TJTAS

irt hover hold. I am doing everything I used to do, getting the velocity as low as possible and < 20, but it doesn't seem to work like it used to.

It's been a while since I was messing around with the KA-50 but I am having a couple of issues with 2.5 and Open Beta:- 1) Buttons no longer light up. The cluster of buttons dealing with flight modes and the ones dealing with Targeting (auto turn on target, Ground moving target) No longer seem to light up when they are pressed. This makes it dificult to tell whether they are engaged or not. 2) Hover hold doesn't seem worth a damn. I get the velocity down into single digits and engage hover hold and it does not seem to do a lot. In fact it seems to accelerate it from when I enter it. Is there something i'm missing or are these bugs?.

Thanks for the info. What sort of ascent profile did you take. I was finding it hard to make altitude in the mission we were playing. I'm a newb to this plane though and thenk there was maybe a more efficient climb routine.

This is a question not a complaint!. Why is this aircraft's range in game not comparable to listed stats?. Encyclopedia (in game) states range as 2112km with Nominal load Military today lists Combat radius as 1400km Global security Lists a more conservative 1055km with full fuel and 2 Sidewinders We played a mission today with a 280km approx round trip and reasonably heavy load including 2 150 gal drop tanks and were landing on fumes. Is there a way to better optimise flight to fuel ratio or is there an issue with the fuel usage?.

Thank you!.

Hmmm Well it's sorted alphabetically in my list. I have tried typing F-5 in too and there is nothing there. I am looking in the Bazaar\World\Shapes folder

Genius... you solved my issue. Apparently the 2.5 update had dropped my settings to low.

Hi, How come the F-5 does not show up in the list of models in the modelviewer?

Hi, Just got this module. Is there a reason why my cockpit textures are so low res. They do not match the videos and screenshots I've been looking at. The writing is just a greyish blur with no definition.

No it hasn't... Buildings are still hot and vehicles aren't.

Having the same problem. Did you find a solution?

Its not just ground units. What would a viggens real role have been had it ever seen combat. It would have been intercepting Bears and Backfires and Fitters which were flying into swedish airspace. Well none of those are crewable. You certainly wouldn't have seen Mig-21's invading swedish airspace as they are too short range and can''t in flight refuel.

It is to me a symptom of what is going wrong with the DCS idea. It all started out with a theme 90's and 2000's with a tenuous but believable basis. All of the scenery and ground units fit with it. Then they add the A-10c and KA-50 which fit. The Mi-8 and Huey even fit. After that its like someone has put a list of every combat aircraft ever made on a wall and thrown a bag full of darts at it. There is no rhyme or reason. We've got ww2 aircraft without any ww2 scenery or ground units. The choices even of ww2 aircraft are crazy. What is the point of having an FW-190D if you don't even have a bomber for them to intercept. Then we get korean war aircraft with no ground units etc to go with them. its all too eclectic. They needed to stick to a theme. Now there's an F-4u with no aircraft carrier nor any japanese aircraft or ships. Then a viggen with no swedish ground units and nothing to make it fit into the theme. As I've said a few times a decent russian and US strike aircraft are desperately needed to fit into the original theme. Its just crazy to me.

Pointless in a combat simulator which is crying out for a decent strike aircraft. A sensible choice would have been something for the Mig-21 to defend against or protect, while the F-5e is defending against or protecting it.

its a pointless aircraft in DCS terms. It has never seen any action, has never been exported to anyone else and has never figured in any real theater of operations.

I just think its a very disappointing outcome. if you want to play ww2 there are plenty of good ww2 sims out there which have ww2 settings and equipment. As for the viggen well just bleh. Useless niche swedish junk which is as much use as teats on a bull. In real life and game.

OK thanks for the heads up.

Exactly how many layers are there. Takes more than 2 months to flatten them?. Any update?.

Who's whining. I made what I think is a very valid criticism. I did say in my original post that it looks nice. I simply can see a very limited mission scope. Coming out with accusations of whining seems like blatant fanboi tactics. Next it will be accusations of trolling. Just because I'm not running with the herd, falling over myself with fawning. Seriously did no one at ED or in the beta test point out that some alternative airfields could be good for mission building?.

Honestly how long would it have taken to lay down the airfields and aprons. They wouldn't even have to populate them, that could be done by the mission creator. I just think after all this time and all the hype that it could have been better. I think it has very little scope for any sort of Side vs side multiplay. So really we are still stuck with the Caucuses for any of those type of missions, at least until Straits of Hormuz comes out. Lets hope its not 5 years of hype and build up till we get that.

OK lets talk about accuracy. I'm looking at google earth and topo maps of the area and it looks like several airbases/airfields which should be present aren't. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Wfm_area51_map_en.png/1280px-Wfm_area51_map_en.png So adding some extra's would have been a good idea.

I'm decidedly underwhelmed with the map to be honest. I'm not knocking the work they've done on the terrain it does look great. What troubles me is that there are very few airbases and they are all in one place with at most 130km between them. While this may be accurate it doesn't seem to offer much scope for Missions. Particularly MP missions other than coop. Strikes me it would be better if there were some other (even fictitious) bases out around the flat areas in the north of the map.

One of the problems is that ED don't have thermal textures for objects, vehicles and ground. I've notice that in white hot the ground and the buildings are hot and vehicles are dark (cold). This should be the other way round, buildings and ground should be near ambient temperature and vehicles should be very hot(at least areas like the engine deck). So in BHot you end up looking for the brighter targets as vehicles. This is arse-about. Having said that though I'm actually finding it easier to find targets in the latest version. The problem I've been having in the TGP of late is the inability to get a good lock on some units (zu-23/2 pits, Artillery units, shilkas). Tanks I can get a firm lock on though.

For some reason I just can't seem to get CCRP working with either Mk 82 AIR or CB-87/CB-97. Everything runs ok just getting constant failure to release. Anyone else seeing this?.

I'm sort of Torn on the Mig-23. On one hand its an interesting subject. On the other hand it has some severe limitations. It has a very small payload, it seems to have quite limited range and its only got a single engine. So if one showed up I'd buy it and have fun with it. However if having the Mig-23 meant not having the Su-24 I'd rather have the Su-24.