Snappy

Hey Alpenwolf ! Very much looking forward to flying on your Cold War server again ! I appreciate the inclusion of a decent amount of Caucasus missions for those who don’t own so many maps! Best of luck for your return endeavour! kind regards, Snappy

Thank you @Vibora! Can you also look at the other drumtype indicators in the cockpit for correct texturing/animation? Because they all seem to be textured „inverted“: -the main and standby altimeter kollsmann window for the hectopascal setting, -the digital fuel quantity indicator drum on the CE: the Navigation indicator distance readout, the distance and bearing windows for the additional vector. ( I assume it’s the same on the BE Variant) on the EE: the Distance readout counter on the navigation indicator -all frequency and TACAN channel indicator drums and the omnibearing selector course window readout. Thank you very much and have a nice day! regards, Snappy

Has anyone else the problem that you never get the „transfer complete“ message during air to air refuelling? I get „contact“ and „ you re taking fuel“ , but never „transfer complete“ , even though the fuel indicator shows no further increase after a while and I even stayed connected longer . I‘m talking about the standard included instant action mission for aerial refuelling. I set the drop tanks switch on left console to „air refuel“, prior to tanking.Tried several times, same result. I even tried and jettisoned the drop tanks and just refuelled the internal tanks. No „transfer complete“. Any ideas?

In addition to the libyan manual I also found this old french documentary video, in there is also a short scene with a F1 simulator, which, at least from the looks, seems to use the same altimeter type as our Mirage models. At 5:45 , the pilot is in a descending and if you look closely at the altimeter, you can see the digit drum rotating upwards during the descent, i.e. the lower digits come up from below. In the current DCS version, its the other way around.

Hi, the altimeter digit drums seem to be textured and animated the wrong way around. In the DCS Mirage's altimeter drum, the higher numbers are below the lower number, not the other way around. Unfortunately I only have the manual for the libyan Mirage F1 ED variant, but there the image of the altimeter also shows it to be conventional, like in most western built altimeters , with the higher numbers being "on top" of the lower numbers on the drum. I attached to pictures to illustrate. In the DCS screenshot the "30" value is topmost and then higher numbers "40" and "50" are "below" so to say. In the libyan Mirage Manual the altimeter is shown to be conventional, so the lower number, in the picture its "00" is at the bottom, with the higher numbers "10" and "20" on top. So oppposite than in the AERGES Mirage. Unfortunately I couldnt find good high resolution cockpit photos of the spanish versions to check, but I assume Aerges has access or has a spanish manual. Maybe this can be double-checked, if its modelled wrong, or if the spanish air force has a special non-standard variant of Altimeter built into their aircraft. Kind regards, Snappy

Have you checked the sticky how-to-win-at-BFM thread here in the F-4 section of the forums?

Probably really just me being dumb, but now I’m confused: Why does radius increase on the way up and decrease on the way down? I thought , given a more or less steady pull ( assuming still enough G available ) , the radius decreases as speed decreases on the way up, reaches a minimum at the apex of the egg and slowly increases again as speed is regained on the way down?

Hi @fausete& @chichowalker, Thank you both very much for your quick replies and explanations! It really helped me getting a clearer grasp on the envelope when to deploy the combat flaps and to which purpose. Kind regards, Snappy

Hello Phantom12, thank you for your two detailed replies and the tacview video with your commentary! Much appreciated. Hadnˋt known about the phantom guide that you linked to on the phantom site, that’s good reading, thanks a lot! Your tacview file was interesting. I had expected you would gain more margin / turning room on the parts where you went up vertical, but to my surprise the bandits speed often didn’t really drop that much below your own and regenerated quickly (almost on par with your own speed), while the vertical separation wasn’t as large either. Maybe it was partly due to the full fuel load and/or AI performance. All in all the fight went on longer than I expected with fewer shot opportunities. I simply may have to revise my expectations on how quickly a superior position/valid shot position can be gained against this type of opponent. The margin for error is seemingly small when going vertical, especially if the bandit has any semi-decent IR missiles and conserves just enough speed to bring his nose on.

Hello everyone, does anyone know (from Pilots/SMEs) in which situations/maneuvres they typically used the combat flaps? I‘ve some trouble figuring out if/when they are actually helpful during BFM or mostly just add unwanted drag. If someone has some input or pilot anecdotes, that would be great.

Is there a rule of thumb/technique for going vertical (oblique or pure) on how much to pull in order to arrive on top of the vertical egg with maximum conserved energy? In other words, should I fly a specific AOA or a specific G-load on the first half of the vertical to bleed off as little speed/energy as possible? If so , what should I am for? I know it’s probably somewhere in the middle , as neither pulling hard works nor pulling too little, but the „middle“ is still a wide range . So if someone has the optimum target value , it would be great . Thanks in advance!

Thank you very much Cobra, appreciate you taking these privacy concerns seriously and looking forward to the offline checkbox!

Curious , what did they say about it in their now-deleted reply? Edit: Ah , Cobra just replied again in your thread and explained!

Do you have a link to those lost legal trials? I’d be really interested in the details. I‘m not sure if you were talking about me, but if you were you misunderstood me. I’m not defending this. I was pointing out the situation and yes in a way it’s also a bit on the customer due to buying into EA and the EULA as mentioned. But - I also much dislike this very skewed business landscape that’s based on good-faith purchases on the customer side and difficult -to-enforce vague obligations to deliver product side for the company in actuality. I think there only very few good options left.I recommend being careful in the future which companies still to entrust with up-front money, if at all. I made my decision in that regardaccordingly and some parties have simply gambled away my trust as a customer.

I‘m saying by buying from ED store and accepting their EULA you put yourself in a very bad position for a legal argument, not least from a practical point of view as well. Be my guest to try, I will happily congratulate you if you manage to win. Unfortunately you will likely also have to front much more money than the module price for the legal bills.( the above mentioned practical pov)

Well you indirectly agreed, because you accepted an EULA with a vaguely defined , loose definition of EA, plus the part where EULA states that ED store purchases are non-refundable. Consciously or not , when you decided to put down your money anyway, that’s where you basically joined the picket line. I‘m sure you had different expectations based on previous experiences, but unfortunately the same EULA applies when things go south.. That are drawbacks of EA and EDs business model. If you‘re lucky you are on steam and maybe have more options.

This module feels very rushed to me.First the start of pre-sales without a feature list despite a planned release in 2 month. Now it turns out that the logistics & support aspect that is the whole main purpose of this helicopter will not be available during EA but only at some undetermined future date. If it wasn’t for user-made script solutions there would be close to zero to do with it transport-wise, except sling loading. Really don’t like the direction ED is taking with this one.

No, we had tools to move things around before since a long while, Mi-8 is well capable of troop transport and logistics.

I don't get how ED can start selling pre-orders without even defining which the product entails. Even more so since they name a specific release date on the other hand. I don't want to support this business practice and won't pre-order it.

Am certainly not buying it. DCS is missing a lot of logistics and troop transport functionality , that any of it exists at all is thanks to the hard work of independent contributors . Also and even more importantly , ED now starting pre-order sales without even first publishing a feature list, leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Just to be clear , you don’t even know what you will get for your hard-earned money.Certainly don’t want to support such business practices. I find it a very bad decision.

There are several problems with this.. A) Even if Razbams really withdraws completely from DCS , ED may not have the entire strike eagle source code yet. Even if there were contractual requirements to hand over the code in case of withdrawal , Razbam could, at least hypothetically,for example be hot-headed and flat out refuse. Then ED would have to resort to legal measures and that could take a long while to sort out. I'm not saying Razbam would do this. B)Even if ED got the code from the code from either Razbam directly or after sueing or whatever, ED would need to get familiar with that huge heap of code, before they could start to work on it. I assume this would also take longer, since the F15E is a quite complex aircraft/module. C) Even after getting familiar with the code , the F-15E is as mentioned , complex and I really don't ED having the capacity or spare employees to take on an additional project of this size and complexity and bug-fix and further develop it. Just look at the glacial pace of developement on their own modules, ( most of them in EA and unfinished) , they seem continously overstretched and regularly bust their own timeline estimate by large margins. They have announced the next few EA modules in developement ( Mig-29,Chinook, 2 Maps, etc etc.). I really don't see them successfully updating and developing this , even if they took it on. So no, I wouldn't say Razbam is in a weak position. Regardless of which side you wish to take , from a customer standpoint and PR standpoint, this has been very very bad for ED as well, not only Razbam

@IronMike why is 9Line now going on steam saying there will be no steam-preorders, after Heatblur stating here several times that a steam pre-order is coming? https://steamcommunity.com/app/223750/discussions/0/7735567974674839609/t Is it another ED miscommunication or is the steam pre-order suddenly cancelled?

Hi @Bunyap, just decided to re-do the campaign. I noticed in Mission 03 that either the briefing doc info or the data cartridge is wrong. The briefing says that Lincoln Co. Airport where you are supposed to fly to coming from B7 is your L1 site . This is not correct when you load the data cartridge , the L1 waypoint is Nellis , as is L2. I know there was a problem that L2 can't be pre-programmed as you mentioned in this older thread: However, then please correct the preset L1 waypoint data to Lincoln Co , and update the briefing doc with the info that the player has to manually enter Nellis as new L1 after stopping in Lincoln before departing again. Or the other way around, keep it as it is, but then please update the briefing to mention that players who wish to land in Lincoln, need to manually designate it as L1 via the REF LOLA reference number entry. Because at the moment its confusing for quite players who take the time to read the briefing documents and want to stick to the route. Regards, Snappy Edit: Just flew Mission 04, here everything is set up correctly L1 location in nav system is Lincoln Co. , as it is mentioned in the briefing package.

Could we kindly get an update on this? The automatic countermeasure release mode still is not working in conjunction with the ECM pods. So at the moment there is no automatic countermeasures release available at all. Also, is the automatic countermeasure release function in conjunction with the basic integrated APP-27 RWR planned to be implemented ?

Sounds plausible, maybe it’s only the captions that should be swapped. I find it hard to tell by looking at two static pictures as a lot of image quality depends on gain settings with linear , which seems very dark on default gain. But the upper picture has seemingly more terrain details, so likely you are right.