Dr_Arrow

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:

Moreover if the pylons will be canted outward like by SH, this has to produce huge frontal RCS, apart the huge drag penalty.

To revive the thread - the night is still too bright. In full moon, the ground in Caucasus map looks like n daylight, I can spot targets, do low level VFR flight and so on. Without moon it is better, but still too bright, no need for NVG.

We have an update :)

It is working in my install, however I suggest you read this topic: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=148310 In short, only certain runways under certain meteorological conditions are capable of RSBN/PRMG landings using SDU aircraft system and IRL only very late versions of L-39 had SDU. There is no ILS on L-39.

+1

Well I was quite disappointed by the direction that LN took after Mig-21. For me the 23 was the next logical step as it shares so many systems/avionics with 21( it has been stated that 60%). Moreover it would be far easier to maintain and polish 21/23 modules, the team would mature and exploit all the knowledge about Soviet Era systems and aircraft. I feel that this potential was somewhat wasted with decision to discontinue eastern aircraft development. I understand that it has to be distracting now for the team to bugfix the 21, while concentrating on completely different aircraft, designed with completely different mindset. Tomcat, while hugely popular is a step into the unknown and is a more complicated aircraft than 23/21 combined. Of course I wish LN only the best in their present and future endeavors and hope that none of the upcoming aircraft in development will break their neck.

Could the ugly rear-view mirror be removed by pressing M key or by selecting it from special tab? I have not seen any L-39 sporting such rear-view mirror - it seems to be just some very special modification.

The barometric altimeter reads "0" because it has preset the QFE pressure on the dial on the barometer as default for the given airport and current atmospheric conditions when doing a cold start. Certainly no bug. You can change it to QNH pressure and you will read the airport's elevation on the barometric altimeter. It is all written in the manual.

the (B)urning ones and the ©ostly ones :D (sorry couldn't resist)

Anyone care to submit a bug report here?: https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/my_view_page.php

Has anyone found a possible fix that could be made from the user's side (either graphic setting or lua file edit)?

I hope it gets sorted out somehow, I've tried to change all graphic settings and mess with the files to no avail. Most of my missions are now busted :( Thanks Snoopy for the info.

Yes, the objects are now visible through the canopy in the recent DCS versions, is there any fix for this?

I completely agree with Fri13. I started with the KA-50 and while it is a fantastic killing helicopter and I was quite proficient in flying it, it hasn't taught me anything about flying traditional copters. Once I tried Mi-8 I had to learn from scratch. After some 100 hours in KA-50 I thought I could handle Mi-8, but after few craters in the ground it was -> back to school. So if you want to learn how to fly copters I suggest Huey or Mi-8. Ka-50 is more like an advanced weapon system having the actual flying quite automated and easier due to coax config.

I've just tested it in my actual 1.5.4 open beta and they work just fine in C and ZA in my install.

Yes he continued, but it was thoroughly investigated, bulletin was issued, so it was pretty serious for a relatively minor error.

I think, it is true what Bogey says, regarding the accelerometer which is placed in cockpit area and measures the acceleration component in body-frame axis, therefore its measurement dependent on attitude. Illustrated here: http://tom.pycke.be/mav/69/accelerometer-to-attitude