okopanja

I was working on UH-60L entry support. However, I encountered a something that confuses me. On page 60 and 61 they state that the waypoint can be cycled with INC/DEC or entered numerically in WPT DIST/BRG TIME display. However, I found out that in WP/TGT page, while still not in keyboard entry mode I can enter the numerically 2 digits, which changes the upper underlined digit group. INC/DEC changes the lower one. Do you know what is the first digit group used for?

I have to be explicit by conflict I mean NATO aggression in 1999. yes, the hint is at the picture, the first paragraph of museum text explains why the missile is captured intact.

Yes it was used in this conflict, at least one did not explode in impact. SAM crews were more concerned about them, since travel distance/time was potentially shorter. Here is the picture:

Well the answer is simple: you have a lot of them and it is still cheaper than loosing an airplane. Historically the first anti-radiation missiles were much cruder and often did compensate the luck of precision with the powerful high yield warheads. Over the time the precision did improve, so these missiles could be smaller. From high explosive they went to more fragmentation warheads, which could still damage the radar antenna/equipment and possibly kill the crew. In most cases damage made by HARM to the radar is repairable. In this particular case the crew had to be near the the FCR radar (separate from the cabin itself, but cabin had to stand next to it). The availability of these in large numbers did mean that SAMs had to adopt the tactics and become more silent. E.g. in case of 1999 encounter, the DEAD/SEAD package knew rough area where the SAM could be located. The SAM itself could remain silent and turn it's EWR radar only when they were certain that there may be enemy aircraft in the air (this was the first indication that the trouble is there for the pilot). When the FCR radar became active the missile practically already flew. So the choice that the dance will start was made by the SAM crew, and the viper pilot although seeking to provoke the reaction, was actually reactive himself. On modern SAMs you will often see the crew being on remote positions compared to launchers and radars. Still the described events occured 25 years ago => 1/4 of the century.

Reality check: SEAD does pose a serious risk for a SAM and will limit the amount of the damage that it can cause to the strike group, but its effects are often overemphasized: example is unsuccessful DEAD mission with support of SEAD package, resulting in F-16CG being downed. In this particular case SAM did promptly relocate thus ceasing the operation for the duration of transport, so yes the effect is felt. https://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/428640/Obaranje-F-16-pad-sokola-u-Zdralovac-FOTO (there is actually a published book with signed accounts from each crew member, including those being outside of duty watching). Hint: on older SAMs the roles and responsibilities are distributed among crew of multiple operators. See the picture from the article. The situation is tracked based on P-18 radar picture. Inside P-18 cabin there is acting commanding officer + additional operator for the whole battery shift and he decides when is the right moment to engage the target. He may receive additional picture from command of the brigade, but in this case they worked independently. In the background you can see the commander of the SNR-125 radar (Major Dotlić), working with radar picture provided by EWR P-18. It is him who transfers the order to FCR acquisition station the target. So at least 3 persons tracking the situation in air very closely. Front are 3 more operators (in picture one is missing). Target acquisition station (basically guy who directs FCR toward target and facilitates the launch) and 2 guidance operators (F1 and F2 channel, one is not on the photo here). The guidance operators can choose between automated track and manual tracking (useful for stealth aircraft and targets carrying decoys). The young dude sitting in front was actually the guy who acquired the F-16CG with FCR. The F1/F2 operators guided each his own missile until the hit (they do know the missile distance from target at the time of explosion). Once the target is hit the Acquisitions states places the FCR into equivalent, meaning the radiation stopped. During the whole encounter the separate team was outside serving the decoy with the same parameters as the FCR, transmitting at the same frequency. FCR was turned off, but the decoy kept transmitting, thus resulting in 2 HARMs missing the target. It should be noted that decoy was also turned off at later point, since it is good to reuse it. Aftermath: DEAD team changed their mind about taking out this nasty SAM crew (did take out F-117 and seriously damage another before this action). BTW: it is typically hot in SNR-125 cabin, and there are high velocity fans in corners of the cabin but sadly with no shielding. The crew is more worried about fans taking out their ears or fingers. More than 20 years ago I visited this very same unit as a student and had a chance to see the ancient equipment these dudes worked with against way better equipped opponent. The visit left me wondering how could have they hoped to survive, but back then they did not tell us how they were doing it. On modern SAMs this is more automated, but even with those ancient SAMs the operators are not really overwhelmed. As said before: technology does rule, but the end the competency of the crew matters the most. In DCS everything was set so the SAMs do not actually pose a huge threat to the average player. To have a really challenge you would need high fidelity SAM (perhaps crewed in CA v2?). Now given the fact that many servers do not like enabling crewing of even SHORADs (people do not like getting hit while they fly low), I can only imagine if e.g. someone simulated a fully blown medium to long range SAM in DCS.

The same SA-3 that scored against F-117A and F-16CG was targeted with no less than 23 confirmed HARMs during war in 1999 (you can check total number fired - it's astonishing). None if this did hit the SAM directly and only in one case fin of the missile and the cable leading to the launcher was damaged. During the downing of F-16CG (lead of 4 ship DEAD enter the KZ with ALE-50) the SEAD group launched 2 HARMS which missed the target entirely. By the time missiles arrived the crew turned to the equivalent mode. SAM crew competency plays a large role than the generation of the SAM being used. Also: if you know precise location you do not use the HARM, but rather a cruise missile instead.

Yes, this is because the BS3 v2011 has a different ID from BS2. In theory you can try to hand-edit the miz file and it should work. I personally kept BS2 since in some cases all slots for BS3 are taken, and BS2 is good enough for me. What bothers me is that both BS2/BS3 became really sluggish to fly after the preparation phase that occurred prior to BS3 release. So the BS3 got significant changes compared to the time the missions were made from: - got somewhat lower contrast SHKVAL - lower turn performance - lower climb performance - you feel this at take off, (for coaxial rotor!) - lost it's sling hook (unsure if it was used in missions) - got shake at around 60-70km/h and high speed. This is still actually fine. - became way easier to ingest the smoke from rockets - did not get the target point properly implemented when entering them manually and not through ME (which in turn provides to precise coordinates) - got a higher price to match Apache In turn it got: - simulated INS - anti-missile warning system (but did not get laser dazzlers, turrets are still visible in the model) - 4xIgla - ability to open maintenance hatches. Still I am glad I upgraded to BS3, since I did it for penny money.

Swedish cockpit video is recorded in color. For that you needed a color camera small enough to fit inside cockpit and be operated by a pilot. Obviously the camera had to exist before, so the video could exist only after. It should be observed that the Draken performs this at high altitude, which is very much different from the conditions Pugachev Cobra is executed at. It would be cool for a Draken pilot to attempt that at same conditions. When the Pugachev Cobra was first performed in public, this very soon caused many pilots to attempt to replicate it with more or less success. These aircrafts were mostly designed in 60s and 70s, but that does not mean that this was regular and safe practice. This became widely more possible after more aircrafts with TVC were available, but to be honest I am not sure if we even should call TVC manouvers Pugachev Cobra.

And as we know it was Swedes who performed these maneuvers with Draken on pretty much every air show... BTW: pretty interesting history that article you quoted has. Here is where: the Draken video appeared, and where it got mainly credited to the Swedes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobra_maneuver&oldid=1012108655 Sweden introduced by the same user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobra_maneuver&oldid=922153979

I gather the Max FPS is capping you at 40 FPS for some reason known to you already? You might want to check all of prior advice's, but since 2.9 several of people I played with dropped out due to the low performance hardware. You might want to: - try ST vs MT variant (one of those guys who was really heading for exist, actually prolonged his playing with going single-threaded, he also had 4 cores) - control the CPU/GPU overheating (e.g. GPU-Z) (I am guessing: but I think you are probably CPU bound) Otherwise: its probably time to consider your next HW major upgrade (sorry for stating this)

BTW: some things I do not like on STECS: - white button next to modal switch (used combined with modal to change profile) is membrane based and produce rather ugly sound. - I do not understand why the detent set has to force the reload of whole device. Would be nice to know technical reason for this and if this can be done without reboot of device.

It would help if you could provide: - specification of your hardware - screenshot your settings - more information on which mode of play you use

I found out yesterday that you do not even need the adapter. Also, it is possible to have more detent sets than five. Got from ther discord following advice: note you can set detent sets 6-10 only from AP.

@Schlomo1933I will try your advice, but it appears that BS became much stiffer since BS2 modification (the green Halloween screen. Two major changes were introduced: - yaw became stiff as hello, no matter what you do - 2 second firing delay was introduced. The problem I see is I can not turn as fast as the video suggests it should be possible. Did anyone manage to turn as fast and nimble as in video?

I would need to take a look. I installed the mode once for the co-op mission and got surprised at the level of details of the mod. If the mod implemented the key entry it should be fairly easy. A developer can even do this for arbitrary module on his/her own: https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/tree/main/Development I would state that by far ABRIS is the weirdest input device in whole DCS. It can have very complex states especially when it comes to the selected items inside menu (it sadly remembers the positions of them, so each time I use them I need to return them to original state for subsequent use). Waypoints are auto-numbered. In PVI-800 they are designated with numbers and there can be up to 6 of them, hence I limited the entry of max 6 of them. Since they are auto-numbered there is not much point into designating them as text. Each waypoint can be also edited with planned speed, altitude and wind information. However it is is possible to enter the annotation "objects" and they can be named in ABRIS. Here I face the problem that the entry is done via dials which are finicky, and already now this is not 100% reliable due to: - non-deterministic time needed for UI to update - inability to always determine if there is already an object surface covered with designation ABRIS cursor. - inability to query the exact state of the UI of ABRIS device (more or less it's a blind entry, although I did hard effort to utilize what little information it provides) Also I would need to fix the following issue first: https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/issues/108 Even then I can not promis anything and at best the feature may get added as Experimental (non-active by default) since ti can affect the stability of entry.

Clearly Mig-23 or bust!

This!

Just attach it. I can not reproduce it reliably

In a separate topic related to the F-15E it was stated that Red does not have the same accuracy if this option is not enabled. And btw, I am not sure what you are trying to tell me here. Also note that there were some changes with weapons on JF-17 with last release (+ patches) that I have not yet tested.

Any news on this topic?

I understood it as: "govorit radio Moskva". Great effort btw.

Disable local tacview recordings...

There is an updated version Chuck's manual. He must have done this in the past 6-9 months, since tablet was included. There you can find some information on what you can do with the NADIR: https://chucksguides.com/aircraft/dcs/sa-342/#pffe As for RL manual: I am pretty sure that Polychop dudes have it. You might want to check with them directly on discord (do not post it publicly, since it may still have some classified parts). Aside from HSI needle that shows direction and distance, there is a vertical gray bar on the ADI, which can be also used to show direction to navpoint, provided that you have switched the selector to DOP. You can also use NADIR to display remaining flight time. Until now I have not played with wind settings for any of the modules, but I assume that wind conditions affect both trimming and possibly autopilot (not sure here).

Probably you wish the feedback from the authors of module, but I hope I can share this from my modding experience. I gather you are using the module documentation and not the IRL manual or similar thing? It's being awhile since I implemented the automatic entry for Gazelle in my mode, but you can find my sequences here: 1. Covers entry into BUT mode, entry of multiple waypoints and optional selection of waypoint 1 (otherwise last entered): https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/e46db5f85c8dbe01b3295e2170e0a01ceb5e54eb/SharkPlanner/Modules/SA342Gazelle/GazelleCommandGenerator.lua#L42-L47 2. Loops over waypoints https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/e46db5f85c8dbe01b3295e2170e0a01ceb5e54eb/SharkPlanner/Modules/SA342Gazelle/GazelleCommandGenerator.lua#L55-L59 3. Entry of specific waypoint https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/e46db5f85c8dbe01b3295e2170e0a01ceb5e54eb/SharkPlanner/Modules/SA342Gazelle/GazelleCommandGenerator.lua#L61-L101 The actual key-presses you can find here: https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/e46db5f85c8dbe01b3295e2170e0a01ceb5e54eb/SharkPlanner/Modules/SA342Gazelle/GazelleCommandGenerator.lua#L103-L123 Note: NOP command was used to introduced delay between making another keypress in some cases. I never played with fix, so I am interested if you make further discoveries what can be done with NADIR. At present I found it useful for navigation and to keep track of the engagement envelope of SAMs.