escaner

When I designate the current waypoint as target and select the IR Maverick I am unable to slew it. I can switch its seeker between boresight and the waypoint with the cage/uncage control, but cannot slew it in any of the two modes. When the waypoint is not designated as my target, it slews fine when uncaged. Am I doing something wrong?

True, but there is an additional reason for this kind of behavior: it allows to sync the sim controls with the switch positions in your physical controls. DCS has an option for that.

Hello, It would be nice to have more switches in the "Special for Joystick" abstraction category. A few that I would use: Exterior Lights ON/OFF [F/A-18 HOTAS switch] Altitude Switch BARO/RDR Master Arm ARM/SAFE Arresting Hook Handle DOWN/UP Hook Bypass FIELD/CARRIER Anti Skid ON/OFF Launch Bar EXTEND/RETRACT Thank you!

Well, that is a different video showing a different problem which does not depend on what you are flying over as you estated in your previous message Not sure why you are trolling people who is just offering their help, but dont worry, it will not happen again.

Not for the glare shield tint, but it is for what you were complaining about: the "all-penetrating lighting" that your video shows.

Graphical Settings - cockpit illumination off. TBH, that option should be removed, it makes no sense to make your aircraft fuselage transparent to incoming light.

I have finished the campaign and for me it is a mixed bag. I appreciate that the second mission teaches you the entry and exit routes to the training area plus the visual references, but on the other hand many missions have some issue. E.g. in M1 you arrive into Nellis in a group of 12 A-10 only to find a chaos with all AI trying to land at the same time or M2 where your leader flies at 290KIAS, a speed that you cannot match even at full throttle when the planned speed was 250KIAS. The rest of the missions (M3-M10) are all about the same. Besides the same entry and exit, always kill a few ground vehicles on enemy territory. The actual difference is that sometimes they move, sometimes not and sometimes it is night time. At least it is cool to start your aircraft and taxi in front of the other participants which will advance you enroute to the push point. Talking about start, all combat missions start with the aircraft cold and dark except for the two night beginning in the night, where you start already on the runway ready for takeoff (I really don't understand why). The briefings seem well planned at a first glance, but they are a bit lacky in some areas. They say the targets for each flight, which is nice and sometimes their time on target, but you never know which your own TOT should be nor your order in the push. Even sometimes the times are obviously wrong. E.g. push 14:51 and endvul 14:54 in M6. There I arrived to the target when everybody was already leaving only to find that another group of A-10 had destroyed my primary and secondary targets. The weapons are appropriate for the missions with the exception of M9 where you find among your little arsenal a coupe of GBU-38 and rockets when your targets are moving tanks. About other issues, I had a game crash in M8 and some trouble with JTAC in M4. To sum up: Good: it shows you the procedures and landmarks in the NTTR and you become to know it pretty well. Bad: repetitive missions and a few issues here (but they are not game breakers)

I saw something about ripple delivery fixed in this week's patch changelog so just checked these bugs. Unfortunately half a year later all of them are still there, nothing changed.

The Slew press function (SC) is not removed, it is replaced in this mod. And works fine for me in TARGET.

Thanks guys, I purchased it yesterday, along with Baltic Dragon's for the M2000.

Thanks for the feedback, Eviscerator.

Hello, I am considering the purchase of this campaign. What is its current status? The missions still work or they have problems? Thanks!

If you are using the standalone client (not Steam), you can choose not to update for as long as you feel convenient both in release and beta versions and even downgrade to a specific version that was more to your liking.

According to IvanK: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3573850&postcount=15 1. No. I think those are AIM-9 search patters but looks like they are (were) not used in the F-18. 2. Yes. 3. Yes, of course. An uncaged AIM-9 seeker always tracks by itself, that is what uncaging means.

My configuration was 17400 rubles (it depends on what exactly you purchase) + customs. My mod and board was about 10-12€. The wait was long because he didn't have stock and he went away, doing stuff with Virpil. But you better ask Baur because he recently received the kits and as Sokol says, he might still have stock now. PS: I got one of those Virpil electronics kits.

It is broken. Effectively first mission, which is expected to be just a familiarization tour takes you right into an SA-8 engagement zone. I don't want even to know how many bugs this campaign must have after the map revamp.

I would not update right now. There is a bug in OB that might render all your current keybindings useless. Or at least check it out first.

I had something like this at higher altitude over the mountains (3000-4000m I guess). I lost most of the pitch authority and almost crashed. Not sure if that was a Mach or AoA issue, I still need to make my way around the cockpit. Speed was 800-900 Km/h.

I had that same doubt before purchasing them and asked in this very thread. You can see the responses. Right now yes, they feel very solid. Let's see how they wear with the time. They are not tilted to the right but in rest position the right pedal stays a bit more backward than the left one. With the wide lens this is why the right pedal looks lower. I guess it has to do with the CAM. Not that annoying to be honest, what I think I would have preferred is a more linear CAM for yaw.

I just wanted to post a follow up. I finally got my BRD-MS3 pedals from Baur and they are really nice! Now I will need to adapt to them but the brakes feel so good in resistance and long travel! It has taken some time for me to assemble them because I didn't know that it was needed to put rivets and I didn't have the tool. :cry: Well, problem solved now. Also did a little mod to lower their height as I could not reach them very well: they seem optimized for a low seat, like a C152 while I am more like in a C172 position at my computer (the mod can be seen in the side picture). And finally added a wooden board as platform for best stability and with enough space to slide my feet.

Yes, I was glad to see a brake axis. The MiG-29 uses only hand brake, no pedal toe brakes like the Su-27, therefore these are not simulated.

I took it for a quick spin yesterday and TBH, didn't find any difficulty in the landing. Just lowered gear and flaps in downwind and tried to aim for about 150KIAS final approach speed. So I reduced speed to 320 Km/h turning final and about 290Km/h over the fence. If you are falling too quickly just increase power as in any other aircraft.

I customized yesterday my Warthog throttle axes to match the AB detent. I have a 59% dry range and a 41% AB range on the virtual axes. Normally it uses to be a 25-30% range for the AB range in the sim, but the MiG-29 looks more like the actual planes that I have seen, that have quite long AB throws. TBH, I don't really care as in any case I need to customize it to match the AB detent in my throttles, and once done it just works forever (unless ED changes it of course).

For what it is worth, I have been using my Warthog with and without the mod connected to my monitor USB hub and it was always correctly recognized.

That chart says that heights are related to runway 13 threshold elevation. Heights are always in reference to an stated elevation as opposed to altitudes that are in reference to MSL. That is a standard chart with altitudes as main reference and heights in parentheses for radio-altimeter reference in the approach and for minimums (DH, MDH: always in parentheses). The previous statement only warns you that all those heights (not altitudes!) are not e.g. AAL (reference to airport elevation) or to the actual ground elevation at that point, but to the runway threshold elevation.