zerO_crash

The NS430 on the Ka-50 is a bit of special request, given that the Ka-50 already has a GPS. Still, given the fact that down the line, the NS430 will (hopefully) support a wider range of communications frequencies (on the NS430), it would be golden to have it the cockpit. In addition, while it uses Russian GLONASS to cover the earth, it wouldn't be bad either, to have specific international nomenclature for airfields and aviation routes. It would be great! Following pictures showing space, and potential placement of the unit:

Adding more pictures of specifically the Mi-24P. Mine is not perfectly aligned, where the one implemented by ED can be tilted 45* and still be realistically used. The point is, there is plenty of space. ED, you can make the NS430 popular this way. I know for sure, that I have had it since release, but not used it, until frankly the first 3D models popped up. 2D simply never was a choice for me, esp. after the transition to VR upon its inception.

Hi, I asked this question basically when NS430 released back in the day, the question of implementing the 3D version of the NS430 into the cockpit (selectable through mission editor). The answer back then, was that there simply was no space in the cockpit, as the NS430 would stick outside the cockpit glass. Well, I've just looked at the model viewer, and with some very basic skills (literally after 1hr of using it), came with this: Now, granted, I haven't yet figured out object rotation and collision (attaching to surfaces), but I'm sure that it's child's play for a dedicated artist/coder. As can be seen, even with basic x-/y-/z- placement of the object within the cockpit, I have more than enough space to any obstructions, canopy glass included. There is still buffer in the sense that the NS430 can be placed more streamlined with the upper dashboard (parallel to each other), as well as the ability to even pull it out (towards the pilot) further. For anyone who has seen other types of MiG-21s, there can be plenty of items sticking out towards the pilot, such as e.g. the radar screen hood, and more, without obstructing the view. I would really appreciate it if you guys gave this another look, and at least until we get a new MiG in many years, have the NS430 integrated with the current one. It makes much sense with modern operations. Thanks for consideration!

I've raised the notion of NS430 in multiple Russian cockpits, chief amongst MiG-21Bis and Mi-24P. The answer that I got from the devs, was that due to the length (longitudinal) of the NS430, there would simply be no space in the cockpits. In both cases, it would stick outside the canopy glass. For the MiG-21Bis, it was completely impossible, as stated by devs of Magnitude 3 LLC. For the Mi-24P, I recommended that as a final place to fit it, would be instead of the doppler map in the pilot's cockpit. This has not yet materialized though. Since you @FlyNeX apparently do digital geometry and arts - do you have the chance to take pictures for me of both the NS430 in the MiG-21Bis, as well as Mi-24P from multiple angles. This, especially proving that it doesn't collide with either the canopy glass, nor any other physical part of the cockpit. If I can get those off you, I'll be able to meet the devs with evidence proving that indeed, it is possible, and hopefully have them reassess their original decisions. (For that matter, you can send over other modules that are of interest as well. For me personally, either the NS430 fits and you use it, or it doesn't. The 2D version simply isn't realistic.) - L-39C has it if you dismount the sight. The L-39ZA however, doesn't. Maybe you can find space on the side there, or even have it in the rear cockpit. - MiG-15Bis. - MiG-19P strictly doesn't need it, but for "modern" free flights, sure. Don't stress this one out though, until we know what's up with Razbam. - Huey is definitely a good candidate. (More images from other angles.) - Yak-52 is perfect as a trainer. - F-5E and possibly the F-86F - Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000C (again, Razbam on the last one) - F-4E Phantom All those, would benefit from NS430 3D models, and ultimately make the module more popular.

This is a question for Magnitude 3 LLC, as they are responsible for the module. I have asked this when NS430 came, and the simple answer was that there was no space in the MiG-21Bis cockpit. If it was to be fitted like in the picture above, the devs claimed that it would stick outside the canopy glass. @FlyNeX, I saw you modding in the NS430 into multiple modules. I'll hit you up regarding that in a relevant thread.

+1

Very possible. That said though, I do like pure coordinate oriented vector maps. Practically speaking, a color map with this resolution of display (even with zoom levels) would hardly yield in orientating oneself according to terrain. Low altitidue flight at most, but higher up, there would be too much detail omitted. This is anyways a magnificent step-up from non-corrected INS. On a second note - we'll have to push as a community for a handheld Garmin, such that there is something to fit in any cockpit. I'll see to it that the discussion get's revived in a relevant thread.

Interesting. I looked additionally at a tutorial for it, and indeed there is no ground drawn in map mode. Seems like the initial implementation was off then. Good to know

Hi, I'm not too versed with the NS430 yet, but I noticed that on multiple maps, the GPS doesn't show any terrain for me. The most I can get is blue layer for sea, but otherwise, what should be land appears black for me. I tested this both with cold-/hot- started aircraft (and NS430). I am getting this on Kola, Marianas (modern), Cold War Germany, and even Caucasus. I'll edit the post with pictures when I get access to my PC, but in essence, this is the same problem that was reported back in November 2022. Otherwise I have a fresh vanilla install (no mods, recently cleaned and repaired), and running Meta Quest 3 VR. -=zerO=-

That's not true. The Ka-50 can illuminate for Kh-25 with the Su-25/T. I haven't tried it, but it should be able to illuminate the S-25L and KAB500L as well. (I'll try that when I get the chance). As to the grand question of what laser code Shkval-complex uses (be it Ka-50 or Su-25T - there are minor differences between the two), here is the answer: To explain it simply; the laser code is not a single frequency like you'd otherwise find in a western aircraft. Instead, it is a alter frequency between 1111 and 1788. Thus, it is impossible to achieve any specific code parity, and as such, external lasing from non-Russian sources. Even the Russian laser source has to operate, frequency-wise, as Shkval does. Nerron Meyer: It used to have a set laser code with BS2, as far as I remember, but got changed so as not to allow the unrealistic abuse of lasing for western weaponry. I do for sure remember testing it with success with a former clan member when DCS World unified Ka-50 (BS2) and A-10C.

I'm not going to waste my time on educating you why things work like they do, and why things take longer than expected. Counter to what you believe, you actually need a lot of schooling, you should improve your ability to absorb information. There is a reason things are, as they are, but you keep acting childish when you should read with understanding. Remember, this community was built before you came here - who are you to dictate demands?! If that doesn't come fair and square over, then let me explain to you your legal course of action. By purchasing/using ED software, you automatically accept that it's on their terms, one being that "Everything is subject to change.". This includes the time aspect. If you disagree with this, you shouldn't have casually accepted their terms, and you shouldn't be using their software. Now, if you feel that they are treating you bad, let me educate you fully on the subject; at the beginning of this year, me and a couple of other users have made a new inquiry about a bug concerning MiG-15Bis, which I originally described six years ago. While the bug is difficult to prove, it still upholds the case - six years! Act adult and accept it! If you feel like quarreling more on something that ED under no circumstance is obliged to (they do it as a means of pleaaing the community), then call your lawyer and take it to the court. Anything else is wasting letters and other's time. Oh and, you're welcome! Afterall, I've been pushing on this longer than you've been a member, and me transferring the formation from the (in this case) more informed Russian forum, is pure Pro Bono. That's that!

My pleasure! Something, I might add, which is very specific about the SPO-15LM in the MiG-29, is that if you plan on flying without GCI, you will have to rely on that RWR solely as part of the wider sensor suite for situational awareness. The information that you see shown on the RWR panel, are actually processed signals by the electronics boards 51 & 55 onboard the plane. That's to say, when a radar wave hits the RWR lobes (sensors) on the aircraft, the information is sent to a computer for processing, and then further to the RWR panel. Something important to note about it's function, is that in our version of the MiG-29A 9.12, it actually discriminates contacts that are made from the altitude of 8km - 16km. In other words, if you happen to fly low, close to a active SAM-site, and there happen to be two BLUFOR (western) aircraft flying between 8km and 16km altitude, your primary and secondary indication on the RWR will indicate the two aircraft flying above, and only the third (lowest priority) target will indicate the SAM. That is, until a launch is detected, which then becomes priority. Point is, even the working of the RWR stipulate, that the aircraft was designed for those altitudes in mind (8km - 16km). If you fly low, just be aware of this feature/quirk. Also, FC3 MiG-29 have a very basic RWR implementation, such that they are not comparable to ED MiG-29A. Enjoy!

Who I know about and what, is not something you'd know about. Keep it to your capacity. As to my comment, it isn't either teaching nor apologizing - it's stating how things have always worked around here. Each part of the community wants something solely, but if ED attempted to do everything at once, they'd stall and nothing would ever get done (now I'm teaching). I asked Chizh, he gave me an honest answer. I will neither push on him, nor will I pull the "You promised us - here, look at your comment made."- card, as that is; a) disrespectful, b) showing lack of understanding that there are, surprisingly, even more pressing issues with the sim waiting to get fixed for longer, c) because people have held ED staff accountable to such statements literally, and we've had breaks in communication as it is virtually impossible to guarantee anything with software. As it stands, he said "within this year", and so far, this year has not ended yet. "This kind of work usually wouldnt take even a half year (and this is amongous time for such task)." - This statement alone, would get you very popular on the RU-side (sarcasm). How ED loves hearing their customers tell them how coding works, and how little work and time it is to implement "just this one feature that I love". That comment alone tells a whole lot in itself.

Actually, such changes should be entirely their own settings in "special options". You are altering the information the pilot receives based on the language selected. This doesn't even remotely make sense. It has to be considered, that someone might run English cockpits, for the pure reason that a different module (Mirages - French), become more reasonable to use. Yet, it affects this module as well, then. This setting has to be disconnected, and be its own selectable. Especially in this case, the original gauge is the only one that shows TAS.

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 fired 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 (bending 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, commit 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.