PiedDroit

Well, the 4000 evolved into the Rafale ;)

Does that mean we can't lock on a jamming ship?

It's a known issue, no fix ATM, only luck. Track do not record what exactly happened, they replay the flight using various input (which is done to save space I suppose), which makes a track also dependent on DCS version. So if anything doesn't happen exactly like in the real flight, the track might get corrupted. Maybe it's a random seed issue, or, if they use a fixed seed, stutter in the simulation would affect the results.

See this post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2620198&postcount=17

Well the loaded SU-25T, is a sluggish aircraft, when compared to a MiG-29, but much less sluggish than an A-10 :D The SU-25T gives you an idea of FC3 what aircraft are like. They're all pretty much the same, avionics-wise, a few keys, simplified systems (I'm over-simplifying here, don't shoot, you DCS veterans!). Some of the FC3 planes have a decent flight model (SU-25T is one of them), other not (but they're getting updated progressively), there's a list somewhere. There are attack aircraft (SU-25, A-10A), fighters (some can do some ground attack too, like SU-27,33 and MiG-29), it's quite diversified. On the other hand, there are the full fidelity modules like A-10C, KA-50, MiG-21BIS, Mirage-2000C, L-39, well, all the other modules, I won't list them all here. Those modules are more expensive but they also provide a much higher degree of systems complexity and all have advanced flight model (sometimes not finished, for the betas), as well as clickable cockpit (you don't have to remember all the keys, just click the switch in the cockpit). The choice of either module depends on what you want/how to fly, if you're happy with simplified avionics and want to fly varied aircraft for a reasonable price, FC3 is a good entry point, either buy FC3 (all modules at once) or one by one (A-10A, SU-25, SU-27, SU-33, MiG-29, F-15). If you're more interested in a study sim with realistic avionics, for ground attack, the A-10C will make your day, it's manual is 600+ pages with lots of different systems, there's a ton to learn (you don't need to be proficient at FC3 to fly it). If you have the patience you can buy the modules for a lower price when a sale happens (usually every other month). If you give more details about what/how you want to fly maybe I can give better advice. If you are not really sure, maybe you can stick fo the SU-25T and grab FC3 or A-10C when a good sale occurs.

I read a bit of the text article, diagonaly, funny topic. What I noticed with recent websites is that they're now made with high level editors that have no shame putting a ton of useless stuff in the metadata for tracking, advertisement and customization purpose... Hand-made pages are a thing of the past.

You're welcome :thumbup: Those tests were interesting for me too ;)

Trims are RCtrl+, ; . / I just checked and they work fine (you made me doubt since I didn't fly the 25T in a while ) :thumbup:

That little circle is almost certainly your missile seeker. For a good launch you also need to look at the distance scale on the right of the HUD.

I think that little circle is a launch cue for the 530D (probably indicating where the seeker of the missile is, just like with the Magic). So if the little circle disappears it only means that you don't have a 530D left (that's maybe why you had it disappearing on second launch). There is no indication of STT / TWS on the HUD. The best way to check is to look on the HDD, PID = TWS, PIC = STT. edit: just tested, I confirm all this (in bold)

This might just be bad luck, I often lose the lock too, shooting or not (heck, I even had the 530D shooting by itself, happened to me two or three times). I found that sometimes the only way to get a target (displayed on the scope) locked was to use the RDO button, because the lock button would refuse to lock anything.

That is true for an A-10, but in the case of a fast mover, you will see the impact point of your high drag bomb when flying low. So CCIP makes sense. What was named backwards? There is no confusion with CCIP or CCRP at least, CCIP is CCIP as we know it and CCRP is indeed CCRP.

I never quite understood why they were calling it like this, because in my mind, CCIP = shows were the bombs would impact if you were to release now, and CCRP = designate a target and let the system tell you when to release in order to hit that target. So the CCIP consent 3/9 (or 5 mils) of the A-10C is actually a CCRP mode :music_whistling: Anyway, I agree with OP's explanation, the attack profile or either bombs naturally call for a specific mode, CCRP or CCIP, which make perfect sense. People complain and says they prefer CCIP because the CCRP is not working to it's fullest (automatic release), but once this is sorted out, I bet everyone will love it :thumbup:

There's another one in the same vein, also from 22BLT, they're really great! Good music, good flying, I love that kind of videos, yours is very good :thumbup:

Wow great vid :thumbup: It strongly reminds me of this one (music, angles), especially that awesome dive at 1:23 [ame] [/ame]

Hello, here's the correct calibration value for TRACKIR_YAW: saturation Y = 43 With this value I got an in-game angle that is the same as TrackIR output angle and now TrueView works as expected. I don't know if re-creating a profile changed anything for you, I'd be curious to hear your test results about that.

Okay, I got it. It's a DCS axis calibration issue. When moving my DCS view to 90° to the right, my TrackIR software thinks it's transmitting 35°. So, the trackIR output is correct but DCS is exagerating movement. When moving my real head forward, I get mostly forward in game movement and a little lateral movement, because TrackIR thinks the in-game head is turned 35°, not 90° What needs to be done to get True View working is to calibrate TrackIR axis so when the in-game heads is at 90°, trackIR output is also 90°. I'll do that calibration and come back. EDIT:Added screenshot to illustrate this

This indeed looks like True View is not enabled, you will be ables to solve it in TrackIR software. Redo the same movements and check the output values. EDIT: I did some tests and it looks like I have the same thing. Roll inversion works as expected but not translation, I'm looking into it now If anything, this has nothing to do with True View, True View is only a way to translate your head movement to trackIR outputs (x, y, z, pitch, roll, yaw). DCS doesn't know that you're using TrueView or not, it's only seeing x, y, z, pitch, roll, yaw values. You need to check your TrackIR outputs using the TrackIR software and see if there's a limitation there. Maybe your camera is not seeing the reflector (or the clip) well enough and the movement stops in certain body positions. This might happen if - the camera is not placed high enough - the camera is not oriented properly - your body unmasks an interfering light source

That is not correct, it is trimmed with the listed controls, if they don't work then you have an issue. It's true that the AP uses the trims to control the aircraft though, so if you cut the AP the in the middle of a funky turn you'll have some trouble getting it back to normal trim :D Better use the level AP as you suggested in that case. When it's clean it's quite nimble actually, very enjoyable ;)

This post was only to illustrate the discussion about the belly pylons and carrying mica with fuel tanks, you know.

Also, I was wrong since when looking from the front the missiles are actually sitting further from the fuel tank than I initially thought :thumbup:

You're welcome! Your videos are usually quite popular so it's better to have it right :smartass:

FYI, RP is "Réservoir Pendulaire" (Drop Tank), not cannon. Cannon switch is the one left of MAG ;) Also it's not BLI it's BL1 (Bombe Lisse - Low Drag Bomb). Same BF1 (Bombe Freinée). Good videos

Still, I'm not really positive (I remember having read that somewhere but I really can't find where). On this picture the mica is awfully close to the drop tank, I don't know if it's a real setup or not. Maybe (1) missile is ejected forward before ignition (using a small solid booster?) (2) it can drop without risks for the drop tank (3) it is fired forward and my idea is BS (4) interception doesn't need more missiles (as other ppl said) (5) older missiles were just too big to be fitted there

I think technology is one answer, maybe they didn't have missiles that could be safely launched from the belly pylons (because of exhaust gas that would feed directly into the engine) as the SARH they had (i.e. 530D was rather big, and launched from the rail). The Mica can drop from the rail and ignite shortly after, which makes it safe for belly pylons launch. (I'm putting some "maybe's" here because I didn't find the source of that so I'm not 100% sure).