zerO_crash

ED treats sensitive documentation from both sides the same way. I had some documents that I wanted to post on the RU-side some one year ago, maybe less, and after contacting Chizh about it specifically, was recommended against it for the exact reason of ITAR. ED doesn't care about whether the document is found anywhere. As you post it, you are also obliged to show either a stamp along with the document allowing for public distribution, or eventually, make sure that it is not confidential. In addition to this, you need to make sure that the document is not newer than 1980s. 1.16 is fairly strictly enforced on both sides.

I cannot check this right now, as I'm on Mi-24P documentation. Let it be said though; don't get top frisky with posting documents, or else, you'll quickly learn of ITAR! At best, if someone wants to contribute specific information, unless you know that you are NOT violating ITAR, then reference document number and page. No pictures or extracts. Also, I've said before on the Mi-24/Mi-8 forums, people forget that there are discrepancies between manuals and real world operation/outfit. This is not unique to the Soviet Union. Not long ago, I had it confirmed by a SME (former OH-58 pilot) that US army had lower MTOW than what the manual specifically stated, and that limitation was only circulated by complementary internal documents. Hence, it is not enough to point to the manual - you actually want an SME or former pilot to confirm or not, what was actually going on in the cockpit. This is especially true, if you understand the history behind MiG-29 pilot training. There were no unified manuals. Rather, IP were trained at Mikoyan, and then got certified to teach military pilots. The manuals were literally written individually by pilots themselves, as they went through the course of training. That already poses challenges. That said, a more elaborate answer will come, I'm sure. I'll look for any info. in my docs.

It's hard to say, as again, that engine is never heated up. Criticality- wise, I agree with you, it's a much bigger blunder. However, I've had teammates engines cease working during multi-group flights for reasons associated with proper heat-up. And while the startup list doesn't mention this specifically, the manual does state very clearly that this switch is to be controlled specifically. (Manuals pre- modern times are notorious for not being thorough, containing mistakes and generally being disorderly written. I would expect the manual to have such flaws.) The interactive training missions aren't always up to date, no. The prime way of verifying their up-to-date, is by having the newest revision of a specific manual, and controlling the tutorial against a checklist. A final tip from me: I noticed that you fly the Bf-109K4 very by the book. Meaning, if manual allows MW50 right after take-off and for 40 minutes continuous, then it'll be a 40 minute flight with maximum power. There is a delicacy aspect to flying esp. older prop aircraft. Especially back then, while the aircraft were capable, a pilot was often taught to avoid doing "stupid" things, or unnecessarily strain the machine physically. What you do isn't wrong per book, but if realism is of value to you, then you have to consider that just like you sprinting constantly would tire your body out (and shorten lifespan), so will a piston engine at maximum conditions constantly. The mentality should be that if you need it, then you'll run it up, but for a pure climb after take-off (not associated with interception - time being cruicial) or cruising, it might be clever to adhere to maximum 1.35ATA sustained. Props back then, were just a different game from jet engines of the modern times.

I am not entirely sure about the aspect of size, hence why I leave it to the devs to decide. Considering pure size of the terrains covered, here are the numbers: South Atlantic (granted, there is some sea) (approx.) - 3.100.000 km2 (113 GB) Afghanistan (all three parts once they are done) - 2.290.264 km2 (139 GB) Iraq (once complete) - 1.820.000 km2 (120 GB) Kola (approx.) - 1.350.000 km2 (157 GB) Cold War Germany - 784.000 km2 (102 GB) Now, the maps are constructed in different ways, and using different technologies, which is why I add the size (GB) as a reference to the physical size of the map (km2). With Kola not being the biggest map physically, it certainly shows just how spacious it is. That, taking into consideration that it is of varying terrain quality in different zones. It's worth mentioning, that phase 3 will indeed cover parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium and Netherlands. The point is then, even if whole of Poland were to be added (low or high poly), there is still much to go both on in terms of size of the map and of the installation, comparing to the bigger maps. We don´t even know what the practical maximum is. The only real question here is, if Ugra would be interested in such an expansion. Of course, the cherry of the deal is that they don't do it for free. Make it a paid extension, and I'll buy a license for my parakeet and cat, which I don't have. I am also thinking forward. With a dynamic campaign (AI vs AI for ground forces), it's almost criminal not to do it. Consider how expanding the map eastwards, would allow the actual war-time border to move, and with meaning. The map would be spacious for both sides in an era of jets. I am frankly very happy without the maps that we have, but this here, is a real opportunity for Ugra. $$$ is to be made. Absolutely

Poland should be included, not the least, because the German-Polish border forms historically a very important divide between "East" and "West". It's not only about The Cold War, but also about deeper subjects like politics and social standards. Nowadays central Europe, actually has different cultural standards, hence why most wars in the history of Europe, have been conflicts on a lateral scale, as opposed to longitudal. Ottoman empire's ambitions of conquest are practically the only major detract from that rule, where Ottoman's moved north. A low poly inclusion of Kaliningrad would be the dream, but still. Time-wise, the map makes sense as is, though it can be used for simulating late 20th century, early 21st, hence why moving the combat from Berlin to the border between Poland-Germany would be awesome. I hope Ugra can reconsider this, as it would be a truly welcome addition to an absolute masterpiece of a map!

For some reason, a lot of the community that has joined the last circa 5-7 years are very defeatist in their approach to life. It's as if depression is the common theme going through and through. Let me make this clear; take it easy! Yes, I have been told that Ka-50 III pilot body, and naturally HUD (english language) are coming this year, but this is all subject to change. It makes me melancholic to remember times pre DCS, where you either flew Ka-50 or A-10C in separate environments that couldn't do coop. We were waiting for years, to finally have the ability to merge the two in what is today known as DCS. We were waiting even longer for some of the modules that have popped up ridiculously fast the last couple of years. Truth of the matter is that ED has to run a successful business in order to ensure long-term survivability of the simulator (hence why there is literally no competition on the commercial market, and relatively little relevant competition on the professional side). If you are grown up, then treat all the information you recieve with a buffer, understanding that certain things might pop up inbetween and ruin the plans. At the moment, I haven't heard of anything, so take it easy. There are still months left of 2025. If it doesn't happen in '25, then maybe '26 or '27. ED knows we want/need it, hence it becoming a standard introduction into every new module lately. Take a cup of coffee, and a deep breath. It'll be there before you know it.

Ok, let's see where the issue stems from (extract from the manual): Let's start with LITERALLY the first sentence of this chapter! Read it? Good! Now have a look at your tachometer - 1200RPM right off the bat! Go through the actual procedure, read the manual, and you won't have problems. (I know for a fact, that the engine seizing to work later in the flight is most often the culprit of having improperly warmed up the engine. You ain't the first, and neither the last to experience this.) Another quick note; you don't need to murder the primer pump to start a Daimler. Three strokes are more than enough during what you might call average weather conditions. In winter, you might want to do 4-5 injections are plentiful. How will you know if you primed it enough? Simple, when you pull the starter handle, watch the fuel pressure gauge - 0.8 bar during engine start-up is perfect. Anything below, let go off the starter handle, and stroke it some more. (The manual does state that you might need as many as 15 strokes, but that would have to be a very hard beaten Daimler, stored for years with neglect. You won't need that many.) Yet another note: you move the throttle forward during start-up, which is not needed at all in the BF-109K4. Actually, in order to specifically not go above 600RPM, you should barely nudge it, as in, barely. That will also solve your uncontrolled rolls during start-up.

Don't assume that just because you can't, nobody else can. I have flown the BF-109K4 with manual prop. pitch in combat without any issue. Actually, it is more work to keep it properly alinged manually so as to not over-rev or over-torque the engine, but you can push more out of the plane versus automatic governor. The automatic governor is not perfect, far off. It is there, to automate a part of the flying, such that he pilot can dedicate more of his attention to the actual combat. Frankly, it had to do with Germany losing pilots faster than it was able to replace them. This is an example of a measure meant to alleviate that problem, by shortening the curriculum for aspiring Luftwaffe pilots. Send the video over, and I'll let you know what you're doing wrong/what's happening.

Precisely brother! People don't understand that trying to make one common system is indeed what ruins consistency. That because now you start discriminating individual system features in order to attempt a generalized approach. Why even bother making multiple EW aircraft, if they1l all fit the same bill with the same/similar capabilities?! Short-sighted thinking has never worked in the long run. Throw the notion of "balance" away. DCS will never have units respective to their counterparts for mainly political- and confidentiality reasons. EW is an even bigger problem, as there is even less information regarding it, than aircraft that we cannot currently get. Documentation isn't everything either; norms, practices and generally info that SME's would besit is scarce at best. I won't say never, as ED F-35 has surprised those of us being with the simulator since its inception the most, but I highly doubt they'd venture into this field for many years to come. I'll also add that this is a very niche field too. Not only do the aircraft often require multiple crew members (with modern aircraft, this is less of a problem due to automatization), but it would be an incredible niche in what already is a niche product. I cannot see such an aircraft selling enmasse, given the fact that it wouldn't carry any weapons.

UPDATE: After doing a a repair, followed by deleting fxo and metashaders, the problem apparently vanished. It seems to be really quick with saving the missions now, and now crashes for 6-7 last attempts. Possible that there were some leftovers from former patch. In any case, consider it solved on my end.

Generally speaking, it has to be remembered that when you listen to podcasts/interviews/documentaries/comments/etc... from active/former pilots, and a tactic that they used, you are listening to just someone operating in just one component of a whole air force/armed forces. Depending on how realisitic you wish to play it out, you may or may not have the same backup, that's to say an entire wing to help you out. With that out of the way, you should realize that at this point, you are asking yourself perform two missions at a time (first - bring down low an enemy aircraft, two - engage and neutralize it). If you are flying alone, there are easier ways to use the MiG-29 (and more efficient, as per capacity). Consider outmaching your target in altitude and speed. Use interceptor tactics. High and fast, give you extended range, higher kinetic potential energy for your missiles (x2, launch speed and altitude are both major factors for weapons range), higher energy if BVR turns into merge and also good capability to outrun an enemy missile with pure speed at that altitude. That's only one side of the coin, you. As to your enemy (which, again, depending on realism), will often (if a human pilot) be overweight with their F-16s, F-18s and definitely F-15s, will struggle to gain altitude like you. Often, the enemy pilot won't notice how slow they are moving, by trying to gain on you. A slow moving target, is an easy kill for you. This is a very safe tatic, and allows you to dictate the terms of the engagement, and turn away at a moments notice, should you feel that you are over-committing. The MiG-29 (if to imagine a single ship flight), is really a interceptor in pure AA. If you however still, are hellbent on running down in the weeds, that's all fair and square, but it is a tactic that puts you at a disadvantage, if not simulating real strategy (multi flights with all their tasks). As such, know that you don't, per se, need to have the enemy pulled down low. A known tactic, is to fly down low and fast, such that you negate a high-flying enemy any successful missile launches by pure rule of aspect. A missile will not hit much, if fire vertically down at an aircraft that keeps funneling and maneuvering. Consider the overspeed limits of an aircraft, and that it seldom can point straight down and go at high speed (beinding of wing, overspeeding of engines, destructive G-loads, etc...). You, on the other hand, can climb at a ridiculous rate (easily 10km altitude in under 1 minute if at speed), R-27 are incredibly good climbers. If you approach from straight down, you literally won't trigger the RWR of any aircraft in DCS, given the deadzones for RWR sensors at the belly and the back of a plane. The flight profile would be such that you keep 800km/h +++ (avoid afterburner, of course) at low altitude, push to just beneath your target. Continue by pulling hard up (90* vertical if need be) until you are close enough. Finish off by launching R-27/R-73, and head quickly back down, regaining momentum. Generally, you might wonder how long you will live by pulling up, at times behind enemy lines, however consider the time it takes for a pilot to first gain SA and update their mental projection of the battlefield (an aircraft popping up where no one was before/there are many own flights). Two; a potential shooter will have to IFF you. Finally; have his weapons/systems in check in order to engage you. Again, it takes determination (don't second guess, committ to it fully), but if you know what you are doing, those are lethal and quick engagements. Something I will point out with the second method (down low). Generally, if you are realistic about your flying, this would seldomly work in a contested area (in particular, behind enemy lines), as you have SAM sites, manpads, GCI and AWACS to worry about. In addition, if the coalition is even poor at cooperation, they will be able to eloquently deny you to enter their airspace without prior knowledge of you coming. Therefore, I'm pointing it out, that depending on the scenario/target/difficulty, flying down low for AA might not be optimal at all.

Hi, I noticed ongoing efforts with having this issue solved, as per latest patch notes, however I'm still having problems. This morning alone, I made two attempts at saving a very small mission to test out the latest progress on Combined Arms (maximum 40 units; infantry/armor), and had two freezes (causing crash to desktop). This was on the Cold War Germany map. In addition, the saving process of a mission can still take time. For reference; - I have no mods installed. Everything is vanilla, and a fresh install (approx. 2 months ago). - Doing a repair atm. just in case. - PC specs: Intel I9 Ultra 285k OC (Intel stage 2 standardized OC), Corsair Dominator Titanium RGB DDR5 96GB 6000Mhz RAM, Nvidia 5090 FE, MSI MPG Z890I EDGE TI WIFI, Corsair MP700 PRO NVMe M.2 1TB & Corsair MP600 PRO NH NVMe M.2 8TB (DCS is on this one), 1kW Corsair PSU. If there is anything else, like a crash log or so, that I can provide, mention what you need. Also, if anyone still has similar issues in the ME, add to the thread. I'm sure it will only speed up the resolution process. -=zerO=-

You are going to have to produce a source for that statement. Particularly about the "failiure" part. I don't take you seriously on the initial one, as you are giving baseless arguments. What was more advanced, and in what specific way?! How does that contribute to the efficiency of a radar, and in what condition. Just to disprove what you just stated; one specific place where the APG-63 wasn't any superior to the N001, was automatization. Based on flight manuals and available information, both aircraft have a very similar part for attaining, what is today regarded as, a kill chain. Both aircraft have very similar workings (from the operator perspective) when it comes to finding a target, identifying it, locking it on and finally, engaging. I see no evidence whatsoever of either one or the other being ahead in this department. (This does not conclude the underlying operation, as scanning time vs. volume of air, ability to operate in ECM-heavy environment, or other peculiarities). The integration of a datalink feature on Su-27, is yet another part of the whole sensor suite which APG-63 doesn't have. Want me to go on? You are obviously out of your league. Throwing around "lobes" and "more advanced" is pointless, unless you trully understand what's talked about here. Also, "specificity" is a coin term here. I replied to this already, but just to show you that you are again incorrect. SAGE was by any means impressive, especially given the early and advanced it was. However, it becomes ludicrous to compare to a mid-/late- Cold War GCI which is not only two-way (and inter-flight, meaning interceptors exchanging information with one another), but also relatively advanced functionalitu like guiding the missiles for a particular flight/aircraft... yeah. Let's throw away the bias, and consider the systems at hand. Though not in this thread.

YOU continue to spew bull<profanity>! First and foremost, re-read what I wrote! The statement is that GCI came much earlier than AWACS, period! Two, I made no assumption as to GCI overall, other than stating that USSR pulled the initiative to a much later point, capability wise! Three, USA was absolutely NOT the birthplace of GCI. You slept in class at that time, but during WWII and The Battle for Brittain, UK famously used a national and unified radar system in order to coordinate its air force to down Nazi German aircraft. US wasn't even the second country to make use of GCI, as Germans were also making early attempts (learning from UK) at a national coordinated defense initarive concerning ground radar stations and own fighter/interceptor aircraft. That's that! (If I'm to be perfectly honest with you, read about what constituates a source of a primary, and thereafter, degree, and then as such, contribute with something more reliable than Wiki. We can stick to your level until you catch up on this.) I also recognize that "Later additions ..." to the SAGE system actually featured the onboard equipment for F-106 to recieve automated (one-way) telemetry regarding rargets intented for a unit. I saw an earlier systems diagram, pre- use of such a reciever (early on, it was all radio comms as stated by me). May I stand corrected. Still, this was neither the thread, nor the discussion. I suggest again, that you stick to it. (I won't repeat what's written, but you seem to be arguing with yourself.)

Again, very basic metric. Tells you nothing about for how long it can hold that power level and in what conditions. Apparently I do know it very well, as we're not comparing who was first in terms of a singular (or few) systems, but rather how expansive it was, and how well i corporated. We already derailed from a thread on SPO-15, so let's not hijack it further, but do know that SAGE was a system meant to synthesize a large amount of data from a multitude of sensors (radars) and project it on a general map of the world. That data still had to be verbally transferred to the pilots. It's strength lie in the collection of all data, supposed easy to read translation as well as automation with ground SAM sites. Soviets' however, took that a step further and integrated such automation on their planes. This was done in secrecy pre MiG-21 era. (Let's also not forget, that the radar, was a British invention, same as e.g. the jet engine). Anyways, if you wish to talk about this in depth, shoot me a PM.