Robo76

TOW missiles fired from vehicles have a turned trailing light (it should be pointed towards the TOW operator, making it easier to track the missile during guidance). TOW missiles fired from the Ai AH-1 helicopter have no trailing light on the missile ! ? DCS https://youtu.be/LaDoZ2_7r-I fact https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GuhlMP3xuqU

SPRD-99 auxiliary rocket engines do not have an item in the DCS warehouse. If there is, it is not visible in the list and the quantity in the warehouse cannot be set.

If this has been proposed here several times in the past and nothing has changed, something is wrong. Unfortunately, ED is gradually bringing this situation to its own attention with its approach. When they cannot distribute efforts and resources so that mistakes do not occur over time, they only complicate the situation cumulatively in the future, until it may eventually become unsolvable. I estimate that they must already be focused on newspaper income and they have no time or money left for old mistakes-debts. And on top of that, there are legal - economic issues with RAZBAM. I am also sure that a lot of people will come to explain to us that it is okay.

I wish ED would stop working on new features for at least a year and just fix the huge amount of accumulated bugs. Even after years and many fixes, the warehouses don't work and it's hell for the creators of more complex missions and they have to shut them down in the end. Every update is usually a bigger or smaller disaster and often brings more new bugs than they fix. I'm sure many mission creators have given up on DCS for these reasons. Today I'm tired of DCS bugs again, I have to take a medical break.

I added MLRS rocket launchers and cluster munitions to the MP mission. During testing, I found that the dispersion - the impact area is unrealistically small. I was unable to find the specification for the M26 rocket with the M77 DPICM bomblets warhead. Just as the height of disintegration can be changed for clusters dropped from aircraft, it is certainly set in a real MLRS. Can the impact area of HE ammunition be increased to make it look more realistic? In its current state, the area is so small that it does not even make sense to use the MLRS.

I haven't pre-ordered the FF MiG-29 yet because I fly missions from the 1980s on MP servers and even the current MiG-29 A/S from FC3 can't do CAP or Intercept on its own. The MiG-29 A/S has worse radars and therefore needs GCI support. If autopilot guidance is introduced, it will be fine, but when approaching the target it will start maneuvering and without GCI and a fast datalink it will lose it and you will easily turn from a hunter into a prey. The MiG-29 has a great advantage in acceleration, speed and maneuverability, but it loses a lot in terms of low fuel and weak radar, especially against the ground and its low resistance to ECM interference. Guiding two missiles at once is practically impossible, because the interference will reliably interrupt the guidance. In versions 9.12 and 9.12A, the parameters and functions of their radars were revealed to the West shortly after their introduction, so today there is no need to worry about lawsuits regarding the disclosure of military secrets, and therefore it is also modeled as the first (and probably the only possible) one. The red team in the new FF MiG-29 will not get a more effective fighter than it already has in the form of the FC3, but I would like to be wrong. And no one will produce a full-fledged FF mod of the MiG-29SMT, MiG-31, MiG-35S, Su-27SM, Su-30, Su-35, Mi-28, Ka-52 for about a couple of decades.

MP mission creators are already having a hard time balancing the options for both opposing sides. Servers for advanced players suffer the most, where lives are limited and unfair balancing will drive players from either side out and the server is dead. And advanced players are not very attracted to crowded beginner servers when endless waves of zombies start against you. In general, the future outlook for MP gaming is not good. And the arrival of the F-35 will make this situation even worse. I guess then there will be servers with F-35s on both sides and nothing else, because it will be impossible to send anything else against them. Calm down, it's just a game, we'll relax. No need to get upset, when ED gradually sends MP DSC to the bottom, they will go do something else.

I went through the discussion and the prevailing opinion is that ER and ET on iz.9.12A are nonsense. And the developers' reaction is practically none. The R-27 ER and R-27 ET missiles were purely for use by the Russian military air force, and after the collapse of the USSR, their modified versions ER1 and ET1 were later released for export to friendly countries, which were certainly not better. When ED is useful, they always swear by the necessity of matching reality, and when it is necessary to conjure for better sales, realism goes aside, no matter what. If you are going to conjure, just make some advanced version of the MiG-29 and, just like with the F-16C, guess the rest. Nobody really believes you in your efforts to match real machines anyway.

I noted a question about the R-27 ER and R-27 ET missiles here, but it was not (intentionally ?) answered. These missiles could not be used on iz.9.12A. It was only possible on the 6 prototype MiG-29M iz.9.15 (Fulcrum E), the production MiG-29S iz.9.12S (Fulcrum A) and iz.9.13S (Fulcrum C) and some later types. Moreover, these missiles were not released for export until after the collapse of the USSR, so they could not even be delivered with the first iz.9.12A. So the ER/ET missiles will unrealistically be added for sales and advertising reasons to match the MiG-29S from FC3 ? (Translated with DeepL.com)

We are solving a problem where a functioning DCS multiplayer PUBLIC server often does not show up in the list with other MP servers in DCS. Connection via IP address is functional, but someone who does not know it does not see the server and does not connect. Sometimes the server is in the list, then several times after a restart it is not, it randomly alternates and is rarely seen in the list for a long time. Do you know what the problem is? Does the server have to register with ED or is the connection to an existing server automatically forwarded to DCS? Or if some information about the server is not met, it does not show up for other MP players in DCS? Has anyone solved this yet?

The manual should be official, but it's not. I don't care because it's a much better replacement than the official one would be.

But I understood and counted on the fact that these unofficial manuals are known by most people in DCS and I put the link for sure. Since they are available from the community, then there is no need to ask the ED for them. Why do something like this again. I'm much more bothered by the functional bugs of modules like Ai Petrovitch. It would have been much more sensible to leave it in its original state until the new version was completed to a reasonably usable state, rather than immediately go work on something else and abort the completion of Petrovitch. Then it's hard to find the time, during that grace period the programmer forgets enough things and has to fully understand the code again.

Chuck's Guides

1. The default values of the variables plane_flares (72) and plane_chaff (1080) are the same even if only one KB dispenser Pod is suspended. If someone wants to use these values and only has one KB underhung, after dropping all the flares, the value of plane_flares is 36 (not 0). 2. Selecting the number of flares/chaff in KB is no longer possible as it was before. Is this according to the real machine or is it a bug ?

Was this discussion thread started by someone from the ED team that worked on the Mi-24 ? You can't tell from the posts that ED is interested in the unfinished state they left Ai Petrovitch in. They are now dealing with other things that will make them money. Repairing Ai Petrovitch is not making them money, so it is way down the list of their plans, trz. that repairs can be expected at best in 1 year, but probably in 2-3 years. For newcomers to DCS, this realization may be shocking, as they won't encounter this approach from developers of other games elsewhere today, as similarly working developers have gone out of business.I don't want to be mean to ED, I'm as much of an aviation fan as they are, but without feedback, the DCS situation can't change (and then there won't be enough paying players either).