Rex854Warrior

Without a proper GCI It's quite hard in an F-5 or in a Mig-21 espcialy in the Mig to do Air-Air without dying, you need SA, wich you can't get with tour own radar because It's crap in both cases, and the AWACS is terrible as i said before.

The FM changes are only at low speeds high AoA, has already been fixed internaly. And the PCA is realistic, it's just not perfect in the way it operates, the hole PCA won't be reprogrammed as most of the features are already here, just a few things here and there that will make it operate more logicaly and some new things will be added indeed. And you don't understand what i'm saying, i am not speaking about the Mirage update, i'm speaking about the DCS 1.5.7 update (game update currently available in OB) that will be released (on the DCS stable version) today. I was simply saying that we probably won't have an update for the Mirage as therewere none in the 1.5.7 OpenBeta.

The Mirage ? If you're speaking about the Mirage it's almost complete with very few missing systems (2-3 to be exact, one that was never confirmed to be added), and 3-6 ~minor/major bugs. And i was speaking about 1.5.7, the current beta version will go "public" that's a wrong terminalogy i used there, it will be released on the release version of DCS. But since it's a patch going from beta where they, apparently, solved most of the issues, then it's unlikely for them to add more changes in this version.

@Mirknir, just a quick question, will we get landing waypoints for the Mirage ?

I guess so, but options are out there. :)

Might have misunderstood your point but LotATC is free (well not really, but you can use the demo version, you just have to be very patient i guess ^^, it's possible with a 100% dedicated GCI, wich there should be), there are no possible exploits with it, it's, you don't have an all seing eye, and yes there is a human in the loop, not the best, i agree. But if all that bothers you then why not use a script, that will provide a much better and much faster picture then the AWACS, like this one https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=158076. Of course if everything has to be coded from ground up without using a thrid party script then it's gonna be more complicated but still. And the exploits with the commander slots, on blueflag they don't have a problem with it, works fine, i don't see any exploits being used on it, it's the way you implement it that makes exploits possible. You don't want to see the ways around the AWACS ^^.

Since it's a beta going public i would say that it's unlikely for them to add more changes.

Yes, indeed, but that's unrealistic as all hell. Never said they saw everything, i said that they don't have to go trought the comms with the AWACS. It's not, and my SA usualy isn't bad, the point is that you can do more and dedicate more time to your engagement with a proper GCI, that will warn you of the threats and also get quicker answers to things that matter, like a bogey dope, whereas the DCS comms are very polite, when the AWACS is announcing a contact 150 miles away, you will wait until he's done to get a bogey dope for the contact 3 miles in front of you :). Well you've misunderstood me since the beginning of the conversation, everyone agrees that the specator view should be gone, what i'm asking for is a commander slot, LotATC and/or a script that provides a picture.

Well yes, but that's what the AWACS is supposed to do, and actually you are at a disadvantage from the 27s and 33s wich have a datalink and don't have to bother with all the AWACS crappy comms. While i appreciate your suggestions, they don't work in a realistic scenario, when you're over or further in the direction on the objective then the assets protecting the area from AD, if the AWACS announces a leaker to late, or just says "furball", then what are you going to do ? The leakers are unlikely to get detected by you, since they will do everything to stay away from your radar cone. And i'm sorry to tell you that, no, i'm not the kind of player to push afterburner and go at 35k feet over the bulls, and die because of a nose cold interceptor :).

Well the real problem with the AWACS is not what sees (even if i feel it's very restricted), but it's the way it announces it, i mean i don't need to know there is a contact 140 miles away from me when i'm furball with an ennemi, i would like the AWACS to give names on groups so you know what people are going for when they ask a bogey dope and you also don't get confused when you ask for one, and hell, don't tell me furball without saying where the contact is because half of the time, it's been so terrible at giving me a target that i don't see it until i'm 5 miles away. The point of a GCI is to make you understand what's around you, he has absolute authority, and the point is to help you find targets and avoid death, not flood you with useless information.

Would be nice to set up some kind of GCI, the in game AWACS is among the worst things to acquire SA that i've seen so far. That or a script that does a far better job at it, like this one https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=158076

Well then i didn't understand what you wrote in a hurry, thought you said the CP/PD worked in SP. And you're just making me run out of patiente because it really seems you want to get something right :). Anyways that's enought talking about that.

So first of all, no it doesn't work in SP either, second stored landing fields means there is a landing waypoint placed in the editor and third because using a synthetic runway makes it much easier to land in those conditions, is cool, and It's Nice to have it, if mirknir doesn't add them, It's not a big deal but that's why It's a proposition not an obligation.

Pretty much like cypc sayd, and to be clear what i meant by It's not working is the waypoint CP/PD when you input it manualy, the synthetic runway does Work but when a landing waypoint is placed in the editor. Mirknir, it would be very nice of you to add landing waypoints in the editor for the Mirage ^^. Anyways, this isn't a Mirage argument thread, i think i proved my point, so i will stop speaking about it.

Hum, no it's not ^^ just tried it and it's not working. Show me a video of you doing it, might help

Yes you can, but that's not the point, programming the waypoint in the INS won't make the synthetic runway appear. Btw i don't understand why you quoted my message on the Spectator bug.

I am very familiar with the CP/PD function to create a synthetic runway, the only problem is that to my knowledge this function is not implemented yet. So you have read the manual, but since the feature isn't here yet,....

I do find this to be a nice bug thought, it makes it possible to have a GCI, wich will do a much better job then the terrible in game AWACS, and the vision you have in spectator might not be realistic because you see everything, but not far from realistic since the terrain is flat (mostly).

What pefman means by synthetic overlay (the correct term is synthetic runway) for the Mirage, is very usefull for ILS landings as a synthetic runway appears on the HUD making it "visible" even thought it's dark or there's alot of fog. For that to appear, the Mirage needs to have a "landing" waypoint on that airfield.

Well after searching a bit, The "yellow" for target information idea is good but isn't realistic.

Is it the end ? Hey guys, i noticed a week ago that the mission wasn't up anymore, same thing for the website. Did the NA guys drop the mission, is it the end of KO ? I would think not considering the work that has gone in this mission.

Energy loss is due to many more factors then just G's, depends on AoA, speed, power to weight ratio, etc.... In the Mirage it really depends on AoA, high AoA, high drag, high energy loss.

It's good to hear from KO's dad :D Thanks Deadbeef, just checked, units are back on the objectives, server is running and i'm happy :)

Looks like the server is bugged, the webmap isn't updated, and all of the ground units on the server are gone :( Our new layout didn't last long, at least it gave us something to do in the afternoon :D

Admins, please..... Hello, So, we the very active players (ZHeN, Redbat, Dean, Archangel, Leumi, me, and others) have been slowly walking away from the server. This is why i'm beging the admins to make some changes, and if you have no idea what to change, contact Deadbeef (or PM me an email address) and ask him to transfer you the emails i sent him. In these, i have proposed quite a few fixes for the problems that exist, improvements,... for this mission. Of course these are just propositions. One of the biggest was the change of Standard map layout : And in the quest to see if it works, a small team of elite players (joke of course) worked all day to make it happen : This is supposed to fix most of the balance issues we've had with the old North to South layout (Elbrus antenna, Inguri Dam,...), up North it creates a BVR "Zone" since there are no moutains to hide behind :) And in that BVR zone, in this base layout, it's only Mirages against Mig-29Ss wich, in someway, is more fair then M2Ks vs Su-27s. It makes Nalchik a very attractive airfield to capture, to win superiority in the region. The thing is, the mission wasn't designed to be like this, and so, the Reds have no A-10s, no Mirages at Senaki, but they do have 4 Viggens, 4 Su-25Ts and 4 Mig-21s (wich makes no sense), Beslan has no helicopters, making the capture of Nalchik (for whoever starts with that airfield) impossible without a very brave pilot who has two hours to spare. And probably other problems, but hey, solves multiple issues, also creates new ones... but it's refreshing. So please admins, do something, the server is dying at the moment, and we don't want that to happen :) :thumbup: Sincerely, Rex