Dr_Arrow

As I understand it, these are just inert training nukes.

BST would be the best candidate to create Mi-24 Hind as it shares a lot of components with Mi-8/17

As I understand it, the 500u-1m models and counts for dropping 268 bomblets but visually shows only 26. This means that hits are calculated for 268 bomblets, so it should be pretty efficient.

I think that Mig-21 Bis would probably closest in terms of avionics/systems to the Mig-21MF version.

One of my favorite WW2 aircraft, bring it in :-)

Did they really hint that Su-22 is coming? That would be the most awesome news :thumbup:

Thanks for your answers Sith, I didn't want to be disrespectful or something against ED - It's just my opinion - but for me it would be more logical to have 1.2.8 beta -> 1.2.8 release -> 1.2.8 release bugfix 1->1.2.8 release bugfix 2->1.2.8 release bugfix 3 ... ->1.2.8 release bugfix n ->1.2.9 open beta->1.2.9 release -> etc.

paradox is that something called beta has less bugs than something called release version, assuming no new ones were introduced of course :)

Well, the paradox here is that open beta is currently in better state than 1.2.8 release version - as it has received two patches fixing several bugs .... :huh:

I also don't know where to post bugs, which are present in beta as well as release version. Moreover we have DCS World bugs forum, we have FC3 subforum without bug forums, we have bug forums for Ka-50, Su-25T, A-10C and also third parties bug forums. Sometimes it is really hard just to decide where to post a bug and even if I do, I don't know if someone will actually see it. I would also question the existence of open beta, why keeping two separate release versions if you can have just one and patch it up with the auto-updater with several quick small patches as needed or once a week - I always thought that this was the main benefit of having online updating system. I think this would also decrease workload of the team and cause less confusion within the community.

Exactly, I have seen too many projects die on a quest for perfection, there will always be someone who will find a pin or a rivet wrong.

I am a ... ehm ... a customer ... send ME also a copy ! :)

I think there is nothing wrong, because it is not about the positions of the stick but the forces. When you press trim button it commands a zero force position, which in non-ffb stick is its center. So if you press the trim in non-ffb stick you have to put it to center otherwise you are commanding a new attitude and the Shark dives/climbs, etc if you are over the 20% AP authority.

I've flown around 60 hours in the Shark in the past two months and Shkval works just fine (it broke only once). I also have no problems with its control using a FFB stick G940, one just needs to understand how the autopilot and trim works. Sure, it has some small bugs, but KA-50 otherwise works great and is a deadly machine even in rain/night conditions.

Well, although I support the team very much as I love Mig-21 (day one backer) - I am a bit surprised about the lack of promo. After the earthquake in the team we've had one announcement and two development updates with some screens and tiny bits of info scattered here and there within various threads. Anyway, I wish Leatherneck all the best and hope to see the virtual Mig-21 flying soon.

Yes, up position is the default "on" - burst cut position.

It works indeed, if the switch is set to cut, it will only allow a short burst per trigger press. If it is set to off, you can fire all the rounds in a single burst with one long trigger press. It doesn't set the rate of fire.

Thanks guys for the confirmation, I am hoping that this issue will be addressed in upcoming patches.

When you fire the cannon from Su-25A it yaws to the right, I think that it should yaw to the left, as the cannon is positioned on the left side. It seems that the position of the cannon is modeled wrong. I am also attaching a short track showing the issue (the nose goes down and right, the ball goes left). Su-25T on the other hand handles correctly and yaws to the right when firing its cannon, which is offset to the right. Su-25_cannon_yaw_wrong.trk

This is not at all because Su-25T simulates only the basic. The truth is quite contrary, it is simulated precisely - it looses ground lock because Shkval reaches gimbal limit in roll angle (30 deg.), so it looses ground stabilization. The same is true for the KA-50.

Normal take-offs with SU-25 are as far as I know performed with flaps always in full down position during the whole take-off. You can watch plenty videos of Su-25s taking off in youtube and they always have their flaps fully down during the whole take-off even without any stores. For example: or with fuel tanks:

Well maybe the central computer is more advanced than in the A version, but it is still not clear if it can compensate for wind as it depends on capabilities of IKV-1 and the computer itself.

Su-25/T has a very crude and simple weapon "computer" (it really is rather a device than computer) and no FCS. As far as I know it has no such thing as wind sensor. So I doubt it can compensate bombs/cannon/rockets for wind.

I can confirm, seems to work OK now :)

ATC has always been useless in DCS. For me even bigger problem is the inability of AIs to land in the current version...ATC can be ignored for most of the time, however I cannot ignore the chaos which AIs create in landing pattern - interrupting landings before touchdown, plowing and flying underground, crashing by landing, taxiing on runway in opposite direction, etc...