t00thPIK

She's small alright. I always thought the F/A-18C and F-16 were pretty small compared to most fighters. But you put a Gripen next to an F/A-18 and the size difference is pretty significant.

I did this by accident, in fact not wanting to do it at all. Then immediately after I decided I did want to do it. Then couldn't do it. Couldn't figure out how I'd accidentally done it before. Came here and found the answer. Didn't think zooming would have anything to do with it. Thanks for figuring this out.

Hi guys, I've recently got back into DCS recently and it was largely because of this mod. I had started looking into DCS again after several years break and turned up some videos featuring your mod. The general consensus out there is that the Gripen mod is great. I didn't know much about the actual Gripen, but after looking into the aircraft I fell in love with the whole concept and execution of this fighter. So after the massive DCS install, the first thing I did was download your mod. Loved it immediately. So much effort has already gone into this and it looks like much more is to come. Keep up the great work, I'm looking forward to the future development of this mod. And if you ever decide to create a fully fledged payware module of this plane, you can take my money! Cheers.

Yep, you'll have to play around with the mission in the editor. I changed the loadout on two F-16 of the SEAD targeting Mozdok to use 6 x AGM-65 missiles. I ensured the other two used 2x AGM-88 to give them more range. I also had to make the two long range SAMs priority targets, so that the SEAD could then move in to take out the shorter range ones which kept tripping up my F-15E teams. Hope this helps.

I searched, but couldn't find this mentioned earlier, so here's my report. The border lines appear to be more basic, less defined in thickness and inaccurate when compared with 1.5. So much so that when you load up the F-15 Bear Trap campaign, many of the Georgian forces are actually across the border into South Ossetia. By comparison, in 1.5 the forces are perfectly distributed on opposite sides of the border all the way along. Check the screenshots below to see what I'm talking about. Cheers 1.5 2.5

Here you go, guys. A direct link to all MadDog-IC's campaign updates/fixes. Bear in mind, he did these awhile back, so they've developed some issues as well and he has said he wants to look at them again. Probably not until 2.5 is out and stable, though I guess. With that in mind, you may have to load some of the missions (like mission 6) into the editor and make some changes to get it to complete. It is annoying, but on the bright side, it will force you to start learning some of the more advanced features of the editor. And that can only be a good thing! https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?CREATED_BY=MadDog-IC&set_filter=Y&sphrase_id=8347897

Not yet. Two weeks.

The same could be said of the F-16. On paper, the two planes seem very comparable. I also read somewhere that the F-20 could turn inside the F-16, but that could just be marketing fluff. At the end of the day, both aircraft were originally built as light fighters. The F-16 has been lumped with strike duties now, and thus lugs around external tanks that rival it's main fuselage in size. With it's extra thrust and no doubt strengthened airframe, I'm sure the F-20 could happily lug around similar fuel bags if the need arose. Oh and you initially mentioned the info on the fighter being held in a vault somewhere. This is true, but due to the status of the aircraft, and the fact that Northrop Grumman would own everything to do with it, there should be no Government red tape to get through in order to reproduce it. This is precicely why I believe it would be a great plane to pursue development of. We need more modern aircraft in DCS. Even though the F-20 never saw combat, I think it could still have a place in DCS.

Scroll up a few posts to MadDog's contribution and download his campaign updates. All of them. For all campaigns. That will get you started. Unfortunately, even Ian hasn't been able to keep on top of all the changes to the game in recent months/years. There is a thread which I contributed to regarding Mission 6 of this campaign. In mission 6, not only are the F-16 SEAD packages highly inaccurate, but the F-15E strike packages would constantly run into the ground due to flying too low. I had to extensively edit this mission myself just to get the NPC pilots passing their own missions, let alone mine. The SAM sites weren't being taken down by the SEAD packages as they're not as accurate as they used to be, even when pilot skill is set to Excellent. And aside from the F-15Es crashing, if they did manage to make it to Mozdok airfield, they would just fly headlong into the SAM sites and get blown up.

Okay, so it looks like I'm one of the few that is getting my 16gb of RAM maxed out during Single Player. I haven't tried multiplayer, but I'm guessing that would be even worse. I refuse to buy more RAM because of this. It is simply ridiculous. Prior to this, the only time I've ever had my RAM maxed out was when I used a custom 1024x1024 texture pack in Minecraft. There has to be some kind of memory leak happening here.

I agree wholeheartedly. The F-20 would be a great addition to DCS. As OP stated, it's possibly more likely that ED would get every shred of necessary spec documentation and licencing needed to reproduce the aircraft as accurately as possible. The original F/A-18 Hornet is my favourite fighter jet of all time, so I too would like to experience its roots in the YF-17 Cobra. However, this one is extremely unlikely in DCS. As I understand it, the aircraft was never completed to "combat spec." Therefore many critical systems would need to be made up or borrowed from other aircraft. The F-20 is a different story, though. I've read that the F-20 prototypes were completed to point that they were ready for delivery. Northrop made a real effort to get that plane in customer hands as soon as possible. I'm sure there are thousands of pages of detailed reports on this aircrafts performance, filed away in an archive somewhere. It could be the most accurate plane Eagle Dynamics ever made. And I think it's just as relevant as the Hornet or the F-16. It would also make a good alternative to the F-16 module, which may never see the light of day. As another poster said, DCS would be a great environment for the F-20 to live on, and maybe prove itself against other similarly spec'd opponents. To be clear, I UNDERSTAND what some of you are saying. ED want to include aircraft that saw actual combat, etc. And more importantly, completed aircraft, not prototypes. And as I just said, the F-20, whilst a combat virgin, is a complete design which was ready for export. I just think DCS needs more aircraft. I'd love to see the Gripen, and/or the YAK-130 trainer. Modern airframes with gen 5 transitional tech, but that is just as unlikely as the F-16 or any other modern fighter still in prolific use. We got the F/A-18C, because it's in retirement phase. We didn't get the Super Hornet, because it's a new plane which is still being produced in numbers. And many of its systems are not available to the public eye, I'm sure. Anyway. In short: yes, I too would love to see the F-20 in DCS, but I'm sure we never will.

Hi people I just thought I'd post what I think is a bug. I left my 2.5 beta update going over night. The updater was still happily chipping away at the download this morning when I got up for work. Unfortunately, when I got home from work, the update had stopped with an error warning displayed. The error said somthing about having lost connection with the DCS servers. Upon trying to restart the download, the updater got stuck on the "getting torrent info" progress window, or somthing to that effect. Initially, the upater asked if I wanted to remove the now irrelevant 2.2 alpha files, to which I said yes. After this, it got stuck looking for the torrent. I tried removing the 2.2 alpha manually, but upon relaunching the beta update, it still said it had found irrelevant files and asked if I wanted to delete them. This time I said no, just to see if that made a difference. It didn't. The updater stalled in the same spot. I'm happy to see the stand alone 2.5 open beta download has been made available. I installed that updater and 2.5 is downloading fine now. I didn't read all of this forum, so forgive me if this bug/problem has been reported already. I just wanted to make a post about it in case someone has the same problem. Cheers.

Haha yeah you have to either select a different flyable plane from the map, then hit F2 to look at it extrrnally, then hit Ralt+J. Alternatively just cycle planes with F2 before jumping to. It's a relief to hear that it's not just me having problems with the latest DCSW and the old campaigns. It's worth mentioning that I never actually had any problems with the MiG-29 campaign (other than me dying heaps because I'm rubbish), although the missions in that campaign aren't quite as complex as Bear Trap. I certainly don't recall any AI flying so low that they crashed into mountains. Not unless they were trying to keep up with my irresponsible fllying anyway :D

RAAF Hornets howling in wolf-pack mode. Probabky posted here before as the video is from 2014, but with the Hornet module on the horizon for DCS, I thought I'd post it in honour.

Hi Ian, So I think I discovered the trigger to the F-15E self destruct. It's the Mission Complete trigger. I changed all Strike Eagles to ensure they remained a healthy thousand meters AGL. All four SEs made it to Mozdok successfully. The first two passed over the runway and dropped their bombs. I was watching from the lead plane, looking aft towards the other three. As soon as the "Mission Complete" notification and voiceover sounded, the remaining two Strike Eagles, yet to release their bombs, blew up. Could this be some bug in the mission complete trigger? FYI, I also had to adjust loadouts slightly, for the second time, on the SEAD wings. Plus I had to add a 4-ship of F-16C in a fighter support role for my own F-15C wing. This is what the F-16 was initially designed for, after all. Pierre Sprey would be proud. I know the air superiority is lacking due to my newbie status. I often find Su-27s difficult to see on the radar until they're right in front of me. So the F-16 flight helped me here. But I digress. I'm happy I finally got the mission working in some sort of fashion. Still broken to a degree, however. Cheers

This was my thinking too. It doesn't seem likely that they could hit Air class munitions as that's precisely what they're designed to avoid. Spontaneously combusting seemed even less likely though, but you say you've seen it too, so there you go. Unbelieveable. Thank you for all the time you've put in to these campaigns in the past and into the future. I'm sure I speak for most when I say I certainly don't expect it, but am very grateful. From what you've said, it sounds like there really should be a small team devoted to keeping these campaigns updated. I've played with some basic elements of the mission editor, but I don't know enough yet to start fixing and building entire complex missions.

Thanks for doing these campaign updates, MadDog-IC. I've downloaded all of them so far. I'm having the odd issue with Strike Eagles crashing into the ground due to flying too low. Either that or they just spontaneously explode. This has occurred in Mission 5 and 6 so far. In mission 5, after the first Strike Eagle dropped his bombs successfully, the two remaining eagles following him dropped two bombs, then seemed to just explode. Either spontaneously, or they ran into their own bombs some how. I was flying around the airbase with them at the time, attacking the nearby disabled SAM site, and nothing was shooting me. Thankfully, I passed the mission, due to the first eagle's successful run. Mission 6 is prooving near impossible, though. I'm having to Alt+J jump between aircraft, because the stupid AI can't seem to grasp basic missile avoidance. Or you get an F-16 who continues his path into the SAM fire range before his AGM gets there, so then he has a stream of 12 SAMs after him. After 30mins of jumping between aircraft to try and keep the strike teams safe, the skys are finally clear. I send in the strike team, they get a few clicks out from Mozdok, then die. They cut across the SAM site launch range, instead of going around, so I thought they got hit by the one SAM site that the SEAD team missed/got killed before they could finish it off. When I exit and check the debrief, turns out the Strike Eagles weren't hit by a SAM at all, it said both pilots simply crashed and died. I don't understand why they put the strike teams on these silly Hollywood-esq low-level flights to target. It's completely unecessary. Especially when air superiority is acheived and there are few SAM sites left. In fact, it's pointless trying to fly below the SAM radar anyway, because they still see you unless you're beaming them. I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice that wingmen AI is almost completely incapable of sucessfully flying low level. Even when I'm flying the safest path, they still crash regularly, so how can they be expected to carry out this task on their own. No wonder they crash. I'm starting to think the only way to pass this mission is to add another 9 strike packages to the mission and just hope the odds go in my favour.

I'm hoping for a PFM for the MiG 29 as well. I personally just prefer the look of the aircraft (even the hunchbacked SMT!) over the SU-27 and its variants. Much like I prefer smaller NATO planes to the Eagle, my favourite being the Hornet.

I'm keen to see more cutting edge modern planes in DCS. I know latest tech NATO military A-listers like the Super Hornet and latest model Falcon can't be implemented due to secrecy and licencing. With this in mind, it's my thinking that more independent current tech fighter models might be doable. To that end, I'd like to see the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen and the Yakovlev YAK-130. Of course, both these aircraft might still be out of the question, but they are being sold to many different nations, worldwide. There may not be the same limitation on aircraft avionics and radar tech info like there is on the A-List NATO aircraft. From what I've read, SAAB are pretty desperate for sales for the Gripen. It's unlikely that any DCS players could afford to buy one of course (:lol:), but who knows, it might help market the aircraft some how. If ED approached them with the idea, they might jump at the chance. The YAK-130 is similar in that it looks to be available all over the world, albiet NATO nations have access to the Italian designed Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master instead. Essentially the same plane, but with Honeywell engines amongst some other small differences. These two options offer current generation fighter technology in a front line combat option in the Gripen, as well as a modern trainer, light attack aircraft in the YAK-130/M-346. The latter is also brimming with modern avionics and radar tech. In fact it has been designed with the purpose of training pilots in modern avionics so they can jump straight into something like a Gripen and feel right at home. Edit: I just read this little gem on the wiki page for the M-346 (if the wiki is accurate, of course): "A digital avionics system, modelled on its counterparts on board the latest generation of military aircraft such as the Saab JAS-39 Gripen, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter Typhoon, is incorporated, making it suitable for all stages of advanced flight training and thus reducing the use of combat aircraft for training purposes."