cicimicikiller

Still not fixed

Still not fixed

Still not fixed ofc, way to go Belsimtek

Still not fixed, I am losing hope, seems that Belsimtek joins the developers that just don't care..

It's ridiculous, this should've been hotfixed 24 hours after this bug was introduced. Instead of fixing bugs that are reported long time they introduce more... How long are we gonna wait? I hope not until 2.5, there will be ton of other bugs that will be not fixed for a year Thank god we have a beta version where we test all new patches so we can eliminate prbolems before we release it as stable version....

He said that readability of display in 3D model is much better on real life unit and would like someone to have a look at it. Sorry but, what does anything you said have to do with it?

According to wikipedia: "It is produced in a variety of subtypes with different warheads, including HEAT anti-armour (S-5K), high-explosive fragmentation (S-5M/MO), smoke, and incendiary rounds." I believe we have high-explosive version and not anti-armour, so that might be the reason. Is there a version specified in DCS or does it just say "S-5"? I am at work right now so I can't check it.

i5-2500, GTX760 2GB, 8GB ram. A lot of stutters mainly in missions with higher number of AI units. Upgraded to 16GB ram and i have 0 stutters. You will not fix stutters, they exist because of how engine handle objects and there is nothing we can do about it. A lot of people say it's CPU but as you can see, i am running old i5 with no OC and have no stutters. Problem was RAM.. more objects + full VRAM + full RAM = loading directly from HDD which is a lot slower than RAM (some people fix this by upgrading to SSD instead of buying more RAM).. So yeah, make sure you have enough VRAM and RAM, there's nothing more to it. Meanwhile I upgraded to i5-7600 and GTX1060 6GB, performance is the same but i can set higher preload radius and tree/bush distance

I'll just say it again It's mostly intended to be used for gunsight and launch authorization for AIM-9s. That's also why you have switch for DF/DG mode right under your thumb on the stick. For anything else it's only good to give away your postition to aircraft equiped with rwr.

This is my observation as well. I am using radar for that range only against bigger planes anyway, after already knowing their approximate position, it's not really radar intended for finding targets, it's mostly intended to be used for gunsight and launch authorization for AIM-9s

No Garmin 430's were used in Vietnam/Korea. - we don't simulate only vietnam/korea do we? Most civilian Huey's on the web that do have a Garmin use the older GNC250XL or a portable like the GNS696 - keyword is "most" This , uses twin GNS430 and a glass cockpit. It doesn't carry rockets or machine guns. - see, everything is possible The Bo-105 being developed has a very basic GPS - should it be NS430 compatible? - Are we talking about some buil-in GPS that comes from factory? In that case it should be compatible if it is possible IRL to make them compatible. How about the Spitfire, Mi-24, AV-8, F-14 or Hornet, they don't have a GNS430 but could carry a potable GPS device today? - We will have to see, so far noone denied or confirmed that we will get this GPS for anything else than Mi8 Why add a fiction when players have the F10 map and better route planning could be added to that? - If something is fiction than it would be using F10 map, having real life GPS device which can be mounted into ANYTHING can only be more realistic My opinion is that if we are implementing some standalone GPS device in Mi8, the aircraft that does not have it from stock, it should be available for every other aircraft. That would be "logical choice" for me.

Give a shot to this mod I made, it basicaly adds RSBN beacon to every airfield in Caucasus https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2451943/ Similar mod (including PRMG iirc) can be found also for NTTR.

It seems that nobody cares about long reported bugs like RWR and CBU pattern, so don't get your hopes high.

I even would like to buy it and try in L39, but I cant't unless I own the Mi8. Brilliant :D yes i know, early access

I was not even debating if it should be early access or if i am buying it, I reacted to soemone telling me it's early access, i don't care. After that i was speaking about general issues with early access. I have never complained something is incomplete, i was expressing my opinion after i've seen webpage with module and read this thread. Jesus people, you are liked obessed with this "don't buy it if you dont want it", guess what I didn't. I can still say what i think.

Perfect!

Did I said somewhere i am not waiting or that they are forcig it on us? I understand the concept thank you. I am sure there will be no problems after full release, like with other modules ;-)

Well than it's useless. It's pretty standart for L39 to be flown by only one pilot and he doesn't sit in the back. It doesn't necessarily need to be placed in some existing panel, maybe it could be placed above dash on the side, as a standalone instrument. Somewhere under compass

Now we're talking! I just hope it will not be limited to rear seat. Please.

I am not going to repeat what i read in last 14 pages of this thread, read it yourself and then you will understand better what i was trying to say. And i am not here to argue or discuss it further, i stated only my opinion as customer and potentional customer. EDIT: "It's beta" :D :D Everyone know that this is universial excuse for releasing unfinished products with the bright side of getting feedback and darkside of blaming everything that's wrong on "it's early access". We have a lot of "release versions" that still carry bugs from early access so don't get me even started on this... EDIT2: Regarding that shady marketing: Name says DCS: NS 430 Navigation System for DCS: Mi-8MTV2. Description says: The NS 430 GPS navigation system is an optional add-on module for DCS World aircraft. Starting with DCS: Mi-8MTV2, So does that mean it will later be implemented in other aircrafts without additional need to pay? Or will there be another release with name DCS: NS 430 Navigation System for DCS: F5E and we will need to buy it again? That's what i meant for example.

Oh yes sorry, I was obviously talking about aircrafts that don't have GPS implemented in base systems. Even then, if there will be STAR/SID routes etc in this GPS module, you still don't have those in A-10C and Ka-50 build in systems.

I love the fact that we see GPS in DCS, finally! But as usual marketing/announcing is shady and it sounds again that nothing is guaranteed and even developers don't know what will follow. I hope to see this on possibly every plane. None of the aircrafts from DCS have this as standard equipment so if we are going with implementing it for Mi8 I think it should be available for every module (and i would prefere to have clarification on this very soon, simply yes or no, i am sure they know by now if they want it in all aircrafts or not). I also hope they will figure out the MP problem regarding allowing/banning it on servers.

I am just curious, why don't you want to use the chute for landing? It's there for a reason. One of the reasons is that F5 does not have antiskid, another is that brakes are weak and the third one is that it is easier to repack the chute than it is to replace the brake pads. As I mentioned in another thread, I live near a base where Mig29s are stationed. They have pretty long runway and thay for sure can stop using only brakes, yet they always use the chute. EDIT: Only hints for braking without chute that i can give you are these: 1. Try to aero brake as long as you can (keep your nosewheel up) 2. Make sure your airbrakes are extended 3. When I tested the braking with F5, I found it to be better with threshold braking, not pumping the brakes, just be careful not to lock up.

I would like to know at least the status of this "bug" from the devs. Are you working on it? Are you trying to find some relevant info? Will this stay as it is? This is still one of this biggest problems with the F-5 module.

Yes brakes on F-5 are weak and they have no anti-skid, it was discussed a lot of times. That's exactly why there is a chute and you should use it, it's there for a reason. I live near a base where Mig29s are stationed, they can for sure brake and come to stop using only brakes after they land because runway is pretty long, yet they always use the chute. One reason is that it is easier to repack the chute than it is to replace the worn out brake pads. Use the chute.