Skeleboners

do you know what specific set you flew with? all images I'm able to find online for aviation-spec night vision goggles using white phosphor exhibit the same cyan-ish tint that you find on stuff like white phosphor PVS-14s and the like, the only image I've been able to find of a white phosphor NVG set having a display image that's purely white like it is in DCS at the moment is of some commercial PVS-7.

Yesterday's OB patch (DCS 2.5.6.55363) seems to have changed the night vision goggles found on both the F-16C and the F/A-18C in game from traditional green phosphor to white. My first instinct is that this may not be correct (as both of those aircraft are subject to an HMD mounting change to swap between JHMCS and NVGs and so the change may have been in error, and white phosphor night vision is a relatively recent thing and I'm not sure our Viper and Hornet would have been running them but I'm no expert in that area), with my next feeling being the appearance of the night vision displays is just a bit off. So, first off, of course, if the changes from green to white was in error, then disregard the rest of this; other aircraft still have the green night vision goggles (I tested the A-10C specifically), it seems to be just the Hornet and the Viper. If the change was not in error, a bluish tint should be added to the white goggles, as in reality they're not a perfect monochrome white. There are plenty of images online of white phosphor aviation night vision goggles and how their display looks as compared to green phosphor, but the forum rules forbid posting of ITAR controlled content and I know night vision is ITAR controlled- unsure if images of night vision count for that, but better safe than sorry, right? Regardless, it should be relatively easy to find reference images, the image should be a sort of cyan-ish blue tint rather than perfect white.

I'm going to have to bow out actually, unfortunately. Can't find anyone to take my shift on the 22nd, and with it being this close to the holidays, can't really call out without pretty significant repercussions either. Sucks, I was looking forward to participating. So, to be clear, I'll be dropping out, was signed up with SIMG. Unsure if they'll be subbing someone in for me yet.

I forgot the variants of Mi-8 and UH-1 we have in DCS were single-seaters

The point he's making is that no aircraft in DCS has 100% accurate systems. Many systems on all of those aircraft are made with incomplete data, informed guesses, or are occasionally intentionally obfuscated (as in the A-10C). Simplifications are a fact of life when you're using a simulator that wasn't produced by, or directly for the producers or users of the simulated vehicle. We all know the alphabet soup AFMs and ASMs and PFMs and EFMs and all that. We all know the progress various modules are making.

would modelling something like the MiG-29A or an export model MiG-29 (maybe the G model in GDR service) require the same? would a third party developer picking up the MiG-29- specifically a third party based outside of Russia- require legal authorization? In general more aircraft from that side of the pond would be very good. Russian aircraft see a lot of combat and show up in a lot of places. And if the MiG-29 can't be done because of legal issues, would the base model MiG-25 fall under the same?

A no, but a conditional no: I can dig having more prop planes in DCS, and having more attack-focused prop planes in DCS, but I can't say I much care to have another modern COIN aircraft in game. I'd much prefer something to fill in the gaps we currently have in DCS. Maybe a skyraider, or a multi-engined WWII aircraft could be neat. If we're really digging into my particular wishlist, I'd kill for a proper strategic bomber. All that being said, this aircraft could be neat, depending on which model was done. I know only one aircraft was ever so-equipped, but having a torpedo-capable IA 58 would bring an interesting new capability to the stable of flyable DCS aircraft.

This definitely seems to be the case. I've had multiple good track GBU drops (none hit, though- 8000ft AGL and a poorly aligned release mean all the terminal guidance in the world can't help), but all of those have been in situations where I've told JTAC to lase the target prior to release. The CCRP pipper seems a bit weird- like, it seems to always draw the marker for where the INS/fire control computer are using as your desired impact point slightly too long or short, though it may be that it's just drawing it at altitude above the target.

Foreword: this bug seems to have been mentioned at least once on this forum before, however it was roughly a month ago and no discussion or response was garnered. The centerline dual bomb pylon is noticeably offset to the right side of the aircraft- enough to introduce a constant right roll to the aircraft in neutral trim. The specific loadout used here is the Bomb Truck GBU-12 loadout (Mostly messing around with buddy-lasing, four bombs is a few too many I feel and the Mirage is super sluggish with that much ordinance slung underneath), the mission being a simple thing thrown together in the mission editor.