nomdeplume

Weird in the sense that no other aircraft in the game has this level of simulation, so either you make a special "super powerful ECM mode" for when you prioritise ECM over the radar, or a "super weak ECM mode" for when you prioritise radar over ECM, and no other aircraft in the game has this. But all aircraft in the game should be affected by their own jammers (and other jammers, of course) to some extent. So, it'd be some made-up stuff on top of a very very basic EW environment, and it would be weird for a third-party developer to either cripple or enhance their particular aircraft trying to simulate something the rest of the game world does not even think about.

Not implemented, you can see some discussion in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2616263 Short version is nobody really knows exactly what it means, and ECM/EW modelling in DCS is so basic that it's largely meaningless and adding it only for the Mirage would be kind of weird.

Okay I understand you better now, but I think the 60 degrees each side is the limitations of the antenna, i.e. the radar cannot physically move further than that so it would not be able to give ±60 degrees with an offset. I don't see why they would artificially limit the maximum horizontal scan zone if the radar could actually swivel further than that. See also: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2573013&postcount=2 To further clarify: if say you 'centre' the radar at +30°, then to provide ±60° scan the radar would have to traverse from -30° to +90° each sweep, but the radar can physically only move 60° in each direction.

That's what Azrayen said; if the scan width is < 60°, then it'll be centred on the TCD position (within the limits of the radar gimbal of course).

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2692330&postcount=85

It looks like Georgia is supposed to have both Igla and Stinger MANPADS, but only the 'Stinger comm' unit is available for selection. The database scripts have a Stinger_manpad_GRG which is added in db_countries.lua: cnt_unit( units.Cars.Car, "Stinger manpad GRG");but this apparently doesn't work. Don't see any mention of 'stinger' in the logs so I guess whatever the error is, it isn't triggering any diagnostics. The Israel custom Stinger units both seem fine. Nothing that stood in the Georgian Stinger database files to me, only slightly suspicious thing is that the Georgian stinger uses 'StingerUSA_1' as one of its attributes, rather than having its own ID like the Israeli and USA Stinger units do, and the Georgian Igla units also have their own IDs (in wsTypes.lua). Not convinced that should actully cause any problems, though. DCS version: 1.5.3.50487

Does the "Radar WOW Emitter Authorize Switch" override this? If not, do you know what its actual function is?

If you're using your own mission, you should change the tanker's enroute speed to approximately match the speed it'll fly during the refuel. 454 knots in the mission editor @ 16,000 feet works fairly well for me.

You mean the refuel transfer switch?

Missing textures. Do a repair of DCS World. And also, what version of DCS World are you using? You should be able to find the build number on the main menu screen.

Most likely the free camera, Ctrl+F11. Aim it with the mouse, and use zoom in/out to move forward/backup, or the mouse scroll wheel to accelerate/decelerate. When you hit Ctrl+F11 the camera will remain at the current position, so you might want to use F7 to get the external ground unit view (select a unit on the F10 map first, or else mash the button repeatedly to cycle through all ground units) and then Ctrl+F11 and position the camera as desired. Also you can use the F6 view to follow the weapon down, and then hit Ctrl+F11 to 'detach' the camera. Edit to add: probably LeftControl+F11, to be specific.

Interesting, I've not seen any mention of the PI on the forum. The closest is this post from Zeus, which suggests this is for CCIP mode - basically using the waypoint elevation as the target altitude. So if my understanding there is right: TAS - normal method, uses the radar to determine slant range and therefore calculate an accurate solution. RS - backup method, uses the radar altimeter to determine aircraft's height above the ground, calculates the slant range with the assumption the target is at the same altitude as the terrain (over which the aircraft is currently flying). Only accurate if the terrain is fairly flat. IP - basically same as RS, but uses the difference between the aircraft's altitude and the waypoint's altitude to calculate the slant range. Should be accurate if the waypoint is accurate and the INS has not drifted too much. To be able to use the waypoint directly as a target for CCRP would of course be "possible" but everyone so far has said it's not implemented in the 2000C's avionics (maybe it is in the ground-attack variants). So even if the IP mode button is available in CCRP, it may just be the same as for CCIP, i.e. a substitute for radar-ranging to calculate the slant range to the designated point, and not a system used to calculate an actual release solution.

For most 'real' CAP operations, it would be heavily dependent on tanker support, just like in real life operations. You'll pretty much use up the centreline external tank just getting airborne and up to patrol altitude. Fuel capacity can be extended considerably by using the wing tanks, but then you lose your SARH missiles, which is a trade-off most pilots would probably be unwilling to make. It depends on the mission, of course. Most online/public PvP scenarios have the opposing airbases quite close together in order to create a fairly hectic environment, so there's a good chance you'll run out of munitions before you run out of fuel. On more 'realism' focussed operations, I'd expect to see standard real-world fighter operations, i.e. take off, refuel, patrol, refuel, patrol, refuel, ... Ultimately, defending an area against N threats will probably just require more players if they're in M2000C than it would if they were in F-15Cs or Su-27s. So, online missions will probably remain more or less the same, but maybe with a bit of re-balancing for numbers if they're designed around the Mirage. Along with the limited flares which restricts you to one or maybe two passes, the A-G loadout is also very restricted (realistically, only one type of A-G munition can be carried per sortie). You also have the challenges of having to acquire targets visually from a fast-moving jet, so it's definitely not going to be performing a CAS mission like an A-10 can. If you've got intel regarding the enemy position and can place waypoint(s) at ground level in close proximity to the targets, you could probably perform reasonably successful interdiction just as long as you're not expecting to rack up a dozen or more kills like the typical A-10/Ka-50 mission. Ultimately, the aircraft capabilities strongly favour "one pass, haul ass" types of attacks, rather than loitering in an area and engaging any and all targets of opportunity. Effective interdiction will either require some AI scripting to provide coordinates, talk-on, smoke markers, or similar; or players in other aircraft (or Combined Arms) who are able to direct the air strikes. Or of course, pre-briefed targets that don't move around too much. This isn't an "at the moment" thing, the aircraft avionics do not have this capability. At best, when you're within 10 km (or 7-8?) of a waypoint, its symbol will change to a cross on your HUD, and you can place your CCRP pipper over it to "blind designate" the terrain (using the radar for ranging). This will probably provide acceptable accuracy for LGBs (assuming something is providing the terminal guidance) and might work well enough against large targets like buildings, but we'll have to see how the INS drift is modelled before we can be sure about either of these. We'll have to wait to see what Razbam implement. The Belouga actually has 3 variants, of which of the anti-runway/surface is one. They also have an anti-armor and anti-personnel variant, but I don't think Razbam have stated anywhere exactly what they're creating. I think of it as primarily an interceptor, secondary role as an air superiority fighter, and a tertiary ground attack capability. As the latter is my primary interest, I think the platform's limitations will pose an interesting challenge to both mission designers and players who are used to A-10Cs and Ka-50s chewing up battalions of MBTs on every sortie. I think the M2000C has the speed and navigation capabilities to make such sorties interesting and engaging - and of course a good self-defence and offensive capability when you want to mix it up in the skies.

I think the main reason it hasn't been a priority is because just implementing an IFF system which can yield an "indeterminate" state is not enough; the game world has to actually react to that state for it to be meaningful. Making that happen is a massive amount of work with a lot of challenges. Having the AI consider any aircraft not responding correctly to IFF hostile (either due to a fault, or because a player misconfigured their system) would probably not be received favourably by the majority of people. A practical solution would be allowing the AI to still have omnipotent powers of identification and only giving players a 'real' IFF. That way the AI doesn't have to respond realistically to 'indeterminate' states, but then you're spending time implementing and maintaining a feature only used by the people who play online... and most of them are satisfied with a simplistic, always accurate system. So, the value gained is very low for quite a bit of effort.

This is probably an older version of the aircraft than what Razbam are modeling - note the "53F" in the weapons panel. Though I agree the yellow makes it easier to read and it would be strange if they went to a mono display in an upgraded/newer jet. Not impossible, though. Also to the left of the 53F selector is one labeled MAX as opposed to MAG. Just a different symbology or something more interesting?

^ there's also a HOTAS switch for selecting the radio, which is what I was using.

Which aircraft launches the missile is irrelevant, the RWR does not detect a missile launch. It can (theoretically) warn of a missile launch whenever the signals being emitted change when a missile is being guided, vs normal scanning/tracking of a target. The "theoretically" part is because, of course the RWR manufacturer/programmer has to know what signals to look for. So even if a system has an obvious guidance mode, if it's never been seen before then the RWR won't have been programmed to alert about a launch when it sees it. Anyway, detecting a missile launch from a different aircraft than the one that is illuminating you is no different than detecting a missile launch from a SAM site which has launch vehicles separate from the radars (i.e. almost all of them). However, if it gives a location of the missile launch, it will be the location of the radar emitting the guidance signal, because again: a RWR does not detect missile launches. The cases where the RWR cannot provide a launch warning are due to there being no detectable difference between its emissions when it's scanning normally and when it's guiding a missile. S-300 is a well-known example. I think PATRIOT also does not change its emissions when it begins guiding missiles? For active-radar homing missiles, the RWR can also of course provide a missile warning when it detects the specific radar used by the missile itself once it goes active, which is likely quite different and easily differentiated from fighter radars. Again, assuming its characters are known and programmed into the RWR. I don't know anything specifically about the R27R, but if the RWR is capable of alerting about a 'launch', then that either means there's a discernible 'missile guidance' mode that the radar goes into, or that it signals a launch warning whenever it detects the radar is tracking you.

AGM-45 is also in the game. Some of the F-4E's can use them.

I don't think it's the website prompting - probably some kind of firewall, proxy or anti-virus on your side. Can you post a screenshot of the authentication prompt? Sometimes there'll be some kind of server name or other information that might provide a clue.

You mean you're getting a username/password prompt when trying to download the web installer from http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/stable/ Or you're able to download that, but you're getting a prompt when you try to run it? Or something else?

INS alignment and drift, and PCN are not yet implemented.

You could try putting your serial number into here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/licensing/ and make sure it's linked to your account and still has activations left. You can also manually run the activation program at DCS World 2 OpenAlpha\Mods\aircraft\M-2000C\bin\m2000c_protect.exe and see if that sorts it out.

This is one of those realism vs. simulation things. It's like the GROM air-to-ground missile in the MiG-21bis module; the aircraft modeled there cannot actually use the Grom, so using them is kind of "fantasy land" but Leatherneck did decide to include them so it's up to the user if they want to diverge from reality or not. The mixed A-G weapons on M2000C is a bit murkier, because there's no specific statement about what should/shouldn't work (only that mixed loadouts are not supported) so the behaviour is currently not really defined and may change with any patch, for better or worse. It also means complaining about certain combinations not working is a bit trickier as you can't really argue it's a "bug" unless Razbam commit to making certain combinations possible, even if they're not real-world loadouts. And other people can counter-argue that the bug is that the game lets you load mixed A-G ordnance in the first place.

I think the mission editor speed is ground speed. IAS will decrease as altitude increases. Normally a tanker will loiter at its most fuel efficient speed until an aircraft wants to refuel, and then accelerate to an appropriate speed for the aircraft type. Not quite sure how this is mechanised in the sim. Edit: when I was testing it, I used the following settings for the S-3B: Altitude: 16,562 feet Speed: 454 knots Orbit task: height = waypoint height, speed = 438 knots. I think that should result in IAS of around 340 knots.

I believe there's one each on the wing root pylons, and two can be carried on a dual rack on the centreline.