Kuky

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

Oh, great, after testing this just now I can see that you can place RSBN Glidepath and Localiser cars on both ends using same channel # (they use same RSBN PRMG Car to generate beacon), which is great... also I tried putting Glidepath and Localiser in same group (as they share the channel) but then only 1st unit work and the 2nd doesn't, meaning each unit has to be on their own, not part of a group. Thanks for this guide

oh I see now why it wasn't working, thank you for checking my mission and seeing that units beacons were not activated and now I see why... stupid me was adding the beacon activation command under Trigger tab instead of Waypoint tab (DoH!). I edited the mission and got it working now. Thanks heaps!

I can't get this to work, I place the required units as specified, their location, heading, channel # etc, pick the same channel in cockpit but I still can't get landing bars to turn on... I don't know what I am doing wrong? MiG-29A Fulcrum Sukhum RSBN Landing.miz

I would also like to ask if external 3D model of the MiG-29A Fulcrum can be updated so that it blocks light and this light beam is not visible on other side of the fuselage?

In cockpit this light beam from landing gear lights is not visible, but is visible in the mirrors (but they shouldn't be) In addition, runway lights are not visible in the mirrors at all (actually they are visible only at very short distance only, my guess is that light sprites are the ones not visible, hence lights are not visible from further out) See screenshots

See screenshot

ah, you mean like this? I just noticed this floating piece of drag chute floating behind the aircraft, after releasing the chute, for the first time...

Basically I noticed that after I land and rearm, take off again and then land again, when I release the drag chute, its animation looks broken (see screenshots). The effect of braking is there but visuals are not.

On my end the mirrors look great now and performance is good too. I use 1024 every frame option (for both HUD and mirrors) and sequential mirrors option unchecked and like this I can get stable 120 fps (vsync limit & monitor refresh rate) while in flight however it does dip a bit into ~80-100 fps over large cities/forests... I think I haven't seen fps dip under ~80 or so which is ok by me. Mind you I also increase render distances for shadows as well as shadow map to 8196 in shadows.lua file (which is why my fps is bit lower over large & dense forests). Thanks for making this into reality ED!

Hm, I agree about ED probably modelling the RWR badly by adding this inability to use it while radar is on, I think this effect is not how they came by default but by lack of maintenance, so I think ED should change this to match the intended/default function of it and not the effect of lack of maintenance as it is now. If it stays like it is now RWR is pretty much useless and maybe I'm wrong but I just can't see the logic of why Soviet engineers would make the 29 like this from factory as it makes use of RWR on 29 pretty much irrelevant.

Question: Is this 'Target Acquisition Symbol Button Depress' command supposed to be used to lock targets or not? I thought it should but for me it doesn't do it, maybe its a bug or not, which is why I ask for intended purpose of it?

I can't find any topic on this issue so I'm going to have to create one... basically I have been making simple missions for Su-33 taking off from Kuznetsov (and landing on it also of course) towards evening/night time hours and I have noticed I cannot see the carrier at all because its lights are not visible at all until around 0.8 Km See screenshots which show cockpit view with HUD ILS where at 0.9 Km lights are not visible at all and show only at 0.8 Km distance, but this is not because the carrier lights turns on the lights at that distance, because in external view (while mission is paused) when in F2 view of the aircraft, Kuznetsov's lights are fully visible however when moving the distance back the lights stop being visible again. This makes landings on the Kuznetsov extremely difficult at night... can this please be fixed? EDIT: I forgot to add, this is with new 2017 model of the Kuznetsov ps: sorry if this is in the wrong section, this model came with Supercarrier module so I thought this is best place to post in

Its been few years since this post but I'd like to add to it because I am seeing stuttering when radio messages are being played (from wingman or ATC). I don't use VR though. I have pretty good PC (AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, RTX5090, 64GB of RAM, Win11, and for sound I use 2 sound outputs, for in game world sounds its Asus Xonar AE 7.1 and for in game comms I use generic stereo USB sound card with HyperX Cloud III headset/mic) with which I can run stable 120 fps on max settings & mirrors (it does dip to ~100 fps over large cities with mirrors on, without them still can manage 120 fps) and I have tried in DCS Audio settings 5.1 and Stereo, both do the same (give this stutter when radio message is played) I am guessing its because the sound files are being loaded from hard drive (as hard drives I use 1TB M.2 NVMe for Win11 & 2TB M.2 NVMe for DCS), and if so, anything I can do to get rid of this stutter. Without this stutter on sound files loading, DCS runs butter smooth at 120 fps. EDIT: Played a bit with Generic USB Audio card setting, set it to Stereo 16bit 48KHz sampling rate and disabled all audio enhancement, seems to help eliminate this stuttering. I played single QAG mission with 1 wingman, and only once did I see a stutter on comms message (out of probably 10+ messages). So I've changed all sound devices to same settings to see if this helps.

ED have squeezed in change to QAG in update 2.9.19.13478 and added option to either end or continue with mission once all aircraft on either side are destroyed. Thank you very much for this!

ED have now changed this as of version 2.9.19.13478 and added ability to either end or resume mission once all a/c on one side have been destroyed. Thanks!

This is my gripe with it also, esp when mission ends while there are still missiles in the air (and tracking the target). I think this is very easy thing to change so I hope ED listen to us and change this. Another thing I'd like to change is to get ability to start on runway/taxi.

hm... yes... would love DCS map of this region... you get mountains, flats, the beautiful Adriatic with both sandy beaches to the south and rocky coast to the north, Italy right across it, Greece... also opportunity for build something never done in any flight simulator... an underground airbase (Zeljava near Bihac)

Without renaming all the files you can also import the bindings in settings->input options and DCS will create new files with new GUIDs but using all the input changes imported from your saved files.

I'd like this grass distance to be increased too and I've been trying to find if there is a way (used to be before) but I can't find it either.

I agree, seeing these massive ships just pop-in at very short distance (looks to be around no more than 3km) looks just awful. Persian Gulf map has this set extremely well so Syrian map really needs this changed to match PG map. Otherwise Syrian map is great to me.

I understand that flying through the path of missile is extremely unlikely however this new effect would come in quite handy as an extra realism in DCS (which we all like) for when aircraft itself launches the missile. That is the time/point when missile thrust creates lot of turbulent air and the launching aircraft is flying right through it (obviously), most pronounced when missile is fired off the wing. So why not (if resources/time permitting) add this effect as well? EDIT: now after looking specifically for videos of cockpit view for aircraft launching missiles to see how much of an effect this would have, I came to realise its not that much at all, probably the weight loss from released weapon has more effect then missile plume itself... in which case you can ignore my "request"