zaelu

Maybe the nose wheel bumped the runway as you rotated and got damaged. Try to pull back on the stick 2/3 of its travel as you reach 250kph and hold it there until the nose raise. After the nose has risen push stick forward to recenter. Keep around 10-15° AoA. The airplane will roll on the main gear for final part and take off by itself sooner or later depending on the weight.

Bombs are released not when the cue crosses the FPM (as the instructor says) but when the weapon release trigger is pressed. This happens also in CCRP mode in any mission user made.

Mi-8 is a dream to take off and land. Provided you treat her like a... fat lady. :D Seriously Mi-8 is great but don't forget to release the parking brake. It stops the tendency to tip over in some cases :megalol:

Just not included Skull Leader. Only the cargos. Finally!! :)

Thank You CptSmiley! :thumbup: I will have my Trim HAT back Soon then! :D

I was just trying to make a comparison, obviously it wouldn't use something like "Fenêtres '95", etc. :D About computing power thrown out... that's what we all do with our brains isn't it? :)

How do you think it looked the image from those sensors from '90s and what computer-software was available to make such accurate detection? Do you think it had more than 320x240@30fps resolution and a 386 behind it? What lenses do you thing it used (if any)?

The only difference is the seeker head is actively pointed towards the target and kept like this for few moments before launch. A maneuvering plane (with an unaware pilot) would have little chance of detecting with precision the direction of launch if not the launch at all. It's like trying to lock an IR missile on a target that moves all over the sky in front of the plane. IMHO... taking in consideration all the story about this, those sensors would in best case detect a launch or not and not point to it instantly as it will need quite of work for this (neither the seeker head do that it just uses a feedback mechanics to turn the missile so it will point towards the target after launch). I think something like the SPO-10 from Mig21Bis would be best case (meaning just 4 cardinal points detectors and overlapping in their alerts). I have my reservations about this system implemented with so many "shortcuts" towards "arcade" (not implemented in C probably for good reasons not "money", 3 sensors on each side instead of one, laser precision and probably instant reaction, probably impossible to disable in MP games) not being a "can of worms" for multiplayer. But... sometimes we need to see before believing.

That's a generic term. Su-25T uses also AFM. Not same thing. 3rd party devs are using what is called EFM which stands for "External FM" as in not made by Eagle Dynamics (or Belsimtek), ED had initially SFM for all planes that were LOMAC/FC2-3 era. After Su25T arived (with Flaming Cliffs1) its FM was named AFM... as in Advanced FM. Now ED uses the term PFM as in Professional FM. Basically naming a FM "AFM" is just a way of delimiting from SFM. So any third party dev that doesn't use SFM uses an EFM. And that EFM can be called whatever they please. Medusa... AFM... etc. I

It might be how the FM is build. BST is programming they FM like ED from ground up and in extreme detail. And that costs a lot. Remember F15C FM was given as example that it costs 100 000$ 3rd Party devs don't have those money to throw upfront so they can use "shortcuts" to achieve best possible without ruining them. Polychop said before the lauch that the FM is build as and EFM using a sort of plugin made for scientific analysis or something (iirc). So this "interface" might have limitations when connecting to DCS. Is my only explanation why they often try to "establish the perception" that the FM is pretty much done although some strange behaviors are reported. VRS, AP on/off being almost the same, stability in flight.

That means Mig21 1st person pilot body is not yet started, right?

:D rofl

Good tutorial Rlaxoxo! What is BUT and BAD stands for? The acronym. @Zeus. You are just shy to use your voice :P .

I don't think people want it to get easier. Simply to recover by proper procedures, aka exit the vortex laterally or longitudinally and not simply apply collective (which should work exactly in the wrong way). Maybe BST UH1H enters too quickly although rarely I flew it "soft loaded"... mostly heavy... but the way the helicopter acts when enters VRS is scary. It twists and shakes like a beast in a snake grip. I get the same experience with Gazelle only when I take off if I touch the cyclic... which is...

Is great that you are programmers and engineers. Don't loose tempo and steam! I wish you success! PS Start just one plane.

I bet on a delay :D

Rlaxoxo I want to tell you first that I appreciate a lot the things you've done and do for DCS (mods, youtube films, etc) but I find your (continuous) remarks over the "hyper realism guys" or whatever you call it, un-sporting or a bit disrespectful. It's like me going to a gym club and start lifting weights and doing a good job but no real performance stuff because I'm not interested and then... just start making a mockery on the people doing that stuff. I mean... I don't do weights lifting (as a sport) in real life but I can imagine this is like playing DCS. You realize most of BF - Warthunder or whatever else arcade style player doesn't give a rats arse on a correct alignment procedure for INS system on Mirage 2000C (C not other sub variant that might have different procedure), don't you? So your playing this style of simulation are just as ridiculous to them as the guys you laugh about are for you. For example, I don't play A-10C hardcore style... or any other aircraft but I do understand the ones that want to and I don't find appropriate to make mockery of their style. We can do jokes because we are not too stiff isn't it but... If people that play the game like this are for constant mockery from you then it must be the same with those who program such things like this because they must take them selves even more serious. So maybe you can ease up a bit on this making fun of "realistic people" because they are after all... your people. === I would also want to ask Zeus what he thinks about limiting this D2M system to be available as an option only if Air to Ground weapons are mounted on the pylons. This as a measure of limiting any potential abuse of the system in A2A combat by... design or limits of the DCS simulation. It would be a shame to ruin the immersion of many players with any future bug that would let people not only use this in A2A but to use it more than it would be possible even in a "dream".

Let's not exaggerate on the difference between Visual and IR. You say IR is easier to see and track? It's very fine by me. I even found some videos true not from incoming point of view

Well... FBW simulation limits have been used to "expand" aircraft envelope... you think those limits are infallible in a simulation? :) You can't simulate the entire physics of that sensor especially when it's classified. I'm not sure how you could detect the heat of an opposite facing rocket engine but... maybe. Still "optic" system nonetheless isn't it?

It's not a bug I think is just the way they are implemented for "simplicity". If you want mirrors off it simply stops updating them. So to fix the wrong image for people that fly with them off but start cold from ramp... after take off toggle them on/off once and the image that will remain still on them will be one more appropriate with the skies.

I observed the same while assigning only the "slats extends, else auto"

I have no big problem in providing this "sensor" for M2KC in principle. However... People keep saying "I don't understand xxxx". I guess you know that is just an expression which in most languages means you actually do understand or have a strong opinion about and don't agree with it. Otherwise, as Freud would probably say... look no further than the direct meaning of the words you say. "You don't understand something"... ask for information to be "enlightened about the issue". I... do have an opinion. I think people that like this option only think at the way this would be abused in multiplayer in AA combat. A Battlefield style anti-IR-Warning Receiver. Why I say this? All the people that jumped in happiness about this said nothing - NOTHING! about how bad such thing would perform for ground attack, how unreliable would be. 135° rear side coverage, no upper coverage AT ALL down facing coverage EXTREMELY limited or close to a blade like zone range... probably a small zone under 2-3km Zeus said that he extrapolated 135° and looks OK, also he said that upper coverage is ZERO because of the wing above the sensor and down facing coverage we can assume is far far far far worse than its 135° lateral which is made by using the angle shaped prisms. Downwards it has no angled prisms for help. So probably it has something like 2° coverage. Now how this would work although classified it's is not really hard to understand. It's an optical sensor similar with an optic mouse sensor. It constantly analyse the image it gets (the poor one) and searches for certain patterns. Like big white puffs on green/brown background. It could have some algorithms for optimizing this to avoid false positives (like passing over some white buildings and system going haywire). The system probably is tuned to have a very shallow "depth of field" so it can focus itself on a certain dangerous range (from 1km to 2Km maybe or even less)and probably it has things to filter out any alarm that may be triggered by a wing moving the sensor view above the horizon exposing it to blue sky with puffs of white clouds. Probably the systems turns it self off for every flare launches from own aircraft for a while. For the Rafale the system might be activated only when in Close Combat Modes and probably it will first try to find the launching plane as a darker spot on the sky and then distinguish any white puffs from a launch (any launch Radar guided included) from it. For people that "don't understand the strive for realism of others... uh-oh... "... Try to imagine someone would hack your DCS World game and make all the planes/helicopters mix between them Cockpits/FMs/External models. Would you "feel" the same? Would you like it the same as it is now? If not then understand that you are exactly like the others that want "100%" realism is just that you settle for less where that less is not a measurable value. Its subjective and not worthy to fight over it. You don't want to fly in DCS a F18 like in Battlefield 2 would you? Then if you understand yourself when compared with BF2 F18 players then you can understand also the others that want planes in DCS as close as possible with reality and ESPECIALLY avoid unrealistic things that are completely avoidable. So maybe this thing should be attached to the plane as an option only when the plane caries ground attack ordnance? Let's see who is against this "option"?!? :music_whistling:

try to resave the mission if it's old. Also check the payload not to have old missiles. Put them on once more.

:D propose (English) titles as we can edit the nomination category at any time

Mina has 3 apron spaces. In DCS... in real life it seems it's different: https://www.google.fr/maps/@38.3602918,-118.0932454,2404a,20y,40.87t/data=!3m1!1e3 http://www.sunrisevalley.com/32mina.htm So I guess OP request is not only valid but with good chances of being fulfilled in the future. edit This post is FUBAR as I confused Mina with Beatty. Still Mina is a dirt strip so being asphalted in DCS maybe it could be expanded a bit with some spawn places to the side of the airstrip..