gavagai

No mods. Logs.zip

It adds Fox-1 warnings to the RWR. The 2000D had the D2M, not the 2000C.

:worthy: This changes everything!

I set up 2 Mig-29A last night. Their loadout was 1 R-27R, 1 R-27T, and 4 R-60M. I flew single ship. Once I was shot down by an R-27T (caught me with my pants down), and another time I took an R-60M to the face. I was very surprised by the latter because when I fly the Mig-21 the R-60M is rear-aspect only. The R-27R is terrible. Even though the Mig-29A can launch much sooner than the Mirage with the 530D, the R-27R is not a serious threat provided you chaff and don't fly in a straight line.

Isn't that intended for IR Sam launches? Would it warn you of an R-27T fired from the horizon? I've also heard that the Mirage 2000D had D²M, but the 2000C did not, because the latter was not expected to be flying at low altitudes where IR Sams are a danger.

Thank you for clearing that up. It is more as I expected. So why did suggest that a Dassault license would be required for a 2000-5?

Very informative discussion. I had no idea ED received a cease-and-desist over proposed modules!

Eagle Dynamics sought a license from Dassault to include the Mirage 2000-5 and its MICA missiles in the game as an AI aircraft? Or the law is different for AI versus player flown aircraft? Is a lawsuit a real possibility (I doubt it). I'm a little confused about where this is going.:huh:

2 missiles are preferable to 4? What sophistry. The real issue is that the choice was made to model the domestic variant, and there is no going back. There should a be a sticky for the topic in the F-5 forum: Q: Why can't I carry 4 sidewinders? A: The F-5E3 was only wired to carry 2. Q: Can you update the F-5 to carry 4 sidewinders? A: At this point, no, it would be too difficult/too time consuming. Q: Won't you change your minds? A: Maybe, someday, we'll see. Q: Will you change your minds soon? A: No. Q: Really? A: Really. :chair:

Think I figured it out. The bug happens only against the F-5. Against other fighters the R-60M works as it should. I also tried the R-60M against the F-5 with the Mig-29, and it worked, too. So the bug is only with the Mig-21 + R-60M against the F-5.

Yes sharpe, I agree with you. I just don't agree that smart scaling looks anything like the DCS impostors. ;)

No mods. Edit: Here is a track. Earlier, I tried the R-60M in the Mig-21 with a new mission and they worked. So maybe the recent update ruined my old mission? R-60M problem.zip

And I thought you read me as saying that I would wait to see the R-77 on the RWR before suspecting that one could be on its way.:smilewink: Glad we are in agreement.:)

The Mig-29S can fire the R-77 from TWS so you typically don't have a lock-on warning until the missile goes active, just like the 120. The best defensive action you can take is to stay outside MAR (minimum abort range). In other words, attempting head-on BVR combat here is a really bad idea.:doh: You might be right about the S's introduction date. I'll check again.

When was the last time you tried smart scaling in Falcon, Sharpe? Here is a demo of the smart scaling algorithm. In DCS you would see chunky transitions between the impostor and the normal 3d model, and at long range the impostors just appear to be sprites. Smart scaling in Falcon works exactly as you see in the demo above. No weird, faded sprites at long distance. No chunky transitions. I just realized that the above is your video! I wouldn't say that Falcon "did it poorly." There are far worse solutions around...:music_whistling: Ultimately I think Sharpe is correct that the first order of business is just a change in the way DCS renders 3d models in the first place.

Subject says it. Loaded on pylons 3 and 4, the R-60M won't get tone or lock-on to anything in NTTR. They work fine in 1.5.4 and in the earlier builds of 2.0.x.

You have similar ideas to me for making missions. I looked this up before and the Soviet Union had Mig-23 (many) Mig-21 (many) Mig-29A and Mig-29S Su-27 Mig-25 Mig-31 Like the Amraam, the R-77 hadn't entered service yet in 1989 so it isn't an issue. For that reason, in the mission I'm making, neither do the American aircraft have the Aim-120. Ironically, the R-77 is easier to defend against in the Mirage than SARH missiles because it shows up on the RWR. The RWR does not warn you of an inbound R-27(E)R, but it is supposed to (two more weeks).

They did give news about the F/A-18 just a few weeks ago. They said they had nothing new to show because all of the work right now is on stuff that is not visible.

Yes! Either the OP's idea, or the sticky switches from BMS, would be a big improvement.

But does the tanker still randomly speed up and slow down when you try to refuel? I did succeed with it once, but I wasn't sure if it was worth the trouble when the tanker wouldn't keep a constant airspeed.

If he's trying to do it without F10 and externals then he needs to use the kneeboard map. That assumes you know where on the map you start from. ;)

Thank you for your quick reply, but I just figured out what was wrong. Just to be sure I copied and pasted the "raw" lua into notepad++ and that did the trick. P.S. This is an amazing piece of work. This is just what we've needed for the Russian fighters for a very long time now.

I get an error message when I try to load this script. It says there is an unexpected symbol near <, which is pretty unhelpful. Maybe my version of mist is outdated? Other ideas? Thanks. ------------------- Edit: I tried with the latest version of Mist, and the error message still pops up at the 5 second mark where the EWRS script should be loading. Tried the WWII version and it works very well, but it's not what I need for the mission I'm building.

Come on, that is a straw man.:smilewink: We're getting off topic now, but as to the question as to whether or not having every possible switch functional and necessary is more challenging, both sides of the argument are right. Air-to-air combat employment doesn't change much in an FC3 jet compared to the F-16C sim. However, managing your aircraft and just getting it off the ground is going to require a lot more study and practice with full switch, and how much more will depend on other factors (prior knowledge, etc.). As for taking your hands off the HOTAS, sure, it is not preferable during combat (still necessary in a few places). For me the clickable pit is just a love affair, I guess. I have to have it.:geek:

I did some takeoffs and landings today. She is much improved, but still requires more pedal during takeoff than any other jet.