159th_Falcon

Awesome, just started downloading though so haven't had a look yet. Also seems that Wags confirmed the EOS issue(s) under the "notes" Good to know its on the list.

Good point. And i wouldn't mind if the two end up being a bit different in performance. What i do mind though is that the HUD indication does not represent the range of the weapon. (and at the moment the difference in range between ER and ET is rather large)

First of all one for the mods, no idea what subforum this subject belongs in. Hence im posting it in the general section for bugs and problems in DCS World. I had already noticed the issue in multiplayer but now managed to test it. (AI wasn't very co-operative) Problem is that the Rmax and Rtr indications of the R-27ET are either incorrect OR the R-27ET is not performing as it should OR a combination of the above. Performed a test, target F15C flying 1000 meters ASL @ 1300 km/h Hunter, SU-33, controlled by me trailing at the same altitude. First i let the distance grow to beyond Rmax when my speed is about 1340 km/h. Then i wait till i am inside Rmax, whit an speed of about 1350 km/h and launch the first ET. Watch it in F6 view and as soon as its speed drops below 1300 km/h i pause the game. Go into F10 map view and use the ruler to find out how close it came to the target. Not very, more then 5 km away still. So i keep the burners on to close the gap till about 8km distance. By this time speed is about 1420 km/h giving the ET a bit of an extra push. Surprise, by the time the ET drops below 1300km/h its still 1 km away, despite being launched just 8 km away. All can be seen in the attached track. Also tried launching the ER (no track) at 8 km distance at similar speed and it did not have any trouble bringing down the F15C. When i look in the encyclopedia, both missiles are quoted to have the same max speed and the same range. Which seems sensible seems the biggest difference between the two is the seeker head. Anyway, please fix this by either; A increasing speed/range on the 27ET B decreasing indicated launch range on the HUD C combination of the above. Oh, forgot to mention, for the ET the Rmax and Rtr in this situation are indicated as being identical. 27ET.Rtr.trk

Talking about launch range. And then mainly the Rmax and Rtr indicators. Are those bugged? WIP? (flying an SU33 btw) Cause last night on an MP session i had a fighter flying away from me at about 1300 km/h Was in pursuit at just a bit more then that. lets say 1350 km/h Anyway, i noticed that the Rmax and Rtr indicators were very close to each other, overlapping each other actually. So i fired an 27 ET, target did not manouvre or use flares, but the missile never reached it target. Not sure how to go about making a track of this cause i have no idea how i can prevent the AI from maneuvering. ***EDIT*** Ok, managed to get the AI to play stupid, see bug report here; http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=110310

Did a similar thing once, but then whit two columns next to each other. One had shilka's, the other one Vulcans. Awesome fireworks.:D

Yep, first bit is quite easy and fast, 2nd bit can be a lot more time consuming; (i use an x52Pro as well) Bundle of multiple flares spread over a given time; Make an advanced command for any button you wish. (i used ministick aft, using bands) Set "macro" for the upper row (Press) select upper row and hit Delete a couple times, equal to the number of flares you wish to release in a bundle. (for example 5) Then right click on any of the keys and select "quantize time" and enter 0.005 This means that each action in the rule will now be carried out 0.005 seconds after one another. Ofcourse you can alter this number to whatever you want. Though i also use the slider to pop flares while running in and extending to prevent sam launches. (i use one side of the slider for ingress= relatively high interval and other side for egress which has an relatively low interval) Again, set slider to bands, and assign advanced command. (no need to set this one as a macro, no idea why it was needed for the ministick, experiment if you don't get it to work) In the upper row, again hit delete a good couple times, i suggest at least 15. And now the tidious work comes. You have to right click each key press/release and select "set delay" And enter a time again, for example 0.0 seconds for the first key press/key release combination. Then for the second set you use 2.5 seconds The for the third set you use 5.0 seconds for the fourth 7.5 and so on. Meaning you will release a flare every 2.5 seconds until you move the slider into a neutral position or until you run out of key presses. (15 in this example) Alternatively, you can download my profile, and copy paste the commands into your own. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=51598 2nd post in that thread. SU-33 profile as a bonus:)

If you have a programmable keyboard or joystick you could make a macro for it. That's what i did whit my X52 Profile for the 25T So, what controllers do you use?

Avro Lancaster ofcourse. Anyone wanna go damn busting?:joystick:

was supposed to be. IE, not anymore. Got any links on the 3rd party and the announcements?

Thank's for the link Pyroflash, may i point out though that Wags is talking about the SU-27 there. Not mentioning a specific version. Also, there he is referring to the existing SU-27 from FC3, and making it availeble whit an AFM as an module for DCS. (so not an DCS SU-27) If we read Groove's post again, we can deduct that the SU-27SM WILL be an DCS product somewhere later down the road. So i guess where talking about different products here. Still don't get why ED testers/moderators keep telling us there won't be an SU-27SM though.

SU-27SM At least if we go by the official announcements.;)

And in which announcement can we read this new information?

Fixed that for ya. As officially announced by Groove in the March 2013 newsletter. See link; http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1791415&postcount=14 In the meantime there have been no announcements that would mean plans have changed.

Good Luck.

I can recall something like 16 players and about 300 to 400 units. Though, this highly depends on available bandwidth. (both server and client side) Mind you, those were relatively conservative numbers.

Awesome, you got one from the tail rotor to? Always fun to look at this kind of stuff. BTW, how does the hydraulic fluid from the tank get into the damper?

Don't forget that unguided bombs simply are much less accurate then guided variants. Especially in CCRP mode. (otherwise the guided variants wouldn't be needed, don't you agree?) Usually, to get some more accuracy out of dumb bombs is CCIP bombing. Don't have any experience whit that myself, but a quick google should give you plenty of youtube video's as well as text guides. It may also help to set the wind in the CDU so that the targeting computer takes it into account. Again, no real experience whit that myself so can't explain on how to do it. (assuming where talking A10C here?) The laser is needed on initially setting SPI, there was a nice video that explained why it was needed. Ill see if i can find it. ***EDIT*** Found it;

I believe the Samsung is fast then the OCZ one to. Could be wrong though, and there both good brands when it comes to SSD's

Yep, well, i usually click on its icon. You should also get the airport frequency etc in the lower LH corner of the map then.

DCS World is just the package the goodies get delivered in. The SU-33 is also flyable in DCS World. But everyone will agree it aint an DCS fidelity product. The current F-15 isn't a DCS fidelity product either, nor is the Tunguska. There all available in DCS World though, which is fine. Cause they are not being marketed pretending to be something there not. (or cannot be)

No one's. An advanced flight model would be a matter of fact and hard data. Not opinions like, i think the F35A's climb rate is ..... Ofcourse, between reality and simulation PC tweaks would need to be made, preferably by using pilots who are currently still flying the aircraft being modelled. (as in the cases of KA-50, A-10C, P-51D and the UH-1H, the F35A isn't even in service yet)

1. Are you, in principle, willing to participate in crowdfunding a module for DCS? High-fidelity, low-fidelity or both? ABSOLUTELY!!! If yes: 2. Did you participate in either of the two Third Party crowdfundings so far (those being Beczl's Indiegogo campaign and Kinney's Kickstarter campaign)? Yep, (Beczl's MIG-21BiS) If yes: 2a. Was there some item of information, some pledge reward or some interaction on the part of the developers that would have caused you to increase your pledge? Can't remember really, but the goals at the time seemed reasonable and very possible. Beczl was already a (well?) known character on these forums from his mod for FC2 a long whit other mods. If no: 2b. What was the primary reason you did not pledge? Was it the module itself (e.g. not interested in the plane), the developer, the price point, did you simply not hear about it in time, wrong crowdfunding platform etc. Applies to F35A, Unkown (to me) guy, comming out of the blue, promising the very best of the impossible. WITHIN A YEAR. Should have been marketed as an module for DCS World somewhere between FC and DCS fidelity, but whit the goal to be the very best possible at this time. If that would have been done i might have pledged. (just not that interested in most US planes) 3. What level of existing assets do you require in order to take a crowdfunding campaign "seriously"? Is it enough to see a concept, renders of the model, the model in action, etc. How far should developers go before turning to the community? Tough question, but at the least be realistic. So whit the F35A an 70.000 dollar goal is not. DCS fidelity isn't either. And he was relatively unknown to people here. The MIG21 had an far lower, and hence more realistic goal. DCS fidelity for the plane seems very possible whit regards to availeble data, test pilots, aircraft in service etc etc. Well known "team" behind it. 4. Finally, what would be your realistic budget in order to help get a module of something that interests you made? Depends on what you get exactly for money being paid. But any DCS fidelity aircraft that inerests me i'd pay between 50 and 100 dollars.

So by that reasoning, a flying train can be a DCS module as long as it has 6DOF and an accurate 3D model? :lol::lol::lol: To me, at least an accurate advanced flight model should be on the list to.

A lot of people are not negative, there just being critical and realistic. The fact that kickstarter missed its goal is just that. A fact, and means they failed to acquire there required funds by that date and time. Nothing all to bad though, they will look for other funds, and they most likely will find them. All is just a matter of time. No need to hope for that, i am certain they do. Otherwise they would have already pulled the plug on the F35. (which they did not:thumbup:) Agree, though as i said before, and i will say it once again; ED themselves said that an DCS level F35 (and pak-fa and F22 and.....) Are not possible. Now suddenly it is and no one can explain what changed. So all i am asking for is simple acknowledgement that it simply can not reach the fidelity of for example the KA-50. And as such not marget it as an "DCS" title but something else to reflect the (slightly?) lower fidelity. As ED had promised us they would do whit modules that could/would not meet the DCS Criteria. And once again, i have nothing against Kinney, nor his company. I am very surprised by the marketing terms used for the module though.

Subject two of course. Cause if we round off the numbers subject one will end up whit 5 While Subject two will end up whit 4, which is factually correct.:smartass: