rossmum

Warehousing again? Seems any time any module receives a new weapon, it resets the whole list. Guess we can thank the Harrier's shiny new APKWS for this one

The MiG-21's radar includes a weather filter along with anti-chaff measures and a 'low speed' mode. I had been under the impression (having heard it) that this was achieved through very, very rudimentary PD filtering, but still not sufficient to fully eliminate sidelobe returns at low altitudes. Perhaps I heard wrong and it is indeed straight pulse, at which point who knows what it's using to filter weather or passive (chaff) countermeasures, and why it needs a "low speed" filter. In any case, in DCS, the way the radar is modelled makes it possible to notch, although relatively uncommon. I have no evidence of the radar showing fighters at 30km because I have made no assertion it's accurate - I simply stated that it's always been that way in DCS. This is not a recent development. It probably is too sensitive, I wouldn't be surprised, but unfortunately legitimate RP-22 documentation is near impossible to find without a very large sum of money or knowing the right people or we wouldn't be having this conversation and the radar wouldn't still include several pieces of guesswork or gameplay abstractions (locking in fixed beam mode, for a start). I did go hunting through the Russian forums and found a former 21 pilot saying that the only time he was able to successfully see targets were from astern at 20km when talked onto them, but that was about the sum of his discussion of the matter. No mention of what the target was (one could assume a practice reflector or perhaps a bomber, but that's too big of an assumption to make). Without the actual manual and/or seriously in depth engineering documents, or a working example, there's not a whole lot to go on and making changes based on vague pilot testimony is not exactly a good idea. The radar being intended for GCI use is neither here nor there, it means absolutely nothing. Most radars of the time had fairly poor independent search and if you think only the Soviets relied on aircraft being directed onto targets, I don't know what to tell you. Comparisons to the Blue Fox are vaguely useful at best because it is a British radar, not a Soviet one, and other than the most basic operating principles it is unlikely to have much in common with the RP-22. This is dangerously close to "well this aircraft has X flight characteristic and looks kinda like that aircraft, so it must also therefore have X flight characteristic", which these forums have far too much of already. Source on RCS being constant is hearing it from people who have a lot more invested in figuring out the game's mechanics than I do (including modders). I'm not going to pretend I've seen the code, I wouldn't know what I'm looking at anyway, but the people who have stated it would have no reason to throw that one out for funsies and I have come across threads on these very forums which show how the IR signatures are calculated - as a multiplier against an arbitrary measurement value, that being an AL-31F at military thrust. If the sim is using the Flanker's engine as a yardstick for IR signatures, I wouldn't be very surprised by RCS being a per-aircraft value. Anyway, with all that said - I do actually think the radar is overperforming slightly, and should probably not pick things up quite as far away as it does. This is not a new factor and it has always detected targets at this range, so I'm not sure why it wasn't brought up earlier. The problem is finding out the margin and using either single anecdotes or the figures for another set, or estimates off of the one semi-detailed English language page, isn't really a great idea because it becomes very easy to end up with yet another value that swings one way or the other wildly and which nobody is ever happy with, in a sim where most equipment is assumed to always function to the best of its design specs. Radar performance in DCS is universally messy and even radar sets we have better information for either overshoot or undershoot their known performance. Realism is an important goal, but making guesses on the basis of "well this predecessor radar is similar enough" or "this foreign counterpart is probably about the same" is not realism any more than taking the max assured detection range of a target as gospel. God forbid we start applying this to FMs or the mechanics of the aircraft's controls as well. Performance over ground clutter seems unchanged from how it's always been, the possible exception being in situations where there are so many contacts on scope that the ground clutter thins out or stops rendering (a side effect of the FPS drop fix, as far as I know). I don't know if this is actually happening or not, or how consistently, so it needs further testing. In any case, the radar is still unable to effectively look down and still reliably loses lock when a target dives for the floor. Every target I have successfully locked was either above me by a decent margin, or clear above the highest local terrain feature. On the plus side, I've learnt a few interesting things while combing the Russian side of the forums and solved something else that was a bit of a sticking point relating to the FM.

The RP-22 is a pulse-doppler radar, that's what it uses to filter clouds. It just isn't able to fully filter ground clutter. This is why there is a filter specifically for use against low closure rate/low speed targets, and why the radar is able to at least partially filter out weather. It is not a straight pulse radar. Detection ranges (accurate or not, it does seem to pick fighters up quite far out) haven't changed - it has always spotted things at 30km. This isn't a new behaviour, it was doing this before the radar bug set in and has been doing it for years. It's also worth noting that RCS is uniform regardless of aspect in DCS - aircraft have a fixed RCS value. That property isn't unique to the DCS RP-22. A Wikipedia article (about the RP-21, no less - which is not the same radar set) with no citations for the entire relevant paragraph, along with a thread on Hoggit, is not exactly the kind of source I'd be expecting before demanding any changes. I'll have a look through the POH later but I don't remember if it had much in the way of radar performance details, that might be mostly confined to separate documentation. E - as I thought, POH describes controls and combat employment but gives no performance data at all on the set. I have seen some pages out of the German language RP-22SMA documentation floating around somewhere but it was literally a few pages, not the whole manual. I'm pretty sure I saved what I could find, but don't remember where I put it

I haven't noticed a substantial difference compared to before, though it does perhaps see things marginally better at low altitude without terrain backing (as long as you're below the contact). Earlier I had an F-5 cause me to lose lock by diving below the horizon and lost several as they dipped lower to the ground. I can definitely say it's affected by closure rate as I've found myself having to use the low speed filter, and being notched, a couple of times over the past week or two. One thing I can say, is that a lot of the time people aren't flying quite as low as they think. Most of the contacts I've spotted on radar, I've then spotted visually, sitting clearly above terrain. Considering the F-5 can detect and lock things up in ground clutter in search mode, let alone its dogfight modes, it's not exactly unique to the 21 - DCS doesn't seem to handle ground clutter that well in general, like the way people used to roll inverted to spot targets below them even at low alt with the 21 (which probably still works).

To be fair, most DCS players are going to be concious of the risk of losing the engine past 20-25 degrees and thus are unlikely to pull that hard. I don't even think I've done it, and my favourite party trick is parading the 21 about with the AoA pegged and the nose pointed to the moon. Might be time to do some more destructive testing later...

You do actually have to have the mode set to ANTENNA for any of the controls to work (except those outlined in the OP). On the MiG-15 you can crank the tuning lever to your heart's content regardless what mode it's in, which is where I went wrong (I expected them to be the same - it's the exact same unit). I guess RB set it that way to force players to tune it "properly", while the MiG-15 doesn't, but also doesn't simulate damage to the system from doing it wrong. Ideally both systems would let you do whatever you can do with the real thing, including damaging it. Bit of negative reinforcement to break up all that negative training DCS has given those of us who can't read

True, but the point is that people really overestimate the performance of a lot of aircraft, and reputations for being "fast" rarely include qualifiers. For a fairer comparison, the F-111 - which could go fast down low, but even that could only push about 1.2 at sea level. If there's a manned aircraft that's ever been able to maintain 1.45 at sea level, without being a stripped-out, mirror-polished record attempt modification, I'm not aware of it. Honestly (and not just from this module) it seems that when it comes to DCS, people only ever seem interested in capabilities, and would rather pretend limitations aren't a thing. As for the consequences: this is exactly why some are needed, or none. Having some modules suffer consequences for exceeding limitations while others don't is not good in a sim with multiplayer functionality, because there will always be minmaxing and most of us probably have done it at some point, possibly even without realising it. "Just don't play multiplayer" isn't a solution, especially not with DCS' notoriously horrible AI. Either everything should exhibit limitations, or nothing should. I personally prefer the former as it makes things more interesting and requires people to actually use their brains rather than just send it and know the lack of out-of-envelope modelling will keep them safe. The 21's engine flaming out when oversped is a best case scenario, with fairly minor consequences (at least, as long as you know how to relight the engine) - which would work well enough for any module, I think. I'd love to see cumulative stress with each flight but realistically speaking, it isn't going to ever happen, and if it did most servers would go out of their way to disable it. As for any other attribute, I can't really see where OP is coming from. The climb rate with drop tank and only two AAMs is pretty excellent, but seems (at a glance) to hit the numbers it's meant to.

I stand corrected. Probably should've RTFM'd, but knowing it was the same unit from the 15 I figured it would work as it does there. I do agree with the above though, allowing the player to do it (and suffer the consequences) rather than lock the controls out seems a better solution.

Excuse the double post... As already pointed out, no, it can't do 1.45 on the deck. Even if you ignore the aircraft's stated limitations (which the community seems to think are "suggestions" - there are no "recommended" maximums in aviation, unless you don't fancy living until retirement), SAAB's planned record attempt aircraft was to be stripped of weapons systems and radar, polished metal, and with all external antennas stripped away. Yes, it's a ridiculously powerful engine, but that isn't the only factor here. The MiG-25 has two ridiculously powerful engines and can barely clear the sound barrier on the deck. The Viggen is a cleaner airframe maybe, but you're still fighting drag in the thick air as well as running into operational limits of both airframe and engine, to say nothing of how profoundly uncomfortable high speed, low level flight is (both for you and the airframe). MiG-23's Vne is 1450km/h, 100km/h above the AJS-37 but exactly on par with the JA-37. The 29's is... somewhere in the same vicinity. 1450 I think, I very much doubt it'd be higher than 1500 at best. The Viggen locking up an SR-71 story is bandied about a lot but is neither impressive nor the full story. Warsaw Pact nations practiced intercepts against them regularly and at least one account exists of a MiG-23 achieving lock and asking for permission to fire (no doubt just to say he was in position to do it, it was still over NATO territory at the time). There is no special magic attribute about the SR-71 that makes it hard to lock, it's a large, tremendously fast moving object and its low frontal RCS isn't going to help as much against look-up, nor do much to offset the fact there's nothing else up there and its closure rate is massive. The main difficulty is in getting your timings right, as you only have a few seconds from it entering your lock range to passing inside your minimum launch range. If you're trying to intercept one in pursuit, you've already screwed up. Now getting an effective shot away, that would be something to brag about - but thankfully nobody has the rights to that one.

Speedwise, this has been common practice on cold war servers for some time. Turning, not so much - it turns well but only does so once or twice before it falls down and can't get up. I haven't really looked into climb performance, but the thing has a delta wing and a boatload of thrust, I wouldn't be real surprised if it was in the realm of the MiG-19 or so. The big questions I have regarding its FM are speed related, but its turn performance is about what I'd expect. The only caveat is that it seems to gain early-release F-14 levels of "free lift" if you force the flaps down by lowering the gear, but it's very rarely done and it usually isn't enough to make a difference anyway. It tightens its turn circle with no real penalty to rate or airspeed but that's about it.

No, they're correct. The actual clickable functions (as well as the keybind ones) mentioned for the ARK-5 are not working. It has nothing to do with not knowing the systems, it's a bug. On the other hand, if that's intentional behaviour - that would suggest the MiG-15 is bugged, because it has exactly the same ARK system and clickable functions work regardless what mode it's in.

The internal cannon sound is shared with a bunch of modules including MiG-29, Su-27, and Mirage 2000 - I think it just references a common soundfile in the LUA. I know the external gun sound does that (and mysteriously enough, uses the same sound as the Gazelle's 20mm cannon - so does the Mirage). I put in a bug report about the latter, so hopefully before too long it can be switched over to the sound the UPK-23-250 pods use as it's the same weapon.

As long as it's a different airbase - mostly thinking of the missiles, to avoid another Shiraz situation. Batumi should work just fine, maybe people can ferry back and forth a bit - slows down the reinforcement rate, kind of like the long ferry flight on Battle for Sukhumi.

This bug's about a year or so old, maybe a little more - I first noticed it a year ago, anyway. It doesn't happen 100% of the time, but it happens regularly enough to be a severe headache in MP environments. There's another thread with videos as well. Really hoping it can be fixed soon, IMO of the utmost priority as it ruins everyone's experience rather than just the person flying about with no wings. The module really needs some of the love it's been missing out on while the 14A was in dev.

Nice to have our radars working as intended again, finally... Are the 29s in When The Mountains Cry flying from Senaki, with the Su-25s?

No pilot animation for as long as I've been playing DCS (~2.5 years). Not sure if it's a longstanding bug or not, maybe there'll be a replacement pilot model with continuing art upgrades to the module? I seem to recall that a VR pilot body was on the cards, so perhaps that'll bring a different model with some animations with it.

I've never understood why (non-VR) people turn them off... even on my potato of a PC the difference in framerate is unnoticeable and the utility of being able to see behind you is enormous... at least in aircraft with useful mirrors. The F-5's are horrible I still fly with them out of habit, though.

I can't edit a mission someone else is running on a multiplayer server.

I know you said quite sure, but are you really sure? Because I can absolutely tell you that you feel the lack of thrust in both and they will stall and attempt to enter a spin quite merrily if you pull the stick to your guts.

I'm still kind of strongly in favour of the 25T and Ka-50 going totally - along with Sidearms and maybe a reduction in TV-guided stuff in general. It'd make air to ground a little more challenging (and IMO, it's more satisfying to learn to deliver dumb weapons accurately anyway). For anyone worrying about blue lacking an attack helicopter when the Mi-24 hits... don't worry too much, it's not an attack helicopter so much as a flying IFV. Think of it as a rotary-wing Su-25 but with SACLOS ATGMs instead of laser-guided missiles; its only magnified optic is the purely optical (!!!!) periscope the gunner uses to guide the missiles. With that said, the Apache isn't going to be a good match for it and would rather be a good match or even a bit superior to the Ka-50 depending what ED give it and what can/can't be turned off or restricted by mission makers, I really do wish we were getting a mid-model Cobra instead. The Mi-24 does have some slinging capability (mostly for moving howitzers around in a pinch) but IMO shouldn't be CTLD enabled when we do get it. Even carrying infantry was a relative rarity in service. I know this is likely an opinion few share, but the less smart weapons, the better - it gives the server a more distinct feel and forces people to either specialise into a role, or become more adventurous and learn to do multiple jobs as needed. As for the SAMs... maybe making them have to be road marched from behind the lines (rather than shuttled about by helicopters) might be a good idea, or switching red's site out for an S-125 or even S-75M. Yes it'll have different engagement parameters to what blue have, but it'll take more runs to set up and is less mobile. The air defence side of things needs a lot more love from ED in general, we're not exactly spoilt for choice. What I'd also like to see is more SHORAD threats (and not just at the FARP or airfields) - giving people a reason to climb even on clear-weather missions would mix combat up a bit versus the usual weed whacking. And maybe infantry re-enabled on any mission that isn't capture the airfield, since there shouldn't be a problem with people double-capturing if there's nothing to capture.

I haven't noticed this happening with the 21 on my end, but it is a common problem I've seen reported with other modules over time. Does this occur every time you lose your wing, or only sometimes?

Yeah, I was thinking of it as a jet-specific thing rather than for the whirlybirds. In an ideal world, helicopters would have to fly supplies of missiles in to keep it stocked, but again I'm not sure how much of that is possible within the existing scripts.

I upgraded to the newest Nvidia drivers (from 438.16) last week. Flushed FXO, metashaders2 of course. The flashes are absolutely constant in the WWII instant action missions - every few seconds as soon as combat starts - and less common but still present with jets. SP or MP, no difference. The amount of combat and particularly burning/crashing/exploding aircraft seems directly proportional to the flashes. In the usual missions I play, the frequency is the same as it has been for months; in these WWII bomber intercept missions it's much worse. It's not related to map or aircraft type so I think that can safely be eliminated as a factor.

I don't know how configurable CTLD is so tell me if I'm huffing paint here - but would it be possible to make something like fuel truck + ammo truck + SKP-11 + command van = invisible FARP, maybe with something like an orange or green smoke to mark it or some kind of light beacon? Making it take 3+ units to build would make it a significant time/effort investment, but it could add some interesting dynamics to a few of the missions - you choose either more ground units/air defence, or a jet-capable FARP somewhere closer to the target or in an area less prone to attack (in missions where airfields are legitimate targets). Roadbase stuff is a lot of fun, it's just a shame it almost never gets used (aside from the prebuilt ones on Catch Me If You Can).

There's a small but reasonable difference. I don't think there's a big deal waiting another year or two for news on a 19S. Razbam have other projects to work on, including support for existing modules, and as it is the 19P itself has a few things that will need fixing. All of that is both more important and more sensible commercially speaking than dropping everything and pushing a 19S - which requires FM changes as well as art changes, testing, etc. Give it time.