foxtheancient

I believe at this point I need two HATs, one for RB05 and one for RB75. First missile is controled by "RB05 stick..." binds and the second by "Radarstick..." binds. I would really like the possibility to have both on same HAT. Some kind of "RB05 stick / Radar stick ..." kind of binds. Is there a way atm or do I wish for Leatherneck to add this in the feature?

Oh god. Oh god! Prepurchase ... check Vacation ... check Is there manual available yet? Can't wait!

Any chance for request to create fictitious painting? I would like one of Czech Air Force. It never had Mirage but has other delta wing fighter. Painting is related to Nato Tigers Association and aicraft belongs to 211th Tactical Flight. Painting on the picture is created for Tiger meeting from I believe 2014.

<3

I found hard to find official data about fuel management system. I made my picture from pieces here and there scattered in forum and manual. Please can someone confirm to me that I understand it correctly? My understanding follows... Mig 21 has no fuel tank capacity meter. Instead of this fuel quantity is set on indicator manually before start depending on fuel load. Current fuel level is calculated from current level and immediate fuel consumption. Meaning that fuel level indicator is more guess than real status. As all external fuel tanks are dry (or dropped) one need to switch off "fuel tanks 1st group" to save pumps from working with no fuel. Meaning one should not turn 1st group on with no external fuel at the first place. In case of dropping tank before they are empty one need to calculate remaining fuel and modify fuel indicator accordingly (to "burn" fuel that has been dropped with tanks). Fuel flow is managed automatically. First is 1st group burning fuel from external tanks. First are wing tanks if present, then fuselage tank. Inner fuel tanks goes when external tanks are empty or not present. Internal fuel storage is ~2700 L (maybe a bit more but because of guessing instead of measuring it is better to set lower value to be safe). Wing tanks are dropping by button on center dashboard under big yellow cover. Fuselage tank is dropped by button on stick. There are lights at info panel showing empty external wing tanks, empty external fuselage tank and need to turn of 1st and 3rd fuel tank group.

I manage only to get some wierd half-english half-russian version. But there is obv a full english cockpit somewhere. I do have avionics language English and custom cockpit livery disabled. What am I doing wrong?

Probably not. Now when I tried again they indeed remain opened. Navigation was always somewhat my weakness :D

When I return to same hangar where I started the mission it is closed. I've already tried that.

Hello guys. Does anyone know how to open hangar door after landing? I thought it is possible only for AI but then I saw someone perform it as a player.

And they did. 290 people died on 3 July 1988 at Persian Gulf. Accident proved risks of shooting at visualy not confirmed target. Those missiles are teoretically usable in full scale war like 2WW but not in local conflicts like we are usually facing today. Becase such full scale war is not expected nowdays, such missiles are practically useless. Does not matter if they are mounted on aircraft, on ship or ground SAM battery. Firing any missile without visual confirmation may lead to civilian casualties which may be acceptable in full scale war but not in localy bordered conflicts. We have another example from Ukraine on 17 July 2014. Just for reminder, 300 people died who had no interest about that conflict. Those weapons are becoming more psychological threat than real threat because their deployment in such conflicts is so problematic. No country wants to explain why they kill hundreds of civilians not interested in any way in events of particular conflict. I am aware that ground attacks do kill lot of civilians too. But firstly they are interested in the conflict by mean they live there (as hard as it may sounds). Secondly confirmation of their casualties are very problematic. Lastly they usually do not die in such a high number per one attack (missile/bomb). Unless you drop a bomb on hospital of course... Oh but there is. I do agree this is sim and devs should not care about balance. But MP mission developpers should. Because they are creating competetive missions for playes to play against each other. And if they want to create good missions they must create balanced ones. Otherwise it will be no fun for each side and no one will play it. But I agree in point we need to wait for actual situation and missile model after official release to see how big problem it will cause. Maybe there won't be problem at all as you think. But I can't help but wonder how will you outmaneuver missile you know so little about. You may have indication on your RWR with information about direction. But you do not know distance, you do not know altitude, you do not know speed. And you do not see the missile because on it's final approach (dive) it does not create smoke trial as it engine is dead for some time. Only thing you can do is turn away on AB, disperse chaffs, and hope it will be enough (which probably will if you are lucky to fly a plane with AB). In such case you are forced to abort your current mission. At least temporairly. Which means you have no opportunity to strike back on aircraft that shot at you (for what Phoenix missile was born).

Someone say 54 was rubbish, someone consider it best missile ever. Well what I think true will be somewhe in middle. Also you must consider circumstances for current scenario. It is very important imho. I don't think 54 was scrapped due to lack of targets nor financial reason. Firstly threat of long range bombers is greater than ever as they are also equipped with long range air to ground/ships missiles. And cost? Well 54 price was about $500k. Compare it with AMRAM and it's $400k or Sidewinder with $600k per missile (C and X versions). Btw AIM-7 costs about $125k and it is probably reason why it is still in service. I would see two reasons there why 54 was never used with another aircraft. First, as been said, weight. With full load of 54s F-14 was more bomber than fighter in terms of flight behave. And there is no other aircraft that could carry significant amount of them because of their weight. US have no heavy fighter like Mig-25 or Mig-31. Closest to them is F-15 with max. weight 30t compared to Mig-31's 46t (F-14 34t but is was designed for 54s which helped a lot). Still F-15 could carry few 54s in term of weight but you probably need hull change because of that. When you see F-15 and how it carry it's missiles you see you can't mount 54s there. Even further, F-14 had them hidden in tunel between engines to avoid huge drag that they would otherwise cause. F-14 was probably only aircraft designed to carry them from the beginning. You need to count with 54s when you design your plane, you can't add them later. They are too unique. Second reason, it is dangerous to fire weapon on such distance. You can't confirm your target even with modern avionics which can visualy see and recognize type of aircraft up to 20 miles if I'm not mistaken. If you can shoot missle max up to 20 miles you don't need 54s for that. Risk of shooting down some civil aircraft is too high in our age. No one from west can afford such accident to happen because west public does not believe their governments so blindly as in eastern regions with politicaly driven/controlled press etc. Such an accident could stop whole war campaing because of public pressure. Not worthed. So you see there is a lot of issues with 54 missiles. As far as I know several (2 or 3) of them were fired in combat and none hit it's target. When they tested the missile it did pretty well though. Otherwise it would probably not be in active duty. But we know very little about conditions of those test shots. I does not matter though. No hit does not mean bad weapon. Nuke missiles had no hit either and no one underestimates them. 54s did same role as nukes. They scared enemy off. You really don't want to engage fighter which is teoretically capable destroy you before you can even see him on your radar. Only presence of F-14s with 54s was strong enough to possibly avoid conflict. It was imho greatest strength of 54 missiles whatever real capabilities were. We will probably never know those capabilities though. Bad for DCS. Although 54s are half of what does F-14s, they should be avoided in DCS imho. Because there are not enough reliable data to make it realistic. I can see it forbidden in MP missions and it is also the easiest way to deal with this balance question. Btw I found recently, I think everyone who do like F-14 should see it. Much of interesting stuff there! And sorry for my English. It is terrible, I know it, but what can you do...

I personally found very little use for unguided rockets and usually don't even equip them to my missions as they are 90% of time only dead weight. I found cannon more useful in almost every situation as it can take unarmored and low armored targets (for hight armored targets you have missiles) with greater precision on greater range thus don't expose you to enemy fire. Ka50 is made from glass. It is not armored like Mi24 so it is not designed to fight close to enemy units and absorb enemy fire (not even hand rifles). With rockets you must basically approach to 1 km if you actually want to hit something. They say you should fire rockets from min. 1 and max. of 2 km. But at 2 km you are happy if you hit big building. Precision is low due to balistics and disperse is significant. I felt fine shooting unguided rockets even from 500 meters. Those rockets are useful in scenarios with multiple unarmed targets close to each other (where dispersion is actually useful) or to attack fortified structures like bunkers or bridges (cannon is no use here and missiles are needed several and they are usually too precious to such a waste). For me works best speed ~100 kph with nose down ~5° and collective set to maintain straight flight (don't descend or climb). Fly and wait as targeting cursor is closing to your target. Fire slightly before they meet as fire recall will raise your nose. Use medium burst settings. GL :)

For (not only) fans of Mig-29: MiG-29 Take-off into the future Part 1/2 MiG-29 Take-off into the future Part 2/2 First part is more about pass development, second part is more about present/future development and carrier version (more interesting one if you ask me but both parts are worth watching on). I am collecting similar interesting documentary movies about interesting aircrafts of past, present and future in . Feel free to take a look and I am sure you will find something of your taste. Have a nice day!

I gave it another shot and tried to find out when problem occures. I did find it's cause. I really don't understand it though. Luckily fixing (or rather avoiding) it is quite simple. First, I must apology to FC3 as it is not it's problem. However it appear only in FC3 aircrafts for a reason. As you know every FC3 aircraft (and Su-25T as well) has very similar keybind layout. Yes, problem does one particular key shortcut. It does not apper with Ka-50 and F-5 module because this shortcut is not used there (or just I'm not using it). It is, for some stupid reason, shortcut Alt+L. Does not matter if right or left alt. Does not matter if pressed mid-flight or while in menu. Everytime pressed it does f***k the menu like in video above. Re-applying this shortcut does not return game to normal state. It has to be restarted. I don't get it why Alt+L is somewhat problematic for DCS. Bug? Wonder if others encounter same behaviour. Solution is simple though. Never ever use Alt+L in DCS (some rebinding might be needed) and everything is fine.

I have a issue I guess only few encounter yet I saw I think two threads about it scattered around forums (with no final solution). I'd like to put it here because I found it to be FC3 related. Hopefully someone who can help will see it here. Everything behave well before I start any mission with any FC3 aircraft or Su-25T. Just after start everything goes still well. However in some point (I didn't manage to find out when exactly) menu-related content goes terribly wrong and game restart is needed. Video may be better than thousand words so here you can see what it is about. ${1} (link for case video does not load: ) This is demostration for ME but affects all menu-related stuff both out-of-mission and in-mission. Flight itself (plane behaviour, cockpit instruments etc.) are suprisingly not affected so mission itself I can play with no issues. Unless I want to change some settings like key-binding for example. Interface is so slow it even does not recognize key press for new bind (I must select it from popup list). As I said at the beginning it is only related to FC3 aircrafts (all of them - I really tried them all) and Su-25T. I have two other modules, Ka-50 and F-5, and I can play those all day without experiencing described problem. I tried a lot of stuff people usually recommend as driver updates, run as administrator stuff etc. with no effect at all. In my opinion as it is only related to part of the game content it is not performance or OS problem. FC3 is basically unplayable for me because of this. I do welcome any idea.

Was B capable of carry and use LANTIRN or it was only Ds feature?

Considering poor polaroid camera performance it would be probably still impressive photo. Maybe one of the closest of the Mig-29 USA would had back then so it may even had good value for military. The issue IMO is not technical though. I really doubt pilot would be allowed to take this camera in jet fighter in the first place. Where would he put it? There is no room for it in cockpit. In maneuvers it would fly here and there all over the cockpit and damage equipment and injury pilots. Mainly because of this the scene is unrealistic. Other unrealistic thing is I doubt they would keep distance/speed/direction/angle exactly the same for all the time needed to pick such a photo while combat maneuvers in battle mission. You see in this video it is not peace of cake even when both pilots try to achieve it and that pilot of Mig surely want not to pose for photo. But yeah, do your fun in DSC and try it. You will see it is not that easy as it looks like and you will end with same conclusion as I do, I'm pretty sure :)

Follows translation of article from Czech news portal [czech]. Excuse my english, it is far from perfection and I do know it. Visualization of new L-39 NG Vodochody has introduced new type of legendary Albatros aircraft On Thursday Aero Vodochody has introduced aircraft L-39 CW with engine for new generation of aircrafts L-39 NG. Aero would like to start selling them from 2019. Company is now focusing on current flights of L-39 and is thinking about best solution how to keep current L-39s in best flight status. Such has been told on Thursday's press by director of Aero Vodochody Guiseppe Giordo after first meeting of L-39 Albatros' users. In occasion of meeting Aero has introduced technological news for L-39 and showed demonstation of aircraft L-39 CW. There was also discussion about creation of international training center and user's experience exchange. Spokesperson of Aero Vodochody Tereza Vrublova said "Showed aircraft has new engine from Williams company and new avionics". Compared to previous generation new engine has much better acceleration. Aircraft is intended mainly for training purposes but it can be used as light attack aircraft. It has five hard points for weapon systems or other payload. Prototype of L-39 NG aircraft should take off in 2018 (read details about new aircraft here [english]). It's development will take about 1 billion CZK [~42 million USD]. Areo has prepared it's programme to allow usage of new engine and avionics even in current L-39 aircrafts, though main focus is to sell new ones. Price of new aircraft may be around 10 millions USD so it should be cheaper than any similar product. Aero said there is serious interest about new aircraft from several customers from Europe. Czech export bank is about to support aircraft's development by hundreds of millions of CZK [from millions to tens of millions USD]. General director of Czech export bank Karel Bureš declared the condition for bank's support: real expression of interest from potential customers. Bank should also provide loans for those customers. Omnipol, the biggest Czech trader with military material, will help with sale matters and is contributing to development by 50%. Project L-39 NG has been introducet in 2014. In comparison with current L-39 it will have new engine, avionics and other technical improvements with longer service life. Training airfraft L-39 Albatros has been developped by Aero Vodochody in 60s and it is the most widespread jet training aicraft in the world. Manufactured were over 3000 pieces and in service is about 700 aircrafts in about 45 countries. Aircraft will be equipped for night operations Video is present at the end of the article containing short interview with Jan Štechr, vice president of Aero Vodochody [czech]. Translation of his words follows. Aircraft has new engine with high reliability and lower fuel consumption so aircraft has longer range. We guessing about four and a half hours of flight time. It is a great improvement. Important changes will be in cockpit as well. Of course it will get modern avionics but also new canopy. Front canopy glass will be from one piece with no frame which will improve first pilot's visibility. Position of second pilot will be elevated. Aicraft will get wet wing with fuel tank integrated. It will increase amount of fuel inside the aircraft and it's range. Because of this we are able to remove tip fuel tanks. As result of removing high weight from end of the wings aircraft's maneuverability will raise. It will be also equiped with 0-0 seats to meet modern aicraft's standards. Girls next to L-39 NG at Days of NATO

Can anybody help me? I'm trying to use AI JTAC with my F-5. I took "JTAC Sample3.miz", change A-10C to F-5E-5, arm GBU-12s, change radio freq. of JTAC unit. And it worked. I was so happy about it until i tried to create my own JTAC sample mission. I would bet I did everything like in this Sample3 (same unit, same wp triggers, make sure about distance and visibility etc.) but in my sample it does not work. Now, there are differences in game as I communicate with JTAC. When I ask for target I got a table of data beginning with "JTAC: line is as follows 1, 2, 3 N/A [4. elevation....". In correct mission there is "[7. ]Marked by laser, 1688". In not working mission there is "[7. ]No mark". And from my command "9-line readback" communication differs. In good mission there is "JTAC readback correct, JTAC report IP INBOUD". Then you talking about inbound stuff, lasing etc. In not working mission there is "JTAC readback correct, JTAC CLEARED TO ENGAGE". From there you can communicate nothing more with JTAC but goodbye (and of course, dropped bomb does not guide itself). What am I missing? --- EDIT --- Solved. Looks like even when games tells no problem with distance and LOS your unit can still be in position where it is unable to point the target. On secod try I located it just next to it's target and it worked. I guess some patience is needed with setting things correctly. What I do not understand though is what was problem with previous location. Unit was 2 nm from target and there was perfectly flat terrain with no trees nor buildings. Ideal visibility. But whatever, it works somehow and it's good enough for me.

? Game mode should bring easiest (more forgiving) flight model, not bugs.

As I were discovering differences between standard and "game" flight models I encountered really funny bug. When in game mode and engines are not in idle or "higher" position (simply throttle is in "off" position) the aircraft starts going backwards. And pretty rapidly too. You won't reach faster acceleration even forward with afterburner :) Another problem in mid-flight when I got hit and my fuel completely leaked, engines were about 20-30% RPM (because wind flounce) and I was actualy accelerating in level flight. I was accelerating pretty well as I hit maximum speed pretty soon and got blacked out. Btw moving throttle did not affect engine RPM but did affect flight speed. Max -> accelerating, Min -> decelerating. But same RPM in both cases. I was able to fly with no fuel 20 nm with no problem to my airfield and land. With no fuel aircraft actually performed like it had much stronger engines :) Both bugs - game flight model - DCS 1.5

Hello guys. I can turn on helper gates with command SHOW HELPER GATES FOR UNIT. I did not find a command for removing them though. Is there a possibility? I'm creating some missions for F-5. Navigation in this aircraft is extremly difficult for begginers and pain probably for everyone. So I thought I will create a radio commands via RADIO ITEM ADD FOR GROUP "Gates ON"/"Gates OFF" to help people with waypoint orientation shoud they wish to. Thanks for advices! /TAF