Lascaille

That works nicely in a similar way to the alternate binds for the Mig-21. It would be useful to know if we should make a mod or wait for developer alterations...

Here is a track. In this track I takeoff with a pre-loaded Mig-21 and demonstrate the roll tendency, also engaging the SAU recovery and demonstrating that the aircraft holds right bank and circles slowly. I then drop the payload and the roll tendency disappears. I then land, reload with the same payload as the mission started with (80%, bombs) and takeoff again and there is no roll tendency. Mig 21.trk

Please check this and report your findings: Create a mission with a loaded Mig-21 (i.e. 90% fuel, symmetrical load of 500kg and 250kg bombs) and set it as 'takeoff from runway'. Takeoff and note that there is a roll to the right tendency. If you engage the SAU Recovery the aircraft will stabilise in height but with a right bank and will circle slowly to the right. Left stick position is required to prevent roll. Load the exact same mission but use the in-game payload editor (F8/Rearm) to alter the payload. From what I can see you can change any aspects of the payload - even just pressing OK without making changes - and as long as you receive a 'rearming complete' message the roll problem disappears. Even creating a mission with no payload seems to exhibit some weird problems, an 'empty' (from the mission editor) seems a lot more inclined to wobble from wheel to wheel on takeoff than an 'empty' (F8/Rearm/empty) aircraft.

I am not experiencing this. To the right of the trim indicator lines is a solid vertical white line, I have not read the manual but this in other aircraft indicates the takeoff trim range. If I have the trim set to roughly the middle of this range (about 3 lines below center) and set the middle flap position I can easily rotate at ~200kmh and climb away, raising the flaps at 275kmh.

It seems that thrust keeps the nose down, as you reduce thrust the nose can float up. I am also finding that with full back trim I still need some back pressure to keep the nose from dropping, this is remedied by less thrust. You can also land very smoothly in this thing while being far too fast - I was aiming for 200kmh landings, but you can land with less.

Using TM target is not a fix, it is a hack. Considering the HOTAS Warthog was designed for DCS - and the A10C model supports it properly only without the use of TM Target - other models should follow suit. To do otherwise sets a poor example and I am genuinely surprised that the flap switch was set this way given that copying the A10C flap system would have been presumably less work... In short: Please add control binds for HOTAS Warthog users, for we are many.

Noticing some issues regarding switch positions on first load 1. Pitot heat switches (both) display down but are actually up - the 'click zone' is the up position and clicking on the 'down' switch image is impossible. Clicking in the 'up' zone resets the switch to 'down' - you can then click it up/down as normal. 2. ABS switch position is not consistent, sometimes starts up, other times starts down. Sometimes switch position changes with F8 reload/refuel. 3. Engine air-start switch is sometimes activated with F8 reload/refuel, seems to cause or increase likelihood of engine stall on takeoff. 4. Aileron booster switch is off on cold start. This may be by-design.

minSize of 15 is TBH a bit silly and is getting towards cheating, you lose all effects of closure - as you have said, the object appears to get smaller even as you get closer to it. If the minSize is more than a 'blob' you are compromising the experience. IMHO it is better for realism to reduce alphaExp to 'solidify' the sprite.

Alternatively, as a quick fix - if complexities of the engine prevent shrapnel modelling - just to create a 'soft' category of vehicles and multiply by some amount the damage effect/radius for those types of vehicles. This would allow effective attacks on motor pools and truck convoys with rockets and small bombs.

This is definitely a bug and not a wind effect, still present in 1.5 and is affected by the loadout of the aircraft in-game vs a loadout set from the mission editor. A -21 that is re-loaded in game (from the F8 menu) behaves correctly with no roll tendency. A -21 that is not re-loaded in game (i.e. you startup and fly with the payload selected in the mission editor) exhibits a roll tendency to the right which changes to some degree with different payloads. There may be other issues related to this, i.e. it seems that an aircraft not reloaded in game has more tendency to oscillate during takeoff and sometimes the engine stalls out when the RATO cuts off. I would guess that the weight and balance calculations are performed differently when the aircraft is reloaded vs spawned.

Note that for now you can customise the settings in the impostors.lua located in DCSWorld\Config\Effects directory. impostors = { presets = { normal = { maxSize = 24, -- Размер диагонали баундинг бокса модели в пикселях, на котором включается импостер. minSize = 3.0, -- Минимальный размер импостера до которого он уменьшается. Далее остается постоянным. alphaExp = 0.5, -- Корректировка альфа канала (прозрачности). Экспонента. Чем меньше тем дальше видно. }, enlarged = { maxSize = 24, minSize = 5.0, alphaExp = 0.25, }, } };The file is fairly self-explanatory. I add: maxSize = maximum diagonal size in pixels of the displayed sprite (above this size I guess it is no longer displayed) minSize = minimum displayed size of the sprite, i guess the smallest number of pixels drawn under any condition alphaExp = transparency of the sprite (0 = solid, 1 = clear) My display is 1920x1200 @ 24" 19:10 which yields ~95dpi. After a bit of playing I started with 'enlarged' but now use 'normal' with alphaexp set to 0.1. I found the default alphaexp make the sprite too blurry.

To supplement, I made a track. I spaced 2 kamaz trucks 100ft apart (using the mission editor scale) which is ~30m, placing the GBU-12 directly between them results in a distance from target to bomb of ~15m. Neither truck was destroyed, one was damaged 'yellow' and the other was damaged but still green. While I would not expect the trucks to be literally shredded or thrown through the air, I would expect them to not be functional... GBU 12 on trucks.trk

Is it possible to have some updates to the A-G weapon modelling? At the moment, near misses with bombs and rockets have virtually zero effect even on soft targets, which various forum posts suggest is due to no modelling of fragmentation damage, only blast damage (the weapon simply has a radius and a power, damage is calculated by some cube root formula - is this correct?) The effect of this is that when attacking convoys with the smaller rockets such as S8-OFP on the Mi-8 or S5 on the Mig-21 only direct hits are effective. This makes the rocket pods less effective than cannon. Similarly, GBU-12 and MK82 bombs are poorly effective even against soft targets i.e. trucks in a simulated truck park with 5m spacing. Direct hits are a kill, but near misses - or trying to take out two or three soft targets by placing a GBU-12 between them - are not always effective.

When using HUD only mode, the ASP gunsight cursor and the fixed net are not visible. While not technically a HUD other modules with simple reflector sights (P51 etc) display the cursor in HUD only mode. Can this be possible for the -21? The radar is displayed...

The FC3 product is not advertised as beta. I bought the FC3 product. Do you see the problem? Hell I don't _really_ care about a refund, A10C to me is easily worth $100 (after all prepar3d is $200) I just want a finished (or at least known state) product. The 'issues with missiles' are extensively described by others (IASGATG et al) in a very very long thread on that subject. I have nothing to add apart from 'oh, I'm seeing that too.' Their paper is very comprehensive so the 'issues' are already raised - there just isn't really an answer being put forwards. I guess you saw the KH25-ML post linked above - so as per testers, at least that missile has an (AFM?) issue, so you can see why queries may be raised about others, especially if they seem to perform poorly. ED should respond: 1. Missiles are significantly off their real-life behaviour (reasons irrelevant) and are a WIP i.e. beta. or 2. Missiles are simulated to an 'appropriate' degree of accuracy and are a released finished product. If both 1 and 2 apply as different missiles are in different stages of development, knowing which missiles are in which state would be helpful.

I have every single one of the DCS modules because I think the project as a whole is worth supporting. The models are in general excellent. If there are behaviours that are unrealistic in the A10C they do not impact significantly on the ability to fight and fly with the aircraft. When I can hit a helo with a maverick at a greater range than I with an AIM120, there is something wrong. I originated this post before finding the paper on the missile behaviour, the missile mod and other posts. I've just found one that demonstrates that the KH25-ML is suffering from the same problem and has been since January: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1973789&postcount=2 I don't care if you choose to attack me. I do care that missiles are broken. Seriously what point are you making? When the developers and internal testers have at various times made statements about missiles being WIP you are going to insist that I am wrong and that missiles in fact work perfectly?

Thanks for the pointer, I saw the missile research paper yesterday and the mod late last night. I like the mod but if it's not working on MP servers what's the point? I'm now very annoyed with the way this is being dealt with. 1. The headline of this thread was changed to make it appear that me (the paying customer, lol) has a personal problem - my original thread title referred to the missile AFM. 2. The software is NOT sold as 'beta' but in reality major elements are WIP. I know that the F15C single module is sold as 'beta' but FC3 is NOT sold as beta. That means I expect it to work in the same manner as the A10C and the KA50, which are the same price - i.e. properly. If the a120 doesn't fly like an a120, take it out until it does. It's not like this is a hard-to-find edge case - it took me about 4 hours of playing FC3 (I bought it YESTERDAY) to be trying to figure out 'where are the long range missiles on the F15'. 3. The FC3 website actually specifically advertises 'advanced AFM for missiles' while it's known very well here that missiles are a WIP. I consider that this product is falsely advertised.

One of my experiments (before I started researching the issue) was on my mig21 test mission which has 4 Tupolev trijets coming head-on at 25kft. Anything further than about 14nm with the 120 is a miss.

DCS:FC3 is not in beta. The word is not used anywhere on the product page or download page, and the version for sale is marked as "download version" as opposed to "download beta version". Note this was originally in reply to a fairly helpful and well written that was just deleted.

The range 'slider' on the right of the HUD. If you have both AIM7s and 120s loaded you can cycle through them and see the range limit bar moves very slightly when you cycle through them, whereas in reality it should nearly triple (or at the least double) for the 120. Also the 'shoot' verbal prompt and the range circle etc etc etc. (In reply to Ultra's question)

I bought FC3 this morning pretty much only so I had some platforms to engage helos and stuff on multiplayer missions that have annoying helos guarding airfields, I usually like to fly the KA50 and A10c. The F15 should be able to engage targets out to about 30+ miles with the AIM120B and a bit further with the AIM120C - only in the sim the missile is displayed as having a range of about 10nm only. For attacking patrolling aircraft that basically means you have to get into SAM range before you can fire. I did a bit of forum research and the posts going back for about a year all say the same thing - 'flight model' issues. I don't mind genuine small production bugs, but a product with totally huge glitches that basically neuter the whole model (and apparently other missiles too) should not be on sale. This is a COMBAT flight simulator and the COMBAT elements (BVR and missile engagements being 90% of real-world A2A combat) are critical. http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/flaming_cliffs_3/ "New Key Features for the Flaming Cliffs Series - Improved flight dynamics for air-to-air missiles." I want a refund.

Ah well, I've solved the problem by buying FC3. Now we'll deal with those helos :)

I've been flying the MIG21 on one of the multiplayer servers that has the Mi-28 helos buzzing around Senaki at about 1500 meters alt, and I've never managed to get the helos to show up on the MIG21 radar. There's nothing else in the air, I am approaching from about 20km out at about 500m alt with no mountains etc in the background and the helos are in 'clear space' from my viewpoint and altitude, but they don't show up on the radar. Are they just too small or is there some target-speed filtering going on?

Yes this has nothing at all to do with the joystick or input selectors. OTHER issues may be being caused by misbehaving input devices but the Shkval slewing and mis-ranging is not it. I was just flying against some helicopter targets. I slewed the target box over the enemy helo and pressed the 'range/lock' button - the range appeared, about 14km, it didn't lock. I then experimented a bit and discovered: If you DO NOT slew more until the 2-second countdown on the HUD disappears then the range remains the same. You can then slew more without problems. The problem here is that if you have a moving target you tend to re-slew immediately once the lock fails to keep the target centered for another lock attempt, if you do that then...: If you slew more while the 2 second countdown is still on the HUD then the range will change the moment the laser stops firing (to what seems to be a bit random, I had it drop to 5 once and to 0.1 once. In both cases my helo target was against the sky so there was no 'background' range that could be obtained by the laser). The shkval will then slew madly, and the shorter the displayed range the higher the slew speed. The system is clearly trying to ground-stabilise the 'imaginary' target that's at the 'imaginary' range - and if that range is 0.1km obviously it will slew as fast as it possibly can. This is nothing to do with input devices, this is just a bug. ED, please resolve.

I don't believe this has anything to do with the joystick hats. I have a HOTAS Warthog and have the Shkval slew set to the trim hat on the joystick itself, if that trim hat was misbehaving it would cause problems in other models (i.e. a10 suddenly being trimmed hard over). The Shkval often does not ground stabilise, and when being slewed sometimes just decides to slew at full speed to one axis and stay hard over until re-centered with a 'boresight shkval' control. Also when rangefinding targets that are out of lock range (where the range is displayed below the target but the lock doesn't occur) the range will flip from the correct range (i.e. 14.0) to a random range (i.e. 5.4) a few seconds after the laser turns off, at which point the shkval will start to slew randomly off target. Pressing the 'uncage' button changes it from the crazy slewing to normal sweeping, if you press the hat to try and slew it back over the target the crazy slewing resumes the moment you release the hat. The solution is to re-range-find (the ground) to stabilise - if you are trying to lock an air target with no background, forget it, you're screwed. The BS50 is lovely to fly but frustrating as hell to fight with. These are not joystick issues, they are just terrible bugs that need fixing right now. The locking modes are also terribly programmed. I know that it 'cheats' by using game data (i.e. you can't lock a dead target, so it's not using real image-analysis target locking) so why can't we lock a helo that has a BIGGER ASPECT than a tank at a similar range?