m4ti140

It seems that there are 2 problems with the suspension as it is, one is that the rate of spring on all 3 struts seems to be too low, while at the same time they are overdamped, causing them to slowly sink all the way to full deflection even in relatively slow turns. Then it seems to proceed to sink further until the rim starts seemingly scraping on the surface below, as if the tyre deflated (tyre pressure too low?). Same happens when running up engine on brakes, the nose strut fully deflects (damping coefficient appears to be lower on the nose strut though) and then the tyre itself fully deflects. Not sure why it was tuned that way but I won't believe that's how it was in real life, it would be an insult to the designers of the aircraft. It seems like the general model for the suspension is pretty realistic, but the individual parameters for both the tyre and the strut itself are wrong. Second issue is the shimmying of the nose strut during landing and take off run, especially on landing. The speed where it occurs is inconsistent, but is generally around 100-150kph. It would seem that either there is no shimmy damper at all (despite the aircraft having it in real life) the tyre parameters are wrong (which is likely the case based on the above), the damping coefficient is too low on the damper or a combination of the above. 150 km/h is where you should pull the stick to around 3/4th deflection and keep it there until the nose lifts off the ground, it won't prevent shimmy but it will prevent death, since you'll be shifting weight to main gear as you accelerate. In MiG-21 you don't just wait until rotation speed and then rotate in one swift motion, that's an easy way to collect tail strikes due to how low to the ground the nozzle is on takeoff, instead you pull the stick way before rotation speed, let the wheel slowly raise off the ground as you approach the rotation speed, and then stabilize around 5-10 degrees of pitch until the aircraft lifts off the ground on its own.

Yesterday I've seen someone smuggled two R-60Ms to main airbase, presumably an Su-25T diverted there after sortie, maybe that's what happened. Otherwise yes, they can fire, it's just that the missile will be wasted because it has literally no chance of hitting at all, it's too close for it to start tracking. Having tone doesn't mean you're in weapons envelope, but it does mean you have LA in the 21, it doesn't have minimum distance protection even if you're ranging with radar, so you can fire below valid distance. I noticed lot of less experienced 21 pilots do that, they have tone -they immediately squeeze the button without even thinking about range, doesn't matter if target is head on, high angular rate, if it's a Viggen 10km cold on stage 3, they don't care, they just fire salvos into space and wonder why they can't hit anything.

Do some actual testing with current R-60 and p5, you will see that MiG-21 will die 100% of the time, one every head on merge. Period. R-60 has absolutely no front aspect capability whatsoever, the only way you can possibly get a front aspect hit is if you launch it into the path of the incoming aircraft so it hits it without guidance (because fuse still works). Same can be done with P5. Or with hydras and S-5s for that matter. Stop making idiots of us and trying to shape reality into something it isn't. If you get p5 we get R-60Ms, otherwise red fighters will just die instantly on initial contact with no hope of retaliation until all p5s are spent.

Can I ask who was the hilarious dude that did this all over the server today?

If you're getting P5s then we're getting a limitted supply of R-60Ms. P5 is all aspect, especially against current MiGs which now have been nerfed to have a much higher IR signature than the F-5, R-60 is rear aspect only, and it has been nerfed to make it impossible to hit head on with, it just doesn't track, it's as effective head on as hydras/S-5s. Not to mention that unlike AIM-9 you can't uncage the R-60 at your own discretion, it uncages on launch impulse (or rather even worse: on launch, unless this has also been fixed) and you can't uncage the missile when you have tone, set up a comfortable lead angle and then launch, like you can with the AIM-9. I can welcome R-3R being removed until the exploit allowing to lock on to targets that are covered by side lobe clutter is fixed, so that we don't get all aspect capability we shouldn't have, but adding AIM-9P5 would return us back to all aspect combat. What could be done is to limit the supply of R-60s so that people don't just pack 6xR60 loadout, because the real elephant in the room is that the F-5 can't carry more than 2 missiles while the MiG can carry 6 - albeit putting it at a significant disadvantage in a merge due to added weight, which should make it lose to any competent F-5 pilot if they don't spend those missiles by then. On the other hand, Viggen can carry 6 9Ps, so it balances out (although I'd prefer an environment where MiGs are forcefully limited to 2 missile loadouts and Viggens are forced to do what they're supposed to - air interdiction - but what can I do, there's a limit to what you can do in DCS without black magic and Alpen has good reasons not to use loadout validation scripts - the only way they can enforce loadouts is by blowing you up if it's invalid). If you remove R-60s completely, red side is left with R-13M, which again is significantly inferior to AIM-9P. You could say that it balances out considering higher missile load, but not with Viggens flying CAP with 6x24J. Also 4xR-13M loadout limits MiG to one bag, while packing F-5 CAP loadout - 3 bags (which there's no reason not to take if you do CAP, as those pylons are unused anyway) - brings MiG to an identical load with 2 missiles, except those missile are a generation behind what F-5 has. We can play those games forever, but whatever you do you will end up stacked against one side. Fly the MiG-21 for a bit, it's much harder to do ACM with than the F-5, especially after recent FM changes. Currently with Viggen and MiG both sustaining damage beyond max load factor the F-5 is the only fighter on the server that can pull stupid G loads with impunity. Not to mention a working SAS and much better visibility, which combined let you easily pull off complicated manoeuvrers while maintaining SA, where's while the MiG can technically do the same most of the time, it will require pilot's full attention - they need to chose between keeping their eyes on the opponent and keeping the aircraft from falling like a brick. What we have now is a good compromise, one that will inevitably come to an end anyway when (if) we get an F-4, since there's nothing on red side to really balance it out, we will just need to eventually accept the fact that cold war was not symmetric, that the two sides had completely different doctrines across the board, and any attempts at creating symmetric cold war warfare will meet roadblocks like those. Realistically, most of the time red side should sit inside an overkill IADS bubble and protect the ground assets while blue side conducts massive air raids with zero support from other branches. One side effect of asymmetry is the disparity where Russians eventually dropped the copied Sidewinder line and developed their own missiles while Americans kept pushing the AIM-9 design for raw energy and speed. If we had Older F-5 versions with AIM-9E-N we wouldn't have this problem, but DCS is what it is - a patchwork of aircraft from different eras that are memed as a match for each other when they really aren't.

Is this mod still needed?

And how many of those kills were against competent players, that use GCI and cooperate themselves, rather than newbies who had a misfortune of getting caught in your way? How many more newbie MiG-21 players would be mercilessly slaughtered by the likes of 104th over and over again with no hope of retaliation until they just give up MP altogether? I've flown MiG-21 in Blue Flag maybe once, because it was as enjoyable as sticking nails into my eyeballs. You're operating under an invalid - and quite offensive - assumption that most blue players are less competent and therefore it's fine to stack odds against red. They aren't, it's just that most of them are spread around the plethora of servers with modern scenarios, while competent red players are concentrated in Cold War, because it is - or was - the only place where they could face fair and even odds. Why do you think red side has half the players blue side has all the time in that mission? Why do you think people would rather go to another server when blue slots run out? You will not get comparable numbers of red players this way, you can't expect people to enjoy eating broken glass. Masochism is not a prevailing trait in population and in the end, DCS is a past time, not a job. People will either just switch to blue or do something else, play SP, populate a different server, whatever.

It's hard to be patient if you have amraams fired point blank at you the very second your wheels lift of the ground. Sorry Alpen but you're delusional. The fact that red players use vastly inferior equipment in DCS is due to what DCS makes available in the first place, not because they enjoy it. We enjoy eastern aircraft designs, not flying equipment a generation or two older than our opponents, the latter is a sad reality of DCS barely including anything past 1991 for red side.

I've actually had this problem on Nevada. Nellis is typically fine, but I had all markings missing from Boulder City airport when I set terrain textures to low, and on high settings I found them missing from Tonopah and Lincoln County Airport.

Mission 5 (the first night mission in the campaign) calls for a radar fix at the Farms, as it was the most visible feature with the older radar code. With the current Viggen radar code however the crop fields give a very poor contrast against the desert. On the contrary, the dry lakebed north of them which we overfly anyway gives a very strong contrast now - not sure if it's intended by the devs but that's how it is. May I suggest changing the radar fix point to one of the dry lakebed's "shores"?

There's actually another error with that mission: The briefing asks for A-F mode on the pod for recording, but it's actually preheat - what should be selected is A-G instead.

MiG-21 gets yeeted sideways in the wake, so does Su-25. This issue affects all aircraft at this point.

@Alpenwolf: Could you add a disclaimer to the briefing on red side that MiG-15 tactical net is 4.95 AM and that GCIs should always tune both 124 and 4.95 when they see MiG-15s in the air (and possibly turn on Simultanous Transmission in AWACS overlay)? It's not really an obvious thing to do, as most servers turn on additional radios in SRS when they have aircraft on the same side that are incapable of tuning to the same frequencies.

Matroshka MiG-21

It DOESN'T. It's your standby mode. There's no use out of it in DCS, it's for recording the signal without potentially giving away your position by retransmitting it. IRL it could be used to later analyse the signal. In DCS it serves no purpose. And this pod was not used for ELINT IRL, so I'm not sure how much use out of this mode would there even be IRL. So no Viggen functionality either. It should also be noted that while IRL the pod would make Hawk radar consider you noise and filter you out, in DCS all jammers work the same against all radars - they make distance determination harder for the radar but also announce your bearing if you were not yet detected.

The reason Hornet and F-16 fly "straight" on their own is because they are Fly By Wire - you don't actually control the aircraft directly, the stick is essentially just a command interface for the autopilot that you input pitch, roll and yaw commands with. In A-10C you're in direct control of the aircraft - moving the stick side to side directly controls the ailerons, fore and aft controls the elevators, pedals control the rudder. So you need to understand the basic principles of flight. When you let go of all controls the control surfaces will return to the position where all forces acting on them are balanced. This usually won't be the position needed for level flight - that depends on your speed, altitude, load asymmetry etc. The latter actually occurs in F-16 and F-18 as well - pay attention to what happens if you release a weapon from one wing only, the aircraft will roll towards the heavier side, especially in F-16 since its flight control system doesn't really account for this unbalance, so you need to manually trim it in roll by pushing the trim hat towards lighter wing. In A-10, the aircraft is only equipped with stability augmentation system, which is meant to improve its handling, but it won't control it for you, so in addition to the above you might have to trim the aircraft in yaw to account for drag asymmetry, as well as, more often, trim it in pitch - as you accelerate and decelerate, the aircraft will pitch up and down if you don't steer. You need to always keep your hand on the stick and control the aircraft if you don't have autopilot on and after each manoeuvre, once you're back in level flight on a new course/altitude/speed, you need to manually trim out the forces on the stick using the trim hat until the aircraft flies straight without you having deflect the stick out of its neutral position. Note the order here - you use the stick to control the aircraft, don't use the trim hat for that, only use it to remove the forces once you're not manoeuvring any more.

Mi-8 and L-39 use NDBs.

What do you even mean by "FCS bit animations"? Does that mean it's just an eye candy and nothing's actually checked? Does it mean there aren't even any plans for better damage model and ability to e.g. damage servos without completely breaking them? Because in that case any checks are pointless to implement. Also why is a lot of rudimentary, basic avionics functionality that should have been there at launch is listed in this poll?... of course there will be people who just came here from some arcade environment and will vote in favour of JSOWs instead of basic fuel planning and navigation functionality, survivability and countermeasures, emergency provisions (like alternative gear extension for flameouts)... why do you even list stuff like this, just do it, it should be priority instead of "moar weapons" that can't even be properly utilized due to lack of avionics provisions. I hope the results of this poll will be taken as nothing more than a suggestion, or it will be Hornet all over again, we'll have stuff like JSOWs that most MP servers outright ban before stuff as important as the TGP or steerpoints...

I was doing this test with him. Even if it was 74 it would still be significantly overperforming. But it wasn't. We can send you track files next, but who are you for us to even care? This went to Alpen. And to ED.

21's engine dies around 1250 indicated. You can steel run away at 500kph relative speed, you don't need to manoeuvrer to run, it's only a risk if someone doesn't know what they're doing and yeets the stick. Read the thread before you post. There's a post by LazzySeal where he compares it to an AIM-9X, and it's not far off - max turn rate right at engine ignition, to the point it breaks tacview telemetry plot. He also showed P5 for comparison, to show how it should fly. P5 was significantly inferior to what is supposed to be P3.

R-60 is only slightly less broken than Rb-24J right now, that's why it's not on the server, so this is a moot argument. R-60M is correct, but it's a better missile with all aspect capability, slightly better than AIM-9P5, and would need a few 9Ls/74s available to compensate. But it's realistic, unlike 24J having thrust vectoring. Also the only thing your images show is that it can track front aspect, which it should do to badly to be of use (and that's what is broken about it). You can show telemetry graphs in tacview, but it seems they didn't push the point you had.

The Vne in Viggen is 1350 km/h indicated. At sea level in ISA conditions that translates to Mach 1.1. To go faster you need to go higher, or risk damaging the aircraft (and this risk simply doesn't exist in DCS right now, load factors are taken into account but Vne not so much).

No, I call things by their names and stick to facts, because unlike you I don't operate in a fantasy bubble disconnected from reality. I'm done. I hope you'll be happy when you kill the cold war community again.

I didn't call you a liar. I said you were lying. It's not an insult, it's an accusation, which I proceeded to support with proof in the next post (which you ignored) and you did not refute that proof so far. If you can't tell those concepts apart, then it's a conversation with a wall.

Nice, advertising your ebin group, I wonder if that is allowed. You can talk to Yink, he had 8 R-3R kills in that round LazzySeal used as reference. Didn't count kill ratio but it was around 3/4, most of them was rear aspect though. The problem is: I know how he does it. He uses fixed beam mode to target and lock on to them with boresight. The problem is, it's very debatable if the RP-22 can actually do that and if it's not a mistake in modelling. So I refuse to use it until Hiro obtains documents that confirm or deny it. If you insist to turn this server into a circus where we compete who uses exploits more efficiently, then you can totally do that, but I'd rather just go play Ace Combat instead of ruining the experience here, like you insist on doing with the Viggen. We can e.g. map manual ARU controls to stick and do 14G turns. I actually wasted an hour of my life to watch all missed shots with heat seekers on the red side in the source tacview file and found a grand total of four front aspect attempts, FOUR, out of 118 launches. That changes nothing with the statistics. All of those are cases where the missile actually produces tone (i.e. gives launch permission - again, fly some MiG-21, you will see how the weapon systems work in MiG-21 yourself), despite no chances of hit due to aerodynamic constraints. Other missed shots were either missile going for other heat sources after launch or missing after enemy turns into it, at angles at which Rb-24J comfortably scored hits in testing. We can make an experiment if you want: we grab all the Viggens and you switch to MiGs. For a week. We'll see how you do.