OneFatBird

Kindly help, please. Ground Texture Mod... http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2207621&postcount=1 and Tree Shadow Mod... http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2495081&postcount=7 I do not even HAVE a Terrain folder where indicated in the directory structure (in Bazar) by these posts, as required by both these mods. Putting the mods into folders that I create on the fly makes no difference when running the sim. We are talking 1.5. Where do I put them, please?

Nice one. Thanks for the answers guys. Very helpful.

OK, thank you! Just checking, you do mean this one, right?

Could not find what I was looking for, so sorry if it has been covered before. In description.lua files you have 4 parameters when assigning custom cockpit or skin textures, for example... livery = { {"fuz-center", 0, "SU39-PAINT1-DEF-01", false}, I am interested in the first parameter (eg: "fuz-center"). This is clearly a handle that is recognized internally by the program in order to assign the texture to a certain part or component of the 3D model. It has to be right, or your texture does not go where you want it. Please; where can I find, or who knows and is willing to inform, the complete list of these handles for all elements of cockpit and model? Specifically, for the SU-25T and SU-25A. Thank you!

Hello, I would like to confirm the issue reported in this post by nickexists; the F-15 runs over bomb craters on runways and taxiways like they don't exist. So far I have not encountered the problem with any of the other modules I have and tried this with. Also, there is no collision detection for damaged doors on Hardened Aircraft Shelter. Unboosted ShP BeTABs can effectively destroy these hangars, but aircraft can still spawn and taxi through the damaged doors, which kind of defeats the purpose of destroying them. I can understand the outcry of "hey, but if on MP the opposition destroys our HAS sites, we won't be able to use the aircraft we spawn from within them anymore". Well, yeah. Defend your base. If the enemy gets through, you deserve not to be able to use those aircraft. :lol:

Hello. Just to clarify; player F99th-Cygon_Parrot (yours truly) is seen at 2:25 on the video flying straight into the heart of enemy territory and disappearing off the map. I later appear again from Mozdok. At this point I had lost my internet connection and had rejoined with RIPTIDE's consent. No funny business, just to confirm. Great event. Thanks!

Exactly. My reasons for voting this an important matter are already stated here. I am sure that the mathematical model for distance scaling in DCS is probably the most perfect there has been in a sim, but it is too perfect for a monitor and defeats some of the focus features of the natural eye in a real three dimensional environment. I hope a believable compromise that improves visibility can be implemented.

That's a great guide Charly Owl. Still did not answer what I was looking for regarding pneumatic system, but great just the same and answered a few other things. Just one tiny little title correction (yeah, I read that you were tired, know the feeling)... The RSI-6K is not UHF, it is HF, like Short Wave radio. I do know, I make sets for myself as a hobby. Try it, sometime, here's a good starter set. You'll probably like it. :)

Yeah, I am pretty sure it is a confusion of units, too. Up to 10,000 ft is nothing for most people, especially if they acclimatize and get a few more red blood cells going around at a slightly lower altitude first. I currently live at 8,350 ft amsl, and have been up mountains up to 16,480 ft, without oxygen and with considerable physical exertion, when I was in my early thirties. I would not like to try it again now, though, several years on...:smilewink: It varies per person, but an individual can quite easily survive with 100% on demand oxygen up to about 30,000 ft, with positive pressure 100% oxygen up to about 40,000 ft, and above that they will in addition generally need a pressurized cabin or pressure suit, to allow the relative blood pressure to be high enough to permit the proper osmosis of CO2 / O2 in the alveoli to occur, else you suffocate internally, even on oxygen. These are rough figures, I say again, and will vary with different people. Back on topic; I had one opportunity to try that Cockpit Filling Valve under the terms of my conjecture in the first post, but am still at a loss as to what it does, really. I got some damage that disabled in some way normal pressurization; that is, there was no differential pressure on the cabin altimeter instrument, and cabin altitude was equal to indicated altitude. Thought me; "Aha! Time to use the Cockpit Filling Valve". Turned it. Nothing. Now, I may have done it wrong and wasted the pneumatic charge by not doing something else necessary first? Or after? Or the the integrity of the cabin was already compromised by a bullet hole and could not be pressurized? I don't know, but I am still lost as to its function...

I don't believe I have ever seen this before, and don't see it reported here, AFAICS. Destroyed POL tanks reappear intact, along with their damage model, at distance or when zoomed out. Reverts to damage model only close in or when zoomed in.

Hello. I think I saw one thread that brushed on this topic, but I cannot find it again now, so I will start a specific Pneumatic / Environmental thread, with your pardon. :helpsmilie:Has anyone got the low-down on the pneumatic system? The Emergency Landing Gear and Emergency Flap extension valves are pretty straightforward. But I am dubious about the usage of the Emergency System Filling Valve (the bronze looking knob up near the canopy sill, right side), and the Air Net Valve and Cockpit Filling Valve, at the right of the screenie, have me completely stumped. Because the label names do not match up with the image of the pneumatic system near the bottom of this page, it is extremely difficult to figure out what is doing what and which is which. Regarding the Emergency System Filling Valve. Well, one of those AI hints appears, asking you to open this valve, after you land if during the flight you got some damage that requires you to use the Emergency Landing Gear Extension. I am assuming, therefore, that opening this valve is necessary for the wheel brakes operation when operating on redundancy systems, as it seemed to me that the brakes did not operate until I had opened this valve. I don't know, it only happened once, so far, but that's what it looked like. Any ideas? Anything concrete? Now, the Air Net Valve. What is an Air Net? Which is it on the diagram? I cannot begin to guess... Finally, the Cockpit Filling Valve. Again, I am having to assume, and I do not like doing so. I start here. The Cockpit Air Valve, the tap down on the right side floor with the ambient controls, is a double feature unit, according to the description; Ie; Cockpit air supply valve (from the environmental control system) and slide valve (from the pneumatic system) in a common casing It leads me into thinking that in the first instance it is able to use the engine bleed air for pressurization (normal) and in the second instance, it can use the pneumatic system for pressurization (abnormal). However, does this mean that if there is a bleed air failure and I want to use the pneumatic system for pressurizing the cockpit, would I have to open the Cockpit Filling Valve? I have tried in flights to simulate this, but of course as the bleed system is operating and I have never had the bleed system damaged or failed, results are inconclusive because the tap primarily controls the (not failed) bleed air. So again, I don't know. I hope someone can clarify this issue, please. I have attempted to translate parts of the Russian manual with Google translate to get to the bottom of this, but it seems pretty sparse on information regarding, itself. Thank you in advance!

Indeed, I had noticed this to on my first try out of the Mig 15 a few weeks ago, during cockpit familiarization before even starting the engine, and erroneously posted it as a bug. It is in fact right, as far as I can see (see thread). About the operation of the system itself, my assumption is that it is something akin to the flight crew oxygen systems on commercial aircraft, in function, and on the Mig 15 goes something like this; 1. With Air Valve (mixer unit) open and the two oxygen taps closed, you will breathe the cockpit air. 2. If you close the Air Valve on the mixer unit you will suffocate yourself because the pilot won't take off his mask. 3. With Air Valve open and normal oxygen tap open, you will get diluted oxygen on demand - as you breathe, the mixer progressively providing more oxygen in the mixture proportion the higher you go, until you are eventually getting 100% oxygen on demand. 4. With the normal oxygen tap already open, if you open the Emergency Oxygen tap AND close the Air Valve on the mixer unit, you will get forced, positive pressure 100% oxygen to the mask, regardless of altitude. This would be a temporary case configuration, during a cockpit smoke clearing procedure for example, as it would certainly use up your oxygen very quickly. I believe the cockpit smoke simulation is WIP? Might see more on this when it is done. 5. With Air Valve open and both oxygen taps open, you are just wasting your oxygen. At least, that is the way I am seeing it. I might well be wrong, sure. All that said, the detail is fantastic. However, it would be nice if the pilot took off his mask for himself while on the ground, when the aircraft is all shut down, or there was a key command for <Wear / Remove Mask>. :)

Thanks Imp and YoYo. What was getting me was what YoYo suggested; The pilot has not got the AI to take off his own mask when stopped with engine shut down and cockpit open sitting on the ground, so he is consequently suffocating himself when the oxygen is off and the mixer unit is "closed". I am satisfied that it is not a bug now, just an action (ie; mask removal) that is not being done. Hence, absolutely right. There's another thread about this I just found, so I will put further comments there. Thanks again.

Sorry guys, but I am lost... Is this the same server that shows up as THE KOREAN WAR!, on 173.77.175.246? If not, where is there more info on that server? It is on all the time, but I cannot find anything about it, or the "clan" or squadron associated with it. And if this one isn't it, well, I never see the 39th Korean War server (this one, as advertised). Thanks!

Yeah, really like this add on! However, perhaps another small bug discovered immediately. Sitting on the parking ramp, before start up, and while familiarizing myself with cockpit for the first flight; I turned off the air valve (note, not the oxygen supply, but the tap on the mixer unit, LH side) and within a few seconds blacked out hypoxic-hypoxia style. I don't believe for a minute that at sea level, with the canopy open, this should happen. Check it out; happens whenever you turn off the valve, any altitude. Disregard and erase post if this is already noted or reported, please. And of course, thanks for the Mig 15!

I by chance dropped into this server on a brief MP session the other night, and had a swell time using the Mig-21 as a pure interceptor, which was exactly what I was after. I had no idea it was such a cool campaign project. I cannot remember exactly everyone's nick, but thanks guys! Much appreciated.

@ Holbeach; Thank you for the demo. After a couple more attempts I have indeed been able to obtain the release on my target with the radar off. I am familiar with ballistics (why or how I don't really need to say as it could get long winded, but absolutely nothing fishy, I promise), which is not a hundred miles away from bomb trajectory theory. It was this that had me wondering about the elevation detection problem in the high elevation targets issue. This explanation aptly describes what is probably my hang up perfectly well! Thanks FinnJ, for adding to my reading list! Now, one last question - that may have been addressed on another thread, I don't know; I do not fully understand how to apply the wind drift bombing control correction. I do know why, but how does it work in the sim?

Hmm. Now I don't know about this, yet again. Are you absolutely sure? With the utmost respect to you and all, but I did an experiment based on a previous "doubt" I had manifested in a previous post on this thread. It is with regard to the radar ranging being used by the A4 sight to guage the height AGL of the aircraft in order to compute the release point on the dive, as there is no other input of target elevation for the straightforward A4 AUTO or MANUAL bomb method, like there is for MPC. Obviously, it will work with the radar ranging rheostat OFF while all your targets are at sea level, and therefore your absolute altitude above target being equal to your altitude AMSL. But what happens when the target elevation is significantly above MSL? So; I put a warehouse on top of the mountain in the eastern sector of MN34, south of Alagir. I made several dives at it from 30,000 ft with the radar ranging rheostat turned all the way to OFF. On none of these dives did the bombs release (I made four attempts). On the fifth attempt I turned ON the radar ranging and obtained a good release some 5,000 ft above the mountain top, and only narrowly missed the warehouse with the bombs, which of course was result of my poor aiming! :). The point is I got a release where I should, in respect to the height above target, with the ranging ON, and none at all with it OFF. Please note again, the MPC method does require you to input a target elevation and does not require the radar, and the A4 method does not require input of a target elevation but does require the radar, by procedures in the manual. I would greatly appreciate if you - or anyone else proficient at dive bombing in the F-86 - try it out under the described conditions, as there is always the possibility that on four attempts without the ranging I was not on profile, while by chance on the fifth, I was! :smilewink: * Thought I might add; as far as I can ascertain, all the five dives were identical; I used the same visual cues, the same start altitude (30,000 ft) and entry airspeed (200 KIAS).

OK, I believe you. :) I tested this with the main radar inverter failed - which is the item required by the procedure - just to be sure, and it works fine as you well say. My bad and good explanation!

Makes sense to me, at least. The angle of view through the sight does seem to have a marked effect on whether your bomb overshoots or undershoots the target. As I do not use the auto-seat adjustment, I found the angle of view through the sight is correct when - well, see attachment reference. Regarding radar ranging, it seems that it is required, as far as I can gather. The reticule flashes (pulsates briefly is a better description) when radar ranging becomes active through about 9,000 ft on the dive, if all is well. Also, that the main radar inverter is working is a requirement of the first item of the procedure (again, page 4-35 of the F-86 manual), which would indicate that radar ranging should be active for this method. I would assume it is needed for the sight calculations for bombing targets that are at elevations other than sea level? Therefore, the MPC bombing method would appear to be the provision for the alternate bombing method if the radar ranging is inoperative. All this, of course, as far as I can see.

I have had all the problems described in this thread, too, with bomb AUTO release. Nosing down rather than rolling in works, and is in fact what the real world F-86 manual says (page 4-35); "14. Depress electrical caging button on throttle to stabilize reticle image before pushing over into dive". However, the reticule image does not really "stabilize", and the caging has to be taken as working on faith. Rolling in does not work at all, I get no release. Ever. But accuracy of the hit is still an issue. I am just wondering how important the angle of eye-to-sight reticule image is. I do not use the auto-seat adjustment option anymore (it is a bit annoying for me), but the seat adjustment to get the bomb reticule in the "right place" - wherever that is - seems to be key for a good hit. It did not seem to be exactly right in the auto-adjusted position, either, when I was using it, though that could probably have been as a result of my - ahem - "technique error" (ie; I suck at dive bombing?)

EVGA GTX-650 Ti, 2 GB.

My first on site comment regarding the Mig 21; It is a great module! Now, I came looking to see if anyone else was noticing the landing gear issues. Here are my two cents. I also noticed some difference after the said update's <improvement> of the suspension. I have been quite able to put it down with success in an 8 m/s crosswind component (ie; 12 m/s at 45º to the runway), using the manual's recommended approach speed. But it is trickier than before. While taxying in these wind conditions, the aircraft also heels over, like a sail boat as the wind changes quarters. This is the effect only of a 24 knot wind, which to me indicates that the suspension springing was weakened a bit too much, therefore any slightly heavy landing is bottoming them too soon and transferring the load to the structure, with ensuing damage. That said, from my observation, the actual successful landings are requiring touchdown on the downwind wheel first, after the de-crab. This is odd, as it is usually common practice to put the upwind wheel down first. I hesitate to put forward a criticism of the module's behavior after the update; maybe this is what was done on the 21(?). However, attempting to put the upwind wheel down - for me, at least - invariably causes the aircraft to slam the downwind wheel down, apparently bottoming it, after initial contact of the other one and then tip onto the downwind wingtip, usually damaging the wheel leg in the process. It seems almost like there is no fluid in the shock absorber, the way it rebounds onto the other wheel. Whether the update is wrong nor not, MEH; the main thing is; there is a way to deal with it, which for me works every time if I apply it. Edit: I will also add, in case this is important, I always respect the landing weight limitations. This is one you do not try to land overweight.

Just one question with this issue. How do you get this "patch" for the Mig-21? Someone on MP has been confusing me, saying I had to download it. I thought it might come with the regular DCS updates. Mine is not Steam, btw. What do I do to get it, or if I have been getting the DCS updates, would I already have it? Thanks in advance.

Thank you!