gavagai

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.:)

Someone mentioned that the stuttering is connected to radar elevation, and I can confirm this. If the radar is pointed upward above the horizon, the stutters go away. If the radar is pointed downward below the horizon, the stutters go away. The stutters occur when the radar scan zone is split by the horizon. NTTRstuttering.zip

Wait, wait, wait! You're solving this bug just by right clicking on dcs.exe and unticking that box? I just checked mine and it has was not in compatibility mode. Or are you looking at something else?

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.

Yes, it is a 2.0.x problem only with the last few NTTR patches.

Neither can I.:smilewink: No one has reported the problem in 1.5.4, only 2.0.x.:doh:

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.

When I have the chance to enjoy the F-16C with my friend's Cougar Hotas, I still have to use the mouse pretty frequently for mfd buttons and the icp. The only mission I could do with the HOTAS alone would be quick action air-to-air stuff. The idea of working all of the different mfd modes and submodes with joystick/throttle buttons doesn't make sense to me. How would someone do that? :huh:

Yes. I am confused. :hmm:

No change with the update for me. Terrible stutters as soon as the radar is on.

In any future conflict there will be plenty of shoulder-launched IR sams and AAA close to the ground. Multiplayer maps seem to leave that stuff out in order to let the humans fight each other. The tactics are sound tactics for a scenario without sams and AAA, but completely detached from reality, present and future.;)

And when the Straight of Hormuz map comes and combat could be over the ocean?

Quote from the guide: It's a humorous read.:)

Done that.:smilewink: When I fly the Fishbed I just assume a missile is inbound when I'm locked up. About 90% of the time it is true.