan clarify that. It is for the hellenic F16 Block 50 but just Google "T.O.GR1F-16CJ-34-1-1" and go for page 1-205 to 1-209 There should be a notification in the RWR too.

In the Video from Matt he mentioned that the SEMI funktion does only release chaff and flare "based on the selected programm". In all the declassified manuals (f.e. T.O.GR1F-16CJ-34-1-1, page 1-205 to 1-209) it is said, that it will dispensed based on the threat, which makes much more sense because otherwise the SEMI function is nothing more then a manual release of the selected programm. Is Matt wrong in his video or did I missed something? Can someone clarify this? Matts Video (Min: 2:16)

Same for me. You have to leave Mark DED page via return. Then you can select new targets. Very complicated in a multi thread scenario. Hope this will be fixed in any way.

If this is true it would be a ughe disappointment, but this is one of the basic features of a HMD. Maybe no markpoints from the others but the position of the wingman must be there, I think!

Anything new about the Grom and the radar beam ridding? I cant get it to work when Realistic ASP turned on. With setting to off the pipper will stabilize on ground and the grom hits the right spot, with on settings the grom only hitting the ground or sea. Thx

Nice to hear! Thats a huge advantage from the Viper, because you are able to drop bombs in CCIP If they are below the hud. So you dont always have to do dive bombing with a high approch angle.

Have you hold the pickle button until the release bar reached the flight path marker? The CCIP in the F16 is a mixture of CCIP (designate the target with the pickle circle) and CCRP wait till the bar comes down when your approch is too flat.

For me VRP and VIP worked quite well without TGP at the moment and are very usefull for pup up attacks.

If you take it seriosly the Hornet does overperforming at the moment in DCS. Just take a look at multiple posts here in the forum with a lot of statistics, tests and charts. For the hornet it doesnt make a difference if you take two AIM120 or just one per pylon as posted before. No word from you about this term of overperforming. I know you only look at the viper in your posts of overperforming. Your right in some terms of overspeed but thats mostly because of the canopy melting not because the Viper cant do the speed. Just look at "Semper Viper" with "Dont stretch the limits". There are adviseries for the pilots not to push to hard in terms of speed at sealevel, because the canopy will gets broken not because the Viper cant do it. Hope ED can model a more advanced damage model for all the planes out there including the Viper and the Hornet.

For the hornet the drag bug is even worst. There is even no drag difference for single and double racks Aim120 at all. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/263462-no-drag-difference-between-a-single-rack-and-a-double-rack-aim-120/?tab=comments#comment-4581382

Its only frustrating at the moment to be a viper guy. The discision to model a USNG Blk 50 from 2007 was totaly wrong because its less capable in many ways then international version of the Blk. 50 f.e. HAF. Lot of systems are canceled. Realism is a big thing on the viper but not on other ED modules. HARMs are removed from station 4 and 6 because there was only testing on these stations not operational (and not wired). I can understand that! But is Walleye II operational in a 2005 conflict? Of course not! Is it implemented to the ED Hornet? Of course! EDs policies are inconsitent at all and that makes it very unfair!

I hope the reason they dosnt make it as public as needed with the canceled Sniper Pod is because they hope to get the information they need and can implement the sniper pod in the game. @BIGNEWY has said to me that they really try to get more information but at the moment it is canceled because they dont have this data available. We have no other choise then to rely on the devs that they do the best they can not only for the hornet and others but also on the viper!

Maybe ED think about it! @Wags just said that the AGM 154C was removed from the planned systems in terms of realism issues (as always). But thats OK! Clear communication! Sniper Pod was removed silently to reduce the cry out from the community. By the way: Is there a list of all the systems which were pronounced at release and then canceled as time goes by? Must be a few now. No good times for the Viper pilots! Still waiting to get the hornet fixed to realism issues (Laser Codes, magic TOO/HAS Sensor for the Harm, MAV aligment not necessary, no drag difference between single rack and double rack AMRAAMs...)

The sad thing in terms of transparency and good communications is that the sniper pod was removed more or less silently from the planned features list in July 2020 without a clear communication of this and in the newsletter from 14. Aug. 2020 it was still listed. Maybe thats because the Sniper Pod was one of the most desired features in the community poll. I think the cry out would be much, much greater if the hole community realise that the Sniper Pod was canceled but most people like me still thought that it is still planned because the Newsletter from Aug. 2020 is ne newest official statement to that issue. I would realy like to see if they try as close as they can get with the available open source data to realise the Sniper Pod in the game, as they did many other compromises to other systems which are not 100% accurate but implemented in DCS in the past.

I asked @BIGNEWY per PM and he confirmed it, that it is canceled for the moment because of less unclassified data. I'm very disapointed too and hope that they get the information they needed... The Viper community deserves it!

And I wish a little more detailed answer instead of "less information" from him. The Viper got so many canceled systems, the hornet gets it all. In the Viper it is all canceled because of classified information or realism issues for the DCS modeled Block 50 USNG from 2007. For the hornet and maybe for the atflir too there are even more less information available. And realism doesnt have the most Important effect to some systems (magic TOO/HAS Sensor for the Harm, laser code changeable inflight, no MAV alignment at all, etc.) For me it seems that it hits the Viper more often then other ED modules like the Hornet. The chancled Sniper Pod is only the next step in this big disappointment. Sorry that I have to say that!

I think you will get enough data to implement it in DCS. We have the avionics and you get a rough view of the capabilities from Open source available sheets and videos. Maybe its not 100% accurate because of classified data but is the burning time and range of the aim120 100% accurate in DCS? I think its not because of classified information. But of course the aim120 is modeled in the game. DCS itself an any simulated system can not be 100% accurate, thats part of the deal. It is always a compromise. So in my point of view try it as close as you can and go for it. With this mindsetting you will get enough data for the Sniper pod, I think.