Maverick Su-35S

Hi, Playing DCS since KA-50 (almost 2 decades ago) I have witnessed the foreseen and the unforeseen. Now, I know that the DIRCM is basically a system designed to spot the plume of missiles within a given FOV and interpret them as real missiles or not within some given false positive error. It's purpose was to detect IR missiles although I doubt that it's able to differentiate between radar or IR missile in reality simply because it looks for a plume pattern left behind by any missile. So it basically warns you about it. After detecting that a missile is incoming, a rapidly rotating laser with a given divergence and beam intensity will eventually pass over the IR missile's seeker head, rapidly and repeatedly heating it up, up to the point of making it become completely unable to distinguish any heat signature anymore, because IR missile's seekers are highly cooled to be able to track heat targets better. The cooler the seeker, the better the lock, the hotter the seeker, the weaker the lock. That's why IR missiles are so limited in range..., not because they can't reach far. Just look at how now the IRIS-T is modeled in DCS. AT LAST..., after arguing so many times with so much logic and personal proof years behind, everyone was laughing at me until they found out that I was right, that missiles should have much more reduced drag than they had and so now we can see the IRIS-T, with better CD vs AOA tables implemented, that it has greater flight range than an AIM-120C once had (years ago). BRAVO! You guys finally found out what I was saying back then about the too high AA missiles drag at low AoA and too low drag at high AoA...! So, back to the subject, the faster a missile will fly through the air, at a greater rate it's seeker will heat up, because these are the laws of physics. So, even if an IR SAM missile can travel even past 10km down range, say... a MIM-72 Chapparal missile or IRIS-T, it's seeker will heat up in less than 4km high enough to lose the track on the locked heat source. The DIRCM does just that, it heats the incoming missile's seeker at a fast rate. Basically, if a missile is close enough to a DIRCM equipped aircraft, let's say less than 1km away, the DIRCM will first lose some time to react and start pointing the laser in repeated motions over the missile's seeker and missile will be close enough to not loose the lock on the heat source before it's seeker is hot enough. At least, that's how I find it pretty simple and logic to see. From too close, no DIRCM will be able to stop any IR missiles due to those key details. From further away, a function of time will greatly reduce an IR missile's PK without the use of any flares..., just simply because the chance of losing lock from random factors will occur. With basically a function of atmospheric temperature, missile speed and time of DIRCM actively heating a missile's seeker, there is a range between the launch site and the target after which that missile will lose lock 100% of times. Basically the PK becomes ZERO for good! I don't know what happened after X latest update, but one year ago I could have more than 90% of the missiles that were coming from the aft hemisphere of my Su-25T go by my plane without hits and today almost 0% of those missiles do that anymore. Now, with or without DIRCM, from far or from close, when an IR missile is coming for the Su-25T, it hits it like the DIRCM doesn't exist. Ah..., and by the way, in the past the DIRCM was only affecting IR SAM missiles, AA IR missiles were 0% affected by the DIRCM anyway. Now even the IR SAM missiles are not affected by the DIRCM? What is the new logic now? Thanks!

Does the Su-25 have afterburner? DIRCM impacted by engine RPM? Do you know what the DIRCM is first of all?

Hi, It seems it was actually a files corruption thing! I mean at least I suppose so, because I've asked a friend of mine to try disconnect and reconnect his internet while being in a mission and he tried multiple times and each time nothing happened..., no crash. I later found out that the "SAVED GAMES" folder from the user was named "DCS open beta" while for my friend it wasn't. After deleting all old files and afferent folders and reinstalling all files (600GB+) using the web installed, it no longer does that thing. So, everyone should know that files corruption can happen even if the REPAIR FILES feature is used..., it doesn't fix it. Thanks!

Hi, Dunno after what update this started happening, cause I know for a fact that an internet disconnection and re-connection wasn't doing this other times, but if you login with your account as normal, enter the game and load up a mission, be it single or multiplayer, if for whatever reason your internet disconnects, you will not be prompted with any error or anything just like nothing happened. You can remain disconnected for days if you were able to enter the game by online login with your account on the modern startup menu. But if your internet re-connects...BAMMM..., a CTD with an option to send the error report. So it only happens if you reconnect. If even for one second your internet has disconnected and then re-connected = CTD due to re-connection only. If you enter the game and play with offline mode, this issue won't take place. It only takes place after you reconnect to the internet when you have initially logged in with ONLINE mode. I have done the recheck of ALL files (slow work) at least twice hoping that the repair module might help find any issues with the files, but no. Nothing seems wrong with any of the installed files. Is this having to do with a sort of copyright protection or something which is made to prevent people trying to play DCS with unpaid modules and it affects everyone when the internet reconnects or is this happening only to me? I don't disrespect those who put unimaginable work and effort for these unique modules in this world in DCS, so I don't foul around with unpaid modules, so this is abnormal that these errors occur. Kind regards, Mav!

Hi, The same thing happens for me. So, for example, now if I go to my profile on DCS site and click on ACTIVE SERVERS LIST, there is a number of total servers that were sensed by the site. If I go in the sim at multiplayer, hundreds of servers are missing, including mine as well! I tried to see a given server made by myself on a different computer and different country (Romania) and although it shows up in the ACTIVE SERVERS LIST completely functioning for days, it does not show up in the multiplayer list inside the sim. Why does it appear in one place but not in the other? Thanks!

These are from DCS, right? The real F-18C isn't impressive at constant turn rates when flying at FULL AB above 10 AoA, even when clean. Perhaps you didn't know that ever since it appeared in DCS, the F-18C lot 20 has an exaggerated drag versus AoA function, so it decelerates much faster than in reality at IDLE thrust, and because it couldn't reach 1.8 Mach as Wikipedia wrongly states anyway as it's top seed, I suppose the devs have increased the engines thrust enough to have it reach some Mach 1.82 in ISA conditions at some 36k feet. Not to mention that even at 100% MIL, the beloved DCS F-18C reaches Mach 1.48 in clean config (SUPERCRUISE) like it tries to catch the F-22 and it also suprecruises at some Mach 1.27 with 2x AIM-120s and 2x AIm-9x. Anyone can test this! The real F-18C pilots know that it can reach only reach close to Mach 1 at 100% MIL, as well as maximum Mach 1.7 as top speed in clean config, when flying leveled at high altitude and may reach 1.8 only on a shallow dive for a some while. So, it's drag was and still is too high all around the AoA tables, and in order to compensate, the engines thrust is also over-exaggerated. That's why the F-18 in DCS turns with at least 2..3 degrees per second faster at maximum constant turn rate than it proves IRL for the same conditions and that makes a big difference in simulated dogfights. For instance, during personal tests I've found that it out accelerates and out climbs all other fighter jets in DCS when put into the vertical from the same initial speed and climbing G-load, shortly followed by RAZBAM's M-2000 (another jet with the same exaggerated engine thrust issue). The only fighter jet which has the highest constant turn rate, almost 2 degrees per second above the already high rate of the F-18C, is the JF-17 and it too isn't realistically made in terms of performances, either aerodynamic (lift-drag vs AoA) or engine performance! The F-16 is one of the most accurately performing and aerodynamically simulated fighter jets in DCS so far, only together with a few other jet fighters! So don't you wonder why real US fighter pilots who flew the F-16, F-15 and F-18 know for sure that the F-16 out turns the F-18 and F-15 at constant turns, while the F-15 only slightly out turns the F-18, thus the F-18 being in the thirst place, while in DCS it's on the first place. Something has to be fishy somewhere and I've already given some clues, for who cares about them!

Nope! I don't even have a button assigned for disconnection as I never plan to disconnect before fully refueled and I didn't even set may inputs as I've only started trying the F-4 with some play around in mind, starting with air refueling which has this apparent bug, which all other jets that I do air refuels on don't do! You have the track, you can check it. Like some 6 minutes after starting you can find what I'm talking about. And that didn't happen once by chance, I've intentionally then tried to see if it does it again (like a tester I like to be) and yes, it does it every now and then with no logic. Sometimes you sit there with the most forward green lights on, telling that I'm a bit lower and too forward (so the boom isn't that compressed if I'm also low and not just forward), and all of a sudden it disconnects, sometimes it stays for a while and won't do that. I think that it's triggered by the motion of the plane, cause let's be honest, you can't remain stuck in a position, so as the whole plane wobbles a bit, but still maintaining that general position with those 2 green lights, wammm...it disconnects! Regards.

Some times he says things the opposite way, so, personal choice, I erase Jester! I mean there's nothing more upside down than ignoring the lights and waiting for Jester who is also late in response to tell you what to do=)). Personal choice, I like to fix things, not ignore them!

Hi, Although I truly enjoy this product's quality, especially when it comes to the flight model realism of the aircraft, aerodynamic forces and moments versus AoA and Beta (sideslip angle), as well as engine performances, for which as an AE I can tell that for me HEATBLUR has won the prize for truly the best team in making the aircraft in flight behavior be simulated very correctly and I don't even want to talk about other third parties who never managed even 50% of what HEATBLUR proved. Every correct/fair definition comes relative to something, so I had to say it! Now, for the subject that I'm here with, whenever I do air refuels with the F-4, very often when I'm just one dot below and one dot (green light) ahead of the ideal center position, although I'm not making any abrupt maneuvers or anything, the boom disconnects! In order to catch this suspected bug, I've reconnected plenty of times and re-done the scenario and yes, for a good couple of times when I'm with both green lights from the belly of the tanker ahead of the ideal center position, meaning when I'm one green light towards UP and AFT indications, the boom unlocks for whatever reason and I must go for a re-connection! The track file has 65MBs, so I've shared it on this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cmkhmOfZEDHRm6SmuNKk5DgAZiMFS3jx/view?usp=sharing Kind regards!

Hi, Whenever you use DTOS launching mode for a weapon and designate a point on the ground by using the HUD, then correcting the position on the ground through TGP, then switching back to CCRP launching mode, the steerpoints no longer work and all the SOIs remain stuck in a random plane on the ground which is not any kind of steerpoint. Another bug is that the BRST function now makes the MAVs FOV run haywire, not listening to the slave mode anymore, nor in VIS or PRE, once you press BRST after locking a target on the ground. From that moment on, you can just dump the MAVs as they become useless and probably only after repairing the plane, that would fix the problem (just a guess) or simply respawn the plane. No matter how many times you try locking a target again (if you easily manage to) and pressing the BRST again just hoping to have it work normally again, it won't and remains with the selected MAV's seeker oriented sideways by default. Steerpoints not working anymore when using DTOS and when pressing BRST on MAVs, their seeker goes haywire.trk Regards!

I see you are full of imagination for trying to invent incoherent pretexts, but sorry, it won't work that way! 1. The LG of the Su-25 is more robust than you seem to imagine and for a bit of thinking exercise, if not even the tire doesn't blow up from lateral force, how can the steering system fail that easily? And speaking of thinking, is there any other aircraft for which the steering gets stuck like that from a simple tarmac touch or smallest little non-uniformity in the grass? Show me one cause I'm genuinely curious. Only the Su-25s steering system needs a little attention to be logically at least as resistant as the one on the Su-27 and also the main landing gear needs the same attention to be somewhat more resistant to lateral forces only, as every time I steer the Su-25 on tarmac at some 50-80km/h and it's heavily armed and the wheel from the interior of the turn lifts off the ground a bit and then retouches after I reduce the steering, that landing gear fails. Very non-logically, not the one on which the weight of the whole plane is fails, but fails the one which re-touches the ground=). 2. I can use the rudder with the heels on the ceiling and still won't brake the steering systems or gear on ANY other airplanes, not just FC3, so avoiding the grass only has to do with it's coding..., which can be changed if people are kind. Btw, only the FC3 aircraft remain stuck in the grass. DCS level aircraft never do. I'm curious about your new explanation for that? 3. Wet grass? Mud? Sinks? =))). You are brilliant! Now I just wonder how would your proposed tests would look like! Perhaps you never heard of a Boeing 737 that landed on a grass strip, while it's main tires had quite a very good ground tire pressure (if you know what that is) on a fully rained, soaked mud as you like to bring in and not only that the landing gear withstood the forces without breaking apart nor even bending, but days after that mishap, it also took off from that same strip. Yes, it was relatively lighter, but the soil didn't just dry out that fast and still took off. Not to even mention the plentiful of videos showing soviet fighters taking off from exactly that..., wet mud terrains! And you want to come and explain how FC3 airplanes like F-15 or MIG-29 remain stuck on dry grass at full AB. Instead of accepting the truth and reality, you play the same game like many others I've seen doing so, by trying to invent all sorts of nonsense. You've found the wrong guy;). I simply wish I could help ED correct things in DCS. I wish I could know how to fix the damn thing myself if I'd be allowed to. Me and others who want to correct it, are at the mercy of ED's developers for their time and effort (and I understand them as they are overwhelmed with important bugs) in trying to look into these things as well when they get the chance.

It's funny when you have to restart the engine/s and reorient the plane so that the wind won't keep any of them at 1% non-stop, so you can find an orientation to have them finally reach 0% and be able to repair. some normal 7% or at least minimum 5% shouldn't be a big deal to be more decent.

Ohhh. Many thanks. But how could anyone know when and what they change and you have to relearn everything like from scratch sometimes. Thanks. The guy before you explained it clearly. I didn't guess that at the rearm menu there's a little triangle added at some update which does that. I thought that had other purposes. Cheers

If you didn't understand the bug here, I'll explain to you again. I wasn't talking about resolution! How did you get there? Whenever you use NORM, you can change the scan angle. Whenever you are in EXP, only the 1,3,6 appears when pressing the OSB for changing the angle, but the simulated scan angles remain untouched at 60 degrees. Whenever you are in DBS1/2, now the button for changing angles doesn't change anything anymore, while the angle remains stuck at 60 degrees or at least it remains stuck with the scanning time for a 60 degrees scan angle! Was this good enough? Anyway, you have the track which explains everything about these AG radar bugs.

Yeah..., they really did...! Of course I'm being sarcastic. At some moment they've let you pre-edit the code from within the mission editor at the aircraft additional properties section, just to get a "better" idea with the latest updates to eliminate it from there and put it nowhere to be found anymore. Where is the option to have the laser code set up from the mission editor now or is there a whole new "feature" to do it? Thank you!

Hi! Did anyone talk about the angle coverage (10, 30, 60 degrees) when in any other mode than NORM, such as EXP, DBS1/2? Whenever I change to those modes, the number of scanned degrees remains at a fixed value (dunno which one), although only in EXP when you press the angles button, the numbers change from 1 to 3 to 6, but nothing actually changes about the scan itself. Only the horizontal antenna sweep indicator moves in according to the three scan angles limits, but the visual picture remains stuck on the same angle and the scan rate also remains intact and these things happening to me are totally different from that video from Wags. Track: F-16 AG radar doesn't change scanning angles and scan times in EXP, DBS1&2.trk I may be doing something wrong, yet I don't guess what. I cannot change the scan rate or scan angles in DBS modes. Bug or what? Many thanks!

Hi, Whenever you are at 1% or above for any engine rpm, the ground crew won't ever repair your aircraft, including if the weather plays it's role as well by having the wind blowing fast enough to keep your engines at or above 1% rpm! Can you please correct the code and let them start repairing even when the rpm is as high as 7% ? It is frustrating and can even become annoying to wait for starting a repair on some aircraft which take a lot to have their engines rpm go down to 0% and you probably already know it too! You can be pretty sure that even at 7..8% rpm on the low spool (which gives the highest airflow rate) no jet engine will ever pose the danger of sucking a human. I say this even from my own experiences as working on Boeing 737NGs (which have big engines compared to fighters) for 8 years, when for a good amount of times I had the chance to do some dry engine motoring runs which gets up to some 28-30%rpm on the high spool and some 8% on the low spool and during those runs I would put my hand in front of the inlet to see how much force would pull it when held directly flat/perpendicular to the airflow (90AoA) and to my surprise I would guess it was around less than 3..2lbf which would drag it into the inlet, so..., there is no risk in getting sucked in at all at such low rpm. So, can you please re-code the aircraft repair to start repairing whenever you are below at least 7% or 5% rpm? The amount of time (3 mins) of repairing isn't realistic at all anyway, as well as the rearming, so at least make the low limit engines rpm a little higher for starting repairs! Many thanks!

Hi, Just happened to come across this video and after seeing how the plane was slammed onto the ground at that visible rate. From experience in DCS, the landing gear on our lighter Su-27 bends quite much for this kind visually memorized vertical rate. I totally agree that I could be wrong, but I'll do some tests as soon as I get the time to see how things compare. This is all for the good of DCS, not for the bad of it. Regards.

Hi, Only after the latest updates which include a an otherwise very useful setting of controlling the AB detents as a % of throttles position, I've noticed that if you put an AB detent % summed with the deadzone % which would give a result of over 100, the engines will forever remain in FULL AB while the exhaust nozzles will correctly listen to the IAS-MACH-THROTTLE function and can go fully closed with the afterburners blasting at max gas flow rate, definitely proving an engine model fault, only due to this reaction of the nozzles which don't listen to engine regimes conditions, but only to throttle inputs and IAS/MACH function, not caring if the afterburners are in full demand! To cut any useless replies from the start, you never possibly can have a full afterburner condition with the nozzle fully closed without having the engine either get into a violent surge or eventually blowing off altogether. Regards. F-14 FULL afterburners continuously ON with nozzles fully closed.trk

Nobody simulated that, take that out of your mind!

Can't wait to grab some time and test these things with passion as well. Good to know that at least "Heatblur" (despite others like "LLC" who made a crap out of that MIG-21 inside-out), do indeed look into aerodynamic and flight performances details. I'm all for it. Regards! If you wouldn't asked this question I would've thought that the B also received the needed performances corrections, but now I'm also wondering the same way. In the end, most players want the better or more performant version against other players, which is the B model. From my quick conclusions some years ago after testing the B, it turns quite too well to be true and I've concluded that it could be because the drag coefficient vs AoA function isn't giving high enough drag coefs between some 10 to 20deg AoA, reason why the plane will settle at a much higher than real speed with max AB between those AoA ranges, thus resulting in greater than real constant turn rate.

With all due respect, can you please reply in the topic's subject and not 100% off-topic? Seriously..., who talked about steering at various speeds? Who talked about how you should keep your feet on the brakes? Please reply only after a bit of thinking. Regarding the "steering", cause that's the only word you used regarding something from what I've said, it was about the steering mechanism that breaks, not at what speed you should steer for reasons all other than breaking the mechanism. The manual tells about the speed limit so that at max steering you won't have the plane land on a wing! You didn't understand anything from what I was talking about. I was talking about how fragile the nose wheel steering mechanism is and breaks/fails at any small bump that it encounters, a good example being when rolling on the grass at ANY speed, even at 0.5km/h if you want to talk about speed or when coming from the grass back on the tarmac, again regardless with what speed you do it, it no longer works. Do you understand now?

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU ED for this unique map finally arriving! I don't care about what most dissatisfied may find to complain about a rather huge map in comparison to others with things like: resolution, not enough details, etc.! Kiddish complaints from my point of view! I'm only happy that finally..., this map is available in DCS and it resembles the real landscape of Afghanistan. NOW I can truly simulate what I want regarding the Soviet-Afghan war against the Mujahideen, especially in 1987 when the soviets have learned more about defeating Stinger missiles and found new ways of hunting the extremist Mujahideen down. Can't wait to make a realistic conditions mission reflecting that year! Better to be happy of this map already as it is rather than waiting more years to be able to fly on it. Can't you guys have any bit of appreciation other than immediate critics (some being careless) for something which was waited for so long and which of course is a WIP? Cmon! Be reasonable.

AFGHANISTAN...! At last...! Yes, I'm also hoping for the entire map, but I've just bought the pre-order as soon as I found out about it (quite late now maybe, but I'm happy)! Can't wait to simulate my own Soviets vs Mujahideens realistic scenarios! Many thanks for this one!

Coming up with new payware products is always more appealing than fixing/correcting problems left behind that should be ignored! And after the new stuff comes up, the excuse of not having time (interest) in fixing old issues grows ever more!