whitehot

su-23?

version 1.5 open beta, last update. GUV-800 (30mm ags pod) does not fire. Went through all the steps - master arm is on, safety off, Guv selector on GUV800. Pressing the trigger does not fire the pod, nothing happens. Other GUV pods, Rockets and UPK work fine.

I was reading the manual and noticed that the system "currently installed" on our DCS Flanker is the first gen N001. From what I 've read and know, that complex is used only by export versions of the Flanker (China, Vietnam and so on), while the VVS has had the much improved N011 complex since the 90ies. Being the FCR among the more vital components in a modern fighter , that would mean that our SU-27 is basically an aircraft from the early 80ies.. There are several discussions on these forums about the superiority of the APG-63 in the F-15C, and myself was thinking that the rl Flanker really is at a big disadvantage in that field.. I don't suppose we 'll ever see DCS Flankers reequipped with some more current avionics.. but wouldn't that be all good for this simulator?

Since they make the voices both in english and russian from the beginning, for ED is not uneconomical to give the user an option to choose. Also, I don't think that english speaking users would not buy simulators because they have an option not to use english. Hence, giving the user the choice could be the best pick for everybody involved.

I solved it, pls disregard - it was an error on my part

the program will not start, only the splash screen makes a brief appearance then it goes straight to desktop The log (included) last two lines read 00008.464 INFO DXRENDERER: Creating Resource "Unicode" of type 5 00008.465 ERROR DXRENDERER: Can't load render backend. Reason: The specified procedure could not be found. dcs.log.txt

I'm very biased towards having native languages, with english subtitles.

hey but what's up with the radar cone going off axis? that a known bug?

I agree that the 8 is stupendous in Edge. If only I could play the campaign without constantly getting the dx11backend.dll crash, it would be splendiferous.

As an update, I have incurred in the crash again, this time in another Hip campaign mission, and again happens always at the same point. As previously stated, modifying the size of the pagefile seems to have alleviated the problem somehow in my system and another one (both 16GB ram), although users with less system RAM may well see no change at all. This suggests that it could be related to the massive memory leak that is reported in other threads. Sadly, if that's the case, as users we can't do nothing; just wait until they fix it.

There is a manual of the SU-27S somewhere on this forum (in spanish), that describes the datalink usage, and from what I can understand totally rules out buddy guiding. The only case of true "buddy guiding" in an intercepting system I know of is the Mig-31/R-33 system. The Zaslon radar on the Foxhound makes it possible for one AC to illuminate the target and another AC, with the radar off, to launch an R-33 towards said target. The missile is then guided by the designating AC radar, making the shot more stealthy and probably more difficult to spoof. This information is on the book by Yefim Gordon on the Mig-31, iirc. Clearly, the PESA radar design on the Foxhound makes possible a number of tactical options impossible to the Su-27 traditional single mechanical steering antenna. I would surmise that modern PESA/AESA designs would allow for modes similar to the ones of the Foxhound, but this is not the topic of this thread.

could it be that the larger FOV is due only to the larger diameter of the missile? It makes sense, as the same gimbal would have more space around it to rotate. As a sidenote, I thought that the R-73 actually was globally the missile with the larger sensor FOV. Also, it would make sense that although being mechanically similar, the 73 head actually has a more sensitive IR imager?

Yesterday reading this thread I was thinking the same thing, and asking myself if SARH missiles, at least advanced ones, should be more robust to chaffs. The fact that they are being guided by a much powerful and complex radar would point to that. The reverse is probably true with ECM: although I'm not sure. Also, as you and many others stated, it is true that IR are very less effective than expected in ECCM capability: modern ones like the R-73 should be almost impervious to flares, as they are guided by several different IR channels, every one with a different bandwidth. I believe that in this case, even the performance/tech level of the countermeasures should be modeled: a Phantom trying to spoof an R-73 would face an impossible task, if equipped with 1970 flares. On the other hand, an EF-2000 facing the same missile would have a much higher probability, employing modern multispectral flares. In regards to the 27T/TE, although they were conceived as "pursuit" missiles, to be fired at receding bombers, everything I read on the subject, including Aerofax "Russian/soviet air launched Ordnance" seem to be describing them as all-aspect

Folks: I may have a solution. Please try this out: set the windows paging file to "system managed". My system was configured to have one paging file, manually configured, over one disk only, my secondary SSD. Windows 7 is installed in my primary SSD. Under system properties, performance tab you can set that option. If you have more than one paging file over more disks, try to set all them to system managed. I can confirm that DCS doesn't crash anymore, since i changed the setting. Hope this fix get this right. gl

here are the logs from my last crash Logs.zip

I believe that the most realistic scenario we 've had has happened before the update that mangled the Aim-120s. FCwise, imho it was a model that may had some flaws, but was a much better abstraction of this kind of aerial warfare. I'm sure that most experienced players remember the situation I'm talking about, basically it was the FC2 model, still used with the FC3 planes, but it was kinda perfected, at least as far as I can see. I remember that with that model, there were many more possible tactical means to face determinate situations - unlike the following ones which have, in my view, impoverished very much the overall results of the game. All in all, what happens now is that as a Flanker rider you are forced to fly and fight pretty much the same way all the times, just to be able to survive. To have a rebalance in the current state of these planes/weapons, I'd say that mission designers and game masters should force only vintage loadouts on fighters - Sparrows vs 27R/T only. There is at least one server (in fact, I remember there was one, I haven't played MP since a while, and not at all in 1.5) that does that, and seems more fun; ofc not many people in that at any time.

Are you stating that the color filter works on a different camera from the one outputing video to the Kamov monitor and hence we can't see what effect it does, but we know that it does some effect? It's rather weird. Also, can you elaborate on what difference there is between an Electro-Optic camera and a TV one?

my feeling is that the Eagle has been brought by the devs near to its ideal point of performance in DCS - while the Flanker is still somehow away from it. I used to fly MP in both FC1 and FC2. With FC3 at some point there has been a situation in which Eagle drivers carried Sparrows because the Aim120s were totally broken by an update. The following mayor update had fixed the 120s, only to render the russian (both AR and SARH) radar msls very less capable (the performance reduction seems to me pretty much in the field of tracking efficiency, not much alteration on kinetics, athough I may be wrong). Now it's really been a long while that this situation is up, and as a player who flies both Eagles and Flankers, the effect I have is that MP in both is much less fun. To add to this, I believe that the advantages the Flanker may have in RL over the Eagle are undermodeled, if modeled at all in DCS. The datalink does not perform like it should. also most MP missions are designed to give balance to the "game", yet this results in some unbalance to the "simulator". I really hope that the problems with the RU missiles are not dictated by "politics", the biggest example being the R-77, which is a basically useless weapon in DCS. If the devs can't render the performance of these systems, because of lack of data or because that would mean to publish state secrets, I would prefer to have a sim with previous generation fighters (like Mig-23s vs Phantoms), but with their systems tuned to the highest possible realism. I understand the point of many folks stating that a proficient Flanker driver is not at a high disadvantage against a similar Eagle opponent. Yet many times I found out the hard way that, after employing successful tactics and getting advantage over Eagles, the tech would "betray me" by missing or being spoofed blatantly. I still hope that the discussed systems will get a better tuning in the future. By devs admission, the missile modeling is very precarious currently - although I was wondering why it affects very negatively only certain weapons.

I was referring to the rotary u call "color filter", which in-game is labeled as "Shkval optics adjustment" in fact does not produce any effect on the display but it still can be rotated around. Is it documented on the latest versions manual? AFAICR it was described as not operational, but that was several versions ago.

I tested it with just one A-10C, no other planes or vehicles. Fps stay 120+ with no displays on. Seem to be reduced a little by turning on CCD camera on the litening, but go down to 70-80 when using FLIR. As a sidenote, many structures look wrong in FLIR: a bridge for example was displaying only its supporting pylons but not the "road" that paves it. I guess that a reduction in fps should be normal, yet it should stay in the same values for both using FLIR and CCD. One more thing, mirrors seem to produce the same, if not slightly lesser effect as FLIR, a sensible reduction in fps (and a significant increase in reported VRAM usage).

Well, one could argue that the shkval in our BS module is lacking several modes of operations (there is that rotary, among the controls under the screen, that is "INOP", but seems to be related to adjust the optics to different light / weather conditions).. It has been there since BS1, I had hoped that they would finally implement it one day but I doubt that is gonna happen.

turning off shadows does not solve the issue in my case - DCS crashes. Anyway, it is not random, it happens always at the point in which (hip campaign mission 5), the flight leader ("102") talks with the tactical control ("Kastet"), with the latter asking for "any sign of the crew". So at that point there must be something that causes the bug.

Although it may not be the cause of your problems, I 'd suggest that if you are using the Nvidia Adaptive vsync, in-game vsync setting should be turned off. That is something that should normally applied to all games - do not use both the drivers and the in-game same setting at once - it can cause performance drops.

happens to me also, playing hip campaign. In my case, it occurs when specific mission events are triggered. I reached mission 5 (on alert) without hassle, but this one crashes a lot. Basically, when these events are fired, there are radio messages, and units being activated/deactivated. Maybe the cause of this bug can be narrowed somehow by playing with graphics and audio settings and observing possible changes both in the crash occurrence conditions, and in the strings that get displayed in the error messages

many thanks