Foka1

For now I can say that "UH-1H Cargo" holds decently at 350 KG weight it can go up to 250 KpH and not sniff your tail boom at the same time. "Container" is weird...

I'm on it Big Man. Its certainly weight issue. But I have to check different crate models and this is taking time :wacko:

From my notes so far, make crates not less than 500 Kg to avoid violent swing in choppers. ALSO model of the crate actually matter.

Sent fix notes to Alpen. There is nothing wrong in you not having more time for DCS, just like there is nothing wrong with other people having more time for it either. Its just generally in DCS people are more involved, for some it is really a big part of their life. And generally from what I saw people are ready to spent more time in flight and experience more closer to real life "boring" things but have pressure of the environment on them to have challenge close to what real pilots have. For some people doing startup in DCS is boring because of all those buttons, but DCS attract mostly those for whom its not that boring. Why I'm telling you this? To manage your expectations if you for some reason didn't know about DCS users demographic. Especially demographic of those who fly older airframe, those are even more closer to nerd around. Other side of this is that DCS goal is mimic real life aircraft as close as possible. But real life aircraft is shaped by tasks and environment, if you take aspects out of picture and try squeeze something less realistic its always comes with cost and endanger missions to have exploits. Balance between reasonable gamer time and real life-like environment which DCS is trying to mimic is pretty hard. You make flight times short, but weapon systems will allow exploits in such environment etc. its not that easy and in most cases plainly impossible.

As I said GAZILLION blyat times in chat in game, and you guys saw it. It is god damn callsign issue. How many times you will to use populism and ignore me saying that? Alpen asked me to help in fixing it and I've spent 1 hour in my Sunday morning to actually do that. I will send fix notes to him and he will need to edit missions. You are welcome btw

Sorry, but these qoutes are screaming at me that you better to play War Thunder or wait until MAC comes out. And I'm not even being facetious... And there is nothing wrong even if those will do better for you.

It may be problem with callsigns. A-10A is FC3 and it gets calls fro meverything automatically. But IF full modules doesn't get calls its either frequency error or callsign issue. Alpen needs to check those.

A-10A had AIM-9M missile before. You are playing narrative to preach to the choir here. Using A-10s like CAP was about them having AIM-9M missile which is miles forward anything on server and don;t react to flares much. R-60M is not even close to AIM-9M A-10A had.

Did a quick check and AI C-101CC can launch R550 front aspect into non afterburning viggen from 2.2 KM Same AI can't launch AIM-9P front aspect, its merging and then turning to have ass

You don't need to own module to know its weapons actually. Just place plane in question in editor and check its loadout tab. Click on any pylon and see all available weapons for it. They are same if you own module or not. Example of C-101CC missile pylon:

Mirage 2000 carry MATRA Magic 2 (DCS name) which is not the same that C-101 carries. C-101 carries R550.Magic 2 (DCS name) Are they actually same? I did a quick check. C-101 R550 launched from platform at 700 KPH tops its speed at 2.2 Mach M2000C MATRA MAgic 2 launched from platform at 770 KPH tops its speed at 2.73 Mach. So whatever their names are IRL, in DCS those are different missiles even at first glance.

[VODKA] LazzySeal - MiG-21

[VODKA] LazzySeal - KA-50

Frankly I don't see where are you leading with this... But whole thing sounds amusing yes. Problem I see is people want shit for thing they are currently flying. I on the other hand have concept of care about opponents too, because we are all into this and should care about overall experience not only about your own.If you blinded by things you only want you will end up with flying against AI. Example: by flying mainly MiG-21 I was not noticing problem with its afteburner, but because I always trying to speak with overall community, not only with RED guys, I've noticed complain from F-5 guys that AIM-9P can't sniff MiG-21 when its Afterburning. Which lead to bug reports and pushing resolution of this bug from my side. Thanks M3 guys for finally fixing it month ago which makes scenario with AIM-9P vs R-13M somewhat plausible now. Moreover you can check last page in F-5 manual which I was translating. This is what we need, wear other's man shoes.

Easy. You, me, anyone. Regarding RB75 Here pilot Leech launch RB75 from 5.3 km front aspect against 2IAE CRASH (took me 10 minutes to find it among last days tacviews) YOU THINK IT HITS HIM HERE? Oh no why take it that easy, it missed: BUT WAIT it has MAGICAL 360 no scope seeker and it does 180 and turns back on poor Crash: Crash climbing again and it seems that after such turns it shouldnt have energy... pffft.. it has: How many more such launches I find if I take more time to check tacviews? I know I found one couple days ago where I saw Blue Viggen killing BLUE buddy with RB75.

Need to stop talking about it and research tacviews to say, but no one will do that and will just continue useless arguments. What I see is needed here is fundamental decision about gameplay first, then every other detail can be researched

Also you was promoting era specific restrictions isn't it? Irony is AJS-37 is 1991 plane, and it has no place in such setup then :) With MiG-21BIS from 1975 and F-5E from 1973-1975 Its performance and solutions for modernization were responded by other planes and weapons of early 90-s. First Viggen version was AJ37 and apparently before upgrade in 1991 in could carry only two sidewibders: The upgraded AJ 37, SF 37, and SH 37 machines acquired the new designations of "AJS 37", "AJSF 37", and "AJSH 37" respectively. All had: The new processor and the MIL-STB 1553B databus. A MIL-STD 1760 "universal" stores interface system. An improved RWR system that also had a data recording function, giving it a bit of electronic intelligence capability. A new mission planning system, with mission plans downloaded into a data cartridge that was plugged into the aircraft as part of flight preparations. The cartridge stored flight data during the mission, and was yanked out at the end of the mission for review on a mission computer. Beyond that, the capabilities of the three types of machines retained considerable differences: The AJS 37 could carry the DWS 39 and the Rb15F, and it could also carry up to six Sidewinders, instead of the two carried previously. Its radar was also upgraded to a similar or identical specification to that of the PS-371/A on the SH 37, allowing the AJS 37 to perform radar reconnaissance flights. However, the AJS 37 could not carry external reconnaissance pods. There were 48 AJS 37 upgrades. ( http://www.airvectors.net/avvig.html ) I can technically see that since maybe after upgrade it was upgraded for more cooling systems for all pylons. Also AJ37 couldn't carry RB75 before 1980s upgrade and BK90 before 1991 upgrade. ALTHOUGH at least engine AJS-37 is using is same RM8A from 1970s, so at least i nthat regard it fits. So following your own logic Viggen should be limited to RB-04 RB-05 RB-24s and ability to carry only two RB-24s at the same time. This took me 30 minutes to research and I don't get why everyone can't just stop pretending and just say that they want things for airframe they particularly like at the moment... Just stop and do research for like two hours and you all will see a picture for what it is. You want balance or historical accuracy, there is nothing in between. And if you choose historical accuracy be ready that most likely it will just be F-5E vs MiG-21BIS and that is it...

No, he literally means RB75

If MiG-21 does that it can't take any A2G weapons while F-5 is versatile and with 2 A2A missiles it takes considerable amount of bombs and can switch mission any time, while MiG-21 restricted to A2A or A2G after take off if it takes 6 missiles or half amount of bombs F-5 can carry. It all depend on a mission, if people will takeoff for the sake of FRAGS/KILLS only, nothing will help them. They just need two airfields and same airframe on both sides and even then they will find something to complain about. In such environment this difference would matter, but F-5 ability to be multirole-ish anytime would matter in more immersive mission. I've repeated it several times on forums. Fighter plane has no value if it doesn't have anything to defend or attack defenders of something. If people here search for a gameplay change I already advised on next action. Weapon tests and data analysis

DCS simply lacking any specific cold war era assets. if you would have more experience in mission design you would see that. Just try and check and do a setup for any war since vietnam. We simply don't have assets for that, either weapons nor airframes. Compromise is inevitable. The only thing that can be adjusted is gameplay and that is what people above are talking about. Also trying to be "alpha" here and jumping on Rossmum cuz he is providing arguments for more suitable environment for MiG-19 by saying you gave hell in MiG-19 consider providing us with tacviews then where such hell happened when you was piloting MiG-19, I'm sure everyone here would be interested to see. Or use less toxic approach in response imho For summary I would say that era restirction is simply not possible, if you try to do really specific era. You will end up with a single plane and single weapon and no opponents. The only non late modern era that can be used is korean war and even then it has compromises, there are no vehicles for it there are no other planes that were widely used in it from US side. therefore people who knows that by default because they approached DCS from this side and already saw that propose to at least try different gameplay setups. Gameplay depends on several things, missiles as tools are one of those things. IF you have R-13M vs AIM-9P you have one setup. If you have AIM-9P5 vs R-60M you have different approach. This is one of the manipulations that can be done. Other things that can be changed are mission design and Area distances in missions and also ground environment. We simply don't have even ground assets to restrict to let's say only 60-s. You need SAMs you need IFVs etc. and they are all from different eras. What I would point as next activity is testing all missiles from relevant modules first, then looking at data brains can spark some ideas.

A-10A can carry AIM-9P5 and can fit with Su-25A if other weapons are managed to form specific gameplay. Overall would like to see stats but there are none. Its not even about missile being all aspect, AIM-9M is missile which you can launch 5 miles head on, with GCI you can make A-10 designated CAP platform on this server no problem. I already did that on ACG Cold War back in the days when Su-25T had R-73. Pretty much same thing, near BVR experience in that environment. A-1oA with AIM-9M and Su-25T with R-73 can be a thing, but like "Cold War" meaning will be really stretched here. Also A-10 being slow etc. doesn't play here. As I understood server encourage teamplay and no team deathmatch furballs. A-10 should have escort or work after air superiority is established or should't complain that its being jumped on it those conditions are not met. Having superior weaponry just for sake that someone could do something alone is weak argument.

What cooling Pl-5EII using? "perfect excuse" sound really dire. Need to seek for knowledge and not excuse.

+1 here I think it is just virtue signaling seeking for virtue points. I'm not judging though it is normal human behavior.

And I perfectly understand that, but I guess if you go to actual programmer who simulate those systems he will ask you tons of things about what hooks to what and logic behind other system can indeed differ in some details. This is just question of perception of authenticity here. Imagine ED wants to have 100% authenticity and even if some functions would slip out of focus, someone else can go in and say you know guys you have bullshit here, rename this from Marines F/A-18 to bullshit F/A-18 because this dot here on screen is not doing that or this... In the end it is also part of what "was done and implemented" and what is "WIP". If this part of screen symbology is done and implemented already, getting back to it means putting other tasks on hold, putting other tasks on hold means raging a lot more people in turn... You see what I mean? Maybe ED can return to it after F/A-18 is released..

There is difference between providing docs and their sources if you are being under court order and providing docs to each random individual who is just in the mood asking for them today I think..