XPACT

If high poly CVN-74 is free for all so should be high poly Admiral Kuznetsov and its other low poly model should be permanently removed from the game because it doesn't belong here in 2022. I can understand requirement to pay for advanced modeling in terms of systems and deck crew but 3D model and basic functionality of landing and taking off should be part of the base game at least for these two carriers since Supercarrier module is a thing. Another approach is to remove ships from the base game all together and price them as separate asset DLC. Of course not to mention that Kuznetsov doesn't get any attention, so far, in the Supercarrier module which it is part of... should it really be there in the first place?

Unlike GPU where we want full utilization when CPU starts hitting 100% a lot of weird things start to happen (random FPS drops, audio cutting out/popping, slow loading of assets etc) and even tho GPU is reporting 100% utilization it may very well be bottlenecked by CPU. Judging by the picture of task manager, your video memory is maxed out which caused GPU to also rely on shared memory (your system memory aka RAM). Because of that both CPU and GPU now have to wait much longer for necessary information and that causes significant FPS hit. If you are keeping ground textures on high I would suggest that you turn them down to low and check how its working now, there is of course visual difference between high and low but it will save considerable amount of video memory and I personally think it is worth it. 8GB GPUs are really starting to hit the limit when it comes to DCS and maximum textures.

You are not dumb haha that whole sentence was poorly written by me. What I wanted to say is that when he typed A into KU and pressed enter, immediately after that, IHADSS and TADS showed automatic range mode with Ax.x where x.x represents range in kilometers in other words... automatic mode engaged correctly but on his WPN page it was still shown as MANRNG 3000 that was confusing him but from reply by Raptor9 that seems to be correct operation. So basically only way to know that you are in automatic range mode is to check your IHADSS or TADS it won't show up on WPN page.

Watched the track file, even tho it says 3000 on the display when you pressed enter on your IHADSS it immediately shows A followed by range number example A0.2 and it is changing depending on where you are looking. I took control and the gun hit where I was looking without issues.

Do you know what is this "position" mode that I assume is not implemented yet?

Yikes 40 days of development and apparently there is whole team that works on Mi-24P in parallel to AH-64D... I am very disappointed not much because of time frame but from constant reassurance on the forum that it is actively developed in parallel with previously mentioned module yet this changelog really challenges those statements. Nonetheless, hopefully this bird gets much deserved attention now that hyper modern eye candy 64 is out (I own it too just to make that clear haha not hating it) After all Hind is still in early access and that takes a lot of time, we all signed up for this voluntarily

You need to hold it. In "default" DIR trajectory from the beginning to the end of missile flight.

2 on the keyboard is default bind

That is done automatically for a long time now.

Yeah guess if something like this was to pop up : Sadly last minute testing showed that it simply doesn't work. Team will have to do it all over again but with gained experience from the previous attempt we are confident it will be finished by the end of this decade. Hopefully we would have access to fairly priced high refresh rate VRs with GPUs that can actually handle it properly, FFB pedals and sticks by the time it's finished

Presenting evidence to the judge:

That is correct for transformer failure. But I was referring to a situation where for example 36V transformers (main and standby) are fine and are connected to bus A if generator that powers bus A fails it should first trigger bus A and B coupling so now the second working generator is actually powering 36V transformer and other stuff from bus A, PT125 shouldn't engage at that point of course if second generator fails there is sensing circuit for 36V and if absent it should trigger PT125 and also disconnect other non flight essential/high power draw components from 36V bus. Currently in the sim if generator that is connected to the bus where 36V transformers are fails even if the second generator is operational PT125 engages and that 99% shouldn't be the case. So basically there is no coupling (and probably load sharing in general) of buses A and B currently, on top of that PT125 doesn't seem to power flight essential systems that it should.

I've seen weird electrical system behavior from the day one but I am still waiting for ED to release electrical system schematics like it's done in Mi-8 manual for example or even better if someone has real world Mi-24P manual with electrical system schematics we could easily figure out what the real world behavior should be in every situation possible. But nevertheless it seems that PT125 is indeed not implemented correctly/bugged out. It will auto engage when generator connected to 208/36V transformer fails but seems to do absolutely nothing to power required systems except for "turning on". EDIT: Oh forgot to mention, I am also pretty sure it shouldn't actually need to power on when only one of the generator fails so that is probably another bug too

9.12 ftw but I must say that from this angle and armed 9.13 looks good too

Like for example Soviet ones having another radar mode probably variation of high PRF with better ECCM. Every export equipment that I know of at least of Russian origin is downgraded sometimes really significantly. Export combat vehicles, tanks, apcs etc. were always using completely different composites for armor.

Yup, for 9.13 airframe changes are required.

It's probably easy to just add "expected ranges", calculation data, to missile computer since they are basically the same.

While this is true I am not really confident that they have any info on inner workings of F-16C or F/A-18C ECM yet those planes are being developed and by contrast their ECM should be much more modern and capable. EW - ECM as whole in DCS is really hard topic since currently it is so oversimplified that it's better if it wasn't even implemented in the first place, my opinion of course, actually everything based on EMR is very oversimplified and a lot of things can be done better and improved like radar and internal communications but EW-ECM will probably never get there at least not anytime soon.

Sadly true. A lot of military equipment ends up in the fiction category because it was never used in combat but that doesn't mean it isn't capable, not everyone has a chance to invade third world country every 2-5 years showing military might keeping all debts in check, exploiting resources and in the mean time testing every bit of modern equipment in their arsenal before moving on. A or S, it's an iconic aircraft to me and will be great addition to DCS. If not possible in the beginning maybe 9.13S upgrade will follow in the months/years to come, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible.

I am trying to figure out what is the point of your posts Wizard_03, you've been disproved few times that engines are unreliable, they were fine. Radar had issues that were fixed in later variants but was still fine as guided interceptor. First of all engines are easily accessed and if swap is needed can be done faster than any western design at the time. They do produce smoke and they have lower fuel efficiency compared to western counterparts that is correct and that is design trade off. Yes, it's much cheaper to produce. Foreign object ingestion can happen to any aircraft and will cause catastrophic engine failure most of the time anyways. Also covers on MiG-29 close below 200km/h so correct procedure if landing on a bad runway with various debris is to keep nose up and open chute than immediately pull the stick aft as much as needed to not slam the front gear down, by the time jet is down on all "three" wheels you are already below 200km/h and doors are closed so risk of ingestion is minimal. MiG-29 also has two engines compared to his F-16 rival which is a big plus considering it can fly and land with only one engine. Reliability of ejection system was proven to be very good and safe from both high/low altitudes and high speed. Not to mention all the other systems that are redundant. MiG-29 was a huge step up in terms of ergonomics, sensors and safety compared to previous designs, for example jet it replaced MiG-21. It is a great aircraft that is constantly underestimated and put aside because of its engagements in wars where it had almost no chance of success in the first place.

Engines are one of the least things you would worry about in MiG-29A. Radar reliability well that's another story.

In the video engine throttle was kept at idle which is wrong for landing since nozzles can hit the ground, in that configuration they are fully open. Maybe hitboxes changed? At least I wasn't aware of that, anyways IRL manual states that at landing throttle needs to be at 78-79% minimum if I remember correctly (of course no AB allowed). If engines are kept at proper throttle nozzles are tucked away and won't hit the runway upon touch down especially if it's a harder one, you can see this movement in DCS. I am doubting that is the case here but still would be nice to have that simulated someday... will probably have to wait for FF MiG-29A

Wasn't David L. Goldfein shot down on 2 May 1999 by S-125?

Not to mention that even with all their military might and air superiority they wouldn't dare to do ground invasion on Yugoslavia (they tried it from Kosovo with their backed UCK terrorists to see how army would respond, that attempt failed miserably) estimated casualties ratio was 1:2 in favor of NATO but still that would be hundreds of thousands dead NATO soldiers so that was scraped off the table really quick. Vojvodina would fall pretty easily (there was still defense plan for it too) but everything south of Belgrade and Belgrade itself would prove bloodiest engagement yet seen in modern history with guerilla warfare they were not prepared to fight. There is one thing many people don't take into account in such situations, and that is morale of troops defending is 10x as much as those who are attacking place on the map they didn't even know existed few days ago, so technological advantage can easily prove not enough.

Oh definitely many systems should receive real world limitations and be less capable than FC3 representation but isn't that the fun part , navigation will probably be the most challenging at first, some things will improve tho for example SPO-15, even tho its real world performance can't really be confirmed.. but since DCS is currently modeling stuff how it's supposed to work it will give much better situational awareness overall. Question for you since I know you have some information on the matter, do these early MiG-29As have time to impact and closure rate scale like Su-27s?