firmek

Yes, thank you for the tip. I know about it but it's better that the problem is resolved in the source package. Thus just letting know Baltic that there is a mission which needs fixing. Congratulations!. The final effect is really great. Looking forward for remaining missions.

I would love to have a canopy glass like that in DCS MiG-21: 1. There is no 2 inches of black goo around the edges of the canopy, including the periscope 2. The reflections are sharp and crisp, totally opposite to DCS MiG-21 which glass looks like regularly "cleaned" with a sanding paper. On top of that it’s actually still possible to see through the reflections as the glass doesn’t become a not-transparent milk. 3. And yes the reflections are pronounced due to camera angle effect. Pure physics, the reflections on the left side of the canopy are bigger due to the small view angle. They are almost not visible on the right side (as far as we can see due to the view being obstructed by the pilot head). I really don’t understand if the current version of cockpit is so important, why we can’t have two different versions like already mentioned in case of Mi-8. Just do the textures as they are in F-5 or pretty much every other DCS module – copy, paste, adjust. Name the option “super unrealistic clean option made due to whining on forum for those without an artistic soul” and call it a day.

The current situation is that currently only MiG-21 has such issues with the canopy glass. There are two separate problems though: 1. The level of dirt, smudges 2. Crazy amount of specular, blurred light reflections to the level that at some angles even a 30% of the canopy glass becomes non-transparent. It sounds like a trivial and over discussed topic but in reality the view affects a core game-play experience. If I can't see the scenery, objects and fore mostly bogeys in MiG-21 whereas I can see them in every single other module there is something wrong with MiG canopy implementation. You can have an "educated" discussion about the level or dirt on canopy and bring the smudges SME's but at the end of the day there has to be some basic core game play experience guaranteed by every DCS module. If every single module provides the same experience and one is not, whose most probably wright? As far as I had last checked MiG is a part of DCS platform, not an standalone product. The visibility from MiG cockpit is so poor that its the only module that just to avoid a frustration I don't fly now. It's a pity since it used to be one of my favorite modules after Mi-8 and the recent updates to the cockpit interior are really great.

Yes, theoretically it should be captured. In reality a perfect validation process where 100% of defects are captured does not exist. That's one of the reasons to have so called a "Beta" or actually staging version before going to release. I think we should be sure ED has done everything what is reasonable to test the patch before pushing it out. Again we're talking about a defect in beta, not in release branch. Most probably the fix will be released tomorrow. Even if not it's not an end of the world. Just use the opportunity to build and practice your situational awareness with other means than the RWR.

I didnt mean notepad as a programming tool but the complexity of the code... Still with all due the respect using IDE is more than a standard today.

It's really funny in the context that the cause of the problem was a last minute code change. "Let's fix a last minute code change bug with a rushed quick fix and forget about the regression testing". Or maybe it's better to have some structure approach to the development/maintenance process within a "project" (more of a program) that is not exactly a notepad code and involves multiple teams across the world? There are many advantages of using OB but also we should accept that things can get broken and not fixed immediately on a day after.

I assume you're not running the open beta but release. In OB it works as intended. Great and long awaited addition. And it's even persisted :thumbup: It's really a side request but consider adding a similar button to mute the music (only while in mission editor).

Frankly speaking, if you have the F-18 and would like something else get the F-5 - just to experience an analog plane without the HUD and all helpers doing the job for the pilot.

I flew only the conventional landing mission so far but I have to say, amazing work! Really a positive surprise. Love the voice acting. For those that the trainer audio is too low -just increase the volume on the radio. One quick issue - the first mission has the view settings embedded. Edit: I just checked all the missions. Only the first one contains the view settings.

Turning down the music volume is so obvious is that I'm sure OP knows about it. The goal is different (think what not how). The idea is to have a possibility to play the music by default, so every time you're in DCS just to play a mission then have the music playing. However when while working on mission in a mission editor there should be a quick and easy way to have the music stopped. This could be a check box in the mission editor itself or a "play music in mission editor" option under audio tab. I'm sure ED could decide on the best.

Must have. F-104 should come with a "bribary" DLC as a early-access bonus ;)

You can't assign a cow to a country :doh: Cows are not a unit, they are intended to be used as a munition. SoonTM we'll be to load them up on the loadout screen.

I can confirm. The channels are listed in the kneeboard but I wasn't able to receive a RSBN signal.

Guys, you're taking it too literally. The whole point was to ilustrate something that should be obvious... it'll be long time before the display devices technology we'll reach a moment when a human eye is not able to not see a difference from a real world. The numbers had been just to picture the gap. We're looking on a game that is rendering graphics using a far away from natural algorithms. This already different from natural picture is displayed by a device which again is not even close to the real world image quality - extreamly small resolution, color space, dynamic contrast etc. I'm not even sure if people realize but most of the TN monitors are actually using 6 bit per color - 24 bit intstead of 32 bit color space (truncating the information from the graphics cart). And in reality, you don't have to be a pilot to understand the difference. Take any commercial flight as a passanger and see how much detail you can see loking down from 10 km or how far you can see. Computers are not even close to be there.

Just to give you an idea, roughtly: 27'' HD monitor: around 2M pixels, 81.59 PPI Human eye: around 576M pixels, 2190 PPI Do you still think the zoom is cheating. I could easielly do the math but I can bet that even with a max zoom you still get a lower PPI than a human eye has in reality. Stop comparing monitors to the real world.

It seems there is something wrong with how TACAN works with tankers. I had setup a tanker with an Y channel (lets say 12Y) but tested in plane using both X and Y bands, using all modes - receive, transmit and receive, AA receive and AA transmit and receive. - Y band set: bearing but without a distance is always received despite of the mode selected - X band set: receive and transmit receive modes don't work (no signal captured), AA receive returns bearing while A/A transmit receive both bearing and distance. I tried with several planes obtaining the same results which indicates it's rather a core DCS issue. Something is wrong, though I have to admit I'm so confused that I'm not exactly sure what. I assume X band should not work with tanker set to transmit on Y - those supposed to be a different frequencies. Reveive mode should only show the bearing while T/R also a distance but with the TACAN station mounted on the plane, should it work in REC-T/R mode or AA REC, AA T/R mode. I thought that the AA mode is to do the trick with 63 channel separation.

Its a common problem introduced by an update around end of May (look on known issues list). It's affecting all of the planes. Don't know but it looks a change had been made by ED which requires modules to align to get the interaction of external lights with cockpit right. It's not only the anti collision light but also other external lights - taxi lights from other planes, own position or even formation lights.

I'm not sure if it really matters - can't check in DCS right now but rather than AWACS select a tanker with a "Refueling" task.

I'm not really an expert but that was also a conclusion that I arrived to. The pattern in mission is purelly visual - that's why it's quite different when it comes to parameters from the one included in the manual. Even if you try to turn on a nav equipment when you're strating up the instructor will say to turn it off as it's an visual flight. Nice touch from the mission designers (no cheating in other words :D).

I have run into the same prolblem. Tested with different approach variants and configurations. RB-04 and RB-15, AI and non AI variant, using anti-ship task or/and engage group. Fully AI flights, flying with AI as a lead and as a wingmen. The generall conclusion was that the Viggen AI doesn't want to attack the ships with missiles. 1. Attack group. Does not work at all. Every time flight reaches the waypoint with attack group task assigned, it just turns and continues to the next waypoint. Doesn't mattter if its equipped with RB-04 or RB-15, AI or player version. Weapons set to auto. Just to test it, I coppied-paste exactly the same flight but changed the plane to A-10 with Mavs - worked perfectly as intendend. 2. Anti ship-role. Flight will sometimes attack but almost never from a far away distance. Rather that that, if it actually engages the fligh will first fly to the waypoint very close to the ships, turn arround and then fire the missiles from relativelly a close range. On top of that only flights equipped with RB-15 fired their missiles - actually both AI and player versions. Just that it seemed the AI version, AI fired from the further distance than the player ones. Overall: - RB-04 doesn't seem to work at all with AI (no mather the version AI or not) - RB-15 seems to work with AI (also no mather the version AI or not) but I had not luck to setup the flight to engage in a coordinaged way, as a group, from a far distance. - attack group where the group is ships doesn't seem to work at all with Viggen.

I agree. Kind of the ideas that you ask yourself why you didn't think about it before. The only issue I see is that in order to work the TACAN would have to be set to A/A mode.

On a really side note, maybe it's only me but the RAZBAM Terreain Team banner really reminds me the Falcon 4/Free Falcon style graphics :)

I wouldn't be so sure that F-5 is easier to learn. Yes it has much less systems, it's extreamly easy to operate the cockpit - do the startup, etc... This raw simplicity makes it however way much more difficult to master. Mirage is more advanced with more systems which obviously have to be learned how to interface with. On the other hand we're talking about pushing a buttons. When it comes to real application like for instance bombing, Mirage can do an automated CCIP while with F-5 you need to know and perfectly exectue a bombing table parameters. Being precise with bombing in F-5 requires a lot of practice and flight precission (starting run at the right altitude, approaching at correct angle and dropping the bomb at right altitude and speed). Bottom line, system whise Mirage will take a bit more time to learn (still it's really easy to do). When it comes to application, Mirage is way much easier to be effective with comparing to fully manual F-5.

AI can do the sling loading operations (which by the way can be seen on the screenshoot - it's an CH-47 AI model). So it isn't really an argument for CH-47. The argument for CH-47 could be it's a Boeing aircraft. F-15E has a big Boeing logo on it which isn't that a popular practice to have a manufacturer logo on the DCS module cover. I think it's only the Uh-1H which has it. Maybe RAZBAM has started a wider cooperation with Boeing.