Rubberduck85

A question, since I'm away from my gaming rig and i never looked into it: if i do not have a module, do I have all the related "standard" skins? If do not own the tomcat, do i have all the skins downloaded since the moment the module was released in DCS? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

New updates should roll out with 2.7. About lock sound when acm lock is obtained, it will be implemented but there is no indication when. Also to keep updated: https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?url=https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/209147-viper-mini-updates/&share_tid=209147&share_fid=74365&share_type=t&link_source=app Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

!!!!!!!!!!!! AAA cercasi mediatore culturale Anglo-Italiano in stage non retribuito con almeno 10 anni di esperienza per rendere accessibile Lo Simulatore di Combattimento Digitale. Gradita esperienza in ornitologia. !!!!!!!!!!!! Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Not spectacular but maybe more than a BRDM from the 60's. Also SP guns are more spread out when they are set to shoot, the semi-intelligent skeet sensor could find them and allows to use fewer (more expensive) ammo to do the job instead of carpeting a square kilometer of terrain. Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Also self propelled artillery batteries are a viable target. Many modern models have decent armor. However A model is already good, just need ED to implement fragmentation damage model! Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Ok thank you[emoji1303] Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Hi, should RUK sub-mode be able to "temporarily" store desired emitter data for each missile? let's say I'm carrying 2 Harms on stations 3 & 7: I navigate the MFDs in AG mode and set up my RUK delivery choosing steerpoint #4 as a target first HARM selected is on station 3 In the WPN page I select from the table value "3" (the tracking radar of SA-3 sam system) Pressing MSL STEP changes the selected HARM to the one on station 7 HARM on station 7 inherits the same targeting data of HARM on station 3 (same target steerpoint #4 and value "3" for the emitter) I change emitter type to "S" to target the pr-19 Search radar that works together with SA-3 sam system if I switch back to station 3 it inherits the data from station 7 so my question is: is RUK working as intended or I should be able to set each steerpoint/emitter target for every station and this setting remains even if I change active station? Regards

Even with battery on (switch all the way up)? I usually align (8 mins) with ground power to save fuel and it works, it should also keep the alignment. Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

I'm not re-opening the discussion about right or wrong about having 4 harms. I do have doubts about the merit of the initiative: how can the results of a poll impact development of a module? If docs/ certified SMEs are adamant on the subject, then there is no need for the poll. So am I to believe they are not adamant on the subject? And doubts about the method of the initiative. A statistical sample of 285 results is definitely NOT representative of the "wishes" of DCS: Viper owner, as I suspect several tens of thousands more copies have been sold. [emoji28] My 2 cents suggestion to ED: poll the module owners through the dcs start screen when connection to your servers is established, like a pop-up window. "Dear USERNAME, we value your opinion in making the MODULE NAME a superb experience, please contribute to this survey before proceeding" then mirror the results on the forum. I think the technology to do so is out there, and you know which user has which module, so you can define precisely the survey target. You get a very significant statistical sample that way. Alternative is an email survey. A good example was the survey about feature priority done in 2020 for F16/18, it had a good reach. Bottom line is: if you open a survey, at least try to reach the largest population in target otherwise its results have little value. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Hello devs, If possible make this map as an optional dlc in the module manager / steam dlc manager. The reason for the request is hard disk space management. This way it would be possible to choose to have or not the map installed. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

A dynamic campaign? Surely you jest, it is capture the base/flag with planes. Again, there is no realism whatsoever because it would translate in curbstomping the red side every time. Yeah let's stay on topic. In the end as you correctly say, we have the power to signal what we like. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

There is no such thing as a DCS pvp social group. A social group needs: 1)A common environment (DCS players are split on different servers, with different game metas) 2) a sense of belonging from their members / a sense of unity. The most you can get is redfor vs bluefor, even there you will find sub-divisions in clans/squadrons. 3) rules: Do's and Don'ts. The only "rule" in pvp is: smash your opponent, utterly. The only rule i follow (not social rule because it is not a social group) is respect of individuals. I'm not part of any faction, i couldn't care less if the winner is red or blue, as long as I can enjoy it, alone or with my buddies, doing my/our best. If someone picks on me because I align on the ground for 8 minutes to bomb a base to the north instead of joining the air quake carnage 30 miles to the east, who the hell is he/she to tell me? My superior officer? Based on what tactical knowledge? Who's farting in the sub now? Again I have no obligation to obey anyone, i have the obligation to put my best effort in beating opfor, respecting other individuals. On chaos due to the "i do what I want" attitude: true but it's 15/20% of the problem, the rest is: Widespread lack of basic tactical concepts Different levels of skills shy people not on comms mixed modules without true synergies artificial loadout limitations You don't address these by playing Sunday airbattle manager. You want realism? Go closed online PVE with like-minded friends. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Public server pvp is generally chaos on organization and dubious on realism. So I have to ask: Why do you care about others' (complete strangers) opinion on how you enjoy your game? I had my fair share of DCS pvp and still have sometime to keep up bvr/bfm against sentient beings and not braindead AIs. However I do what I like, sometimes i hunt alone, sometimes in group. Sometimes I like to simply ruin people fun by going around the less obvious route, flying very low, emcon, and toss a couple mk-84 on single-runway airfield to make it unavailable for takeoff and landing. A couple of times someone told me over SRS: "don't you see the action is here? What are you doing over there?" I just switched radio channel[emoji13] Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Time on steerpoint caret should be in, but it is yet to be developed, like most of the navigation suite. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

It's good to know that it works for other modules too, however I think we need an official statement on this? Is it intended/a workaround to a bug/a w.i.p. feature? (Btw why should I extend the AAR refuel probe to refuel my externals on the ground???) Pretty much this: just refill every fuel tank, internal or external. Want to simulate the internal workings of the fuel tanks/pumps/pressure? Do it internally and release it when it works, avoid breaking basic functionalities without documentation to back it up. Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Thanks, i thought I missed a basic feature of DCS! That said, the consistent (all modules) behavior in game is that upon refuel & rearm, internal fuel is refilled and external stores (including tanks) are exchanged with new ones (full ones, but a bug prevents this and they remain empty) , however if you open the refuel valve in the Viper you actually refill the external tanks instead of exchanging them, unless: So it's either a case of a new feature mitigating a bug or a "bug in a bug"? [emoji28] Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

So it's a different targeting pod? The marker is a feature of the litening pod afaik. Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Hi, i do not understand the general sense of this thread. Let me clarify: Op found that if the refuel switch is open, it allows ground crew to fill also the external tanks. Without doing so, we incur in what is flagged as a bug (external tanks are not "exchanged" and thus we need to remove them and have them mounted again) I've said "exchanged" because it is my understanding that in DCS whenever you call ground crew for refuel, they also rearm you with the loadout shown in the ground crew tooltip, effectively "overwriting" the loadout you had before asking for refuel & rearm. Am I wrong/missing something? Is there a separate function for "refuel only"? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

I'm sure since it's about harm employment [emoji13] Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Any chance in the future for SA-4? Pretty pleaaase [emoji3064] Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

1-127 are the max available steerpoints stored in the flight computer and not "profiles" for wingspan in manual gunsight (eegs lvl2). If you look at your own video, every time you change the number with the grey button on the ICP you are selecting a different steerpoint (HUD lower right distances are changing). I think you can have only 1 possible wingspan selected and to change it you have to do it manually every time. Now a question for the experts: does this setting also affect eegs lvl5 or it automatically understand the correct wingspan with radar assisted gunnery? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

SPECULATION: I don't see this coming, especially for A10 or FA18. Even if boresighting as we have it in viper would be the right procedure for those aircrafts, i don't see ED changing the allegedly simplified agm65 mechanics. These 2 aircrafts are/were ED's flagship modules (flagship=most pushed from a marketing point of view=most likely sold). ED also stated that one of the biggest problems they have with the player base is customer retention for newcomers. If they raise the bar of difficulty (procedures/avionics), new players (especially those with no previous exp of military flight sim, those who approach this world armed with a console controller so to speak) would be even more overwhelmed than they are already and not enticed in going deeper in the sim. That said, i REALLY HOPE to be proven wrong in the future (maybe MAC will address the retention problem) i like realistic mechanics and to answer the OP, yes I'm i favor of boresighting, it's a 30 seconds job on the way to target. Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Thank you for clarifying! Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Hi, Is it possible to change the Rate of Fire (ROF) of the M61 gun on the Viper? I believe there is a choice between 4000 rounds per minute (rpm) and 6000 rpm on the FA/18 and this depends on the weapon and not the aircraft (platform). I don't see this option on the wpn/sms page in a-a or a-g master modes. Does anyone know? Am I wrong? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Exactly this. Why not implementing 2 types of tracks: 1) only recording what happens for nice videos and replays (impossible to take control) 2) record of control input for debug (possible to take control) Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk