okopanja

Hi! Not sure how you did this, but it seems you are an expert for 3D models. Would it be possible to check the color filter for flankers? It seems that the look from the screenshot is actually caused by some reflections. E.g. I am able in J-11 to see some symmetric fish-shaped red stripes that I do not see on the body of the pilot. In addition if I move my head right, in HUD I can actually see the pilot's notes that are located on left leg. I am not sure if there is even if they have a direct line of sight.

I am not doubting Chizh, just for the sake of facts I clarified that more capable 9-12A/B was possible as of 1996 at least. Ts101/Ts102 production started in 1991 which roughly checks out with the appearance of R-77. This off-course would be subject to certain well known restrictions. For now appearance of 80s Mig-29 FF is what we are all eagerly looking forward to.

No worries I am in this thread from the start. No need to worry about R-77, yet...

It would correspond to the S, but S in DCS does not have Kab-500, however, this was in 1996, some 28 years ago! Lots of time has passed since, end even then the "teens" approx from 2006-2008, are 10-12 years newer. I personally think we will not receive the upgraded 9.12 in DCS, but rather original cold war variant with know limitations. In future this may open the possibility to introduce a bit modernized variant of 9-12 with a certain degree of multi-role capability.

Hi there, 9.12 originally did not have a radar capable of guiding R-77. The 9.12 could obtain such capability if the the computer Ts-100 is replaced by combination of Ts-101/Ts-102, which significantly enhanced the capabilities of the radar and FCS: radar could not be saturated with ECM as before support was added for: R-77 (required installing additional R-77 installation in radar as well) KAB-500 ability to detect slow flying helicopters was added This information is based on the interview of the Mig-29 pilot Mirčeta Jokanović. In the interview he explains that around 1996 they were offered the upgrade/remont for the 29s that could be largely conducted on premise (except for the gun modification which required structural changes). The upgrade was offered at $100.000 per piece, but despite the Airforce requesting this, someone on political side decided this was not needed. Result was seen in 1999 when 2 pilots died why fighting in jets where rarely both Radar and SPO-15 operated and off course without missiles with active seeker.

I suspect that this non working feature along what we observe as incomplete maneuvering in the later stage might be related to precession. @uboatssorry for pinging, but I feel we need some comment on completeness of implementation of glide bombs for JF-17. They seem imprecise, and maneuvering to obtain the proper angle does not seam right. We are aware according to the change logs there will be a switch, to ED core API, but could you please confirm the observations we have made in this topic?

My understanding is that it should be possible to specify angle at which the bomb strikes the target. This is relevant for multiple reasons: ability to avoid obstacles (trees and other high objects) ability to pick the angel that will cause maximal effect. Eg. you can hit the building directly in which case it will result in destruction of several floors, or pick the attack point in such way that bomb buries itself below the foundation of the building thus causing total destruction. potentially enter the zone of radar no-coverage.

Ka-50 has natural tendency to pitch up in neutral position of the cyclic. You need to trim before taking off the ground forward. In each module there is a trim indicator, that you can active with RCTRL+ENTER. I recommend that you use trim modifier combined with stick position. Make sure you trim 20% forward, and you should be fine on takeoff. Basically this is a beginners error and not for but report.

We are having errors of 10s of meters here. There are 2 possible causes for this: - GPS precision (if true it would be worse than consumer devices) - Guidance law implementation Also note that the Angle feature does not work and that it appears that bomb mikes a rather short climb and dive, which in many case does not even seam necessary, otherwise for the non working angle ingress.

Geofizika 36T is on R-27T, Mayak-80 =>R-73

I think the plan is also to integrate nvidia control panel...

Field of regards vs field of view: As for targeting angle, I am also wondering. If you were correct FOV of 5x5 would allow only 62,5 FOR, so I do not thing this is the case, more likely this is maximal angle at which the seeker is able to capture and track the lock (likely the extreme angles are very likely to loose the lock, unless the missile itself turns). But this is just me guessing... There are also other definitions of target angle...

Can you please try the mission from @sylkhan? Clearly something is ODD, the precision is vastly different. The one I got before is the one of the dumb bombs.

If this was in ground attack mode, you have to wait for system to align. Wait 3-4 minutes before moving on take off

I tried Syria. I used my mod to enter coordinates and I made sure they are as accurate as possible. Made 3 runs: 1. Climbed to 30kft, launched, hit 2 out of 4. 2. Stayed level, launched, hit 1 out of 4. 3. Stayed level, launched, hit 1 out of 4. In all 3 cases the hitting errors were different. (e.g. not hitting/missing same target). This means that coordinates are not to be blamed. Furthermore the error is present both in latitude and longitude (mentioning this since the lower the latitude is, the greater the error would be with same precision in DD MM SS.s format). Observe the screenshot: error is great enough to miss a building. Clearly there is an issue here. On Caucasus: I am practically hitting the Leopards directly or within 1 meter from the edge. Mission I used: Growling Sidewinder, target at Tschinkvali.

I manage to hit 4 targets with 4 bombs in repeatable manner with both LS-6 250 and 500. However logic escapes me. I do not understand why I have to define profiles, while selecting explicitly pylon, and there later cycle the pylons while selecting proper pylon. @sylkhancan you post your mission? (which map do you use?)

Do not enable Dynamic Vibrance Yes, might be be good for faked spotting?

How do you capture coordinates? Decimal place in seconds matters a lot. I am hitting Leopards directly or by the very side.

I managed once to send 4 bombs on 4 different targets, but I must say logic escapes me. I did not find yet anything that works. So far I figure out that FC3 can get nav points from mission, but this sadly does not work in MP (commands get executed on server, but never transferred to client). However, I must say that I tried weird things but none could be used in a practical manner, the way it is possible with other modules. For the FC3 the only tip I can give you is to use LAND mode to select nearest airport and then switch e.g. ti A-A mode. The HSI will designate direction and distance to the airport.

Sun filter in Su-27 is difficult to see through. See it yourself. In addition you can see own uniform as reflection in HUD. MFD too reflective, and too good in sun. J-11 sun filter even more useless than before. Now with similar issues as Su-27

1. MT 2. I can do the track, I just have to do it manually, since DCS can not record the button presses done from my mod. 3. It's not strange, it's regular. I have a feeling that also it does not execute the ingress correctly Here is the video to demonstrate the issue.

I just tried myself with LS-6 250 and LS-6 500. 1. I defined 4 targets and entered them as PPs into UFCP. 2. I switched to A-G/SMS and defined first 4 profiles as PP with subsequent PPs 36,37,38,39 3. I cycled to 1st profile 4. I launched 1st 5. I cycled to 2nd profile 6. I launched 2nd 7. I cycled to 3rd profile 8. I launched 3rd 9. I cycled to 4th profile 10. I launched Results: LS-6 250: first two bombs hit designated targets, second two reverted to first target (despite being launched under profiles 3 and 4) LS-6 500: all 4 missiles went to the same target What am I missing here? In addition they do not ingress under default -45 degree angle.

I recorded my view:

just watched in the first pass and I can see what you mean: it felt as if it was showing the picture within the case. On observation: I am under impression that in previous version the POD did not move at all visually outside, while in this version I can see that it actually moves.