Volator

Yes, that one I know and am the most interested in. The phase when the F-4 became an AMRAAM slinger I lost interest in, that's why I never read up on the ICE thing. I personally think that once we get a DMAS F-4E, that's gonna be reasonably close to an F-4F "Peace Rhine" variant (ignoring the ugly TISEO we might get with the DMAS variant).

The non-APG-65 aircraft were also ICE? I always thought the APG-65/AIM-120 combo was what made them ICE... But again you are right, I checked the book again. Three stages of ICE, where only the air defense variant received stage 3 APG-65/AIM-120... you do now your stuff But still, I think our HB F-4 shouldn't get a skin that actually represents an APG-65/AIM-120 aircraft... whole lot of different capabilities.

Yup, you are correct, good catch. Wrong information on the internet there, I now went back to literature to check. Changed it in my upper post.

Yes, and in all fairness the F-4F is very close to the F-4E, especially external, main differences (internal) being the slightly dumbed down APQ-120 that doesn't have AIM-7 compatibility, and one internal fuel tank less (making the -F a little lighter and thus a little more agile than the -E at the cost of lower range on internal fuel). The -F is certainly much closer to the -E than a B/C/D/G/J/S model, so I think including German -F liveries is acceptable. But: @IronMike@Cobra847 If possible, please include pre-1990s liveries (Norm 72 and Norm 81), or at least make them black-nose Norm 90 and not the beige-nose Norm 90s, as the beige-nose Norm 90s were the APG-65/AIM-120 upgraded birds that are NOT really comparable to the F-4E that we'll supposedly be getting. Oh, and I think the red-orange flight suits and grey leather jackets for pre-1990s German liveries are a must

Sorry, I meant what has to be changed in the .lua code? Should I delete the bort number lines? Or do I have to add them from a newer skin lua to the old one? I'll try the old skins tonight and see which problems show up.

Thanks for the hint. Do you know how to edit the .lua to have the skins displayed properly? I have no clue about that...

Looks like those skins don't work anymore sadly. Is there any of the skin magicians who would like to do a generic German AF camo skin for the F-86? That would be awesome.

Yes, thank you.

Will try, thx. FWIW, when checking out this bug I already tried the full doppler check procedure (i.e. all three switch positions), which resulted in the same doppler malfunction. Let's see how only this one switch position works. --- Ok, so my tests showed that the doppler system will fail always fail after take-off, but you can reset the system with any test switch setting (memory included) temporarily. Once you get out of attitude limits, the doppler system will fail again until you reset it again with the test switch. That's not a new feature I think...

Not sure what it was before (wasn't there another long-standing bug with the pylons?), but now with the (deselected in ME) pylons visible, rearming is not possible. If I'm not mistaken before the patch the deselected pylons where crossed out in the rearming window, but you were able to select weapons and pylons would become reattached. Now, with the deselected pylons still visible, you do not get crossed-out stations, but you cannot select any armament either. Ground crew will report rearming complete, but no weapons will be attached. This also applies to gunners.

Callsigns for GDR are now corrected and comms are in russian language. Thanks ED!!!

Since latest patch DCS OB 2.8.1.34437 weapon pylons cannot be removed anymore, be it via ME or via in-game rearming menu (you can deselect them in ME, but they will appear nontheless) Mi-8_doppler_fail_pylons_fail_hot_start.trk Mi-8_doppler_fail_pylons_fail.trk

Since latest patch DCS OB 2.8.1.34437 the doppler system / DISS-15 doesn't work anymore. It fails shortly after take-off, both cold start and hot start. Mi-8_doppler_fail_pylons_fail_hot_start.trk Mi-8_doppler_fail_pylons_fail.trk

That message usually comes when you move the plane prematurely when on ground power or while rearming. Is your plane moving inadvertently? It's highly unlikely that it's due to a weight limitation.

I highly doubt that any military in the world caters for their pilots to adjust the avionics to their personal preferences. There are SOP and you ought to adhere to them, soldier, and if you don't, the standardization officer will have a serious talk with you. It's "one size fits all" here, military way or the highway.

Not as far as I know, but I totally understand why you ask this question. Compared to the A-10A Mavericks seeker picture the Shkval is rather difficult to find targets with. Add to this that you have to dial in the correct target size before the seeker snaps on the target vs. the insta snap-on with the A-10A and you know why it is harder to fight in the Su-25T than in the A-10A. (Actually this thread would belong into the Su-25T forum at 2.8 core, not here into FC3 forum)

Issue seems to be gone again with 2.8. I have run some quick tests with MiG-19 and MiG-21 on Caucasus and Syria and did not notice any fps drops with ground clutter visible.

Sorry to read that, Alpenwolf. Your server always stood out from the crowd and provided a lot of excellent gameplay for years. Thank you for that!

I am currently taking a look into flying the Su-27 and am less-than-impressed by the TWS mode. The manual says: Shouldn't I get that data displayed then? Current TWS mode does nothing of that. I don't get any information on target speed, altitude, vector, nothing (all the things that the F-15C TWS provides). All it does for me is to provide a quick lock-on when within 85% of WEZ while displaying other targets up to that point. ED, is this really the only thing that the Su-27 TWS is supposed to do when even your own manual states target parameters like elevation and velocity vector?

Evening mood - returning from a SEAD sortie on Blue Flag Syria 80s

I'm totally unfamiliar with the Ka-50, so experts help me out here: AFAIK the BS2 has a laser warning receiver, but not a RWR, correct? Will the BS3 come with a RWR? MLWS maybe?

You are right, I missed that. Make an educated guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter_operators

+1 F-104G users: Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Taiwan, Spain F-104S users: Italy ...

Yes, it's back. Had this issue both on Caucasus and Syria.

As Draconus already wrote, ATC in its current state will always vector you to sort of a "final approach fix" of the active runway. From there you can start the final approach to the active runway. It works adequately well in IMC, but depending on your inbound course to that said fix you'd have to use additional procedure turns to get on the final approach course, because you would overshoot the localiser / extended runway centerline significantly by just turning directly towards the runway.