ResonantCard1

Hi, recently I learnt about the russian/soviet SPBE munitions, developped during the 80s and launched from RBK-500 cluster bombs. They are IR-guided bomblets like the ones on the CBU-97. Seeing that the US planes have access to that kind of munitions, would it be possible to give the russian planes, like the Su-25T, access to the SPBE munitions too?

If I create a TOO flyover point to use with JDAMs, do I have to press WPT increment for more than 1s too to upload the point to the JDAM? Also what's the best method of accurately placing flyover points?

I think I saw something about that, but I may just be wrong

My main issue is that ED said, if I remember correctly, that the Stennis' model would be updated when the supercarrier releases, or something like that. If that's true then I don't think it's fair to have one part of the community pay for a non-ugly CV and the other part getting a non-ugly CV for free. If in the end ED doesn't do that update to the Stennis, then I guess it's okay, but I wish ED would make the Kuznetsov comparable to the Supercarrier in terms of features. If this model upgrade is just the same old Kuznetsov with a better model then I find very difficult to justify buying the package just for the Kuznetsov.

Speaking of the Kuznetsov, will the basic Kuznetsov be updated in terms of model and textures? If I remember correctly the Stennis was going to be, so I don't see why the Kuznetsov shouldn't and it should be locked behind a paywall. Specially since it won't have the deck crew animation and probably won't have many of the fancy stuff the supercarrier has either. So what's the point then?

What I've seen is that an flight lead would get some extra information that the wingman wouldn't get. I'm looking forwards that "advanced" Beryoza implementation, that'd be useful in some situations and could help when going against unknown targets. Also, I heard Razbam was planning to do the Lazur interception system for the MiG-23MLA, or at least were considering doing it. I really would like to know how they are pulling that off, and if it would be using ED technology or they would be writing everything themselves. It's pretty much what the Su-27 would need too in terms of simulation mechanics, the current AWACS/GCI system would work poorly for them.

This is a nice summary. People gets upset because there's no altitude information on the TDC about which sector of space you are scanning so you can't know where to look for and you have to start guessing around. Which is fair but it's also looking at the scan volume problem from a western PoV and not trying to understand how the Su-27 weapon system actually works. It is supposed to be heavily linked to the GCI, so in theory you do know the target's altitude and distance, which then you can input into the system and it will take care of setting the antenna to scan for that volume of space perfectly. I haven't touched the datalink part of the RW manual yet but by the looks of it, the display is not meant to give you a perfectly numeric assesment of the situation, but rather a good general view of it. And I think it works nicely, thanks to the lines you can see which target is more dangerous at a glance, without needing to be looking at numbers. I think we are also lacking some information that should appear on the display, but that's another story

Hello, I've been reading the IRL Su-27SK manual and there it's talked about an stick deflection limiter, that'd prevent an G/AoA buildup if you pulled the stick too fast. This would be done by increasing the stick's resistance to movement. In DCS there's the Stick Deflection Limiter Override bind. Does this bind allow you to pull as fast as you want, or is it a proper G/AoA limiter override? In the manual there's no G/AoA override mentioned, but the copy I have is a translated copy so maybe something was lost in translation?

The map is looking nice! I'm concerned however about its playability for non-carrier planes. I know is a kind of stupid question to make for a largely ocean map, but if there's going to be just 1 airfield PVP MP servers are going to have a tough time including the maximum variety possible of planes, basically restricting the teams to the F-14, F-18, Harrier and Su-33. Could we have a map of the surrounding area? At least some information about the airfields present in the zone. I'm excited for this map but I can't help but feel this is going to be an exclusively PVE map because the other side will have few or none options to operate on it if it isn't via air spawns.

I think Wags was in an interview for a flight (sims?) magazine or something, and there he said the next map was going to be in the pacific. I don't have the source with me right now however.

Regarding the Kh-66 Grom being used in the MiG-21bis: According to Yefim Gordon's Famous Russian Aircraft: MiG-21 book, all variants from the MiG-21PFM onwards can carry it.

Yeah the northern part would have also been nice to have, as you can also fly the (forgotten) russian planes from there, adding to the realism imo

So the new map has been confirmed that it's going to be the Pacific. This can be pretty cool or just an stretch of almost-empty (There would be an island so that the F-16 could take off) ocean for the new Supercarrier and the Hornet to enjoy. Do we have any information about what the map is going to cover? Roughly which geographic area, or if at least we can expect to have some islands for normal planes to not be left completely behind?

Hello, I was wondering if the Su-27 cockpit would be getting any update soon. Comparing it with the F-15's it looks a bit worse technically speaking, like if it was an older texture. If it's going to receive an update, would it be too much asking changing the floodlights for instrument backlights, like on the F-15? I personally think they look better, specially because the floodlight doesn't look great either. And lastly, were can I find the Su-27's cockpit textures? Maybe the textures can be modded to be a bit better in the meantime. In that case I'd like to try

Thanks for the answer Ironhand, it certainly makes sense

Que pena, tenía ganas de volar desde ellos... utilizaré el Tarawa mientras tanto, y el Hermes si quiero usar la rampa. Gracias!

Yeah it certainly feels different. I don't mind it that much, I was just wondering if it was correctly done.

That would make sense. I didn't notice that it was maintaining AOA but it is true that I could fly it like a normal, stable aircraft

Hi, In the DCS Flanker's manual that I'm reading, is said in thr FCS implementation section that the FCS would trim the aircraft to keep the given flight path. However, in DCS if you speed up or slow down the plane will react by nosing up or down just like a normal aircraft would. What's happening then? Am I understanding the manual incorrectly? Is the in-game implementation bugged, or the manual wrong? How is it irl?

Hi guys, What do you think about adding playable Drones to DCS? Something like the Predator or the Reaper, that can perform both recon/surveillance missions and precission strikes. Seeing that they are an important part of warfare nowadays, I think it'd be pretty nice to have at least one Drone module, for those that want to see the battle from a completely different POV.

Hola, He visto en la página de La Fundación que se estaba trabajando en un mod para DCS, que añadiría el Príncipe de Asturias al juego. Acabo de comprar el Harrier y lo primero que he hecho ha sido descargar la skin de la 9ª Escuadrilla. Cual es el estado del mod? Se sigue trabajando en él? Hay proyectos para añadir el Juan Carlos I? Un saludo

That's certainly a solution, but if we are going to have JHMCS and 9X I'd rather have just a clicky module rather than an FC3 one, properly modelled and all. About the block, if it's a 90s one then it surely didn't have JHMCS, then I say it shouldn't have it. But if it's just a frankenmodel then I don't know.

I think the F-15C is in a good place now as it is. People here is comparing it to the Hornet while it should be compared to the Flanker. And yes, the Flanker gets HOBS missiles and HMCS, but it doesn't get Spamraams, while the F-15C does. Ideally "You shouldn't be getting into the merge, because that's making too many errors". I don't know exactly, but I think the F-15C we have now is not an improved one prepared to carry HMCS, just like the Flanker we have is still an old SK variant and not the new SM ones with R-77 capability. In my opinion, having these 2 aircraft be inside the same timeframe is pretty nice, because it lets the mission creators who wish to do so create somewhat balanced PVP Red Vs. Blue scenarios. Now I'm not an F-15 expert, so I may be wrong and the F-15C that we have is much more modern than the Su-27SK that we have, in that case I think it should be upgraded to its actual, IRL standard, because this is a simulator after all. But if we happen to have a contemporary F-15C, we should stick to it. An option would be leaving the FC3 C version as the 1980s one, then making a clicky F-15C from 2007 like the Hornet and the Viper, that would satisfy both worlds. Of course I mostly see this from a Red perspective and I got to say, having to fight planes that are much more modern, and mostly more capable, than yours in PVP matches sometimes gets frustating. I blame myself for not being up to par, but there's also a big gap in capabilities between the competing aircraft. Thus, I'd like to have a plane that I can actually compete against. It would be very cool to have a modern F-15C, but I fear we would be starting to go way past the "Red is just a piñata at this point" line

Those anotations with the possible indications of each thing are super useful, thanks!

I think the Su-27's DCS manual has outright incorrect HUD symbology. For example I think it doesn't show the ILU mark at the bottom of the HUD with the Radar on. At least in the version I'm looking at, it may have been changed. The HUD symbology appears to correspond with the IRL symbology so is probably just a manual issue...