Schmidtfire

I think It matters. Because those loadouts you would never see IRL becomes the DCS norm. If there is a war, would you risk your valuable air assetts and pilots just so you can shoot another two AGM-65 Mavericks per flight? Don't think so. There should be an optional mission editor setting that enforce realistic and operational loadouts. What I don't understand is the need for 4 HARMS. The need for 6 Mavericks. The need to put JDAM's or APKWS on everything. I like to have options, but lately there seems to be an obsession of min-maxing every jet. "ED plz put this thing on my aeroplane so I can be more competitive on GAW server" stretching the believability of the sim just because some users like to fly like Rambo and take out an entire airbase by themselves in one go. FYI: Payload management, Landing and Rearming is also part of the DCS experience.

Watch the video provided in this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...n-with-rockets For some reason it is not decluttered.

To better illustrate issue with the symbology, please look below for DCS/TACMAN/IRL comparison

The periscope/sight might look something like this: From this video: @ 26:50 they use the sight and launch a Shturm. If it is the correct sight symbology I don't know as documentaries frequently "borrow" and mix and match video material so it works for the storytelling.

I think there is a firm place for a full fidelity MiG-29A. "Balance" is only a concern in multiplayer, but as we know, the M-2000C is still very popular even going up against the most modern threats that DCS has to offer. Not everyone is interesting in min-maxing to be competitive, there are plenty of other pc games that offer that. Mission makers need to understand that there are ways to create missions that put older Redfor aircraft on the same playingfield against the modern Bluefor fighters. Give them better GCI and let them fly close to SAM and AAA coverage. They should try to balance the missions, not the jets.

The best thing would probably to put a couple of selectable monitor and VR view options in the Special Options tab. If that solves the issue? From memory, all this started with the 3D model/Cockpit update a few years back. I get that it needs to look correct in VR, but the majority of players are using a monitor. That will not change until VR becomes cheap and DCS engine is optimized to handle VR at reasonable framerates.

Oh sorry, my bad. 1. When you drop a bomb in CCIP it produces a Target Designation at the CCIP crosshair location. Making it easier for a re-attack. Thats is implemented in our DCS Harrier and working. 2. Same thing should happen for a rockets delivery in CCIP. A Target Designation-box would appear where the rocket reticle is aimed at weapon release. This however does not work in DCS. 2.4.6.4 CCIP Target Designation with Weapon Release. At weapon release in the CCIP mode, the computed impact point is automatically designated. The TD diamond appears at the designated target location. Reattack steering is then provided on the HUD and EHSI/ EHSD display. The video I posted shows this behaviour @ 1:50. As pilot release the rockets a designation (diamond with a dot) appears over the target. Making it easier to re-attack.

Finally found some footage of DMT in action! TV tracker locked and unlocked.

Critical AoA from a dev perspective is extremely difficult to simulate. This module has changed a lot over the years, but I think the flight model is in a pretty good place now. There was a time a few years back when the flight model became messy because it was thinkered with back and forth every week... I don't think anyone wants to go back into that carousel again unless there is something seriously wrong. Reading OP's complaints, my understanding is that the major issue is not really the stall behaviour, but the suddenness. It is the lack of feedback right before the behaviour sets in. Feedback such as sound or buffeting.

I don’t know if airburst option is simulated in DCS. For example, AJS-37 has the m/71 bombs. IRL they are airburst fragmentation bombs used against soft targets, but in DCS they work as a regular MK series bomb.

When undesignating the Litening II TGP, it centers to boresight instantly. Click! Comparing it to Litening II implementation on F/A-18C, F-16C and A-10C the TGP should slew back to boresight, not make an instant "jump". TACMAN (1-387) also describes HOTAS Undesignate -> Pressed -> Slaves pod sensors to A/C CMD LOS. I do enjoy the "instant boresight" from a gameplay perspective, but from a sim point of view (and comparing it to three other modules, four if you count JF-17 WMD-7 pod) it is not correct behaviour of the Litening II.

Rocket delivery (CCIP) do not produce a CCIP Target Designation. It should designate a point at weapon realase (just like the CCIP bomb release) Described in the A1-AV8BB-TAC-000 (2-53) and also clearly seen on HUD in this video (@ 1:50) FYI.This HUD video might be from Harrier II+, but the CCIP TD with Weapon Release is also described in A1-AV8BB-TAC-000. The missing dot in the current TD isymbol has already been checked and reported in ​​​​​​​another post.

You can sort of do this without scripting using custom F10 radio or triggerzone. When the F10 JAMMING is set to ON, display a JAMMER ON radio message. Set the SAM launcher vehicle AI to OFF. As an alternative you can create a triggerzone around the SAM and when the Jamming aircraft enters the zone then the vehicle AI will be set to OFF. You can also make it so that the SAM radar turns off and try to hide by using missile detected in zone. Just create a trigger zone around the SAM area and if missile is detected in zone - AI OFF if not - AI ON It is possible to create a lot of stuff in the ME without using scripts :)

I have found the MK-82AIR high drag bomb landing long. Attached are 3 tracks with different profiles. High drag bombs is not a precision weapon, but the point is that the bombs are consistently landing long. Also look att the impact spacing between the quantity (2). As interval is not set it leads me to believe that there is some kind of delay issue present. Tracks attached. AV8B_82AIR_LEVEL_DELIVERY.trk AV8B_82AIR_DIVE_DELIVERY.trk AV8B_82AIR_LEVEL_DIVE_SPEED_MIX_DELIVERIES.trk

Thanks, sorry. In my report I stated that NWP 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. I Figure 1-181 has the symbology for AV8B NA . But I did not want to post pictures from it here on forums. I hope you understand that GR.7 yt reference was the second best option :)

After further testing, the drifting C701 was caused by jitter and dust on my HOTAS slew sensor. Hardware issue. Problem solved.

So where are we with the Viggen relase? Exterior sounds, new textures... ? Any plans to investigate the FM/Drag? Might be wrong here, but it seems like the Viggen has a bunch of drag-related issues to be sorted out. Quite "dense" to fly According to at least one IRL Viggen pilot the DCS version needs afterburner flying with bombs, something that was not needed IRL. Flying without stores - going out AF is like stepping on a brake.

It is pretty bad that even some of the basic stuff like HUD symbology (that are displayed in front of you on every flight) is missing, wrong or not working correctly. The audio popping (looping) issues also give it a sloppy representation. Has not been fixed since release and I cannot understand why. Sidearm? I understand if all modes or functions are implemented yet, but what is in should match documentation. Comparing with EA modules from Eagle Dynamics or Heatblur, their research and implementation is on point. I understand if EA takes a long time, but what is implemented should be as accurate as possible. Small details count. And while Im a fan of the M-2000C another Razbam product, it also had major accuracy issues. Thats why we got the Mid-Life Overhaul after input from the AdA. HOTAS and systems. The difference is night and day. What did I fly before the overhaul? Anyways, I hope that Razbam ups their quality level. Harrier is a fun and popular module but needs a lot of further development and polish to be what I expect from a DCS module.

C701 I have seen several tutorial videos and read documentation but Im still having issues. in SP mode the 701 is ”wandering” around. The crosshair moves around and is not stabilized on screen. Very difficult to slew adjust and get a lock as the crosshair slowly moves accross the screen. in SLAV mode it is till difficult to get the 701 seeker pointed at the target, even if I have a SPI set. Not as easy as working with the Maverick on Harrier or A-10C.. What am I missing?

Short list of what is needed to make the AGM-122 system more realistic and correspond with description in NWP 3-22.5-AV8B Add New symbology for Cage Mode. Add Cage / Uncage functionality. Add symbology for out of FOV seeker. Add Hot Mode. Add "Jitter" to uncaged seeker. Add tone that gets louder. Like how AIM-9 sound works on DCS Viggen or C-101. Remove the seeker snapping, but moving more steadily and to a halt as tone increases. Maybe adjust warhead so it damages over 50% but does not destroy units.

Missing HUD symbology shown in NWP 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. I Figure 1-181. Also more detailed on page 2-156. Current HUD symbol in DCS is uncaged seeker only. As per TACMAN the uncaged seeker is jittery and not stable until LOCKON. This is not present in DCS. If the symbol is HUD limited it becomes dashed. This symbology is also missing. The caged symbol is also missing. There is currently not possible to CAGE/UNCAGE Sidearm. Cage/Uncage is the major feature of The PRIMARY MODE according to TACMAN. HOT MODE is when Sidearm is selected together with other A/G weapons except AGM-65 or Guns (not currently possible) Note that uncaged AGM-122 is not needed to fire the miissile. It is used if a good tone and lock cannot be reached in the caged mode. Same principle as sidewinder cage/uncage. Target lock is determined by the tone in the headset and observing that the Sidearm uncage symbol becomes stable as there is no special tone or symbol indicating lock on for the Sidearm.

The DMT has the wrong lock symbology in HUD. It is correct in DCS for AGM-65 Maverick but not for the TV track. TV track uses a different symbol. Shown in NWP 3-22.5-AV8B, Vol. I Figure 1-181 and in this screenshot (From a GR.7) Locked and tracking. Notice the square with a central dot. The footage might be a bit squeezed, but you get the idea =) Unlocked Wrong. Maverick symbology. Should look like the symbol in the first picture.

The Target Designator symbol is missing the dot in center. The dot and size is shown in NWP 3-22.5-AV8B Figure 1-181 and is also seen in these screens below (From Harrier GR.7) No dot in target designator box

There has been several discussions about Iran version of F-14. With the soon to be released F-14A, just wondering if anything has been confirmed in that regard? Livery, possible changes to cockpit/systems or "experimental" weapons like Fakour-90 or possibly russsian missiles such as R-73. I understand that this might not be a priority, just wondering as I find it very interesting. It adds for a lethal Redfor threat and fits really well with the Persian Gulf map :)

Great news :) I guess this info on ASP is already avalible. But in case it is not: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4523528&postcount=1212