firmek

The point is about collecting real location of air force training units and ranges in Caucasus region for a mission building purposes. I guess prety much at some point of time everyone had been setting up a training mission in DCS Caucasus map. After getting bored with unused "X" airport and striving for more immersion (especially when practicing with L-39) I've started to look for information on which airbases host training units and for places used as a training ranges. Obviously even with the 476 weapons range it'll be diffuclt to exactly replicate a real range but it would be great at least get the location right. What I've found for the moment: I.) South Caucasus Units: Didn't really find any specific information. I gues that would be Senaki (before it got closed) Vaziani or Marneuli. Georgia supposed to have 4 L-29 and 4 L-39. Training Area: 1. Just East of Vaziani airbase Multiple news stating a mutlinational excersises taking place in this general area. Nothing specific though about if it's actually used by air force and where a specific targets would be placed. II.) North Caucasus Didn't find any weapon ranges. Though there are a number of training regiments in the region. Units: 1. Maykop - Khanskaya Seems to be mostly used as an airbase for training regiments. - 709th Training Aviation Regiment (united with 761 08.1991) Yak-11/18, 1951-1956 MiG-15, 1955-1960's MiG-17, 1960-1978 MiG-21, 1974-1991 - 761st Training Regiment MiG-15, 12.51-1953 MiG-17, 1.53-1969 L-29, 1969-1991 L-39, 1988-1998 MiG-23, 1998-today Google maps show a lot of L-39's and possibly MiG-23's - could be mistaken with Su-24. 2. Krasnodar - Pashkovsky - 802nd Training Regiment. In 1993 renamed to 461st Assault Aviation Regiment MiG-15, 1952-1960's MiG-17, 1960's-1970's Su-7, 1960's-1980's Su-22, 1970's-2004? Su-24, 1989-1990's Su-25, 1989-today L-39, 1990's-today 1990 with 31 Su-25, 15 Su-24 and 70 Su-22 2000 with 34 Su-25, 14 Su-22 and 36 Aero L-39 Can't see L-39's though on the google maps image - I think those which look similar are Su-25. As a side note, interesting information for mission building can be that there is a substantial military aircraft repair compound located just on the east-sout-east side of the airbase. Any information is welcome.

Add the Tornado to the list ;)

Yes, but that's probably the most honest and straight answer - which is just wait for F-18 to learn it's systems as it's a beast of its own. Aside of that the best starting point is the manual - assuming that it'll be published before the module or there are publicly available documents. Otherwise I support the opinion that learning A-10C it's well... learning A-10C systems. Trainer and F-5 would make the sense as a starting point to learn the general aviation, navigation, AFM, BFM, and some of the systems - like TACAN. There are reasons besides of being afraid to crash why real pilots start on a trainer (like Talon). Applying quite often presented forum logic the flight training regiments are should be equipped with A-10.

It went into service in many western NATO countries as Lockheed heavily "contributed" to make it happen ;) Anyway, if any developer decides to make a century series aircraft, F-100 and F-105 should be on top of the priority list.

Nothing particullary wrong with MiG-21. It's a great module. Take what you read on forums with a grain of salt. There are many people that enjoy flying MiG-21 or other modules while being aware and accepting some problems, inacuracies and schedule to get them fixed. There are also those that complain that they're puting whichever "module to the hangar" on a first occurence of running into a bug or even just by reading that something is not exactly as it used to be. Unfortunatelly, as the time passes from the release those that enjoy the module don't rush to write about it on the forums while the detractors for sure do. To be fair however, while I don't see anything specificly more wrong with the MiG-21 comparing to other modules, LN could have had done a better job with communication.

Ground radar, ... maps..., F-105 and Vietnam map confirmed :smilewink:

Is that a new Caucasus map? Anyway looks great :thumbup:

+1. Pushing it further than some hypothetical scenario like Operation Unthinkable actually taking place and going wrong resulting in front lines being back to the positions from '44 is probably as far I could bend my imagination. MiG-15 and Sabre would fit such scenario but anything further than 1'st generation jets requires a lot, I mean a lot of imagination. Besides of Normandy airfields being not exactly best suited for the modern jets I would constantly scratch my head trying to figure out how the hack is the GPS working.

Thanks for posting this link. I've read the real pilots manual and had seen the schematics but seeing a real pictures is much better. Great find :thumbup: If I get it correctly at low altitudes the radars screen should fill-in with false returns from the ground. Also the closer to the ground the more of the radar screen should be filled with the ground clutter. The DCS implementation from the visual perspective is quite an opposite - though the result is generally the same (not being able to recognize the target). Rather than clutter being dynamic in size and masking the target return (which is still there) what we have is the target disapering on a clean screen while the clutter is a fixed ~1 cm line at the bottom. Looking forward to check how the new radard implementation works!

I've run into icing warning and de-icing automatically turning-on in Mi-8. But that's the only module where I had experienced icing effects. I always thought that turning on the pitot heating is more of role-playing so to say as due to not being simulated in DCS it doesn't have any effect. How to test it? Not turning on the pitot heating and flying high should be enough or it's also required the temperature is low and humidity high enough? IRC the L-39 manual mentioned that pitot heating should be turned-on while on the ground when ambient temperature is below +5C.

It really depends. If setting up a mission with poor weather conditions and navigating between multiple waypoints using instruments is something that you would like to practice than you should probably consider a trainer. A first hint (don't treat it too strictly) - if you find this interesting then probably there is a good chance that you'll appreciate a trainer. Otherwise if you're more into jumping directly into an action or just enjoy only the modern jets in DCS probably a trainer is not the best investment. I don't mean anything wrong here - there are different people that are interested in different things, have different expectations and time available to spend in DCS. If it's the second case probably the best thing to do is just to wait for the F-18 and spend some time flying F-15/M-2000C/A-10C. In ther first case however, if Hawk would be a polished module I guess choosing it should be no brainer. Otherwise consider L-39 and maybe F-86 as an alternative. I do agree with both positions from "Some1" and "Fri13". The procudres, navigation and etc and apply the same on western build aircraft but it'll take some getting used to. In the same way, you can learn navigation, traffic patterns, BFM, etc... in F-86F and apply them almost imediatelly in MiG-15 but due to a different meassurement systems and a bit different instruments design, it'll take some time before you'll start to feel comfortable. To be fair however there will be some differences (like using AoA bracket for landing in F-18 while L-39 requires to watch the speed) or just additional reading needed just to understand that the things/methods learned in L-39 are or aren't exactly the same. On the topic of trainers - why none mentioned the C-101? Is it still much in development? +1. Regarding suggestions for A-10C I allow myself to disagree with statements that it's a good, general purpose trainer. Yes it's possible to use it for learning but in reality it requires a lot of consequence as otherwise you'll quickly dive into the particularities of the systems operation. Another thing is that the systems like SAS, CCIP/CCRP modes or actually even just a fact of having a HUD and FPM makes it much more easier for the pilot and people easielly tend to get used to the conviniences forgetting or not even feeling a need to learn the basics. By all means, just to learn basics of controling instruments, navigation, attack procedures, a trainer or even a F-86 will be much better start with than A-10C as it'll put you out of context of the systems that are making a lot to help the pilot and keep you focused on the basics that later on can be transfered to any other airframe. Another point is just from pure enjoyment perspective - getting experience with a trainer or vintage aircraft will make you actually notice the systems in the more modern platforms, apreciate what they can do aswell be aware about pitfalls that they can make you run into. It's an oportunity that allows you to experience closer how the aviation has evolved - which is hard to get from flying only the modern jets.

The day I'll see Thunderchief officially confirmed, considering existing aswell other "vietnamish" aircrafts under development or planned, I'll start to belive there is a chance for a Vietnam map aswell.

Depends on the part of the map, altitude and resolution. 1080p, high in the sky away from the city should be absolutelly possible. I get similar numbers with 1070 but in 3440x1444 provided that I'm high, far from the city. Low in Las Vegas can drop down to 40. The thing however is that there are some big issues with Nevada and the distant objects use a really low resolution textures as also most of the objects are not being diplayed.

That's why this setup is so great. Makes the strike and recon flights much more valuable and interesting. Same for fighters which should focus on escorting and interception. For instance the bomber became a really strong asset and without BVR missiles it actually has a chance to make it to the target - it's enough that CAP will engage and keep enemy interceptors busy. Let's see but I think this setup will reduce the amount of airquaqe in the middle of nowhere. Aside of about, it's still manageable to take out the AA - at least with MiG-21. Just setup a simple training mission with 2 IR SAM’s, a few AAA and practice: - the only attack with a chance of success was starting high, even up to 10000 m and diving steep. Low straight run was always a disaster. Didn't try the pop-up though. - dumb bombs were the least effective due to small area coverage and poorly simulated blast effect. They require to be really precise with. Better results were achieved with 2x4 FAB 100 bombs due to their wider coverage area. I didn't check clusters - didn’t knew if they are in available in BF. - Kh-66 Grom - worked quite well on destroying the target but also usually ended up as a suicide - it requires flying straight into the target without possibility of doing any evasive maneuvers. I wasn't able to employ it in a way that the target would be hit before being way into SAM launch distance. Maybe others will have more success. - rockets - that's another story. Was able to take out both IR SAM's in one pass. The challenge is that it has to be a perfect run. Better to launch series of 8 or even 16 rockets (which gives 4 shots) for a wider area coverage. Aim for the first SAM, fire volley of 16 rocket, immediately switch to the second not even waiting till the first rockets hit, shoot again don't wait for hits and disengage. The problem is that even with a steep dive from 10km I've always ended up well in SAM's range. Not being able to pull hard in order not to lose the stores doesn’t help either. On attack run dropping the throttle down and popping flares made almost always the IR SAM's go after the decoys. The problem was if the SAM's weren’t destroyed, when pulling away the missiles would now see a rear of the aircraft and almost certainly go after the plane ignoring flares (even with throttle down). All above made the attack on IR SAM's possible but it had to be executed perfectly in order to get a chance of survival. I don't want to start the discussion but it may be a bit easier for RED as blue has an lightly armored Humvee Avenger as a SAM. Last but not least, for a little free time that I have now to fly DCS I already had a great fun on the server. I've joined yesterday late night with MiG-21 when there was only a few blue players. They seemed to be well organized though, every single one with different role - Huey, F-5 and Hawk (being mean here but I'm sure on Caucasus those would be 3xF-15 :P ). Indiana Springs was already quite damaged and as soon as I've joined a messaged popped up that a bomber run towards it is incoming. I went full burners to intercept it but didn't make it on time. As the base was obliterated and got closed I decided to circle above it looking for that Huey as I knew it'll come eventually. After spending some staring to ground with no luck in finding that Huey, as the server was 20m from shutting down and I was running low on fuel I decided to land. I was on the final with gears and flaps down, doing lousy job trying to land when the message popped up that the based turned blue... You can imagine how much I swerved at that moment... Anyway, I executed a missed approach and bam... saw that Huey just directly at 12 - pure luck (and bad luck depending on the perspective). Not having much time, thinking that I have this only one chance due to being low on fuel, and having to divert to another base with not much time left before server shuts down I've shoot at the poor guy with salvo of 2 R-60s and went gun blazing. Now I feel sorry as I should just fly by waving wings, dropping flares and use chat to congratulate a job well done as there was nothing gained from downing that Huey. Anyway, sorry if that came a bit long but congratulations to Blue for the job well done taking over Creech yesterday night :thumbup:

Having to invest in Nevada to fly in BF is for sure something that not all will appreciate but IMO it's great to at have at least just for a sake of change a single round there. Already since some time flying Caucasus feels like beating the horse to death as we had been flying it constantly for a number of years. Please don't add any modern fighters. This will ruin the setup. I hope that BF team will be hard on maintaining current concept.

Have to say - love the setup :thumbup: It's really so needed fresh air. Hope there are plans to run a complete round with it.

What are the chances that it'll go for release during September?

I love how this thread evolves. Quite at the very start there are precise reasons listed why it wont happen, as also clearly stating it's not a matter of code update but legal and procedural formalities, not even mentioning if military would agree to provide data on latest and advanced equipment. But the thread moves on with a wishies rolling like a snowball... :music_whistling:

Generally yes. Much however really depends on the mssion designers. I just believe there could be more attention being paid to better reassembling a cooridnated air defences. Quite often the impression is that there is just many, totally isolated AD units that don't work with each other (maybe they didn't get radios due to budget cuts?). That's a pitty as some basic tactics like SAM traps, turning the radars off/on is easy to achieve with simple triggers and zones. Maybe it's actually on purpose, as being affraid that people would complain about SAM's going alive out of nowhere and shooting them down without litte prior warning in MP. Anyway, since we have a Caucasus map in DCS - just to learn about a real examples of how the EWR and SAM systems cooperated, I suggest to study the analysis of Russo-Georgian air war and the battle for Tskhinvali. Georgia didn't had any fighter forces to fend off the Russian flights. Just strike aircrafts - fixed and rotary. While just by the numbers gaining the air superiority by Russia would be something obvious in reality it seemed to be difficult to achieve. As far as I remember this was mainly due to underestimating the Georgian air defenses, lack of proper reconnaissance as also tactics applied by Georgian AD. - the SAMs were placed in strategical places, mostly to cover major grouping of ground forces or strategical targets like army bases. IR mobile SAMs were closest to the front line. - active radar SAM sites were generally kept offline while the scanning was done by EWR. Radar SAM would go online when the target was already in range, potentially in no-escape zone. This tactic was especially applied by the most valuable SAM systems also to preserve them from unnecessary loss. Those SAM’s were also placed further away from the front line in order to reduce a chance of being captured by ground forces. - when being attacked by ARM missile the SAM's or EWR would just turn off their radars. This would even be a case when detecting a raid of bombers trying to strike an EWR with dumb bombs (IIRC was the case in attack on Tbilisi air radar) - there are indications of Russia missed attacks of Georgians SAM's and EWR with ARM missiles. Missiles felt short due to being noticed which resulted in radar operators immediately turning the radars off. Another examples can be taken from the Vietnam Iron Hand operation which is probably the most obvious place to check for how the anti-SAM war started and what were the first tactics applied. As an example, North Vietnam SAM operators would turn off and on radars in sequence - DEAD flight notices the first radar and goes after it, radar crew recognized the attempt of attack and turned the radar off while simultaneously a second, close by radar would be go live. The same situation repeated with the second SAM site but now while the attack flight would go after a third SAM site radar, the first and second would come back alive, attacking the DEAD flight with from multiple directions at the same time.

Well, yes. It's the second of the most useless and annoying features in DCS. On the other hand, I have to say that if it's such an annoyance then just get it fixed. To be fair, currently available fix is a workaround but it has to be done only once and afterwards you can enjoy DCS without zoom-out effect (with a cost of not being able to zoom out more than default FOV). It’s a compromise but if not possible to be digested then initial zoom out isn’t probably such a big of an issue. Another point is that it's perfectly possible without additional fuss to do the change to be IC green. Just use the server.lua and snap.views placed in user files. I would actually say that modifying the view settings files in DCS game folder is not a correct way to do it. As for the first place for the most annoying feature in DCS... it goes in my opinion to the cockpit view settings being applied from the mission file - especially on MP servers. I mean seriously, I set my FOV, head position, zoom settings to match my monitor or generally in a way that is the most comfortable for me - which no one should really care what the setting is as it's really a personal thing. I go to MP server.... and the in-cockpit view settings of whoever was the author of the MP mission are applied. The only one way to fix it is to request an administrator to manually unzip the mission, remove the in-cockpit view settings, zip the files back and deploy to the server. On top of that it has to be done every time the mission is edited in mission editor. A true, ultimate troll feature... Anyway ED, really, c’mon… there are so many posts about this problem. Why we’re even discussing it. FOV setting is such an obvious feature and an obvious industry standard for pretty much any 3D first person view application that it’s even silly that we have to discuss that and ask to get this issue fixed.

I recall the post saying that RAZBAM had stopped the project but couldnt share details due to NDA. For the same reason, if I recall correctly they didn't answer the qustion if the project was dropped or passed to another team. By saying LN you mean M3 or Heatblur? Great analogy. I'm quite sure that ED is aware about interest in MiG-23 as overall "starvation" for eastern aircrafts which I could bet would get the module on top of the sales list - I would say that probably just after F-18.

I really hope that the new map will include Marneuli AB: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4592328,44.7901784,3821m/data=!3m1!1e3 The visuals look great and there are a lot of things that are a huge improvement - buildings details, trees, hills. Don't get me wrong, all of that work and especially that it'll come as a free update is extremely appreciated. What I'm concerned about it's that if there is something aside visuals that will give some fresh air, a new breath to the map and missions. Otherwise a big potential can be lost as next update of Caucasus will not come in years. After a while, once everyone gets used to new great visuals we'll just get back to the same Caucasus map.

+1. IMO time that devs would have to invest in developping the nukes would be better spend in any other area of the sim. Just based on the MiG-21 experience there is really a little use of them, also considering the fact that almost all MP servers ban it.

:doh: totally forgot the F-14...

That's not fair to say. There are others that would love to see some new WW2 planes rather than 3'rd generation fighter. Anyway, something that came to my mind is that obviously MiG-23 has a variable geometry wings. What isn't so obvious is how much it actually complicates the flight model development. My bet would be that probably a lot since it's like changing approach form one static model to a dynamic one. On top of that, as there are no variable geometry planes at this point the question is if DCS is able to support it. Putting aside all speculations, it would be great to hear anything from M3 as how they're doing. Hope they're fine :thumbup: