Ironhand
-
Posts
6219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ironhand
-
-
Correct. But no hypocrisy. The bug was reported and someone provided the requested TRK file.
-
1
-
-
Jeesh. The devs request that you post a TRK file, when you come here and cite a bug. Doing so shows them exactly what the poster is referring to and provides them with all the accompanying parameters. If you care enough to come and post about a bug, just honor their request.
-
2
-
-
On 8/20/2025 at 11:26 AM, CommandT said:
He isn't. Look at the beginning of this video:
Is this what you have in mind? I did it very slow. Hopefully not so slow that you don’t notice it.
There are two commands to slow the motion down. “LCtrl-]” slows down the slew speed of the keyboard, while “LCtrl-[“ slows it down if slewing with the mouse. I find the mouse works best for me. OTOH, if you have a spare controller laying around and want to dedicate it solely to external views, that would probably give you the most control.
-
2 hours ago, CommandT said:
…As you can tell from the video above, the slow panning/ rotational shot that keeps the aircraft centered is completely different…
That’s because it’s not being panned the way you think it is. He’s using the F2 view as he slowly changes the heading of the helo. The helo stays centered, while the directional change pans the view.
-
1
-
-
Yes. The interior "floods". At night, you can see that the lighting comes from their directions, those that are turned on.
-
1 minute ago, Supernova-III said:
Yep
But I am pretty sure that ED knows about toe breaks regardless of our proofs
I’m sure they do. I’m also sure that implementing them is of the lowest priority.
-
On 8/7/2025 at 3:27 PM, Supernova-III said:
Here's my proof (timestamp):
@WORLD, please stop saying it doesn't have toe brakes.
Good find. Finally, visual proof of toe brakes rather than an assumption based on lack of brake lever on the stick.
-
2 hours ago, TheFreshPrince said:
Yeah but not if you already paid for it
Certainly not forgetting, just waiting
Oh, I’ve already paid for it. And I have every confidence that it’ll arrive someday. Until it does, there’s plenty in my life for me to enjoy. So it’s not much on my mind.
-
2
-
-
Not sure, if this has anything to do with it but anyone trying to join has to be using the same version of the sim as the server. IIRC even not having a hotfix installed is enough to cause the issue.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:
I have a YouTube where I’ve been releasing helpful videos for the Mi-24, I plan to switch to MiG-29 shortly before its release. I first plan videos best speeds and most efficient BVR profile, then perhaps RWR and HUD, sensor interaction use, etc
I look forward to viewing them.
-
2
-
-
The FF module will model many of this aircraft’s systems very differently from the FC version which many of us have been flying. So there will be a lot to unlearn and, then, relearn.
It would be extremely helpful to have the manual released prior to the module. That would decrease the frustration level for folks who haven’t spent time wading through the available Russian language. At least this would give folks a chance to see what’s changed before the module arrives.
-
Let’s hope this bird comes with a detailed manual. If all it arrives with is a “quick start” manual, people will be extremely frustrated by what they experience. The frustration will be there no matter what because many will have spent a lot of time in the FC bird and have a lot to unlearn. Not having a good manual to reference is going to add fuel to that frustration fire.
In fact, releasing the manual a month or so prior to releasing the aircraft would be the best route to take with any FF module previously released as an FC bird.
-
2
-
-
The best approach is just to forget any planned release date. Then you feel like a kid on Christmas morning, when it’s suddenly released.
-
5
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, AeriaGloria said:
…Also found an interesting image about landing mode the other day, it says the large circle only shows direction to airfield RSBN, only small circle shows actual flight path along PRMG beacon…
Yes, there will be a lot to unlearn and relearn. And knowing what is actually correct can be difficult to ascertain. On certain points, manuals can seem to contradict each other. There can even be contradictions within same manual. Most of them seem not to have been professionally written.
Anyway, I found the above about landing interesting because, if you take the info and diagrams provided in you post earlier yesterday along with the subsequent text you posted later that day, it would seem that the large circle and the small circle should work just as they do in the sim. It’ll be interesting to see what turns up.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:
I think 32 is right, but yes that first instance of 42 seems to be a typo. The next instance correctly identifies it as either bad or cannon round indicator. Here is original
We must remember though that whatever FC3 taught us about the HUD is wrong. It is really more like a watered down Su-27 HUD with MiG-29 symbols.
In the L-18 manual and its description of the HUD, those central numbers are called only “distance to turning point of the route in navigation/landing mode”
At this point I’m not sure if we’re agreeing on what #32 represents or not. From the both the diagram caption and text you’ve provided, it seems to be either distance to a navigation point or the manually entered target range depending on HUD mode. Do you agree?
I assume that both the FF HUD and HDD will have differences that we’ll have to unlearn. Won’t that be fun.
-
21 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:
…The numbers 32 indicate the range to the landing point (landing airfield,
radio beacon) or the range of manual input of the control lever if the index
42 is displayed…
“42” looks to be a typo. It should read “43”. 32, in addition to being the navigation distance, is the manually entered range to the target. Why would a range/distance number be tied to cannon rounds remaining (42)? Also, if you look at the diagram, 43 is pointing at roughly 16 km on the range scale.
-
27 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:
It is signified by a specific symbol on range bar, item 26 in this picture. Yes it does change that, but remember it changes much less and less drastically for manual radar control. Only GCI control really changes scan pattern vs range a lot.
Umm..isn’t it actually item 32 (manual range input) in the diagram? Isn’t the bar (#26) actually the range to target based on the radar return?
-
48 minutes ago, Mainstay said:
Thnx for the replies and will do some test flights when i find some spare time
@Mainstay the TRK file I attached to my previous post might prove helpful.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Mainstay said:
It’s not the takeoff that’s giving me trouble.
It’s the landings! I make sure I have less then 40% fuel and most of the time I dropped the external centerline tank.
Anyways it comes down to coming home light instead of heavy.
Touching down at around 300kph and not breaking to hard.
Sometimes it works and sometimes one of the rear tires pops… seems like it’s just a dice roll for it to happen.300 km/hr is too fast. And that you need to do that suggests that you’re landing too hard as well. The fastest speed I’ve ever touched down was 290 and I was seriously overweight. With about 60% fuel and 4AAMs you should be touching down in the 270-280 km/hr range. With around 1,500 kg fuel remaining and 2 AAMs, I’m usually touch down in the 250-260 range.
You need to come in flatter in this bird. Otherwise, you will end up landing too fast and too hard.
EDIT: Just attached a TRK file landing at Kutaisi with 6AAMs and a bit less than 60% fuel (roughly 13,700 kg gross weight, I think). Touchdown speed was 270 km/hr. Note the slow descent rate at the end. Just before crossing the threshold you should begin slowly pulling the stick back. Just don't let your nose pitch higher than 10° (11° at most) or you might cause an engine strike as you touch down. In the end, it'll be just about in your lap as your wheels touch.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Hard to tell what the issue is until/unless Mainstay responds. @skywalker22 is correct. It’s very easy to get behind the aircraft. Normally, the aircraft takes off using full mil power with flaps extended. If you take off by the numbers, you pull back on the stick between 230-250 km/hr and, as the nose wheel comes off, settle the nose on 10 degrees pitch. The mains will follow a second or two later. Usually you’re airborne by 280 km/hr.
If using afterburner, everything happens much faster. IIRC, you start pulling back on the stick around 170-180 km/hr. By the time you get it anywhere near the right amount, you’re at the 240-250 km/hr mark.
-
2
-
-
That’s curious. I’ve only had a blowout once that I can remember and that was the result of a truly horrible landing. Perhaps I’ve just been lucky. In what circumstances does this most frequently occur?
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, felixx75 said:
Where did you get this information from? Just out of curiosity.
From today's newsletter:
Quote...Please note that time is running out to get a 30% discount during pre-order on the DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum! We are pleased to inform you that the Early Access launch is planned for September, 2025!...
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Fran11player said:
Then, if the MiG-29A never used ER and ET why incluye them but no EA??
Because the -ER (-ET) entered service. The -AE did not.
-
3
-
-
When having issues such as these, it’s always an excellent idea to disable any mods you’re running, even if they would seem to have nothing to do with the problem. It’s amazing how often a mod for one aircraft will screw up another.
-
2
-
make night sky more realistic, including milky way
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
While you’re not going to get anything close to the image you posted ( which is a time exposure, BTW) have you tried this mod?
It makes quite a difference. I’ve tweaked it further to make flying at night even more to my liking. It’s fun to play around with and makes the constellations much more noticeable.