FSKRipper

I think this could be an option for the far future but most mission builders would not want do go that deep. Sure, it could add some spice to missions when you leave the programming incomplete but that is very advanced mission editing.... I would like to fly the Hornet first, before the developers spare some time for these things Taking your example, in Gulf War 2 were many cases, in which old threats like SA-2, SA-3 profiles were not programmed for planes flying SEAD. Simply because some people tought these systems were to old for a conflict at that time. As you can imagine it was a bad suprise for those pilots...

I can see your problem. Do you returned to base in any of the shown cases? If there where no Chance, I would say it is a cosmetical bug :smartass:

Nice idea, but remember the MiG-21 is a full sim model. Since I have no insight, I would not claim she is on the A-10 level but fore sure ages ahead of the current Flanker and Eagle model. I would suppose that ED is currently more busy getting 2.0 in position than adding new Features, but as stated I would be happy to see it someday.

I would think it's already corrected... DCS World 1.2.12 Change Log DCS Flaming Cliffs Su-27. Flight dynamics corrected Su-27. 3D model corrected Su-27. Gear corrected Su-27. Adjusted keyboard controls Su-27. HUD indication field is corrected Su-27. Updated campaign Su-27. Wrong IAS indication is fixed F-15C. Missing pylons are restored F-15C. 3D model and collision model are corrected

Sorry to mention that guys but why you all post that under the Leatherneck Forum. It's at least the third "I wan't to have plane x" thread. I would think the DCS wishlist thread in the main room would be the best solution. I'm not against new planes but the small team from LN is for sure really busy in reading comments and bug reports for their MiG-21 baby :music_whistling: Edit: I have watched the first five pages in the LN Forum and I see 6 plane requests, sometimes twice or more for the same model. Please, let the guys do their work :doh:

Falls du die Seite nicht eh schon hast... http://fas.org/man/index.html

Hm, sorry I don't get it. We have already a lot of prop planes (thanks to WW2) and as stated above, there are a couple of jet-trainers in the pipeline. I have flown the 172 in the MS Flight Simulator, no need to do it here and pay 50 bucks for it. Would never buy it...

Danke für all deine Mühen. Nun hab ich endlich wieder abendliche Sofalektüre.

Hallo Leute, hab mal ein bisschen die Mittagspause genutzt und getestet. In der DCS Implementierung lässt sich die RS-2US tatsächlich nicht ohne Lock abfeuern bzw. steuern. Somit kann sie genau so behandelt werden wie halbaktive Raketen, abfeuern und das Ziel schön im Lock behalten bis es knallt. Als Randnotiz: Kleiner Testspaß am Rande... Man kann die Grom auch im AA Modus nutzen und sie als Beamrider auf (große) Luftziele lenken. Hab mal einen kurzen Track rangehängt. Mein nicht dokumentierter Rekord lag bei einem Treffer aus 1,6 nm auf das Heck einer IL-76. :joystick: EDIT: Ich habe mich gerade noch einmal durch die englischen Foren der MiG-21 gewühlt. Dort wird angemerkt das die Verwendung der RS-2US und der Kh-66 Grom einen Kompromiss der Simulation darstellen. Diese Waffen wurden für die Nutzung mit dem RP-21 Funkmessvisier früherer Baureihen entwickelt. Sie würden mit sehr großer Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht mit dem RP-22 Radar der MiG-21bis (wie sie in DCS simuliert wird) funktionieren. Damit stellen sie eher imaginäre Waffensysteme für dieses Flugzeugmodell dar, ähnlich den nur der Vollständigkeit halber vorhandenen Nuklearwaffen. Wer es selbst nochmal lesen möchte: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=131486 Grom.trk

Hab mich jetzt nochmal schlau gemacht. Wir haben ja in Deutschland schöne Seiten auf die in diesem Forum auch schon hingewiesen wurde... http://www.mig-21-online.de/ Unter den Anleitungen zum RP-21 Funkmessvisier BA "fixierter Strahl" gibt's die Antworten. In der Kurzfassung: Im Normallfall wird ein Lock in der Betriebsart "Zielbetrieb" durchgeführt. Sollte dies nicht möglich sein, (Abstand zwischen Zielen zu gering, Ziele unterhalb der Einsatzhöhe, Angriff von Bodenzielen etc. ) erfolgt die Ausrichtung des Strahls durch das optische Visier. Das Ziel muss dabei konstant im Visierkreis gehalten werde. Laut der Seite war es auch möglich mit der RS-2US Bodenziele anzugreifen (Grom und Alkali scheinen ja eh auf dem selben Modell zu basieren). Ich werde heute Abend aber nochmal das Verhalten in der Sim testen da es ja in diesem Thread darum geht :music_whistling: @ Flagrum: Danke für deine Erklärung, hab allerdings noch eine Verständnislücke. Ich dachte gerade bei der Vikhr und auch der Grom müssen extra keine Steuerimpulse übermittelt werden da die Sensoren im Heck der Rakete nichts anderes tun als nach hinten zu schauen und die Rakete möglichst mittig auf dem Strahl zu halten der das Ziel anleuchtet. Hab ich das irgendwie missverstanden? :music_whistling:

Also abgesehen vom Hecksensor der relativ einzigartig ist magst du Recht haben. Hätte ja den Nachteil das ein Lock nicht reicht wie bei der Sparrow da die Antenne fix ist. Ich werde die nächsten Tage nochmal den Vater fragen aber wenn ich meine letzte Unterhaltung mit ihm richtig verstanden hab reichte das anstrahlen mit dem Messvisier, also ohne Lock. Bevor du mich lynchst wird ich es in der Sim mal bis morgen Abend ausprobieren. Müsste ja dann dem Beam-Modus entsprechen wie die Grom...

Hi Lino, ein super Guide, gerade für Einsteiger und auch für kaum-online Flieger wie mich. Wie die Piloten bei Ihrem Gehalt nörgel ich jetzt mal auf hohem Niveau. Der Vollständigkeit halber könntest du noch die reinen Beam-Rider aufnehmen (hast die RS-2 US ja eh in der Liste). Radarlenkung über einen Hecksensor der sich am abstrahlenden Flugzeug orientiert. Bin mir jetzt nicht 100% sicher aber ich glaube die Vikhr arbeitet mit ihrem Laser ähnlich.

I think that's the reason why the guys doing the real stuff everyday get paid for it :megalol: BTW: Maybe it's a bit ill but flying something with PFM and a clickable cockpit after work is real hard work. But some kind of work I love to do :thumbup:

ATM not, let's hope the next patch or finally 2.0 will bring salvation :music_whistling:

You don't have to read all but the thread is exactly the third in the LN forum and has the same title as yours. As it was already discussed it is not so simple to create a new model with another cockpit and other weapons in a couple of weeks or months. BTW I have the feeling that the next plane coming from LN is maybe a two seater ;)

I think the TOT's work good if you keep your briefed Take off time. I need 11 minutes for ramp start and wait the 4 minutes until TO. When you have programmed your Nav System as briefed you should be fine with approx. 240 kts.

Ok, edited my logbook and made another try. During Fence in the instructor told me to make a markpoint on the target. I think that was my problem last time. I turned onto the target too early which prohibited the IP trigger to work. Everything seems to be fine now. Thanks for your outstanding work Sabre, especially since DCS is bringing in new "features" with every second patch. :megalol:

The practice mission worked fine. It's the campaign mission that was not working. Will edit my logbook and try again tonight.

Had a similar problem today. Everything looked fine in AFT04, had the Fence check but the IP trigger didn't fire and finished with a rating of 0. Wanted to play it again to post a track but as I see now the campaign switched back to AFT03. The training mission worked fine for me... AAT Version 1.4 DCS: 1.2.11.34087

If you mean his last post to ECM and A-10C it is no longer up to date. As stated on the last page the patch came out after his tests. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126447&page=6 For all other means you might be correct. Don't have enough spare time to get deep into ECM atm but would still think that the people and testers in the general DCS Forum could give you more detailed information.

Lot's of interesting questions. Maybe you should use another subforum. Radar frequencies and the implemented ECM models are more regular DCS stuff instead of Leatherneck specific themes. Don't nail me on that but some patches ago I saw a notice that ECM strenght was upgraded (by 10-20%). If this was not only for the A-10C I would think DCS uses a similar ECM model for all aircraft (with type specific ranges). I don't think it would make sense to model specific frequencies at the current state of DCS. Since most modern Radars use ECCM tactics like frequency switching the amount of work would be incredible (Not to mention that most characteristics are still classified). :music_whistling:

Short question, your landing seems to be some kind of a last minute touchdown, very hard, late down the runway and with high speed as the airbrakes would imply. Was it intended as fast version or emergency procedure? Could imagine your tanks were still filled to the top... got the irony at the last 5 seconds :megalol:

Nice try pal. You can get F-117 and B-17 Flying fortress as well. But for what price... eye cancer? :megalol:

Absolutely right! Think of Tornado from Digital Integration. It is possible to handle that as it was in 1993. Sure the models are more complex now but the AI routines and the programming skills have also come a long way... I would prefer a two seater like the Cat with a working (but not for everybody perfect) RIO UI than only single seaters. If it work's, maybe we will see an Apache in the far future. I think Flagrum would love to change his sig again :music_whistling:

Hello Grimes, thank you for your tip. Tried it but without success. I attached the mission file and the track. I made sure that for the georgian ships ROE=Weapon hold is set as first command. After mission start, they will move in position start firing at the tanker. I have no idea why. @MasterFlash. Thanks, for your tip. Will think of this for my next projects. It also keeps it cleaner. MiG-21 Fam Flight rework.miz mission.trk