OneFatBird

Hello. I am very pleased with this F-86 add on, it is the "dog's wat-sit"! However, there is one teeny-weeny little thing I would like to go after, if possible. I had a quick search in case anyone else had a similar issue, but found none and do not have all the time I would like to search everything. Apologies if the issue has already been addressed, but help will be appreciated. I am not happy with the automatic cockpit camera position shift that happens when raising/lowering landing gear or engaging the weapons in bomb mode. If anyone knows of a way to stop this from happening (ie; making the view the same for all modes and gear positions), please say so. Note: Yes, I know you want to be in a different position to use bombs or guns through the sight, but I would rather do the adjusting myself. Thank you!

@drPhibes: Thank you. There was no full DCS FM in the Mods/--/Doc folder as the quickstart guide mentioned, and this was just what I was looking for. So good of you for sharing those manuals.

Please delete this thread if this is a known bug. No skin off my nose. MEH, and so on... On multiplayer, saw carrier sailing across fields. :) Eat your heart out Tarawa; this is a real amphibious landing craft.

Indeed, but then there are doubts... Did I accidentally press the ECM key while I was changing weapons - you know, in the heat of battle? If I repair or rearm and forgot to turn off the IR jammer (aye, counting), is it still on? Can this modification be done? How? It is a toggle key, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, I was going to ask, but the thread is already here on the subject. A light for each of the two jammers, a switch that moves when the system is engaged (preferably both, if that is how it is on the real aircraft). Anything, just to know when they are on or off, please!

Yes, just posted this on another thread. Glad to see it confirmed here as I was wondering if it was an install problem or something of the likes. Another problem I have noticed. The air to air refueling does not seem to work. Apart from learning how to "hook up", I was then faced with thoughts about just how long I had to stay hooked up to even begin to get some fuel transferred from the tanker. I am positive that my three minute upper limit "stay connected time" (so far), and after receiving the "you are taking fuel" transmission should have been enough to register some increase in my FOB. Could this also be related to the ATC / logbook problem in some way? Like, if you are not "registered" as flying, how can you possibly take fuel from the tanker? I say this because the refueling procedure seems to be all tied up feet and hands with the coms menu and ATC system, which is clearly defective. Any news regarding?

Ah, I was going to post this on a new thread; glad I looked first. Please notice if your log book times are adding up as a result of this bug. Mine are not.

Same problem, plus something else, too. I am new to the A-10A, I will add. Here is what was noted. The target acquisition reticule (I move it with the joystick hat) will initially move the wrong way, when in ground stabilization mode. That is, if I move it right, it starts by moving left a bit, then moves right. Same for up and down. Happens on all the types of AGM 65. Now, if this feature has been added to make the usage of the missile more - ahem - "challenging" for the player, then it is a self defeating exercise, really. It had me discarding the AGM-65 in preference for the CBU-97 (where tanks are concerned), and being more methodical about carving a route in to the target with the GAU-8 or CBU-87s on softer targets. On the other hand, if it is "realistic", then it is hard to believe that a premier A-G missile system has been deployed with such a rotten targeting method, and has kept it for so long! Is it a bug? If so, will it be fixed? The A-10A is already challenging enough, what without something like the Shkval, a relatively low zoom for target ID from the Maverick seeker (by comparison), and the absence of Paveway GBUs because there is no third party laser designation implemented. Otherwise, "bloody fine kite". I like it very much, except for this issue (and two other small things I will post separately).

Support for this one! Not so much because it would be cool, but because it also serves a purpose. It is despairing watching the aircraft burn after one of those belly landings with the pilot sitting there like an idiot waiting to blow up and the player obtain an unnecessary death. Getting out would enable him to wait the fire out and either repair the aircraft or get a new one to continue a mission (as long as there are still some of the type available at the base, that would be). Also, some quick response "visible" emergency/fire service vehicles to put out these fires would be good. They could be waiting near the runway whenever a damaged aircraft requests an inbound to a particular airfield. Just wondering.

+1 And * EE Canberra, preferably Mk 8. * Strikemaster * Harrier * Jaguar * Tornado IDS

Voted India/Pakistan, though hopefully believing Afghanistan included implicitly. SEA would be really cool in DCS if we had the aircraft used in the conflict. I add north-western South America, to open up a whole new ball game with the anti-narcotics trade operations, though we would need the Ayres NEDS Turbo-Thrush and Blackhawk for full flavour!

Voted F-15E, but would be nice to see sometime... * F-111F * OV-10D+ * F-4G * A-37

Well, my reason for posting on this thread is not exactly on topic, but I will quickly add my two cents on topic, for whatever it is worth, then get to what I want to ask. In addition to the other comments, I hope it helps. Landing; don't ever forget, a good landing is the result of a good, stabilized approach. Know the right approach speeds for the weight you are currently operating at. Be properly configured and trimmed, so it flies practically "hands off" down the approach. That is, assuming no damage! :) Lastly, avoid large power changes during approach. Something between 60% to 70% works fine for me, full flaps. Chop the power crossing the threshold and gently flare. Speeds I use, for reference; No ordnance, full fuel (15,531 Kg), Full Flaps - 280 Kmh IAS. No ordnance, 800 Kg fuel (12, 541 Kg), Full Flaps - 240 Kmh IAS. You can figure the rest out yourself... You also have a wonderful tool at your disposal in this aircraft; the AoA indicator. During approach, keep it around 11º to 13º. You can land quite successfully without the ASI like this. About tire blowouts. Over on another forum a couple of us DCS enthusiasts on the site posted each other about this issue. Apart from bursting on hard landing, I find the use of the drag chute in a stiff crosswind will cause the aircraft to weathercock severely, and the nose wheel steering input required to correct may well burst the nose tire - ie; the side-load may run it off the rim. I try not to use the chute in crosswinds anymore, because of this. Enough prattle, onto why I am here; I have a 1/48 scale model of the SU-25 I got a few weeks ago (yeah, DCS inspired and a bit of luck finding it). I wanted to make something a little different to the stock. The pictures above are perfect. Can someone please point me in the direction of some more views? Color 3 views, detailed close-ups, other angles, unit insignia? I would be most grateful.

Ok! Finally understood what you meant by this! That's the way, indeed. Sorry for my slowness comprehending. ...and this needs another look. Just tried again, with two aircraft spawned, and it did draw from the base fuel for the second aircraft. It was not that my first attempt did not use all the fuel at the base, as I tried with a B-52, to spawn with full tanks, and only 5 tones at the base, and there was still fuel at the base. Weird, I must be doing something wrong for this particular method. New to it. In any case, Many, many thanks!

Results; Option 1 seems to be the way to go. I have not completely tested it yet, but on first experimentation it seems to be almost exactly what I was looking for. I have yet to check if setting all base resources to nothing and replacing it with some on base warehouses and tanks still permits the aircraft to be refueled and rearmed by those warehouses (I should think it would). Is there a "radius of influence" for warehouses? The user manual is a bit vague on that. Option 2 appears to have a small drawback; the aircraft is spawned as if it already had full tanks, and does not affect the base inventory when it appears and then blows up!

Thank you. Good walk around. I will give them a try. As I am very new to DCS, as yet, I might still be thinking too far out of the box, and the scope of my "objectives" probably exceed the duration of a normal mission. For example, I was thinking of interdiction of the supply route itself, at one point, as in the supply route being "tied" to a physical convoy of tankers and trucks, but it would hardly have any effect on a one or two flight "mission", really. However, depriving a base of aircraft and resources would have an impact on any late activation sorties it might launch later on, so that at least remains valid. Thank you again!

Hello. OK, so I used the search but was unable to find what I was looking for. Sorry if it is already covered somewhere. This issue is related to a previous post of mine regarding runway damage. I have attempted in the ME to cause "damage to a base" caused by bombing it (ie; bomb hits inside a trigger zone around the base) to reduce the respective base's inventory (aircraft / fuel / equipment), bearing in mind that I am talking about a limited inventory to start with. It does not seem possible, apparently. I assume this will be a custom script job, if it is indeed possible? Thank you for your attention!

Thanks to you both, that was actually quite helpful. Regarding the labels, to be sure, I believe this is the post referred to above by esb77. All good, and I am reasonably comfortable with scripting, fortunately!

Hello, and first post from a brand new DCS World user. Absolutely a great simulator, lots of neat details, like for one the Mach Tuck at high speed on the SU-25T! Notwithstanding, I have at least two questions at this point. Sorry if they have been asked before. I enjoy the Mission Editor very much, but I cannot seem to find a way to make a runway a "valid" target; that is, one that registers as being "hit" or "dead" on the debrief screen. The "bomb runway" mission exists as a flight task option, but does very little upon its accomplishment. Now maybe it is my lack of experience at this point, but is there a way I could at least make hits on a runway increase score, with triggers, zones and conditions, perhaps? I mean, with some precision with regards to the dimensions of the runway. Also; at this stage I like to have the targets "boxed" by the labels option, but I find the clutter of all the writing a bit bothersome and distracting. Is there a way I could just have the contacts boxes (blue and red) without all the writing? That way I would have a beginner's aid to locating targets, but it would still leave the identification of the target up to me with my "Shkval". ATM, switching off the labels (eg; with R-Shift F9 or F10) switches off the boxes, too. Thank you for your attention!