Supernova-III

this is the solution. Thank you!

@buurthis becomes disappointing... There are no any targets on coordinates the JTAC reports, it's over the sea In the first post I said that coordinates must be around WE025..., and it as a mistake. Assigned target is located a the training range around WE035 If I remove FAC -a, I cannot talk to JTAC on radio UPD: solved. I removed FAC -a, added FAC - assign group before the orbiting task and it seems reporting right thing. Thank you for support!

Repaired, deleted all mods. Recreated mission from scratch. Still reports me BS. Should report around WE0355904338 jtac-and-targeting-problem.miz jtac-coordinates-issue.trk

Hi there! I started playing with JTAC and immediately faced with an issue. JTAC reports me wrong coordinates during the 9-line interaction. It should point me at group 18, which is something around WE0252905432. But it keeps pointing me somewhere over the sea: WE028xxxxx... No matter what unit I use, airborne or land, it keeps pointing me at the sea. Side quest: in the track, after it reports me wrong coordinates, I'm trying to find the target myself with the targeting pod. I'm creating a markpoint, but when I'm trying to use it (weapon designate), it points me to different location (looks like near the WP1). What is wrong with that? jtac-and-targeting-problem.miz jtac-coordinates-issue.trk

again?

Given that the Harrier is: the attack aircraft in its primary role close a2a capable SEAD/DEAD capable still the iron bomber fast and subsonic I can conclude, that the Su-25T is the closest aircraft according to these points. Removed SEAD/DEAD, Su-25 is next. No other attack plane (in its primary role) combines the speed and wide armament nomenclature. But if we are talking about the vibe, Su-25T has a different one. And is Su-25 is another different thing.

auth server restart? So it can kick you in the middle of the mission any time?

Dear ED, I just was thrown out of my mission with this message: What was that?

yeah, maybe not lower than fixing L-39, but yes

Yep But I am pretty sure that ED knows about toe breaks regardless of our proofs

here and there...

Here's my proof (timestamp): @WORLD, please stop saying it doesn't have toe brakes.

AFAIK, there is no documented way to set aerobatic task for AI in mission script. I'd like to request to provide us this possibility.

oh yes. Once they release G.91, they will start working on another one... Thus not having resources to support G.91, and MB-339

Senaki-Kolkhi, 998.5 hPa. Altimeter reports:

nope. Senaki-Kolkhi, 998.5 hPa. Reports this:

pinned this to the topic, to not loose

@MiG21bisFishbedL thank you for your comprehensive review!

hm, narrowing field of view helps

oh, really. I just didn't know. Will add it later!

well, it's not that simple. Actually, I like planes that do their mission. But flying a slow fixed-wing aircraft particularly in DCS is a bit breaking of immersion for me. I'm suffering from lack of sensation of speed in DCS, mostly because of its graphics. So flying something slow like A-10 makes me feeling that I fly helicopter. Flying a helicopter makes me feeling that I fly a hot air balloon. And so on. Same speed values feel different, say, in MSFS.

added to the post. Actually, should "slow" be considered as a weakness in light attack/cas/coin scenario? It seems rather the opposite. The ability to fly slow is rather a feature.

Hm, I probably should include this one. What about its flight model? You mean incendiary bombs? As I mentioned earlier, C-101 has one type of such kind of bombs. UPD: not really valid, probably didn't know that, thank you. Is this because this is prohibited weapon or something like this?

let's try

it actually has one: if you mean its flying characteristics, it's more performant than A-29