nomdeplume

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?

Well that's where you're wrong, because the thread now contains two bugs: 1) the landing light doesn't illuminate the terrain and 2) the landing light flashes. :) The second bug only occurs in 1.5.3, not 2.0.1.

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.

Possible 'easy comms' was set for the MP mission? If that's on the radio tuning won't work properly because the sim keeps returning to the preset settings.

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.

Attached is a simple test mission with a script that will lase a group of 4 tanks, positioned in the centre of the abandoned airfield in front of you. Each time a target is destroyed it will automatically shift the laser spot to the next target. (To clarify, this mission uses the Black Sea map.) Starting position is close-ish so you'll need to be fairly quick on the switches to set up for the attack. I haven't been able to test it with the M2000C as my game crashes as soon as I enable master-arm and select a GBU. I've put the loadout as 4x GBU-12 to match the four targets. I also added an A-10C with 4x GBU-12s just to verify that the guidance actually worked. If you want to test with the A-10 you'll need to quickly select GBU-12 CCRP mode; waypoint should be on TARGETS which will place the bombs close enough to guide. The script uses the Spot.createLaser() function to create the laser spot and is hard-coded to use 1688. (It also creates an IR spot, but shouldn't be relevant.) It also logs (to dcs.log) messages about which target is currently being lased if you want to verify it's running properly within the mission. (I like mTAIL for monitoring the logfile.) Lase-Test.miz

Probably worth keeping in mind that the S530D allegedly has a Pk of somewhere around .40, so it may be that in real life it would be very rare to enter a close dogfight with one of them remaining - if you get a chance to use them at all, you use both. Plus the emergency weapons jettison also ditches the Supers... these are pretty big, heavy missiles you're unlikely to want to hang on to in a knife fight. Of course, in DCS you aren't actually putting your life on the line, so wanting to retain firepower in case you win is probably worth a smallish performance hit.

Nope, the original release of the module was missing the files in the coremods folder which is part of the base DCS World. This means the aircraft does not exist unless you install the module. I believe this was corrected in last week's update to the open alpha (2.0) so it should be fixed when they next update the open beta (1.5). Might take a while to make it into the release version, though.

Yep, still messed up. Don't think it's been looked at yet; nothing in the pending update fix list.

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.

No mixes should be used together, that's why it doesn't say. The actual behaviour of the PCA with mixed loads is likely 'unknown' or even 'undefined'. The current DCS implementation seems to treat all Mk-82 type weapons as if they're the same (i.e. GBU-12, Mk-82, Mk-82SE), so it's completely impossible to release more than one variant of this bomb.

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.