Shively

We really need to see some tracks/videos of what's going on. There's too many variables at play here. You claim you're unable to hit anything with the SD-10, but I just had a flight on DDCS where I shot 4 of them, and each one scored a kill. What's the aspect of the enemy when you're shooting? If they're running away, you're probably better off not shooting, even if you have the "shoot" cue. Obviously this may change depending on the difference in airspeed between yourself and your target, but you generally should not expect a missile shot at-range toward your enemy's six to hit if they're running away at a high speed.

angry mig noises Thanks for your contributions otherwise though, really informative! And great work to y'all at RAZBAM on the updates and work on the radar, between this and Zeus' other post from last week it looks very comprehensive and I look forward to some of the still-unresolved facets mentioned in the other thread getting hammered out in the coming weeks. The Mirage will continue to be very interesting to fly and operate with these updates.

I guess at some point one must ask by what qualifications you are able to state that Mirage and Harrier systems are gamified and bear little relation to actual function. Moreover, I would want to know how well of a job you think other DCS modules are doing and how you came to those conclusions based on what information available to you. After reading many posts by you on this particular topic and with the same general schtick behind it, I think it would greatly benefit the community (and RAZBAM's development team) if you were to commit to a full write-up with cited documentation as to how they've erred and how systems may be rectified and brought in line with real-world counterparts. Could you please list those game-breaking bugs for me? You are aware that incomplete implementation of something is not a bug, correct? Unless you're getting CTDs every flight, I really want to hear what is making this module so unplayable for you. With the amount of posts you make on this forum day-in and day-out, I should expect it to be quite exhaustive and that you can quickly and easily render such a list for us. What lies were told by RAZBAM about the pace of development on Harrier or Mirage? That you may not see a huge update every week does not necessitate that work is not ongoing, much of this work in the background and simply pure coding - unless you want pictures of the same 3d models and texture maps every week, I really don't know what you're asking for here. Before you're so quick to dismiss peoples' issues with MiG-21 and Viggen, you should know that there are unresolved issues with employment of missiles from 1-2 and 3-4 stations on the pylon selector in the MiG, reported by others and myself personally dating back to August-September of 2017. Currently missiles fired from those stations fox off simultaneously, behavior that contradicts the module's own manual. We got a cheeky reply from a developer but never any fix, nor do I expect one in the near future. We have however gotten some unrequested passes to the texturework in the cockpit and a cleaner canopy out of it, though. I hold out hope that the work to revitalize the systems of the MiG-21 cockpit will fix this problem, but after 4 years in a woefully incomplete state (since I've bought the module, not its release, mind you) I'm not holding my breath. I have not even begun to discuss similar unresolved issues with IR missile performance, its ever-changing flight model, many missing features among modelled weapons and countermeasure systems, et cetera, et cetera. RAZBAM continues to work on what was paid for. That it was not completed on your timeline does not indicate that they will not do so. I have no particular fondness for RAZBAM over any other third-party dev, I think most are doing a pretty miserable job at present, I'm just intensely interested as to why RAZBAM is receiving so much flak for behaviors common to all of the third-parties, and especially of Eagle Dynamics themselves (you would agree I am entitled to a Hornet refund as well at this point, yes? It's been a full year almost with no TWS on the radar! Everybody get excited!). Listen, you agreed to the EULA, you waived your right to a refund just like the rest of us. If the overwhelming majority of Hawk buyers aren't getting reimbursed for a module they're never going to even get to look at in the DCS multiplayer arena again, you're not getting refunded for the Harrier, and I'm certainly not getting refunded for my beloved MiG-21, even if it has been in effectively an early-access state for the better part of 5 years now. It really just appears that a scapegoat has been found, and now this dead horse is going to be beaten into a paste. Posts like this are a big reason why I do not usually partake in this forum or read the cesspit that is Hoggit, but on this rare occasion I felt it necessary to chime in. I'll show myself the door, I don't expect to retain posting privileges on this forum for much longer.

I hate to throw Dynamic DCS under the bus here because otherwise it's a fun server to fly on, but I think it's a pretty good example of why requiring users to connect to discord voice chat is not a great idea overall. The bot that manages it just seems to work maybe 50% of the time at best. Several times I've been trying to get a group flight up and running with people I bring in and we'll be attempting to do everything by the rulebook - DCS and discord display names set to be identical, connected to a voice channel in DynDCS discord, everyone set to appear online - and yet we have people getting kicked after the timer run-down despite the fact they've done everything required to play on the server. Likewise, the glaring issues of even functional discord voice comms become apparent when you join the DynDCS discord voice channels and are greeted with 20 people all talking over each other. Need a BRA call from GCI? Looking for vector to home plate? Want a sitrep as to what's happening with the ground war? Good luck, you'll have a hell of a time getting a word in edgewise over that many people, and without fail there'll be a pair of people sitting on the ramp without knowing how to start their planes up just cluttering comms as they try to work things out. At this point SRS should really just be the standard with the advances made on that end of things in the last year or so, and servers should forego Discord voice comm requirements entirely.

It's an option that has to be set in the mission editor, on the last page when placing an aircraft spawn.

Totally agree, but I think you are asking a bit much of this community of spoiled brats.

So, I can't really think of a module I'd rather see in DCS right now, and I'm glad to see Magnitude-3 commit to it because I think there's no way that the F-8 doesn't turn out to be a boatload of fun. I just hope they're going to support it a bit better than they have my other favorite module, which still has a few issues after many years in early access now. Gonna' hold out and hope, though, as the MiG has been getting better in the last few months, and currently has one of the most enjoyable flight models in DCS.

Clearly that's not supposed to happen, but I don't know that I would assume fault or malicious intent, so I'm not entirely certain that a script would be necessary if it was even possible. Looks to me like you got the better of him and he forgot to check fuel state due to target fixation. You can't script-out stupid.

Hey y'all, would it be possible to get diagrams of the default bindings for things mapped on the Warthog (and other HOTAS setups down the line) added to the manual at some point? While I'm here, thanks for including some default binds and not trying to map pitch and roll to my rudder pedals!

He lives! The new cockpit is looking pretty decent at least :thumbup: Even with the smudges, it's a joy to fly. Flight model's feeling really good too - not as wonky as it used to be, and kind of a workout to fly and get decent turns out of now. Rewarding bird when it comes together.

Hey, is something amiss with the mission? Red team's MiG-21s and Mirages can't take their countermeasure pods despite being able to a few nights ago, likewise no fuel tank availability for either. As well, I've noticed an inability to get airfields to rearm Su-25t's at Nalchik & Mozdok. I figured this would have something to do with the resupply system, but after switching around all of red's airfields, could not get countermeasures for MiG-21 anywhere.

Hate to 'necro' this post from a few months ago, but this behavior is ongoing in 2.5.2. Currently the best course of action is to forget the 1-2/3-4 selectors even exist. Do the developers even check this forum?

That sounds about right.

Fly the MiG-21 for a while. You'll start to develop a sixth sense to compensate for the RWR not giving you that information. I won't talk about how I'm informed of incoming missiles as it'd probably get me banned from this forum, but it involves the involuntary clenching of certain muscles.

Could be oldschool "netsplit" being done purposefully, or maybe he was just torrenting naughty movies while playing. Either way he shouldn't be doing it during multiplayer sessions.

Pretty fun little mission with a neat ruleset that forces you to play strategically a bit. It's CTF, but this is no airquake.

Glad someone seems to get it.

I'd be fine with allowing the Mirage for both sides. Failing that, I'd like to double-down on my earlier suggestion of allowing "east german" MiG-29Gs to be present. It (the Mirage) wasn't a problem during round 6/7, unless the intent in restricting it is to even out the balance a bit.

Why does it appear to me that you didn't make this argument when Blue got the AIM-120 line and Red had to make do with easily-spoofed (just lag a little..) R-27ER/ETs? Who wants to play with rules that handicap red and give blue and advantage? What fun would that be? Really gives the impression that Blue can't win a fair fight on their own. Yes, this post is clearly satire. Not much else I can do when served up this kind of thing. :pilotfly:

Neat. Must have missed that tidbit when I was scanning through the manual - my mistake, was being a bit hasty when I did so as it was during the warm up for flights with my group a couple nights ago.

Do you know what the exact region it scans is? I'm assuming it's not to the edges of the HUD's glass in all directions but more of a circular area around an invisible boresight, right?

Hi, Was just looking for some information on the 'special' mode for the Super 530. I understand that this is supposed to be the "HUD scan" mode, but was looking for some more in-depth information about employment procedure with this mode. If anyone knows, I'm particularly interested in how it goes about acquiring targets (I'm assuming it auto-locks as in the other CCM?) and what the exact parameters of its scan are. Oh, and any information about its advantages and disadvantages might be helpful as well - having a bit of a hard time figuring out when one might actually be able to use this mode with DCS' handling of model visibility being what it is. Just thought I'd make a new thread because I haven't seen much discussion of this mode in particular just yet, so I'm figuring other people would like to know some more about it as well. Thanks!

Well, it looks like I might finally get the MiG-15. Neat.

I think he knows how it works just fine, he never said the Flanker and Eagle are equivalent after the merge, and Jack never said the Earth is flat. Seems pretty Even Stevens to me.

You don't think it's a bit ridiculous to compare a simple loss of radar-guided missiles to Call of Duty? Please. Radar missiles are one of the largest contributors to the "airquake" mentality of other servers. With this change, egads, we might have to spend a bit of time in the merge and, dear Lord, actually have to do some quick thinking rather than just popping off our slammers/R-27s/AIM-7s and juke around/notch a bit. Yes, red is slightly advantaged due to the presence of HMS for the R-73. I don't remember those of you adamantly pointing this out rushing to decry the availability of AIM-120 on Round 6, however. That's a bit odd, wouldn't you think? To compensate, I guess I could sacrifice the Mirage on REDFOR if we wait on starting the round until any bugs with getting the Magics off the rail have been fixed, which'll hopefully be done tomorrow - as far as I know, the "slave to CCM" function is finally being turned on as well. Alternatively, and try to follow me here.. why not allow the East German MiG-29 to make an appearance? I think this'd be a much better fix than restricting the Mirage, it ticks both the "realism" and "balance" boxes just fine. I think this'll be a fun round for me to jump back into to make up for my being busy through Round 8 overall, though. Us MiG-21 pilots don't get to have our day in the sun, ever, and it'll still be a hard fight for us regardless. Good thing I'm a bit of a masochist, I guess. Really, though, the restrictions of every round to this point have been arbitrary, designed around creating interesting setups less so than realism. I don't see why some kinds of arbitrary restrictions seem to fly, but one that seeks to force everyone to go to the merge has become unwelcome. Check the player counts on the "Vietnam" and "Korea" servers as opposed to Blue Flag when the event's running, I believe you'll find that BF generally has no less than double the amount of connected clients of any (or both) Vietnam servers put together, plus those of the Korea server. Those of you saying that this restriction is going to kill Blue Flag, while a change to an era-appropriate layout featuring only 6 modules (3 per team) would be a resounding success are a bit off-base, and that's as politely as I can possibly state it. Case Blue, as cool as it was, wasn't nearly as active as the usual BF event, after all. As much as I would love a Vietnam-style event to come down the pipes, I don't exactly blame Buddy Spike for not wanting to immediately run a mission where the primary aircraft for one side is a beta/early access module with some issues left to be resolved, either. Hold your horses!