Rex854Warrior

No, the Mig-21Bis does not have any countermesures in the airframe, the ASO-2 pod or the jammer pod is needed.

NA Server 2 is down, needs to be restarted please :) Rex

Couldn't agree with you more. Except if we get S-300s and Patriots (wich btw, would ruin the mission as the area is too small) we do not need Kh-58s. MPUs are challenging (rarelly) and that's a good thing. Please remove them :) Rex

So, apparently this is a DCS problem in general, introduced in one of the lastest patch. We can see all the units in spectator, and that would be alright if the consequence wasn't as bad. We can also see all the units before jumping in an aircraft (choose a slot don't press flight and watch the map). And you can communicate with your teammates, basicly making the one using it a god that sees everything and can report it immediatly to his teammates. Someone discovered it today and used it, as exepected, it was a riot. On blueflag they've managed to disable it, please admins seek a solution. EDIT : sorry to Archangel, Redbat, Dean and Leumi.

Yes indeed, still since the efficiency is exponential (specialy against HEAT, less against Kinetic penetrators) i would say the SFP, perpendicular to the armor, would go throught. And i think that would also be the case for the turret roof. It's probably worse on a T-90, the engine is protected by a trapdoor : http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y297/timroberts8/13263.jpg And the transmission is under the radiators, possibly a little bit of armor but i doubt it.

I'm wondering what really happened..... :D

There is no exact data, but i have seen an engine bay of a modern tanks (M1 Abrams). And i'de say i was roughly 10 cms ish on the top. and that's pretty thick already. http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1_Saudi_Refurbishment_AAD_USAR_lg.jpg You can see the engine being worked on, the engine cover is the tickest and what's under the turrest (when it's facing forward is quite thin (5 to 10 cms)

I haven't seen a single tank with ERA on the engine deck, and nor are they thickly armored, that's a fact.

Well in that case we will have to see what the CBU does after the new damage model goes out. When did they announce that tought ?

Do all of that to a T-72 ? Well a skeet going trought the engine bloc for example will destroy the engine, that's not optimistic at all and that works with every single tank. The skeets will go most of the time for the engine, disabling the tank (as i said in my last reply, none of this is simulated so destroying the tank is the easiest option) And you're speaking about penetration values. This is not a tank simulator, all units have hitpoints. You want something realistic but the problem is that the whole ground part of the game isn't. The only solution would be to have a random % of a kill or not when the skeet hits and that would be overall less accurate then what we have now. For the animation only the deployement of the submunitions isn't animated (well not the greatest animation) all the rest is there.

The CBU-97 might not destroy the tank, but it will surely disable it, killing most of the crew, destroying the engine, the autoloading system for some tanks, potentially blowing up some ammo (assured kill when the tank has an autoloader),.... Since none of that is modeled in DCS, destroying the tank is the easiest option. There is a bunch of different ERA and RA blocks (some not effective against kinetic projectiles), this would have to become a tank simulator if you wanted the CBU to have the correct effect. Not all tanks are protected from top attacks too, in fact only some russian tanks (T-72, T-80 (not all the time for these two) and T-90) have some protection on the turrets roof. It's a matter of doctrine. And for the animation, you're going to need to be more precise, do you mean when the bomb releases the submunitions, the animations after that or the animations in general ?

Well after all of this discussion, i'm not sure of anything. It's very confusing. Did some tests with the A-10C on OpenAlpha 2.0.5 update 4, one Russian Igla-S and one Russian Igla-S Comm placed on Creech AFB (on Sand). I did them at variable altitudes, and with a particular wing pointing at the manpad each time. Here are the results (link below) If i remember well all missiles were detected and countered. Maybe i'm doing something wrong, i don't know. But for me it works fine, and if a few missiles don't get detected it's not a big problem, this system has flaws and it's extremely effective in DCS already. I've rushed this reply so if something isn't clear, ask :). https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7fxtHOhOqYLbnMtTjkyZEZaT0k/view?usp=sharing

Intresting, I don't get the warnings from the side either, at least not all the time. I tested it with an Sa-13 to make sure it wasn't the sensors themselves and i got the warning every time (from the side). So, Half fixed :/ I'll test with the Mirage MLWS. EDIT : Every time a manpad shot at me in the Mirage (and the missiles was in the detection cone), regardless of the range, it was detected. So it's probably an A-10 only issue.

Sorry, didn't save the track :/ I just tested it on OpenAlpha 2.0.5 update 4 and the A-10Cs MLWS detected all incoming missiles (6, to be exact) from a Georgian Stinger (3 missiles), a Georgian Igla (2 missiles) and a Russian Igla-S (1 missile). I was head-on with them. My guess is the Manpads shot you when they were in the deadzone of your MWS. It's too late here, i'll get a track tomorow :) Rex. EDIT : Tested it on 1.5.6 update 1, all Manpads give a launch warning.

Hey guys, good news ! The bug has been fixed in the latest Open Alpha version 2.0.5 Update 2 :D Thanks ED :)

I've had this issue too, try to replace by this : {combos = {{key = "INPUT_KEY_BIND"}}, down = 3008, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVIGATION, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0, name = "Navigationpanel Waypoint L/MÄL", category = "Navigation"}, {combos = {{key = "INPUT_KEY_BIND"}}, down = 3009, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVIGATION, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0, name = "Navigationpanel Waypoint LS/SKU", category = "Navigation"}, {combos = {{key = "INPUT_KEY_BIND"}}, down = 3010, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVIGATION, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0, name = "Navigationpanel Waypoint BX", category = "Navigation"}, Looks like when you don't specify the keybind (the first time at least) then it doesn't work, but after that you can go in the commands menu and change it there. And of course don't forget to replace "INPUT_KEY_BIND" by an actual key ^^

you're right ^^ sorry should have looked more carefully, that's a bit stupid.... That says alot tought, this strange layout is probably to throw a single bomb, saving ordonnance :).

Hello everyone, As some of you Mig 21Bis pilots know, when fire bombs or rockets you fire them 2 by 2 (For the S-5 it's both pods at the same time) for all unguided ordonance, it's by pair. Now i'm not sure, but i think this is not realistic. If you look at the link i posted below you can see that Syria owns Mig 21s and that the Mig-21 doing a bomb run throws only one bomb from pylon 3. I can say for sure if it's a Mig-21Bis, it could be a more recent model but even on versions from the 80s the priority rotative is the same and so is this part of the cockpit. Maybe there is a way to throw them one by one, or maybe not. Let me know what you think ;) Good Afternoon, Rex Link :

I've just looked in the script, and the BX, L/MAL and L/SKU are defined, so just a matter of creating the key bind, i'm a bit of a noob at coding, but i'll try ^^ PS: definitions for the three buttons are there : DCS World \mods\aircraft\AJS37\Cockpit\scripts\clickabledata.lua lign 456 to lign 458 :thumbup: EDIT : It works ! yay now if you want to do it, it's a bit tricky, cause if i give a file it will reset your bindings and you will have mine :/ So go in this file DCS World\mods\aircrafts\AJS-37\(the device you want the keybind on)\default.lua, edit it and got to lign 62, this is where the Navigation panel keybinds are and copy/paste those three lines under the "--Navigation" : {down = 3008, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVIGATION, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0, name = "Navigationpanel L MÄL", category = "Navigation"}, {down = 3009, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVIGATION, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0, name = "Navigationpanel L SKU", category = "Navigation"}, {down = 3010, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVIGATION, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0, name = "Navigationpanel BX", category = "Navigation"}, Save and restart the game, then go to the commands menu and assign keys ;)

So, a little update, the server is unstable, mass crashes are very frequent, multiple clients crash at the same time. The Desyncs are real, sometimes you either can't rearm, spawn crates or pick them up and in the worse case all three at the time. There aren't many updates at the moment, wich is fine, but the lags are just too present and make it very frustrating. I will be leaving the KO for a while hoping that the lags are fixed... The gameplay is great, but if we can't play :/..... This happens to the website btw : Warning: mysqli::mysqli(): (08004/1040): Too many connections in C:\xampp\htdocs\ko\source\mysql\Mysqli.php on line 24 Connect Error (1040) Too many connections

Sometimes weapon restrictions work, sometimes they don't, it looks like they work from 1 PM to 5 PM....

Think there won't be any updates today, really annoying especially with the Viggen that just got released. And the Viggen is being modified to work on 2.0, the computer can't take South/West coordonates.

I'm not 100% sure but the bug where units on objectives get destroyed at restart might be caused by the use of cluster ammunitions. It happened two months ago when a Mirage threw Mk-20s and it happened yesterday when we used CBU-105s. EDIT : Tested and no it seems to be random.

Yep all weapons are still available, only the Kh 58s, the CBU 105 should be removed tought, cluster weapons don't seem to crash the server or to make it lag nor do nukes, we have tested them extensivly :p.

Hey nice ! I've Been waiting for the other gazelles for a while, but i'm not sure the Mistral is the best, for what choppers are supposed to do on the server i think it's the one that makes the least sense, people are probably going to abuse it and not do what we need most of the time, transport. Only Time will tell us what impact this addition has but i'm sceptical about it being a good one. And the Viggen is registered as a Fighter ? It's definetly a Striker with auto-defense capabilities, not the other way around. EDIT: seems like that was fixed on the fly or it just bugged for Dugo ;) Anyways still is Nice to have an update. EDIT: There is no Limitations on aircrafts type anymore ? There is at this moment 5 fighters un Red, the limit should be 4. Thanks, good night. :)