Jonne

Its not only warbirds, but any non navigation system equipped aircraft in DCS, which is actually the majority. And this problem is not only present in VR in DCS, but also other sims. A properly integrated map, which can be drawn on, would be a golden addition for VR. I would also add a notepad and a flight plan sheet to the wish.

You mean in addition to tape salad for the tape player?

You mean those three should never come as a flyable aircraft, but only AI? Well I would agree, but TrueGrit would not.

In the trailer a MiG-21bis can be seen launching a Kh-66. Is this part of the campaign? If so this is a big no for me due to the lack of realism.

That is indeed a nice one. Additionally recon aircraft come to my mind. U-2 for example, as this is again an aircraft where the typical mission profile is outside the DCS scope, yet intercepting one would fit very well.

When considiring stuff that really only would be valuable as AI, not as a flyable aircraft, I would say long range bombers. First of all the B-29, as it was the main target for the MiG-15. I could also think of some older transport aircraft which could make good non-flyable assets.

Only Deka has introduced a workaround for their SD-10. The rest has not been fixed.

NO, NO, NO and NO. Please read first. It has nothing to do with the mode the missile is fired in, but the missile API itself.

Works well until you face the AIM-54, which is the only Fox 3 not affected. In the JF-17 you are down to heaters. This really is a major issue and I guess it is also present in the stable version, due to them being equal at the time.

It is automatic. Per maunal, with the switch in RPT, the jammer will only start transmitting when a threat is detected. I guess this is where the problem arises, as threats are not detected properly leading to the blinking behaviour. Anyway apart from the blinking Tomcat, problems are amplified as all missiles using the AMRAAM API, for example the SD-10, currently experience a bug where they will be forced to HOJ when a target is jamming. More info here: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/258449-chk-sd-10-cant-track-jamming-target-at-all-multiplayer-only/?tab=comments#comment-4540453 Basically Gen 4 A2A is thus useless currently. Now if only the stable version of DCS would not actually be identical currently and thus have the very same major game breaking bug. Atleast its not as bad as the Laser Maverick CTD was.

Ooooof... Well it is news on the Yak-52. Not really what I expected though.

Well the JF-17 does it, but that is between JF-17s only.

I beg to differ on that part. In a scenario where you face more than one bandit, you will want to have your TWS working, which it does not in case of one or more bandits jamming. Just encountered this situation in the JF-17 against two F-14, both with their jammer on. To explain the original problem in DCS, jamming is really very simple made. The emitting aircraft has a simple jammer on/off flag. Nothing more is modelled on that site. It is up to the jammed module of what is done with that information. In the case of the F-14/16/18 the answer is: NOTHING. All other radar equipped aircraft interpret jamming as loss of range information with different visual effects and most importantly the inability of using TWS, if present. Now why no jamming effects are moduled in the three full fidelity teen series fighters remains unanswered, I do have my grief with the fact that they recieved the ability to jam, while not being able to be jammed.

Now that would explain the problems we had with the SD-10 last week. I will try and contribute when at home.

Thats exactly how I understand that diagram, however the text, which I cannot read, seems to say otherwise.

Eigentlich ging es in den News zum Großteil immer nur um Wolken, mal abgesehen davon ist realistisches Wetter in Flugsimulationen jetzt auch nichts neues. In DCS halt schon.

Es sind halt einfach nur Wolken Da wird mir momentan ein bisschen viel Wirbel drum gemacht.

Nope, für mich ist wie seit Wochen im Newsletter nichts dabei. Wenn man auf rote Jets steht, schaut man bezüglich der wöchentlichen News seit langem in die Röhre.

Now I stand corrected that the take off flap position is indeed 25° for all MiG-21 versions with the SPS and it does indeed seem to cut out the afterburner when in landing configuration. I wonder why the flight manual does not mention any of this. Could get really nasty in case of a go around.

And how on earth shall that happen? Its an RWR, not a crystal ball.

The developers have already communicated the RWR precision in either their manual, or video. Short: It is far from perfect. Thus I expect the other modules getting it wrong, not this one. By the way, if you want to report this as a bug, which it likely isn't, rather than have a discussion about your flying, maybe try posting in the bug report section next time.

What makes sense, as unlike VOR and ILS, RSBN and PRMG are aligned to true headings rather than magnetic.

Glaube das hat weniger mit alt zu tun, als mit der Vorliebe wie man Informationen aufnimmt. Jedenfalls habe ich absolut nicht die Geduld mir 10 min Video wieder anzuschauen, nur weil ich ein bestimmtes Detail nochmal wissen möchte. Da ist ein gut geschriebenes Handbuch einfach viel effektiver. Glücklicherweise gibt es diese für DCS noch, allerdings je nach Modul in unterschiedlicher Qualität, wobei die Qualitätsunterschiede bei den Videos noch erheblicher sind. Da gibt es so einen (englischen) Kanal, der leider viel zu sehr auch von den Entwicklern hofiert wird, der grottenschlechte, teils eklatant falsche Tutorials produziert und dafür sorgt, das manche Bugreportsektion hier im Forum eher zur Featureliste wird. Ich schweife ab...

With that description, I would rather question the realistic simulation of the precision of the F-16/18 RWR.

It does not include the specific year the model in DCS was modelled after though. For the MiG-21bis, I can tell you, that due to a minor modification to the IFF present in the DCS version, it must be from the mid 80s. Oh and you will not get happy using Wikipedia data for this, as it is way to unprecise for what I understand you are trying to gather.