Schmidtfire

I own many games and it is not a standard procedure needing to exclude the game from the Antivirus in order to play. Perhaps a developer can explain more in detail, but this issue most likely stems from bad practices or an unconventional approach. I'm glad there's a workaround available, but a commercial 80(!) dollar product should not get flagged as malicious.

It seems like you actually pointed out the solution with the picture of the manual. Perhaps no need to doubt Highlighted in yellow: 1. When the missile head is ready, you will see a MHR (Missile Head Ready?) light on the radar screen and hear a lock sound. It's the Missile seeker head seeing the target. Next sentence: 2. When the distance markers enter the launch zone, the Light LAUNCH will become visible on the radar screen. So the event is divided in two stages: MHR light + Lock sound. Markers within launch zone -> Launch Light visible It's kind of confusing the way it is written in the manual. But I'm quite sure it is correct.

My guess is that the R-3R seekerhead is detecting reflected energy from the locked target out of kinematic range, generating a tone. MiG-21 radar complex calculates when the target is within missile range, then gives pilot a Launch Authorization. This is from the Mirage-2000C update 18/11/2021: The Super 530D seeker is now simulated and will require to be locked on the target before the missile can be fired. This lock is indicated by a 650 Hz tone (same as the MAGIC lock tone) and by the missile status letter being circled on the VTH. The seeker range should be above the missile kinematic range in most cases but could result in bad surprises in look down scenarios. So it's possible that the same logic applies for a radar guided R-3R on the old MiG-21bis. Here is a very old tutorial from one of the all time greats, xxJohnxx. If you listen closely (difficult to hear), there is a tone when he is locked on, but out of range. So it's been like this from the beginning. That's my theory anyways, but maybe one of the developers can comment on this

Incorrect. Modules can be out of Early Access and not be feature complete. F/A-18C is a very good example of this. It's out of Early Access phase since a while back and still receiving new features and updates. I don't know if the name has changed but ED used to call it "Product Sustainment"-phase. We still see fixes and the occasional addition to modules that are over 10 years old now. The development drags on with every new project and DCS World is always moving forward. Meaning that modules needs development attention to be truly completed and to stay fresh and functional. Looks like we lost new features, overhauls/improvements and bug fixes on the other RB modules. Unless you are telling me that they were 100% completed in early 2024 and no other feature, improvement or bug fix was planned to be done ever again by Razbam (before this situation happened). Are they functional and can provide hours of fun in current state? Yes But calling the other RB modules completed, like there was nothing more to be done, is not correct. I was very much waiting for updates and overhauls for both the Harrier and MiG-19P.

I can confirm. It's even possible to detect, lock and shoot missiles at invisible "non activated" aircraft . This test was done on Caucasus map. I tried both IL-76MD (same as Rudel_chw) and with F/A-18C Lot 20.

I wish for an option in the Mission Editor to set a % slider of AI Thrust and G pull capability. It's hopeless facing the AI in dogfights. With WWII (and jets), the AI defies physics and will always be at an energy advantage while the player is bleeding speed and stalling out. AI also needs further work, but a slider to limit the AI SFM can solve a lot of current issues with not too much work.

Let's say the situation gets resolved. ED protects it's IP and Razbam gets hit with a breach of contract. How will that outcome improve my RB modules? And on the other hand, let's say that there is some kind of settlement. Razbam getting back to work with ED like nothing has happened? Yeah right ...again not a good outcome for my RB modules. Perhaps I'm missing something, but from my perspective - it looks like there is nothing to gain for the DCS players, no matter which company comes out on top. Offering a refund on the F-15E that early in the process speaks volumes. The word if is also kind of concerning when this situation has been going on for almost a year. Multiple modules are affected and has not received updates or fixes. I hope I'm wrong, but if kind of signals that it's an acceptable outcome to leave this mess like it is. In two years time everyone will be talking about the MiG-29 and F-35 anyways...

The Viggen started as an internal project by a group of Swedes that was part of the Master Arms community (a Swedish virtual squadron). They worked on it for a long time without SDK access and eventually Cobra/Magnitude3 came onboard and got the proper licensing with ED. At later stages it was then finished under the newly formed Heatblur brand. From what I remember, not much (if any) development was handled by the current Magnitude 3 team. Perhaps Rudel can explain in more detail, but that's how I remember it. There was also some kind of fallout with Lazlo Becz that jeopardized the release of the MiG-21bis module. It was something like half a year before the release and got everyone nervous . At that time modules was a rare commodity and pretty much everyone was waiting for it. Luckily, it all worked out.

I have been playing DCS for a very long time and the only "Dots" I know are the Label dots set in the Mission Editor. Is the spotting dots something new added to DCS? Or is it the same thing?

It needs to get fixed. I can't tell how many times this has caused confusion, especially in multiplayer when players on different FOV levels calling out a contrail or smoke trail from a missile launch.

Currenthill does not LOD's at the moment, so there is a lot of work needed on optimization if Currenthill/ED decides to go down that route.

It won't be an issue. the La-7 module is not developed by Eagle Dynamics. The F-5E: Remastered only real offering is the new 3D model and ED wants to protect the model from being pirated by players or even perhaps other companies. I don't think that won't be much of an issue with the La-7. Also, skins can still be created. But it's not as easy or efficient as before.

I love DCS multiplayer, but lets be honest. DCS World had never been a multiplayer centric game/sim. Recently there has been some steps made, like the implementation of dedicated servers, VOIP and dynamic spawns. But majority of servers are kept running on pure enthusiasm and bubblegum solutions. Bloated with all sorts of scripts and netcode/desync issues. Multiplayer will continue to improve, but it's obviously not ED's main focus when it comes to development. Asking for modules to specifically cater multiplayer is a tall order.

@carss great find! I didn't know it was flown by North Korea. Makes it a little bit more interesting since we already have a couple of Korea compatible modules.

Ok At least the Iranian loadout should be covered by pre-existing DCS assets. I'll guess we have to wait and see if any additional missiles will be modeled.

Sidewinders aside. Iranians used AIM-7E (E-2?) on their Tomcat, so it should also be included for the early variant.

I think it's the developers interest and fascination of the La-7 aircraft itself that drives the development forward. He selected a module that he wanted to create. It might not fit with all the other WWII toys in the DCS World sandbox, but that was never the plan. Some players will be creative and "invent" missions where it has a place. Others will just enjoy free-flights. Some players wants to learn the quirks and systems. Others love to take screenshots... More assets is always welcome, but I don't think this module was created with that in mind. Just look at the F-86F and the MiG-15bis, two very popular modules back in the day. But no other "Korea period" AI assets has been released.

Iranians use/used AIM-9J and and perhaps the AIM-9P. Those missiles are already present in DCS (and on the F-4E), so they should be added on the early Tomcat. Other sidewinders might also be developed and implemented, since the F-100D is in progress and is in need of older winder variants. For a solution right now, it's very easy to add weapons and create custom loadouts.

I'm adding a Mark 13 Torpedo to the Hellcat Wish List. Being able to do Anti Shipping missions with a torpedo adds a lot of value and is a first for a DCS WWII module.

The elevation can be solved by placing the radar on top of a static object in the ME. One of my favorites to place in the ME is the "Electrical box". It will give you enough elevation in most cases and since it has a door, gives the impression that it is housing a generator or service equipment. If it's not wide enough for the size of the radar, two can be placed side by side. There are a few others of the other Static Object buildings in the ME that has a flat roof and will allow the radar to be placed on top without any clipping. And if you need any additional protection for the radar, you can also place the newly added barriers/sandbags on top of the roof.

It would make sense in a lot of ways. First gauge interest with the free Su-25. If it seems to be popular/commercially viable enough, continue the development and release a FF version. But a lot of it has to do with the FF MiG-29A being successful or not. I'm not sure ED will try make another Redfor jet if it fails.

Yes, I have tried almost every way at this point... sigh In the book "Gunship Ace" by Al J. Venter, there is a picture of Neall Ellis Mi-24, with an empty GUV 8700 mounted. Gatling and a AP-30 barrels laying on a tarp for inspection. But no mention in the book of the pods being used during combat missions in Africa. Perhaps it was for the cameras only.

Im interested in how the grenade launchers were used in real life. I know there is a table available for the module in DCS, but it’s not great and it would be helpful to know how it was commonly employed in the field. Slow speed to a hover with a slight pitch up? A high altitude flyover? High speed diving attacks? etc. It would make it a bit easier dialing in how to properly use and aim these things.

Yes, because there is nothing secret about a mid 2000's F-15C Good luck modeling the EW and TEWS capability without some degree of guesswork. Heck, here's already a lot of guesswork and estimations in DCS World, be it aircraft or missile performance. I'm all for highly detailed and well documented aircraft, don't get me wrong, but there needs to be room for both. As long as it is created with the "highest fidelity we can create" mindset, I don't really see any harm with the F-35A project. If anything it might open the doors to some projects that we would never see otherwise. And it's not like everyone will enjoy flying the F-35A and ditch everything else. Because it being that high tech is a niche by itself.

Also ED is running out of "commercially viable" aircrafts to model. F-15C and F-35A (possibly B & C) will keep this sim going. So will a Super Hornet if ED decides to go that route. As much as I love the Cold War jets, only a few of them has appeal enough for the mass market. I expect ED to make tons of sales on DLC's like airbases, highres areas etc. when the "world map" arrives. But until then, they need to keep the train rolling. Loosening up a bit on needed documentation is inevitable at some point.