Hyperion35

Ahem, was there supposed to be a manual included? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3029102&postcount=225

Yeah, normally the manuals are in Mods\Aircraft\<module name>\Doc (for example, Mods\Aircraft\Mig-21bis\Doc has the Fishbed manuals), but after downloading and installing the Viggen module, I see Mods\Aircraft\AJS37 but there is no folder Mods\Aircraft\AJS37\Doc inside it. I was planning on transferring the manual from my computer to my tablet for reference while flying, but it sounds like the manual in this thread is all that's currently available.

Confirmed. Mine was still showing 1.5.5 as the current version when I first saw the posts saying the update was live, but now it recognizes that there's a new version and is downloading it. 2.6 GB download, looks like (total might be different depending on which modules one has installed). Also, I've been on the Open Beta branch since 1.5 was first released for Beta Testing. If you're flying modules that are still in Beta release, it really is best to be on the Open Beta branch, you'll get bug fixes a bit sooner. I also see that I'm not the only one eager to download the update, 52 peers showing on the torrent.

Confirmed that I was able to update to 1.5.5.59744 after rebooting. I've been a bit busy with other things today, so I haven't been able to run the program or test out the new updates and campaign, but I can confirm that the reboot seems to have forced the updater to recognize that there was an update available. I was worried because it looked like it might be an issue on ED's end (I've worked on PHP XML updaters before for other projects, unrelated to DCS), so I figured I'd mention it. Sounds like it might have been client-side in terms of which version number is being sent to ED's servers by the updater? Or maybe based on how ED's servers are recognizing the version numbers? Anyways, it seems that rebooting may resolve the issue

I am unable to update my copy of DCS World OpenBeta from 1.5.5.58891 to the new version released today which should be 1.5.5.59744. I have tried using the updater feature via Start Menu, I have tried running DCS World OpenBeta to see if it will attempt to automatically update (it does not, it simply opens the program, but it is clearly not the newest version as it does not show me training missions or campaign for the Mirage 2000-C). I get the message that my version, 1.5.5.58891 is up to date. So I went and I attempted to perform a manual update via command line, navigating to C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\bin and then I input the following command: dcs_updater.exe update 1.5.5.59744@openbeta This caused the updater program to run, but it gave me an error message that version 1.5.5.59744 could not be found. I have attached the autoupdate_templog.txt that was created by the updater (I have edited it slightly to remove the pathfile to the log, as it contained the Users\<my username>). As shown in the log file, I am running Windows 10 64-bit. autoupdate_templog.txt

I think this is putting the cart before the horse...or really more like adding features to a cart that lacks wheels. Before talking about adding more unguided bombs, it would be nice to be able to use the existing bombs. Even after Friday's update, the CCIP bug on the HUD still makes it unusable. While it would be nice to have a multirole fighter, I think at this point we may just have to accept that the Mirage 2000C in DCS is a bit like the F-15C in real life: an air superiority fighter with theoretical A/G capabilities.

As I mentioned in the other thread, it's still only showing that it's allowing me to use 30% of the price ($15.00 on a $49.99 module). I've looked at the Gazelle, the F-86, and the Mi-8 and all of them give this result.

I tried looking at the Gazelle and the F-86, which were the two I was interested in, and both of those are only allowing 30%. I also checked the Mi-8 as well and got the same result. Specifically, it says: So for a module priced at $49.99, that comes to being able to use bonus points on only 30% of the price.

If it is true that one needs to own both planes in order to purchase and play this campaign, then there is another very serious problem. When I open up the E-Shop without logging in, I get the big red "Requires Another Product" warning on all campaigns, as is normal. After I log in, there is NO "Requires Another Product" warning on the Museum Relic campaign page in the E-Shop. I own the MiG-15bis module, but I do not own the F-86 module. The only reason why I did not purchase the campaign was specifically because of the smaller red warning that says that you need the MiG-15 and F-86 modules, that one little "and" was my only warning. I am fully able to add the Museum Relic campaign to my Shopping Cart. When I go to my Shopping Cart, the only warning is "Not For Steam". It appears that the E-Shop may only be checking for the presence of the MiG-15 module associated with our account when it comes to this campaign. So if I had not waited to see this thread and the other thread, I might have assumed that I could purchase this campaign and play it through using only the MiG-15bis. Much of the material for this campaign implies very strongly that this is a campaign that you would fly using only one plane or the other. So it is possible that some people who own only the MiG-15bis are going to purchase this campaign in the belief that they can do so and play through the campaign in the MiG-15, and that the only thing that they will be unable to do is play the F-86 side of the campaign.

There appears to be a problem with the kneeboard in the 1.5.4 beta update. It only shows the pages that have the current mission waypoints, but it does not show the runway information or the maps with the ARC stations. I've reported this on the bugtracker with full repro. Issue is number 0000369 and the bug report itself can be found here: https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=369 I'm concerned because the files for the images themselves appear to be in the correct folder within the DCS: World installation, but when I check the kneeboard in the cockpit during a mission, those pages in the kneeboard are simply transparent

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS. THIS. So much THIS. Keywords: "structured bug report". The most important part of a bug report isn't the part where the feature doesn't work. The most important part is all the steps that occurred leading up to the problem. And I still remember my old boss restraining me from biting the heads off of beta testers for giving me summaries of "what I think is causing this bug" without any of the actual reproduction (he literally had to point out that the beta testers were volunteers, and if I liked, I could earn their salaries instead). Probably the only way to describe it to people who haven't been there is to tell them to go watch Apollo 13 and watch Ed Harris's character: "We're going to take this step by step, and none of us are leaving this building until we've solved it".

There are good reasons why DCS:World is sorta in a mid-1990s setting. That's about the latest that they're going to be able to get realistic modeling for anything. We should be glad that we've got an F-15C, considering that it's still a frontline air superiority fighter for many allied nations. I'd rather see more focus on 3rd and early 4th gen fighters and attack aircraft, stuff that they can fully model because it's no longer classified, or at least enough of it is declassified to be possible. And since there are new 4+ and 5th gen aircraft that have been put into service recently, it makes that far easier. For example the Swedes are less concerned about realistic modeling of the Viggen now that it's been replaced by the Gripen, and I can't imagine that anyone is going to be upset about the mid-1970s bis version of the MiG-21 being "compromised".

I already have Razbam's Mirage-2000C module. Will installing this module affect my existing M-2000C? I don't want to overwrite the existing module. I also don't want the game itself to get confused if I try to fly the existing Mirage-2000C module that I already have. Is there a way to install this without the Mirage-2000C? Would I just remove certain files from the folder?

I have done professional programming before, although I have not done any programming for DCS (or for any flight sims). Based on my experience, the reality of this situation is almost certainly far more complicated. Those two options are actually the least likely. It is unlikely that the radar bug was introduced by LN. If they had made changes to the radar that had resulted in this bug, they would most likely have reverted those changes and this would have been fixed a long time ago. In fact, doing so would have allowed them to focus more effort on upcoming modules, rather than having to spend time and effort locating and fixing this bug. It is more likely that something was changed within DCS involving radar detection. You mentioned Razbam and the Mirage in your post, and if you check the Mirage board, there is a thread discussing changes that have been made and that will be made in the future for their RDI radar, they have made many changes over the past few months that have increased the complexity of how their radar functions. I do not know how DCS and Third Party Devs work their licenses and share their code. In my limited experience, I have worked in situations where I had been given a closed-source API that would allow my code to interact with someone else's larger system. In those situations, I would do various things and then send out a function call through the API to get certain information from the system, and it would return certain values, and my code would have various conditional statements based on the information that was returned, and calculations based on those values, etc. This is a broad generalization of how a lot of third-party API setups work, although DCS is several orders of magnitude (orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude, really) more complex than anything I've worked with. So it is entirely possible that Razbam added features to their radar, and these features required ED to make changes to how DCS handles radar detection. Remember that the DCS planes that currently use air-to-air radar are only the FC3 fighters (F-15C, Su-27/33, and MiG29A/G/C), the MiG-21bis, and the Mirage-2000C. And the FC3 fighters use very simplified systems that are almost generically identical between them. So the MiG-21bis and Mirage-2000C are the only two DCS aircraft with complex radar systems. It's very easy to imagine how changes to ED's DCS:World code to accommodate new RDI features could easily alter how the Sapfir interacts with elements in DCS:World. Bughunting is tricky. Figuring out which piece of code is responsible for a given bug can get fiendishly complex. Just figuring out what's causing the problem can take a lot more time than you might expect. And that's assuming that the problem is in your code. If the problem is caused by changes/bugs in the external system, or in your closed-source API? I've had that happen, and it's a headache and a half. Now your bughunting goes from finding a needle in a haystack to finding a slightly differently-colored grain of sand on a beach, at midnight, with no moon.

It's also worth pointing out that there were a large number of dogfights between MiG-21 MF/PFM and other pre-bis variants against Israeli Mirage IIICJs and Neshers (Nesherim?) during the 1967-1973 conflicts, including at least one dogfight involving Soviet MiG-21 pilots. That being said, by the time that the MiG-21bis was available for export, Israel had already received the F-15A, and they were first used in combat against MiG-21s in 1979. But still, if you want to limit your loadout to the R-3S and R-60, a Mirage III variant would be an obvious choice for an opponent for the MiG-21. A Kfir would be the logical comparison to the MiG-21bis specifically, since they were both released at almost the same time as the final major variant for their specific aircraft models. Unfortunately, I don't think DCS: World currently has a Mirage III for AI use. And the Mirage 2000C is a very different aircraft. Now, if someone wanted to create a Kfir for DCS: World, that'd be a day one purchase from me, but I'm not sure that it's very likely.

It's worth pointing out a key part of this sentence is the word "will be". Star Citizen has not yet been released, it is still in its development cycle. So anything that their development team is discussing is still theoretical and has not yet been implemented. DCS, by contrast, is in full stable release and has been through several development cycles. There are still bugs, because there's no such thing as bug-free code, but unlike Star Citizen, they'd actually put their simulator code into action. So it might be better to say that it's good to hear that Star Citizen intends to implement the same sort of high-fidelity 64-bit floating point calculations that are already used in DCS. Star Citizen is in a position where they can say that they intend to do a lot of things (and in fairness, their lead producer does have a long history of successful space sims), but DCS is in a position where they are expected to make it work.

Check FlightControl's signature underneath the post where he mentioned that mission (Anapa Airbase). It has a link to his missions in GitHub, including that specific mission.

In addition to the effect on the pilot, I know that the MiG-21 module simulates the effects of negative-g dives with regards to the fuel feed into the engine...or lack thereof, under certain conditions. And I'm amused that the Soviet fix for this problem was to install a switch next to the throttle to allow the pilot to restart the engine, as that's much cheaper than fixing the underlying design flaw...although somehow I suspect that the actual MiG-21 pilots weren't as enthusiastic about the cost savings. But yeah, if you pull a negative-g dive in the MiG-21 in DCS, the engine will sometimes cut off, simulating a real "feature" of that jet.

I can confirm this bug. I hadn't flown the MiG-21 in a while, and so I started by going back to the AA missile training mission, and the radar actually worked fine in that. It also seems to work in a few of the basic practice missions that I have where the planes fly mostly straight ahead. Where I'm finding this problem is when I put together a mission and the target is moving and evading...or for that matter in the head-on aspect the radar seems to be unable to show a target until they are very close. On the other hand, when I've caught a target from behind, it seems to find them. But it can't seem to find other planes from the front and side aspect. Dunno if that helps with any of the troubleshooting

I could have sworn that the Ka-50 can take off from runways. It's been a long time since I've played around with it, but I seem to remember that at least one of the training missions (which was on the Caucasus map) involved starting the Ka-50 in a space on the airfield that was similar to a fixed-wing space, then rolling out to the ramp, and then moving to the runway, and taking off on the runway. Most likely that's limited to the Ka-50, since I think it's the only helicopter currently in DCS that can do a runway takeoff. I'm not even sure that it's possible to do what you want with a Ka-50, but that's probably the one that's most likely to be able to do what you want if it's at all possible.

Yeah, I've searched other folders for training missions and still coming up blank. However, I still have my old pre-1.5 installation (I've been meaning to uninstall it to free up some space, I'd installed the 1.5 Beta when it was released and I've just been using that version for 1.5). In the pre-1.5 version, inside the Missions folder, there is a folder marked FC2, the path is: C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\Flaming Cliffs\Missions\EN\FC2 Within this folder, I see some missions that are at least training-ish, with filenames like "F-15C Ramp Start and Navigation" and "F-15C Sensor Practice" and "F-15C Air-to-Air Weapons Practice", and similar files for the other aircraft (including the Su-25T). However, I do not see any of the files that match the names in the screenshot of the second post. That being said, I do remember some time ago that there were videos that you had to download from within the DCS: World application. The actual Su-27 training missions, however, were far more useful than those videos were. Having actual training missions works better than videos, because you learn how to do things and why they're done a certain way, and it lets you understand how the various controls work (and it's a good way to work out how you want to map your HOTAS controls). I know that Maple Flag has an F-15C training campaign (dunno if it's going to become an official DCS product the way that their similar A-10C campaign did), but a basic set of training missions really should come with the product, and my understanding is that the Maple Flag campaign is more in-depth than basic training missions would be. The FC3 aircraft are themselves somewhat "introductory" aircraft for DCS: World, and they're often the sort of aircraft that would be recommended for new/inexperienced pilots or for those who are new to DCS: World. These are the people who are most in need of training missions, and so it would really be a good idea to ensure that all of the FC3 aircraft have training missions included in the package.

I see the same thing that James does. I'd just assumed that the only training missions available were for the Su-27. Which is why I'd initially wound up flying the Su-27. I wouldn't mind having some training missions for the F-15 included, especially with the new F-15 campaign for NTTR, I'd probably make fewer mistakes if I'd had some basic training missions (especially for the navigation, which is so $%* confusing when switching from the Su-27).

Ditto here, I had the same problem, it was even showing the Red Flag campaign in the list of Available Modules with a Buy button in the Module Manager. Then after reading this thread, I tried running DCS World 2.0 for the third or fourth time, opened the module manager, and BAM, it prompted me to download and install the module. So, ah, I guess just keep trying?

Ok, so I have 1.2, 1.5 Open Beta, and 2.0 Open Alpha installed on my computer. I haven't run 1.2 in a while, and my 1.5 Beta is up to date (when I run the updater, it says 1.5.2.48726.137). I've been using 1.5 Beta for a while now, I've tweaked and updated my control profiles in 1.5 Beta (and 2.0 Alpha) and I've got two campaigns running in 1.5 Beta, and obviously (and most importantly) it's installed and running just fine (I'm not saying that updating 1.2 to 1.5 is going to mess with the installation, just that Murphy's Law exists for a reason). So would I be just fine if I uninstalled my 1.2 installation, and kept my 1.5 Beta installation, and of course kept running the updater as needed, etc? It won't cause any problems for me, other than possibly getting updated more frequently and ahead of the stable release version?

I've had the same problem. At first I thought maybe it was because one or more of the Su-25s were being shot down before I could get all the F-16s, but the other night I played through and all four Su-25s survived to reach the target. They destroyed the two Grads but failed to engage the four artillery units at all despite repeatedly ordering them over the radio to continue the mission. I'd considered arming myself for A-G but went with a normal A-A loadout so I could use the R-27ETs on the F-16s. I landed in Nalchik but I couldn't get them to re-arm and refuel (and unfortunately repair, I damaged a wheel on the landing), and I'm not sure where I have to go on the tarmac to get the ground crew to be able to help. But the thing is, I shouldn't need to do that. The mission briefing makes no mention of attacking the ground targets myself, the default loadout is A-A and all loadout options from the mission editor are A-A variants (the only way to switch to an A-G loadout is when you're parked in Mozdok, and while I could do that, I'd be limited to only R-73s against the F-16s). But somehow the four Frogfoots (Frogfeet?) are only capable of destroying two ground targets. I've only played this mission in 1.5, so I don't know, is this behavior that happens in 1.2 as well? If I wait for the Su-25s to land, do they refuel and re-arm and come back to destroy the rest of the artillery? Do I have to land at Nalchik and re-arm and refuel and finish the mission on my own as the only solution? Or is there some sort of bug here? I'm having difficulty believing that this is intended behavior.