Kuky

Hm, maybe you have bit of hardware issue (video card or monitor, maybe even the cable between the 2)? On something slightly different, my dcs runs pretty smooth but yesterday I was setting up VoiceAttack so I set dcs to non full screen, smaller than monitor native resolution, and after switching back and forth between the applications I noticed dcs getting very stuttery even while I had vsync 120 fps which was weird, I thought maybe because I had 4 Mig-29a in the mission it overwhelmed my video card but turns out it didn't, I restarted the pc and after that it was smooth again in the same mission. So I don't know, maybe theres bit of memory leak or something when dcs switches from one view to another as it did with me switching from dcs to VoiceAttack? Maybe try a different cable first, I'd also check if possibly video card is running too hot, running out of vram... anything like that... even changing settings in dcs... computers can have tons of things causing issues and most of us here know this. Good luck in finding what causes it

Me too

I think pilots and parachutes should be exempt from units for which black dots are drawn from longer distances because not only are humans not visible from that far out (but large parachutes are) they are first drawn as 1 dot then 2 separate dots (1 pilot 1 parachute) and they are represented same as aircraft for which they are often misidentified (because in DCS that far out they look the same as aircraft, black dot is a black dot right?, but in real life they don't). So I think it would be better not to show them as dots at all, instead just show the normal 3d model?

Stumbled on another (smaller) terrain elevation glitch

Actually he sure can (when dealing with real people) which should be simulated by having this type of command.

VAICOM huh... I'll have a loot at it at some point. Thanks.

I love this aircraft

I have VoiceAttack already, I had it setup (for most important things) for when I flew Russian FC3 aircraft but its not 100% safe/proof to use all the time, sometimes it doesn't recognise my commands, maybe due to my accent or whatever, sometimes command menu changes depending on what's happening in the mission... also takes lot of time to remember all the voice commands. So right now I switched to using buttons on my stick and MiG-29 Fulcrum being WIP still I leave things be for now as I'm expecting things to change over time and just slowly learning the new module, how everything works, what is not working properly, etc. Also, while talking about me expecting things to change, right now there is no "attack my target" command with MiG-29 Fulcrum module (and I wonder why they left it out?)

I programmed my stick to use a button and 1 HAT switch to open, navigate and sellect communication commands also, which is why I ask for this, I ordered VR headset also so having this on the stick is handy. Over time I might just move to voice activation software but that one is more tricky to setup.

See screenshot showing location of these terrain "bumps" on the taxiway By the way, I love the winter season on this map best for flying up high over the mountain ranges

It is a bit off... when level (no pulling G's) it overshoots a bit, aims tad ahead of the target... but when in turn (pulling higher G's) it undershoots (see my screenshot, looks like good aim but you can see tracers going way behind the aircraft. I figured out why often I see tracers going to the left of the target, its because the aircraft pulls to the left as you start firing that cannon, so I figured I have to aim to the right side of the aircraft instead of the center.

I have noticed that when I try to use the cannon while target is locked with either radar or IRST and I think I have good aim (piper is on the target) and I fire, it misses most times. So this morning I tried few dogfight quick missions against few different aircraft and I am getting the impression that aiming piper aims little ahead and to the left of the target, when I am directly behind the aircraft and the target aircraft just flies straight, and its very close (only few 100m in front of me) the rounds go over the aircraft so I need to aim little lower and to the right and then rounds come right on target. Anyone else noticing the same? ps: I also noticed when firing the cannot that it pulls the airframe to the left... which is nice feature of the FM physics.

By them being merged together I meant that as both 50 & 90 sectors feed into same receptor then I'd expect both 50 & 90 sectors on RWR to light up at the same time, which is what they do when range is very short. Because they do not do so it implies to me that somehow these 2 sectors are somehow still separated? So all this makes no sense to me.

Alright, so if the 2 sectors (50 & 90) are merged due to reduction of channels, that still doesn't explain why the 90 deg light doesn't come on (until what I tested to be around only ~5.5Km). If the two are merged then they should both light up at the same time, right?

For aircraft that is primarily an A2A fighter/interceptor command for wingman (and flight) to engage bandits should be on top of the commands list, not last, because it is of most importance (esp when reaction time needs to be fast). Please change this. Also, Please add command for wingman & flight to Turn Radar ON and OFF, this is a must have IMHO but its currently lacking. If you don't have space for another command, then remove the Engage Infantry option as you can't even see infantry from the air in MiG-29A.

First of all, I repeat again that by balance I am referring to having ALL systems of ALL aircraft modelled by same standards, meaning if MiG-29A RWR is modelled with flaws, then all other aircraft need to be done the same (but they are not), not to mention the flaws put into this RWR are put as the way the system was designed to function by default, and this is just wrong, I don't care what you believe in, I have noticed that you have that typical western bias against Russian/Soviet (and I think I am safe to assume Chinese also) anything, and second because of this you don't seem to add anything valuable with your comments.

Actually you are wrong on this, in fact when it comes to both a game and realism, ED should in fact strive towards balance, and balance not meaning to make every jet working the same, but making a standard across all modules in terms of modelling of FM, avionics, damage, weapons etc... and not have one module done this way, while others the other way. Doing so IMHO just creates BIAS and away from realism, because realism doesn't just mean one thing being done realistically, while others which it is interacting with, are not. PS: I for one, do not accept that SPO-15 was done properly as I just can't believe Russian engineers would have designed this system this way. To model the system to always have some possible issues due to maintenance etc as if it was designed to work this way all the time, is just wrong and it seems this is how MiG-19A RWR has been modelled which is not alright.

I guess that works, until the missile stops tracking Anyway, for the time being I am swapping them around

Honestly, currently the view angle for weapons is just horrible, its very close up and its from underneath, one has no reference point at all where the missile is, where its heading etc... so please change this to look something like in the 2 last screenshots (let the horizon be visible and move the view further out... please)

Alright, I can take that signal detection could be lower at side aspects but this just looks wrong... I did another test specific to see at what range the 90 deg light comes on, and it seems it comes on at only ~5.5Km and it comes on in conjunction with 50 deg light, not by itself. At the same time I notice the strength indicator lights stay at only 1st light until ~10Km when the 2nd light comes on also, which seems wrong also (too weak IMHO), I find it funny that how at the same time western radars in DCS are so good at detection at very long distances, their radars receive their signal back (which is much weaker than signal that comes out) but the MIG-29A system can't even detect this same signal at greater strength then what transmitting radar can receive as a bounce off signal... it just looks very off IMHO.

Radar was in Illum position, but it was not transmitting because otherwise RWR would not have detected any radar signal from the F-16C, but it did, meaning radar was off (because I was still in NAV mode) so this is not relevant to why RWR does not detect any nails when in the beam.

I have noticed that I am not getting any nails on RWR in the MiG-29A when I am trying to notch, so I made a quick action mission to confirm this, and it did... I setup head to head against F-16C north to south direction... I fly towards it with radar being off (by staying in NAV mode which should keep the radar not transmitting) and only at around 70Km distance from the F-16C I get first radar nails on my RWR... so then I turn to the (my) right (which is west in this mission) and I get no RWR nails at all while I keep this aspect... after a little while I can see the contrails of the F-16C flying straight past me (on my left) which tells me I am in the notch and F-16C radar does not pick me up... so I fly like this further until what I thought was me flying almost parallel to the F-16C, so I check the F10 map, and I am not quite parallel, but wide off his nose that if I am to turn into him, his radar would not detect me as I am past 60deg of the F-16C nose, which I check in F10 view again, and yes, aspect shows me being past 60deg (more like 70deg off his nose)... so I turn into the F-16C keeping my radar off and going into optical scan mode, going full afterburner to catch up with F-16C... and again (which I noticed before with this AI) is that somehow the F-16C can still "see" me (mind you he is way up high and I am down bellow so there is no way he would have seen me either by radar (as I am outside the radar scan zone limits) or visually (but AI of course cheats in this aspect, which I knew already)... but he does see me... and of course turns into me, his radar finds me in no time and fires an AIM-120B at me, which of course hits. Please see attached track showing all of this... so there are 2 bugs in this that I can tell straight away.... 1 being MiG-29A Fulcrum RWR which should, but does not, see any radar signal on the left/right aspect, the 90 degree zone lights never light up and no RWR sound can be heard... but they should... and second is this AI radar being able to "see me" (or other a/c) when I am outside the radar scan zone limit, as well as, what I consider realistic, condition where I am way bellow him and to his left/right-rear position where I think I should not be spotted, but AI MiG-29A Fulcrum SPO-15 No radar detection Bug & AI Radar Scaning Area Bug.trk

Any plans yet to add support for MiG-29A Fulcrum module in Simshaker for Aviators? How does it work for you? On my end it doesn't work (on final verson 2.9.0.0) What software version are you using?

Thanks for the correction

Good catch