Horns

Apologies, I know I'm two weeks late to this party, but is the "climate change" Texac mentions referring to one season progressing to another, or is global warming considered in the design of new maps? If it is the latter, what period or year is the design supposed to reflect?

Haha oh dear. I have to ask: how many people screamed "noooooo!" at the same time on comms? :megalol: It's good to know that the state of this module isn't so dire nowadays. I'm still at a very early point in my development in my development as a pilot, so I won't get this just yet, but I will certainly get this at some point. Aside from more involved startup and controls, how would you rate the difficulty of flight and weapons employment in this MiG-21 vs the FC3 Su-27? I still suck way too much to consider mp, but once I am competent I will be there. I can definitely see why the nuke would enable some interesting tactics. Is toss bombing a skill that must be developed, or is it pretty straightforward once you're told how? I think the Mig-21 is outstanding, but I only use it for ground attack. You're missing out if you don't get it. I can't use the RN-24, as I get destroyed with the target, (about the same time Magnitude took over), but the RN-28 is still usable. I only ever use my own missions. Here's one for the RN-28. no ASP required. .. Using my hatred of SAMs against me is totally unfair :P I see why it would be attractive for A2S. Without the RN-28 featuring in the campaign, I can see why it could open up interesting options for mission creation. With the right changes in the mission editor, I could finally give those three pesky trucks in the Su-25T CCRP training what's coming to them :lol:

The influence an a/c can wield on the battlefield is much of what attracts me to a module, while the challenges of learning it are what give me pause. The challenges of learning a module make me more cautious about buying it, and they set the bar the a/c's battlefield influence must exceed. While I applaud the devs for modelling the limitations of this airframe's systems, they do pose a significant challenge and they would make this a/c more difficult to learn than any more recent a/c. When I considered these along with the outstanding issues with this module (as expressed in this forum), that set a pretty high requirement for battlefield influence. The RN-24/28 nukes might offer this MiG more battlefield influence than any other airframe in DCS, and could have seen it exceed my battlefield influence to module challenge requirement. The problem is that if the outcome of successful employment isn't faithful in effect or at least appearance, this ceases to be the weapon it claims to be. If the campaign had at least framed the historical relevance of the nuclear capability it might have changed my mind. Once I have more experience the challenge won't be as intimidating, and this airframe's place in history will be enough reason to buy it, even without the nuke.

Small grey dot sounds perfect! I'd love to know how to do that customization if you are prepared to share...

Thanks for all that info QuiGon. I should have phrased my question re ease of sighting targets much better, what I should have asked was "Is it easier to spot targets in the Viggen due to the lower engagement altitude?" Thanks for being able to answer the unasked part of my question! Thanks for the tip about vocabulary too, I should know better than that :doh:

Thanks once again Sideslip :) Seeing your comment about needing to be at or below 1000m to spot targets, that's really helpful. I've been sticking closely to the suggested altitude and I find it tough when I do so. When I get down low it's far easier to spot targets, and in fact I've often had targets that seemed invisible suddenly spring into clear view as I've descended, even when shadow doesn't seem to be visible from my angle. So it would be considered ok to deviate significantly from the wp altitude for attack runs? Thanks twistking. I do hope light behaves differently when it illuminates metal rather than plant material. Here's hoping ED recognizes that ground units do need to be more visible for 2.5 and beyond.

Thanks for all that information Sideslip, here's hoping the new map helps. Do you think viewing from a different altitude might help? My problems have been in the 25T, so I'm thinking a switch to the viggen (and tree top level attacks) might help...

Thanks to both of you. Nealius, I had feared that the target spotting issues transcended modules. Good to know what I'd be getting into. Rudel_chw, can you say whether it's easier to find your way to targets via waypoints in the Viggen missions than the 25T missions? If you can't that's totally understandable.

Hi, I've been through the tutorials and the practice "missions" in the Su-25T, but identifying ground targets continues to be a stumbling block, so I hope to switch to another mod. The Viggen looks great and I'm inclined to get it, but there are three things I'd like to know first: 1) Are the tutorials designed to just help an established pilot acclimate to the Viggen, or are they to help a novice pilot learn as well? 2) Am I right in assuming there is no permanent on-board gun? 3) Can anyone give any idea of whether visually spotting ground targets is easier in the Viggen than the Su-25T? Does the radar usually help to identify ground targets, or does the pilot identify the targets by eye and tell the Viggen where to look? Thanks, all opinions welcome.

I have a lot of trouble spotting ground targets in DCS 1.5.7. Ground target visibility is often perfect from one direction/altitude and zero from another. I wound up grudgingly turning on labels, but I remained unable to see the same targets I couldn't see previously. Someone suggested to me that this experience is LOD related, and that seems to make sense with the difficulty spotting air targets the a2a guys mention. I know there probably isn't an easy solution, and there might not be any at all in 1.5.x, and I can live with that. What I would like to know is whether there is any reason to expect visibility of ground targets to improve with the 2.5 merge. I do not have any mods installed. I've tried 1080p, 1440p and 1600p resolutions, and I've tried all three with AA at x2 and switched off. I've tried visibility set to extreme and high. I've tried flat terrain shadows as well as default. I've tried depth of field as bokeh, simple and off. Clutter/grass is at zero. I've tried tree visibility at default 6000 and max. Preload radius is max. All other settings maxed out. GPU is MSI Gaming X 1080 Ti, monitor is AOC Agon AG271QG, CPU is Intel i7-7770k, mobo is Asrock Fatal1ty Z270 Gaming K6. Any input is welcome.

Thanks Deathbane. It seems like the consensus is that this module is still pretty buggy so I'll wait for some more fixes before I buy this. Holbeach, thanks for the alternate viewpoint on the RN-28, are there included standalone or campaign missions that are based around delivering it?

Ok cool, thanks for the info, you helped me avoid a disappointing purchase :thumbup:

Thanks for replying. I tend to agree, if it doesn't look like a nuke and doesn't work like a nuke it's tough to see the relevance, unless of course it fills the role of a nuke in the campaign...

These must be the most talked about unguided weapons in DCS World, and I guess that's not surprising. I've seen a lot of threads talking graphics issues with these bombs and their effects. It was very difficult to place which posts spoke of problems that have been fixed, postss where people believed a solution was on its way, posts about effects that were relevant before EDGE, threads about the expected effects of the move to EDGE, posts mentioning issues since EDGE and so on. Rather than trying to infer, interpolate and composite the current situation I've chosen to post this request for information as it stands now. So, to the questions... A) Are both the RN-24 and RN-28 visible to all including the pilot who drops them, and are their effects visible to all as well? B) Are the visuals of these two bombs displaying as the (current) devs intend? C) I believe that the true "nuclear" explosion is not modelled in DCS World (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd love to be wrong on this), have there been any additional cosmetic effects added or modified for these bombs in the last two years or so? D) Is the MiG-21 BIS module in its final form now (bugfixes aside) or are further changes planned? Thanks for reading, sorry to ask old questions again, and I hope I adequately explained why I am doing so.

I've been working my way through the Su-25T training and the practice missions (ie the missions with "practice" in the name), and once I have the radio comms down I'll be ready to try some "real" missions. The problem is that it looks to me like there must be entries missing from the "Radio Communications and Messages" section of the Su-25T manual. For instance, there is no mention or explanation of the whole Angels/Devils thing, and (as you probably worked out from my previous statement) I'm completely new to this, so I have no idea if there is anything else missing. Is there any source I can learn from that will definitely have everything covered?

Thanks for replying :-) I think maybe I was unclear... I have one screen, and I am trying to reduce the resolution from 2560 x 1440 to 1920 x 1080. I have changed the resolution in the game settings, but I just looked again and confirmed it, just in case (screenshot attached). The options.lua is the file that sets resolution. The monitorsetup.lua is for multi-monitor setup.

I have an AOC Agon AG271QG 27" 2560 x 1440 (1440p) monitor. I love the high res but in DCS it makes it too hard to spot ground objects, so I'm reluctantly trying 1920 x 1080 (1080p) to see if that helps. The problem is that every time I start DCS World 1.5.7 it only takes up the 1080p sized desktop real estate instead of going full-screen (screenshot attached). In DCS 1.5.7 I've tried unchecking and rechecking "full screen" and "scale GUI" and the result doesn't change. In "Nvidia Control Panel" - "Display" - "Adjust desktop size and position" - "Scaling" - "Select a scaling mode", I have tried all three options of "Aspect ratio", "Full-screen" and "No scaling", with "Override the scaling mode set by games and programs" both checked and unchecked, but the result is still the same. Strangely enough, my DCS 2.1.1 correctly defaults to full-screen every time. This is despite having exactly the same settings as my 1.5.7 install - in fact, I copied the "options.lua" from my 2.1.1 install into my 1.5.7 install, and the result was still that DCS 1.5.7 would not default to full-screen. My monitor is an AOC Agon AG271QG 27" 1440p and my graphics card is an MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GamingX 11G. Does anyone know a way to force DCS World 1.5.7 @1080 to default to full screen on a @1440p monitor? Any help will be appreciated.

Great, so I do know the intel resources will be available through the campaign, that answers the practical side of the question. Great to be able to read the back and forth on the accuracy of mission target information on the map. I'd be fine with shaded search areas, if and when the LOD issues are fixed by 2.5. As things stand in 1.5 I find it necessary to have precise coordinates so I know that I am searching the right spot, even if I don't see anything.

Thanks feefifofum, I forgot the "Fog of War" setting was even there! It does make sense to say friendlies need to gather the intelligence before they can pass it on. Thanks to you too shagrat, it's good to know that there might be unknown threats. The practice missions throw so little fire at the pilot that I hadn't even thought about whether there might be hostiles looking to attack me or disrupt my mission. I clearly need to think about these missions from more of a real life perspective if I'm going to get the most out of them.

I understand. Since DCS goes all-or-nothing for info, I guess people might think it was disingenuous if the mission designer gave partial information? Although I suppose they could indicate they have done so in the mission text... When you get less than precise info for a CAS hit, can you go back to the requesting unit and ask for supplementary information? To take your example, can you (or an operator on your behalf) get back to the requesting unit and say "I don't see your target. Do they sound like they're right behind that ridgeline, or further to the East?"

Awesome, so whether the player can see the targets is a mission creator's choice, so when we can see our targets we can presume we're supposed to. Thank you, that's a definitive answer that gives info I was unaware of, +rep incoming!

Ah ok, so you'd already be in the air when you're assigned the target. When you are given a target, is it usually communicated in a fairly precise way (eg coordinates or designation) or do you have to visually search an area to locate them?

I recently moved from doing training to standalone missions in the Su-25T, and this means I have access to the mission planner for the first time. This makes it possible to access more information about the mission before flying it, including the location of the targets. From the conversations I've seen on this forum, I surmised that in real life, the pilot programs the flight plan himself. Since the flight plan would be based on information that the pilot, i.e. me, would know, it would be right for me to prep by taking a look at the mission planner for information like the targets' location. I didn't stop to consider whether the point of these missions was visually acquiring targets with only vague information on where the target would be (eg at waypoint 3). This makes a big difference in some missions. One example is "guns and rockets practice", where the subtitle directs the pilot to the targets by providing only the waypoint number, meaning the pilot might have to scan all the shores of the lake to find the targets, possibly having to do multiple passes just to locate them. However, the mission planner Can anyone speak to whether the pilot is intended to take the targets' locations from the mission planner, or just look for them within a broader area? In real life, when the pilot is forming his flight plan, would the pilot usually be given precise target locations (eg coordinates or imagery), or information that suggests a broader area?

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain that. I've been doing the training for some time, so I guess I figured it would say "you can end the mission now" if I'd completed everything, and the absence of that would indicate I'd missed a step at some point. Now I know to expect differing structures, much appreciated.

Thanks, For some reason I figured they would end once all objectives were complete, no idea where I got that from. So at the end of each mission the player decides for themself if they've completed the objectives in standalone missions and campaigns?