Dr_Arrow

It would be nice to have this finally fixed with 2.5, seems not like some difficult bug to squash.

Yes, it is definitely yellow, outer environment will make it look as different colour - that is normal, in my opinion it is a perfect representation of the real thing.

Moreover using air-brake disengages PAC during gun runs. Setting the engines to idle is more than enough for the slow hog during steep dives.

It seems that it is not much used in RL, because of poor precision and certainly not usable against small targets. This is what a real Warthog pilot had to say about force correlate for Mavs: Q: How often and in what situation would you force correlate a Maverick? A: Large, poorly bounded target. Avoid at all costs.

As I am learning A-10C and have watched many videos as an experienced BMS F-16 virtual pilot I've always wondered why the hell are people launching mavericks in tutorials with flashing cross meaning it will probably miss, now I know - I hope it gets fixed.

Thank you for the heads up, keep up the good work :-)

It is still not corrected in 2.2, with deferred shading on - floodlights do not illuminate the cockpit at all :(

What I miss in DCS and also in BMS and what is quite an important factor during SEAD are false emitters. In BMS you see one SA-2, but as I've read (Hampton, Rosenkrantz, etc.), in reality your HAD or RWR would be cluttered with many false emitters so that it is often hard to discern, which one is the real one, though newer systems might be better in suppressing them. Moreover I know that Russian SAM systems are all able to simulate launches. All this deception techniques are also missing in BMS.

Weta43, will any other small fixes to Su-25A be done in near future: i.e. CCRP sometimes not working, reversed engines animation, bort numbers problem, laser stabilization problem. I know it is an old plane and not much attention is put on it, but I think that these could be easily fixed and be much helpful for community flying this famous aircraft. Thank you very much.

You are not flying level, but descending here.

:huh: This is totally disappointing for me. I have unfortunately shelved DCS until 2.5 is out - in any state or condition. I really do not know what is the point to release new modules (Harrier, F-18, Yak, etc) for 3 different versions, which have different maps, technologies and bugs and do all the bug patching. In my view it is a big waste of resources and fragmenting the community as well as putting away new customers. This has to be developer's nightmare and I cannot understand that ED has remained in this state for two years and unification is nowhere near it seems. Just roll out 2.5 even in unfinished Caucassus state, patch it up in frequent incremental automatic updates, afterwards drop support for 1.5xxx and life will be much better for everyone - developers, module producers, community and potential customers.

Su-25A has a yaw damper system, upper part of the rudder works as the yaw damper. But I am not sure if it is ASC, you can notice it is working when you quickly move rudder the upper part of the rudder moves in the opposite direction to compensate for possible oscillations.

I'll get it, it will make a nice progression - start in Yak-52, move to L-39 then to Mig-21 and further...

Even though the F-18 is not using AP for aerial refueling, in F-16 when you open refueling doors the FLCS changes control gains, so the can have much more precise control and the aircraft is in result much less responsive. The same might go for F-18 or basically any FBW aircraft, which is changing internal control laws (including damping) according to flight situation/conditions (ground, landing, refuel,etc.).

I suggest to look into this thread - I haven't tested it in the last version, but altitude hold AP and its related modes work well only when the SL baro pressure on the map is set to 760. Basically the altitude hold AP does not use the reading of the on-board altimeter but uses some own altimeter set always to 760 (I think it is a relict of old modeling when we weren't able to change QNH of the altimeters in FC1): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=150622&highlight=Su-25T+autopilot+bug

I just hope that we will get Caucassus in 2.X as soon as possible so we could finally ditch 1.5x. Having 3 versions of the sim must be a bug-tracking development horror-nightmare for every module producer creating a mess among modules and certainly lowering quality. I am just puzzled that they have kept this going for such a long time ... I personally do not mind if the new Caucassus is not 100%, it already looks so amazing and much better than what we have, just unite the versions please.

I suppose that these were training rounds with inert charge. I am quite puzzled how it managed to shoot unguided rockets exactly in the second when the targeting circle jumped on the vehicle. Automatic trigger on unguided rockets, which are more area/spray and pray weapon does not make much sense.

Yes, elevator authority is modeled correctly, the problem is that we have short sticks, which have much shorter travel range than the long stick in aircraft. Unfortunately the curve is not ideal solution, because it messes up the trim and introduces more non-linearity in control. I was able to fly a mil-spec L-39 in a real cockpit, had no problem to take-off, land, taxi in it, only with previous DCS experience, it was actually easier than DCS as I had more precise control during rotation/flare and maneuvers due to the long stick.

This is a long standing bug, I've reported it several times in the last 8 years, it was even confirmed but never repaired. Basically the level hold and altitude autopilot or approach autopilot do not work as long as QNH on the map is different than 760 Mhg. Set static weather to 760 MhG or set QNH on altimeter to 760 Mhg and it will work (but you will fly at the wrong altitude). Read more here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=150622&highlight=Su-25T+autopilot+bug

Scaflight: what you are showing (even though it is from game manual) is not touchdown speed it is a speed at which you fly over the runway's threshold, the speed at which the wheels touch the runway after the flare should be in the range 260-280 km/h, never above 330 km/h.

Su-24 is primarily a long range bomber, nowhere near the versatility of Su-22 and is lot more complex to develop. Su-22 is more something like Viggen in terms of versatility multi role capability and designation. Moreover the second cockpit and AI for the second crewman requires nearly as much workload as developing one more aircraft, as far as I know. Maybe one Su-24 equals Mig-23/Su-22 combined workload, is it worth it? Would Su-24 be a commercial success? I don't think so... A simple trainer like L-39 required more than one year to get it to somewhat functional state as far as multicrew goes and there is no AI for the second seat. As much as I like Su-24, I cannot see many advantages to developing Su-22. Su-22 is not in service in VVS just because it is a single engine aircraft and all single engine combat air were removed from VVS inventory in the nineties, otherwise it is a highly capable aircraft offering a very interesting mix of possible missions and scenarios.

Su-17/22 is like Su-25T on steroids, SEAD capable, supersonic, large payload, suitable for CAS, optical targeting system for laser guided munitions + IR missiles for self defense, quite maneuverable. Su-24 is more bomber/strike aircraft + there is a big difficulty properly implementing the second seat. In terms of versatility and gameplay scenarios Su-17/22 is a much better option and easier to implement as a single seater.

Well, it ate me up another activation without a reason (still 9 left). The copy protection systems seems to be problematic.

fantastic, great job, thank you very much, it is an essential mod for DCS :)

Great, I hope you will get it to work :thumbup: