DocSigma

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I've seen this bug often as well. Just flew - tried - to fly a mission with PTAB's on the outer pilons and UPK's on the inner, and was unable to get the screen or pipper to show up.

What he said :thumbup: quality not quantity

You set the PRMG dial to the proper airfield channel and then move the mode switch ( on the forward cockpit panel) from the nav postion to the landing position in order to pick up the indications on the ADF; I think then SAU will get the glide slope info to fly; but, you have to enable the jet to receive it first for it to work.

Go a little faster. It also sounds like your pretty steep -being able to get your nose below threshhold - on the landing. I've noticed that in this jet when on the proper PRMG glide slope for landing, I'm pretty shallow and blind on approach - nose blocks my view of the runway. It seems wrong, expecially when moving pretty fast, but the smoothest landings I've been able to make is that way. Anyway, I'm sure i'm doing it wrong, but that seems to work for me, but I'd definitely say that speed on landing in the 21 is your friend here...and the chute! Hope what I said helps a little.

I always heard that the Sabre was a fantastic dogfighter. It seems the window for optimal maneuverability is pretty small. It's pretty bad - in my terrible hands - at medium speeds, and at high speeds as well. I always thought the Sabre's advantage with its big wings was its great dogfighting ability at low speeds and high speeds, being able to out maneuver its contemporary counterparts - Mig15. It seems like it's getting into spins far too readily - a thing that the 15 was known for but not the Sabre. It also has poor control at supersonic or close to sonic speeds - another thing the 15 was known for and not the Sabre. I heard Sabre pilots say in interviews that the Sabre was as rock solid a dogfighting platform they'd ever flown, which with its inferior armaments in comparison to the Mig, gave it it's only advantage against it's primary adversary - minus the skill of the very veteran WWII pilots piloting the Sabre. I pretty much know squat about actually flying this plane, or any plane for that matter, but does the flight model need some tweaking? It's most likely the obvious: my poor flying skills; but, just thought I'd ask. Thanks for any comments.

Yeah.. assign a button on your hotas to the electrical cage command. Unlock the gyro sight, stabalize the pipper by holding down that electrical cage button on your hotas, maneuver the aircraft until the pipper is over the target for at least a second or two and fairly close, release the electrical caging button, and you should see the gunsight start to automatically begin to update itself as your range to the target changes (you have to be pretty close - ~1.5miles - before radar gets makeshift lock). It will not stay fixed on the target but will give - what was considered - accurate firing solutions. You just have to maneuver the aircraft to line that pipper over the target then you should be good. It's not easy since its pretty easy for it to lose any form of radar lock hence losing accurate firing and range solutions being fed to the moving gunsight. It's easy with targets moving in a straight line and at a constant speed, but against targets jinking this way and that changing speeds its easy to break that brief lock you may get. The pipper may seem all over the hud, but it definitely requires you to fly down your target and be patient before you pull the trigger. Its tough to score a high speed deflection hit in the Sabre. Wait it out until your target pulls level to regain energy, then you'll get a more high percentage shot with the pipper holding lock feeding you an accurate firing solution.

The more I think about it, I'm not sure pilot/rio can be adequately represented. The sim would potentially have a very high "arcadey" feel to it, and this would detract from the very high level sim qualities one would expect from a DCS module. To be honest, Im hardly any expert on this (take all im saying with a grain of salt)and don't know all the functions and roles handled by the RIO, but how dissimilar are they to the pilots? How many inflight functions and systems can be handled by both individually without the other. I know ED is releasing the L39 and that has two person functionality, but the L39 isn't the F14. The L39 is a trainer aircraft with - what Id assume - a high degree of mirroring functionality between the front and back seats. I don't think an accurate comparison can be made in terms of just how implementation of the Pilot/rio relationship can be handled in the F14- if it was to ever be developed- between the two aircraft. You can have a control modifier implemented that switched out control schemes when in the back seat, effectively letting the AI pilot the aircraft; but, as a previous poster pointed out, how muddled would that get when you are at the merge with an aggressor? The Pilot/Rio, I would think, have to work in complete split second harmony with one another to be effective - the pilot reacting to the constant updated picture being fed him/her by the RIO. I think this is the whole idea behind the pilot being hands off all things not associated with flight control, evasion, and firing of weapons. I just don't know when the rate at which simplay would increase come the merge how this would work effectively with the AI controlling either position. Maybe they can implement some sort of split screen thing or dual monitor views so a single player can have eyes on both pits simultaneously, but that may exclude a fair amount of people because of hardware limitations. I would love to see an F14 but I'd completely understand and wouldn't be surprised if any dev decided against it due to the complexity simulating a non-trainer combat aircraft - or helicopter - for that matter.

If i'm not mistaken, the 21 isn't a dogfighter as well but an interceptor like the 104. Great climb and roll rate but not really that agile. I think the two would be more closely matched than you think.

I predict by the 100th page of this thread the prevailing candidates for front runner to be the next aircraft by LN will be: J-31 RQ-180 PAK-FA-T50 Oh.. and the ship that crashed at Roswell

The vertical bars will move inwards as you close range with the contact.When the vertical bars have moved into the empty launch window between the radar contact the horizontal line you should get an authorization and the missle should come off the rails. Also, make sure you have power going to those pylons. Check that the rkt/msl switch is set to arm, and all the pylon power switches are checked on. Those switches are on the right hand wall panel just below the toggles for radio, navigation, etc.. and just above the toggles for the gunsight, gun cam, iff, etc,. To be safe, just put every switch on the right hand wall panel to the on position and you should be covered.

If its just 3 characters then it's not the F14. At the very least it'd be 4 characters excluding the dash: role, design iteration number, and variant letter equals 4 characters.

Are you waiting for the horizontal ranging indications to be within range on your locked contact? For example: _____ | ^ | _____ If it looks like this then you should get a launch authorization. Also, make sure the correct station of the SAR missle you intend to fire is dialed to the correct station.

If it is the F-14, please let it be the D. The A is very much inferior to the D in both it's avionics and engines.

Thinking the same thing when I saw the screenshot. The textures look revamped as well. I don't know if that's a result of EDGE and DCS 2.0, but if im not mistaken, it looks a lot better than what the current external model looks like in 1.2.10.

could it be the radar antenna of alternate radar systems though? I think there are a few that look similar.

new avatar and a reference to master of puppets.. clue?

I think it applies to all the devs developing for DCS. Also, If I remember from the interview with Cobra, didn't he say that a member of the dev team was an ex-Mig21 pilot? I would think the employ of an ex-pilot of one of these jets would go a long way towards filling in any intel that is unattainable due to government and aircraft corp restrictions. I think in any case a lot of parts have to come together to bring to fruition one of these modules, and I imagine the more modern the module the more parts to bring together. I think the actual number of aircraft that is actually doable is probably - to the chagrin of most - relatively small.

Let the Devs develop what they want to develop; they invested the capitol and time affording them that right. My advice is to be grateful that there is constructive - and very productive - cooperation between ED and third party developers enabling expansion of the DCS world/environment. Be patient; and, in time, i'm sure there will be an ample number of combat modules developed that will satiate your combat experience need. We are mere mortals, and cannot know the minds of the devs :)

This should be good. I liked both BoB's and the Pacific. I think both did a very good job of giving a very very small insight into what it must of been like being in those respective theaters of war. Although the same war, two very distinctive theaters; I think this was brought out pretty well in both mini-series. Looking forward to how they do with the air element as it pertains to the European theater. I hope they do one focused on the pacific air campagn as well. However, with the victory at Midway early on and the advent of the F-6f(hellcat) and F4U(corsair) in the war, the US was finally able to counter the superiourity of the A6M(zero), gain superiority in the pacific skies, and enable marine advancement through the south pacific, which I think was covered pretty well in the Pacific mini-series.

If you haven't already done so, try lowering the pre-load radius slider in the option menu within DCS - set it to 10,000 or so. Mine loads in a very acceptable duration of time with an average system. Hope that helps a bit.

Does the AI on the door gunners work? I flew a mission shuttling troops into a very hostile area. Had the door gunner AI set to return fire. They opened the doors as expected. Got into the area, and the door gunners did not return fire at all from the small arms fire coming at close range and from all directions. Is there a bug with the gunners? Thanks in advance for any feedback.

:pilotfly:

I've noticed that sometimes radio comms with the tower or anything else either works or it doesn't. I'm not sure if this is a bug or something I'm doing wrong. Engines and avionics are up and running. Radio toggle on the RP is checked on. Channel is dialed to the proper ATC channel for that airfield. Test volume by depressing squelch on the radio radio toggle on the radio panel is also turned to the radio position I am unable to get a response from anything about 50% of the time. Other times, running the same mission - following the same startup procedure - I get the expected radio response. I first thought maybe the radio needed to time, but all throughout a mission the radio still fails to function. Also, my DCS world install is updated to the latest version available. Is this a bug or am I missing something in the start up that is causing the radio to fail ( there is no warning indicator on the lights panel to indicate whether the radio experienced a failure)? Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks for the feedback. It's really appreciated. Looks like a vastly improved GPU is order - at least until I piece together a new system build.