okopanja

@Mootmoot I have VKB Gladitor Evo and no throttle, so I use Nintend Pro controller. Preparations The starting point is to make sure you do not have conflicting bindings. Each DCS action can be bound by 0 or more controllers! 1. Observe the control bindings. You need to verify both Pilot and Copilot for each variant of Gazelle. 2. Select Axis Commands to get the Actions that are of Axis type. 3. In my case I had the Flight controls bound to both Gladiator and Wireless Gamepad (Nintento Pro), so I right clicked on the fields of Wireless Gamepad cells and cleared them! 4. Assign selected Actions of VKB Gladiator the way I did it here 5. Switch to All but Axis Commands 6. Search for Trimmer 7. Assign the gray pinky button on the stick Instructions 1. RCTRL+ENTER to activate the Axis indicator 2. While holding Trim button (pinky), move stick so the small caret moved left and down as in video. You position it touch and slightly cross the center lines 3. Release the Trim button. 4. Use Yaw (pedals) to move the red line at 35-40% to the right 5. Apply the Flight Control Collective so you start climbing (too little will lead to problems, so better to give more than less) 6. Try to stabilize and hover (sorry this you will have to do several times until you figure out the tendencies of the helicopter) Next you need to bind the Trim button. I recommend the pinky gray button at the buttom of the stick.

Unlike Ka-50 which is balanced, the helicopters with vertical rotor in order to counter the main rotor. If I recall correctly you have to "trim" partially and partially twist in another direction (I got Gladiator Evo). Since I did not fly it 5-6 months I need to try it myself before telling you exactly what to do.

Finally realized you were talking about the access to original cockpits.

Presently they aim for this: "Our MiG-29A, NATO codename Fulcrum, will be the export modification of the “A” version that was supplied to Warsaw Pact countries." https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/8a53b9baafb8473116ad05970cd8a761/ As for: Romania: they ditched their 29s in favor of upgrade Mig-21 (yes you read this correctly) Moldova: they sold majority of their birds to the USA and kept minimal number for themselves.

The loadput looks like pre-upgrade earlyvariant. Modernized Slovak and Serbian Mig-29 cockpits are almost identical. The later carries R77,R27ER1, Kab-500.

The DL in Mig-29A will be the one received from ground station GCI. However, the GCI controller himself could have received the picture from nearby radar, but also others that were transmitted, and this capability also included integration with passive sensors and AWACS (even during 70s there was quiet a sophisticated background infrastructure). It was assumed that a single flight would attack the single target under direction of GCI officer. Not sure how far the ED will go, but there is also a Mig-23 module which has the same DL, so we can perhaps expects this to be implement at some point (maybe not initially). When equipping the PVO (of territory) had a priority over the troop PVO. This means that they often shared the equipment, so some technical interoperability was there even if organizational interoperability can be questioned. In DCS there is a mixture of both.

It fired near it altitude ceiling. It should be noted that engament zone diagram by distance and altitude can be of different shape based on type of the SAM and chosen guidance law. E.g. SA-6 would have a different diagram than e.g. SA-5. The second one for longer range goes into steep lofting trajectory which produces intererily different resultant shape. No clue if the viper rings take that into account.

One side note: the implemented DCS KUB is not too accurate itself. IRL the terminal guidance can also be command guidance with no radar illumination. Combined with TV/IR used on KUB, it may even launch and guide with no warning. In addition KUB launcher can be slaved to BUK launcher, which also is not implemented in DCS (was a feature from the birth of BUK).

So, how does it take to unpack/pack/move FARP IRL? Does this even make a sense in DCS mission lasting typically 3-8 hours?

The module is at the moment OK-ish when it comes to A-A (e.g. it has some unique features such as target size and front/back ECM. A-G there is a number of issues that await for fixing. If you use the glide bombs LS-6 on servers where "unrestricted sat nav" is not enabled, as red side you will face the problem of precision. It looks like ED thinks the degraded GPS signal is still a thing in 2024, but that was removed in 2000 IRL, and meanwhile GPS is so much widespread that turning degraded signal on would have severe consequences not only for enemy, but also allies (I would understand if they bring jammers and spoofers to the game). Drawbacks in A-A include: subsonic speed (you need to climb/high dive to get it at about 1.3-1.6 Mach). This is visible both in attack and specially defending. Even the hornet will be able to catch you in a chase. missiles do not have INS in DCS (old API), so they require you to guide practically at least until the missile starts downward part of trajectory (otherwise they go stupid and even level the flight!) only 4 BVR missiles ( I typically fly with only 2: hit and run) I started playing with it in September 2023 (I was very skeptical about it, and I regret that), and I must say I enjoy it despite the need for minor overhauls.

For new the new APP (RTX 2070 Super) does not offer possibility to override the HDR setting in DCS. Other than that it is missing: - streaming - auto-overclocking feature I will likely revert to nvidia expirience.

I always wonder why afterburner disappears much sooner than a modest street light. We know for a fact that it should be visible from 10s of km. To paraphrase F-18 pilot: "once you see the afterburner plumes of Mig-25 in the distance, there is very little doubt on what that might be" (book is not with me)

Just try night with lights turned on... But I guess its simply a acceptable limitation.

A good Software Architect will identify the need to cover the possibility of covering the multiple sub-variants of the 9.12 and in particular those that can be added with minimal effort in near future. This not only works toward user benefits but also cost savings for the ED as company. Some of those sub-variants require more effort and/or mean legal issues, but there are those which are likely not that troublesome to add at later time. Fortunately the later also include the improved processing of radar and ability to support R-77, and even limited multi-role capability. Overall these less capable variants certainly will not pose a larger threat to much more modern modules that are already in the game, but will enable more capable players to utilize them in more modern scenarios without being a plane cannon fodder.

Let's wait for Mig-29A in its original form, but I would not go so far to claim we will not see sub-variants based on upgrades. We know that DCS allows for sub-variants within the same module (several examples already), so I would not be too surprised if this occurs with Mig-29 in future. Upgrades that were offered or implemented did range from under-the-hood changes (e.g. making longer ranged more ECM resistant radar capable of guiding R-77), toward relatively minor cockpit modifications (e.g. replaced HUD repeater with MFI-55) toward really comprehensive changes where the cockpit is radically changed (SMT).

Just for the sake of the clarity: there are 9.12 airframes capable of carrying R-77, after certain upgrades. However these upgrades are not part of the current scope. Maybe in future, who knows...

First thanks for answering, My point here is the following: - GPS can be affected externally either by rightful owner of 3rd party, e.g if e.g. civilian signals get degraded (e.g. if we are talking about China produced glide bombs) - Also some traditional military signals offer only protection against spoofing and ECM - Only the latest M code offers the protection which prevents other side using high precision due to the encryption I see no reason why the same physical hardware would not be capable to utilize same precision for both blue/red since unless you implemented weapons to utilized encrypted mode, which would make it available only to one side in the conflict. Until now: - no GPS jammers exist in DCS - no GPS spoofers exist in DCS - no ability to enter the encryption codes - It appears we have only the GPS in game (not sure about Glonass, BeiDou, Galileo, perhaps others). IMHO: the mission editor option to disable this is a good idea as long as your simulation in this respect is incomplete (I was hoping you would confirm to which extend you simulate and where actually mimicking starts). Last but not least a comment on general situation on with so called game-changing decisions: Finding out about this through at least 2 bug reports (where even 3rd party vendors are not aware of the changed rules) is far from ideal. Instead it would have been much better of ED stated this game rule explicitly. IMHO: there should be part of DCS Encyclopedia where each of such critical decisions/rules is properly documented e.g.: Radar range for hornet/viper Ever more realistic FM model changes Countless AIM-120C changes AIM-54 drag impact R-27 no relocking R-77 RWR launch warning of the rail ... All such decisions should be documented and should reference the release/beta version where it got introduced, together with some sort of justification (I do not really expect you to provide 100% details, but bare minimum which is understood by common player would be OK).

1. removal of FC3 does not mean that AI or player FC3 will be gone (the external models are always included) 2. removal of FC3 does not mean you can not reinstall it at later time. I think we covered all dilemmas.

No, you will not loose them. All DCS modules consist of mandatory part available ingame and paid part (cockpit).

@Lord Vadercan we have more in-depth reasoning for the difference between blue/red? E.g. which signals are actually simulated in DCS?

v1.6.0 Improvements in Waypoint list and Crosshair information + important bug fixes. What's Changed Features [Crosshair] display of coordinates and altitudes by @okopanja in #120 [Crosshair] display of object model by @okopanja in #131 [Waypoint list] Allow altitude change by @okopanja in #121 [Waypoint list] Reordering of waypoints/fixpoints/targetpoints (Drag&Drop) by @okopanja in #124 [Internal] Implement internal camera interface by @okopanja in #119 Bugfixes [Hotkeys] Fixed issue with hotkeys by @okopanja in #114 [JF-17] Fixed clearing of waypoints by @okopanja in #129 [JF-17] Prevent selection of non existing waypoint in JF-17 by @okopanja in #123 [Internal] Remove inspect utility from camera.lua by @okopanja in #127 Full Changelog: v1.5.2...v1.6.0

In MP, I would say this very likely due to the ED not sending update made on client to server and other clients. Also note that in MP scripts get executed mostly on server. In addition in SP, at least FC3 updates the waypoints. This gets reflected in the cockpit (only after cycling the modes once). However this information is not propagated in MP

This is MP or SP?

Yes, I did not yet announce it, wanted to do it with 1.6.0, with 1.6.0 considered as experimental and 1.5.3 as stable.