vparez

I am doing that but as soon as I press set, both buttons go grey and no keypress either from the keyboard or any of the sticks is registering. :(

Hi Ciribob, I can't assign any keys or buttons in the last couple of versions. Every time I click on "set" in the controls page, the set and clear buttons go grey. What am I doing wrong? Thanks!

I have spoken negatively on this topic of the Yak-52 announcement. And while I don't have anything against this airplane, I have complained about (as I perceived) a lack of direction from ED with respect to the future of DCS. I read today the letter from ED by Wags, and all I can say is: thank you for this feedback, this is exactly what many of us needed to hear! In addition to this announcement we also have the announcement of the key-less protection system for the AV8B which will be in future extended to all modules. These are all great news; news that reassure me that I have not made a mistake of supporting ED by buying all of their modules, even though I never use some of them. But I bought them for support (and for the days when I retire and have more time to learn everything). So, ED, bring out the effing Yak... I'll buy that too! :) P.S. And find the time for a dedicated server; multiplayer is what kept IL2 alive for so many years, it will do the same for DCS.

So, nobody else experiences this? I am playing the ultimate argument campaign now and every time i order a wingman to engage i am locked and apparently fired upon by a radar/sarh combo. Can someone tell me if this is a known issue or is it just that my particular copy of the game is broken?

I guess a radial engine plane is a big new feature... Guess its gonna be a true game-changer. I prefer to worry about nitpicking details and nuances such as a-g radar and a dedicated server... You know, the extreme niche aspects... /end sarcasm

I think the most troubling issue for me with all of this is that announcing a project such as Yak, puts an even bigger question mark on what ED's plans and goals are. While I can suspect or even understand motivations of ED for some decisions, none of those motivation nor the decisions themselves are giving me any hope that DCS is going to become a coherent product in any near future. So, I have no beef with any type of an airplane because I need to haz X in my game. Not at all; I own almost all of the modules and enjoy learning about every single plane and helo which has ASM. But! When you are done learning a module, you want to have a well-developed and supported sandbox environment to test yourself and your skills within. This is where DCS fails all of us, whether you want to admit it or not. The sandbox has been neglected for years now. I am not going into the discussion if that is justified or not, I am simply stating a fact to the best of my knowledge. So every time a new module is announced, I consider this future release only from the standpoint of "how does it improve the sandbox?". For example: the only reason I am excited about F/A-18 is that it promised to bring with itself a new A-G radar code. That's a new feature, and one we have been missing for a long long time. The F-14 is going to bring the first true multicrew AI + CV deck ops. Again, (if it comes true at all) these are huge new features. That's the stuff we should all care the most about and support with our money. So every time an announcement goes out about a plane which is not bringing anything really new to this game, is a further delay from the true issues DCS should prioritize (no matter how much I like the plane, these issues are vastly more important). If ED announces stuff like: advanced electronic warfare model, realistic turbulence, ground effect, dedicated server and similar, I will be "properly ecstatic"... correction "when" they announce it. ;) Why am I being a whiny little bitch about this and do not partake in the glorious enthusiasm usual for a new plane module announcement? Because I am afraid of where DCS is going and who and what will be left behind. We already have one 3rd party dev who is suspending future releases due to the ever-changing nature of the DCS engine. We have another dev team which may easily disappear from the scene (in spite of their assurances they are going to continue) which would leave one of the best effing DCS modules unsupported and falling into buggy incompatibility. So, let me ask you friends: when you buy a module do you expect that module to work as long as DCS works? What if it doesn't? And, by this I don't want to bash neither the 3rd party devs nor the ED, nevertheless, this business model is very dangerous for a product which we would all want to see alive and growing for years to come. If there are no new sales of a module and the dev team decides to shut down, what happens? Is ED going to take over the support of that module? Not very likely! The only thing I can see saving this business model is the speed of development; improve core features of the game while there are still 3rd party devs around to update their products. Otherwise, say bye-bye to many 3rd party modules in a couple of years. Or keep a legacy 1.5 install of the game around forever.

I'll risk correction, nothing wrong in being corrected you just learn. So, you can modulate the frequency of your pulses, or the duty cycle. The frequency tells you how often a pulse is sent and you can change that continuously so pulses appear gradually more dense, then less dense, and the cycle repeats. If you use PM, then the pulses appear at regular time intervals, but the pulse itself is sometimes shorter and sometimes longer. You can always combine both.

Hi Baltic, Nice HUD section manual. One question: the number 175 in the bottom middle hud in AA mode is the relative target aspect angle, right?

Hi all, Recently I started noticing that my RWR goes crazy every time my wingman engages incoming bandits. As soon as I give the order to engage, I get a RWR STT lock warning and even a missile launch (for SARH), followed by my wingman's "fox 1!". I don't get hit, I am not the target... the AI indeed shoots at the bandit. But, my RWR reacts as if I was the bandit... First I thought it was the sensitivity of RWR in M2KC, but then I see the same thing in Su27, possibly others. I am talking here about single player (campaigns). Anyone here see the same? Is this a known thing? I've been away from the game from early August to late October, and I wasn't noticing this before. So seems to me some update in that period did something. Any thoughts?

Preordered! :)

You know, sometimes the best creation simply comes from the fact that the creator is working without pressure, for the sake of creating something which he/she loves and is passionate about. You don't have to put people under pressure in order for them to make something good. Just let the devs do what they feel motivated in doing, with the ED as the organism which coordinates all that. Don't put the devs in opposition to each other. As Goblin said, competition is a zero-sum game. We are human; we know that zero-sum game is not the optimal evolution strategy. Through our intellect we can transcend such a concept... provided that greed does not take over our intellect. Which it frequently does, hence such dumb ideas as free market capitalism.

Man, people complaining about the realism of the mig21... you guys really are a spoiled bunch...

I think Sweden is paying game developers to make stuff... Swedish tanks in WoT and this... :O ;)

Going WW2 in DCS is just an awfully bad decision IMHO. We don't even have support in the current game engine for various aspects of modern air combat (AG radar, ECM, etc.), we have only one and a half theaters, etc. To get the DCS to do props as well as CloD (for ex.) will take ages (in aspects like the DM and other). And not to mention that the most important aspect of a combat simulation is to have a complete environment. What do I mean by that? For Normandy you can't have a map WITHOUT England! What's the point of simulating a P-51D until your eyes bleed, if you are going to fly it over distances of 100km and at altitudes of a few thousand feet??? If it is true that there will be no part of the British Isles modeled on the Normandy map, then I really have to question the judgment of the devs. I am not going to discuss other sims, but just to put things in context, IL2 is a fantastic SIMULATION not just because it had a good FM and DM for its time, but also because you could have a combat theater of large size as well as the engine support to design and perform many different types of combat missions. A large combat theater can demonstrate to a virtual pilot what is the value of altitude performance, endurance, comfort and ease of flying a plane, damage resistance and battle worthiness, etc, etc. Toggling switches in your cockpit on cold start is not the ONLY aspect of simulating real life of a combat pilot. Try flying a 3-hour-long mission in an I-16, which is unstable and has simple trim options, and then go into a P-51 and fly for 3 hours. You'll see a big difference, and your arms and legs and back will hurt much less. Of course, you can't really fly the I-16 for 3 hours since it will run out of fuel. :) There are some servers running DCS which are trying to simulate some additional aspects of combat such as reconnaissance or troop transport. Well, that has been done for a very long in IL2 using mods and SEOW campaign framework. Until you get all such aspects into a sim, no matter how well the FM and the systems are modeled, you, the armchair pilot, will not EXPERIENCE any difference. You will still wonder, why was that particular plane so important? Or, this plane is awesome on paper, why did it not have more of an impact? I think ED and some 3rd party devs really need to get a competent manager and make a sound long-term plan. This branching of development directions is not going to yield any finished and well-rounded products for any era. Just to say that I am really sorry for all of you guys here who never played a SEOW campaign in IL2. Its a shame that the developer of SEOW is not interested in porting it to DCS since DCS really has a lot of core options which could allow a very good simulation of the battlefield. What it needs is more development effort put into various ground objects and maps. I am just afraid that simply making new planes is only good from a commercial point of view and that the core game features are more and more put aside. Sorry for the rant gents... I am just so unhappy as to the state of the sims today...

Hi gents, here is my current setup with the old Thrustmaster F22Pro + TQS. Sticks have been modded with MMJoy2 + Arduino to make them USB compatible. The thumbstick on the TQS is replaced by a simple button (not in this picture).

Here is a nice little text about our beloved Mirage: https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2000-pilot-interview-cutting-it-in-the-electric-cakeslice/

So, if the HUD velocity is TAS, then your slightly higher max velocity is in line with the higher altitude you are testing it on. Which would be logical if the 1.54 and 2.0 FMs are identical (I guess they are?) So this is the same story as in the other much bigger thread. We should just be a little patient and I am sure there will be more tuning of the FM before release.

Whats the temperature and altitude? Is the water on Nevada at sea level or a bit higher? Maybe that could explain the difference with my max of 993 kt over Black Sea in t=20degC.

Thats not a bug, thats a bug report. I am not making a bug report, i am simply discussing stuff. I dont understand what you said about G. Could you clarify please? Surely you mean 1g... No?

Ggtharos, the mirage should not be supersonic at sea level without the afterburner. If supercruise is not a term acceptable to the military aviation experts, then i suggest we call the dry thrust m1.03 of the current mirage: a bug. Or maybe the definition of a bug precludes the use if this term for this purpose?

It's a very arbitrary definition. Chuck Yeager did M=1.06 and that was called a supersonic flight. So doing M=1.03 in a 1970' fighter, without afterburners, can also be arbitrarily called supercruise. :thumbup:

Yes, it was M=1.03 on full military power (no afterburner), so that should count as supercruise. Anyway, the boys from RAZBAM are doing an excellent job on this bird, and I have no doubt that the release FM will be top quality. I have nothing but admiration for their work on this excellent module! :thumbup:

Yeah, - 679kn at full power (100%); M=1.03 - 993kn at full afterburner; M=1.51 These are stable speeds from a level flight at 300ft ASL. Clean configuration with a no.1 prototype skin (hey maybe paint is the problem;) ). T=20degC, summer, Caucasus map over water. Started the run with 100% internal fuel, when I hit about 50% I went back to full power no re-heat and again obtained 679kn as in the beginning. So, the mass reduction didn't significantly affect this milestone. Used autopilot + hstab. Edit: tested in 1.5.4 stable

If in doubt you can make a multiplayer mission and test it out with a friend in more controlled conditions. Concluding something for one sortie on an online server is really not a good idea. I don't know if something big changed in this respect, but I had dogfights at very low level (online as well) where I was on the 6 of an Su27, just out of guns range, and I couldn't catch up with him and enter my guns range. Had I tried anything but the lag pursuit, he would have even increased the range between us. Now, the last time I had this occur, was back when the Magics weren't firing, so I dont know if something changed... Didn't get into a similar situation recently. By the way, it was really funny: you can't catch up so you can't shoot guns, its too close for a solid S530 shot, and your Magic won't fire! ;)

It is as similar as F-14 is to the MiG-31.