Jump to content

Lascar12F

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lascar12F

  1. Hi, Ground units are invisible to petrovich if they are placed near a ME placed static object like a house or workshop. This is a bug that is reproducible 100% of the time. I have included a track file as well as the mission file for you to try. There are two groups of two S-60 AAA. the one on the left has structures next to it and is invisible to petrovich, and the one on the right has nothing next to it and is visible to petrovich. I encourage you to try this .miz for yourself if you haven't experienced this bug. petro no track.trk Petro tracking test.miz
  2. @BIGNEWY @NineLine still no answer, when i've provided the documents you requested. Can we get an answer or what ??
  3. @NineLine I added the document you requested in my post above
  4. That's good to hear, thank you very much for taking the time to respond, and I'm looking forward to seeing it changed in game !
  5. I mean the 9M120 ataka has an air-air proximity fused variant. That would indicate to me a certain willingness to shoot down at least helicopters. @NineLine Also, I've joined a picture of the manual for the export version of the Mi-24P, the Mi-35P, which is virtually identical, and it explicitly states that killing air targets is one of it's missions, and later in Book 2 section 6 describes guiding a missile towards airborne targets. Find pages 6-5 and 6-6 attached. Really hope this gets the "correct as-is" tag removed, and this implemented !
  6. Hi, I believe this issue has been raised before, but I think this deserves another post. The weight of a loaded dual rack of 9M114 missile is 230kg exactly in game. The game itself lists the weight of a single 9m114 missile as 40kg. This doesn't seem too wrong as most online sources list between 31 and 32 kg The weight of an empty rack is 13 kg in game. This seems plausible as it is a relatively small and beefy metal frame. So adding 2x40+13 we get 93kg. Obviously that doesn't take into account the tube in which the missile is housed. There is a 137 kg difference here. So either the tube in which the missile is housed weights 68.5 kg empty, or there is a problem with the weight of the twin rack with 9m114. I believe ED got this info from the manual for the export Mi-35P that is freely available online and very very close to our Mi-24P. Doing a bit of math from the manual's max fuel per loadout you get an individual masse for each loaded twin launchers of 241kg. see attached picture for detailed math. Personally I highly doubt that this weight is correct. I do no know how to explain how heavy the manual thinks these are, but I believe it might be taking additional equipment into consideration. I would love a source on the actual weight of the loaded twin rack by itself and not as a larger fuel calculation for the hind. I don't buy that the weight of the launch tubes is 137 kg. It just doesn't make sense. If ED uses a different source than the one I've assumed, I'd love for them to share it. Here is a video of two men handling empty launch tubes on a 9P149 tracked atgm carrier. I don't think those weigh 68 kg and they are tossing them around like nothing.
  7. just tested it, and even if they don't show up they still make a difference. Flying head on and not maneuvering: - with the suppressor box ticked, stingers will launch at 0.8 nm and go for flares. - without suppressors box ticked, stingers will launch at 0.85 nm and ignore the flares and hit the helo. See tacview files for proof. Without suppressors.acmi With suppressors.acmi
  8. I don't think it's a leftover. the mass is different from the ones on the Hip. You can check for the in the .lua for the hind, all the way at the bottom. My best guess is they don't have a model for it yet, as it is a bit different from the Hip one. Not sure if it actually reduces IR signature right now either, might be a useless toggle. Although it does add the weight right now in DCS even if you can't see them.
  9. It is what I inferred. I was looking for any info. You provided info that it's not a russian modification and hence we will never see it in DCS. I was thanking you for straight to the point, correct info about why this is wrong.
  10. +1 the igla is essentially useless right now. It just flies straight and will never hit even a hovering, non flaring target. Please fix.
  11. bumping this topic so it gets acknowledged by ED. With all the new helos getting in DCS manpads are more important than ever. Igla-s is litterally worse than nothing right now. please fix it. you can't expect to release apache and kiowa with no red manpad can you ?
  12. Thanks for the info Ikaros. This is exactly the kind of knowledge what I wanted.
  13. The exhaust IR suppressor are coming to the hind in DCS. it's confirmed and the toggle is already in the mission editor. But that's not the question I'm asking. My question is was this used on soviet 24P and if yes, are we getting it.
  14. It seems this has been tagged as "need track replay" which I just don't understand why a mod would do that for something that is 100% reproducible every single flights on every server. You want a track file I'll give you one, but you can do this yourself. Would have appreciated an actual answer rather than just a tag but it is what it is.
  15. Don't know if this has been posted here before but here is a pic of what appears to be a standard none upgraded 24P with igla launchers mounted under the ATGM tip launcher. This would be insane, and it makes me all tingly just thinking about it !
  16. Hi, Here a picture of what appears to be Igla mounted bellow the twin ataka launch tubes. This to me seems like a normal 24P, not modernized or anything. If anyone has info to contradict this I would love to hear. I believe that if this turns out to be valid, this would be an insane boost to the pushka's capabilities. I know R-60's are coming, but this would allow to free up those pylons for other things, and If I'm not mistaken, the Igla has better range than the r-60.
  17. Hi, When flying with a player gunner, if the player gunner turns on the countermeasures on the panel, only he will see them released. for the pilot or for everyone else on the server, there are no countermeasures being released ever, even if the player pilot commands the release. The workaround we have found with RainbowGeorge and Lozzy is to do the startup alone, set up the countermeasures left side, right side, and SET I/II/III and test fire one set of flares, and then and only then does the player gunner hop on. With this workaround, the flares are seen by everyone on the server. To sum up, when in multiplayer, if the player gunner touches the countermeasures control panel, only the player gunner will see them released, but no one else on the server including the player pilot will see them and they will not spoof any missiles. The is reproducible 100% of the time in my experience.
  18. This is indeed a very weird issue. Something is clearly limiting your FPS, as 63fps average, 63fps 95percentile is not something that happens organically. But it's only limiting FPS when the game is unpaused. I assume this didn't happen with 2.6 ? To me this is a bug with DCS, the pause/unpause thing proves it imo. Hopefully this is resolved fast for you.
  19. There are so many problems with the countermeasures on the mirage right now. 1- The plane in-game right now, does not need to mount the éclair pod to carry more than 16 flares. this is clearly a bug, éclair does nothing but add weight at the moment. (also flares will never visually come out of the éclair straight down. they always come from the fuselage launchers no matter how many you load on the plane) 2- If you select 112 chaff + 48 flares on the load-out or rearming page, you only get 42 flares loaded on the plane. 3- More importantly 48 flares (or 42 for that matter) shouldn't even be possible on the mirage IRL even with éclair pod. It's 16 flares without and 32 flares with the éclair pod IRL. 4- The game will allow you to load 162 flares 0 chaff if you ask. This should be impossible as the SPIRAL dispensers on the fuselage do not allow the much larger flare canisters to be loaded, only chaff is possible in SPIRAL. 32 flares with the éclair is the absolute limit a mirage can carry IRL. 5- The maximum countermeasures count with éclair should be 130 chaff 32 flares. 112 chaff in the spiral and another 18 in the éclair that are missing right now. To sum up: too many flares, missing chaff from the éclair, éclair is broken, spiral should not be able to load flares. It's very strange to me that these mistakes are in the game as the 3D models of the plane and the éclair pod literally allow you to count the countermeasures that they carry visually. In my opinion, countermeasures on the mirage should be on or off. either you load them full or you don't load any. there is no need for a slider like US and RUS jets. the mirage has dedicated launchers for both type that cannot be mixed. even the éclair does not allow you to choose what it carries IRL as you can see in the picture (EM is chaff IR1 and IR2 are for flares). it's either on the plane with 16 flares 18 chaff or it's not.
  20. Hi, Looks like today's awesome update for the Jeff broke MFCD export to other monitor. With the same .lua I now can't see the thunder's MFCD on my other screen, but it still works for all the other modules. I checked in the MFCD_init.lua files if the export name had changed or something but it looks like it hasn't. As far as I can tell, this should work, and does on other planes, but just not the jeff right now. Would love suggestions or a fix thanks.
  21. woops, looks like i missed that. thanks man.
  22. Hi, Just wondering why the fuel tank configuration is limited to symmetrical loadouts. I'd like to be able to have a fuel tank on just one of the inner wing pilons and not both. This would enable more creative and potent loadouts for the jeff. Unless there is a particular structural reason for it, I don't know why Deka banned it. Sure the PAF might not use this as a loadout, but if the plane is capable of it, no reason to forbid it imo. Allowing this would be as simple as deleting two arguments from the JF-17.lua would love a Deka answer on this. :helpsmilie: Thanks.
  23. thanks for the info and the fast reply. Hope the missile team agrees too. please keep us posted !
  24. In the official deka stream in chinese on bilili, the guy mentions the rocket are laser beam riding in game. According to u/pig2000d this is a compromise because of the limitations of the semi active laser homing API in DCS. I can't understand how Deka thought changing the whole guidance method of the missile was a good trade-off instead of just having the missile not spin, but behave correctly in it's guidance. I really wish Deka changes their decision. The BRM1 was one of the most exciting features of the JF-17 to me, but this just sucks. Correct guidance > spinning deka pls fix
  25. cannot reproduce it unless on a big server I think. It probably has something to do with the scripts. It happens for me on all the big scripted MP servers like DDCS, TTI, BlueFlag, Hoggit, etc... If I host a server myself, it works fine tho, so either the size of the server or the scripts is what's causing the issue. BigNewy, are you unable to view all MP tracks, or just from scripted servers, or just certain scripted server ? I'd really like this fixed. it's an immense pain in the ass when flying with friends !
×
×
  • Create New...