rossmum

Worth note that SRS still has days where it decides to randomly crash or not recognise controls, or not play nice with a particular module. Repeatedly over the past month or so I've started having issues again where it simply refuses to recognise my PTT and I don't realise it until I'm in the middle of a fight and trying to respond to someone, at which point tabbing out to restart it is not viable. The radio also frequently goes down with battle damage. Like Tolovaj I have chat minimised, and although I tab it open now and then I do miss things. I totally get the frustration of people not being on comms... when I tried my hand at GCI the other day I had maybe half the team on comms and only a few would reply back. Often when I find myself in trouble, GCI tries to direct help my way only to find none of them are on comms. With that said, I think kicking should be reserved for people who are wasting very limited airframes (MiG-29s, F-14s) or clearly attacking their own team's units or airbases. We need more people moving into the Cold War side of DCS and IMO that goal is more important than having one or two bad experiences where nobody's coordinating - because they probably will be soon. It took me a while before I finally figured out my original SRS issue and was able to use it on the server, but now I don't fly without it. Once people start playing regularly, they'll get into the habit.

Adding WWII units would mean people have to buy the WWII asset pack to play on the server, which will severely limit the number of players able to join. I'd like to see more T-55 vs M60 fights, but I don't think the M60 is compatible with Combined Arms :(

I thought negative drag was an issue on specific aircraft, not the entire game, but I don't know if that fully explains it. I've seen people doing 1580-1610 with some air to air missiles still onboard. I was kind of hoping renhanxue would turn up at some point with this kind of stuff, because it does add more detail to what the limitations were and from that, pushing through for a sprint seems reasonable. On the other hand, being able to maintain an average speed of over 1600 (which I've now seen several times) across most of a sortie is still exceeding what Saab expected to be able to do with a stripped-down, hotted-up aircraft - so maybe the overall drag modelling needs some adjusting. It's worth note that I know a few of the faster Viggen rocket riders I've seen have a habit of flipping some of the switches along the right wall of the cockpit, at least one of which regulates fuel flow IIRC. I'm not sure how much that factors into it as well, but I'd imagine it does. Ultimately the problem is that (as Skysurfer says) it's a game, and people in games will minmax things. You don't need to worry about whether the jet is going to be flyable in 5 years, you don't even need to care if it's flyable in 5 hours, but it makes it pretty easy to just capitalise on that and make life miserable for other people in MP whose jets might not have limitations that can be at least temporarily overlooked.

Right - which is realistic for this aircraft, at low speeds. At higher speeds there should be buffet, but 'higher' in this context means quite a bit higher than most people would be pulling that kind of AoA.

It hasn't been updated to use the new texture maps yet. Most old liveries display like this, until their creator modifies them to fit the new maps.

It matters when other modules simulate structural/engine failure when oversped but the Viggen does not, for those of us who play multiplayer. If the charts all say 1350km/h, and a pilot has now said 1350km/h, then I'd expect that limitation to exist for a reason since the engineers aren't going to set it just for funsies. As for why we're comparing the 16 to the Viggen (and no, I think you'll find most of us aren't), aren't you the one who brought up the F-16 in the first place?

"Recommended limit" in the context of an aircraft means "it will probably do something highly unpleasant if you exceed this". While it has the excess thrust to reach that speed, I highly doubt it could maintain it safely - even a short burst is reasonable IMO but I've seen Viggens maintaining 1,600km/h IAS for entire sorties in MP. When the MiG-21 loses its engine if it overspeeds, the MiG-19 can't reach that speed except in a power dive and then loses stability and breaks apart, and even the MiG-29 can't keep up... something is wrong. I don't buy that the Viggen has some special attribute that allows it to blaze through its never-exceed speed without consequence, to a speed that no other aircraft of its era is capable of. Are we really sure Swedish materials science was that advanced compared to the two superpowers? Not that its engine would notice, being repurposed out of an airliner... IMO the impression that the "Viggen is really fast at low level" is not an expression of speed, it is an expression of good pilot training and a good autopilot/stability control system allowing it to actually reach its never-exceed speed in reasonable safety at altitudes that other jets could not.

Check you're not overspeeding. The engine chokes anywhere between 1,300-1,380km/h (the MiG-21's design speed limit being 1,300km/h IAS, which is normal for the era but not simulated in certain modules) and if you're in afterburner it can be very easy to pass through this without noticing.

MANPADS/Avengers/Strelas and AAA are far greater threats than Hawks or even Kubs, especially with how low we all fly. If you are getting hit by Hawks then I don't know what to say, they're so bad they can scarcely hit a gently manoeuvring target at mid/high alt and will not hit you at all down low. They are mostly used to force people away from main bases or force them down into IR SAM coverage. As for ground forces... rarely more than one or two people are in actual ground vehicles, and the entire point of air superiority is to be able to provide effective support for ground troops. If you're looking for GS/JDF but Cold War, this ain't it, chief. I mostly fly CAP in the 21, for a long time it was all I did, but there's a surprising amount of fun to be had with some of the other assets in the server and the mission design ensures there's something for everyone. I would rather not see that change in favour of fantasy air jousting over empty battlefields.

Ground crew won't replace an empty drop tank unless you rearm without the tank, then rearm with it AFAIK. It's one of the reasons I don't make any special effort to bring them home in the 21, 19, or F-5 (aside from fighting with them on being very suboptimal).

Worth note that this behaviour wasn't so much introduced as fixed - it used to be present but some issue or other caused it to disappear for quite a while. If you started flying it at a similar time I did you wouldn't have experienced this behaviour the first time around, but in older videos of the module it's present.

Per Soviet documentation the aircraft does not exhibit stall buffet at very low speeds. It's a quirk of the design. Again, aircraft have their unique characteristics for a variety of design or construction reasons. If you think comparing a tailed delta MiG-21 to a Mirage, or a Tomcat, or an F-86, or a Cessna 152 will give you anything meaningful, I don't know what to tell you.

Except the wing rocking is exactly because the aircraft loses stability. It is a well documented behaviour in Soviet manuals and in US exploitation program material. It is a behaviour exhibited in many aircraft of this era and if you incorrectly try to counter it with aileron, you'll end up in a spin. What makes this seem so "unrealistic" to you? The plane very clearly stalls. Stalling does not mean the plane falls out of the sky immediately, it means airflow has separated from the wing and you are losing lift rather than producing it. The onset of this and what effect it has on the aircraft depends on a large number of variables, it's why different aircraft have different and unique stall characteristics.

If you don't have a GCI, as Alpen has said, either deal with the lack of SA or take the position. F10 is still not a good alternative for another player feeding you info (though to be fair, the fact that GCI is done through F10 and not LotATC means we have too much info, too up to date - player name, type, and their exact position at any given time!) and I don't know about you, but the last time I'd want to open the F10 map is in a fight or when low to the ground, especially given its habit of freezing the game. The F10 map does not prevent teamkills on GS. It doesn't prevent teamkills on GAW. People either don't check it, they fire anyway, or the teamkills happen (as at least one did yesterday) because they fired at a legitimate target without realising a nearby MiG would distract the missile's seeker. In almost every case I've seen teamkills happen on this server, F10 would not have helped either because the player involved was not deliberately shooting at a teammate, or they never check the map anyway and were not on comms. The last time I was teamkilled was because someone tried to lob an R-60 over my shoulder to kill the guy I was gunning. There was no failure in IFF there, he knew there was a friendly in front of him and he took the shot anyway. It tracked the F-5 but the proximity fuze detonated off my left wing and blew most of my controls out, so I had to put down in a field. F10 isn't some magic cureall, and personally I like that there's just that little bit more incentive to learn how to use the various aircrafts' radio and/or doppler navigation aids (even though you can still use the kneeboard anyway).

Not a fan of F10 fog of war being removed, not least because in every server I've played on that shows player positions, it does absolutely nothing to stem the tide of teamkills.

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-world-2-5/dcs-wishlist-aa/7114273-r-60-not-m-for-su-25-mig-29

Simple one here. Now that the R-60 has been corrected to rear-aspect only, it would be nice if the Su-25 and MiG-29 were capable of carrying it as well as the limited all-aspect 60M. This would be a huge benefit to servers running rear-aspect only weapons restrictions as it simplifies logistics and removes the issue where players may fly to MiG/Sukhoi bases to load R-60Ms onto MiG-21s.

Maybe we should lobby ED to patch the Su-25/25T and MiG-29 to be able to carry the original R-60... I like the rear aspect restriction, it makes combat a little more intense.

The problem is that if you miss the 14, it will dominate you with both power and sustained turn performance. I would rather gunfight an F-5 any day of the week, they're relatively easy prey and once you figure out the ballistics on the GSh-23 it's not too bad. At best they can roll and jink around, so just hold your shot until they get tired of it or begin a sustained turn. Less experienced F-5 pilots are pretty easily conned into trying to keep up with a radius fight, which won't end well for them. R-60 should no longer be able to turn enough to hit a head-on target unless they voluntarily fly into it. It had marginal all-aspect capability to begin with, now it should have none. I've yet to see one track a closing target since the patch.

The glass type had to be changed to ED's glass material - the MiG-19 uses it too and has the same problem.

Make sure you don't have it bound to something on your HOTAS, it might be resetting to 'open' if it's bound and the switch is set to the wrong positon. That's all I can think of, I've never had it unlock or blow off except when I know I've forgotten to lock it.

Not quite what I was getting at - people ask for the 27T now and then because of the "IRST stealth" meme. In reality (well, in DCS too) they're not really intended for that and unless your target is totally unaware, which a Jester-crewed F-14 won't be, they're easily defeated. At that point you're sacrificing one or both of your R-27Rs for them, and still have four empty pylons for short-range IR missiles. Life would be a lot easier if the 29 could use the R-60 in DCS, but unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon. I guess one possible solution is just to make S&D a lone all-aspect mission, even while the rest of the rotation is rear only? That might confuse people who aren't aware of what a briefing is, though :joystick: As for R-27R vs F-5 - it can be defeated but I've had reasonably good results with it. Failing that you can always gun him. Gunning a Tomcat is a much riskier proposition, though.

Six, not seven. Two on the glove pylons, four under the tunnel... still a decent amount but to be honest they're not invincible. R-27T is not really all that great - they're easily spoofed by flares, Jester will see the launch even if he shouldn't because of the limitations of the AI, and rolling IRST-only is a very, very stupid way to use the aircraft. Fly high and fast and try to avoid 1v1 head on trades. The 29 with 27Rs performs a lot better than people give credit for, especially against something without fancy JHMCS to make its life easier. Yep, we need more A-teens. I would've taken a 16A over the 16C bl. 50 every single time. Maybe one day. :cry:

Player F-5s are in a world of hurt against a carefully-flown 19. They need to either hope for a missile shot (many F-5 pilots fire far too close, and I suspect most don't realise they can uncage the seekers either - I often deliberately bait missiles knowing they're too close to make the turn) or find a second F-5 to help them. If they keep their speed up they might last a few minutes longer, but the 19 is just so strong in a rate fight, vertical or horizontal, that eventually they're going to end up in trouble. The biggest problem for the 19 is actually getting the angles needed for a gun hit without immediately shedding all its speed, because it can become very helpless very quickly. I find it makes an excellent teammate for some 21s, as the 19 can keep the F-5s busy while the 21s kill it, or the 21s can set the 19 up for a guns pass by dragging the F-5 into a more gradual turn.

New cockpit frame mesh (enormously better forwards vis, easier to use periscope without moving your head so much), cockpit rescaled to fit external model (no more holes, feels much larger in VR I'm told), new cockpit lighting (fully 3D, from individual light sources rather than backlit-style selfillum textures), some updates to external mesh details, optimised external texture maps. Since about... June, I want to say?