rossmum

I did some poking around (which is to say, checking parts of the forums other than this thread and the MiG-19 and 21 subforums, lol) and found a bug report for the moonlight glints. Seems it's unintentional and ED have been aware of it since April. Hopefully that means a fix on the way, though I'm not holding my breath. Best bet for a temporary fix is just shifting the mission to be a moonless night, I think.

Shmal posted a video of a successful aerobraking a while ago. It's possible, it's just difficult to do, especially if you're paranoid about a tail strike like I tend to be.

Once the sun began coming up and DCS switched from "it's night" to "it's day", lighting engine wise, the little moonlight glints vanished. I like Sneaky Bastards as a mission, but unfortunately ED's bungled moonlight implementation (do they go outside after dark?) kind of ruins it because you can spot any air or ground unit from insane distances, but as soon as you get close, they vanish into the darkness again. Make it any brigher, and you still have that glint plus sufficient ambient lighting to see them in close - goodbye helicopters. Take the moon out, and you can't see anything, and people will probably complain about not being able to navigate because they don't know how to do IFR, or they'll complain they have to fly high and suddenly they're visible on radar, etc. Flying the Mi-8 was actually a ton of fun, I wish I'd jumped straight into that instead of flailing around trying to fight when I couldn't see anything and had to fight the current ARU bug on top of that. My suggestion would be to take the moon out altogether, honestly, so there's a lot more emphasis on the helicopter side of things and the fighters can't molest them so easily. You could then give the fighers some fixed ground objectives (well, on top of the secondary airbases and FARPs, anyway) to keep them happy, IMO. If people begin flying higher and using their radar, and especially with GCI, night combat can be very enjoyable even in pitch dark. It just relies on people abandoning the Daylight Combat Simulator metagame of hugging the ground. Again, I love the mission, I hate how ED can never get spotting right :doh:' Seriously? I know a lot of people have some very stupid opinions about radar use, but that's just ridiculous. You have AI AWACS/EWR directing you onto them, they're at the perfect operating height for all the old radar sets we have, and they're visibly contrailing. Even failing all that... you know where they're going! Just fly a standing patrol and wait for them. Jesus, it's unreal how lazy some people can be.

I use about a 15% pitch curve and 1/3-1/2 back stick travel is safe with the ARU in manual. Not sure about forward stick because I'm almost as allergic to abrupt negative G as the 21's fuel system is.

Likewise, if you're in a 19 or 21 and your bogey dope shortcut isn't being replied to, it's contacting the wrong EWR and you'll need to go through the menu to talk to it.

Regarding the 7Fs... I think people need to get used to them. All the ones I saw fired yesterday tracked fine, I barely kinematically defeated one and ate two more. Jester is probably part of the problem, but you also have to bear in mind that the Tomcat's radar doesn't do its best work looking down and it's also relatively easy to notch (as is the 29). I don't know how it stacks up in terms of numbers or Pk against the R-27R - maybe someone who has the fancy version of Tacview and knows what to look for could test that - but I don't think it's near as bad as people think it is. When you're flying with Jester in the back you need to manage your expectations. With that said, honestly, I don't see an issue with letting the Tomcat and MiG-29 have their heaters back despite being all-aspect. It'll make things a little hard now and then for the older jets, since they don't have countermeasures, but the F-5, Viggen, and 21 shouldn't have too much trouble IMO. Of course, if we go back to all-aspects for everyone, that won't be an issue. I'll miss the gunfights, though.

Right, but bear in mind that anyone on the current DCS version should also have the current versions of those maps. As soon as you introduce anything outside official content, you're going to have people who don't know how to install mods, who can't find where to get them from, who can't read a simple set of instructions, etc. Things like that work best on a closed community PvE server (like, say, Hoggit's CW campaign) because most of the players there come from the same place the mod does, and either have it already or know where to find it. If the EFM fixes the FM issues, it might be worth investigating in future. I hope the DM sees some love too, as it's a bit hot or cold right now, and emergency landings kill you 100% of the time no matter how gentle they are :( Ka-50 - the helicopter was developed through the 80s but only entered service in the mid/late 90s - it was one of those late Soviet projects like the Su-33 and modernised Su-27s, and the ill-fated Yak-(1)41. It was in progress, but its adoption took forever. Funnily enough this has now become normal for aircraft pretty much everywhere... I think the ADF's Tiger ARH and MRH-90 have only recently achieved IOC despite being in development through the 90s, and they still spend most of their time grounded. With the 16 and 18, I think you can use the game's random failures function to force a 100% certain failure of the HMCS to remove that feature, as even without the HOBS AIM-9X it makes their lives a lot easier than they would have been back then. I'm not sure though, might need some testing. They'll still have fancier DL than they did back then, the glass pit for the 16, and more powerful engines for the 18, but it shouldn't be a big deal.

It's not just from any particular side - for the player aircraft, the mouse movement feels 'laggy' and randomly zooms out, similar to how the camera is forced to zoom out where it might otherwise intersect the ground while, say, taking off or landing. The problem is for the player aircraft only - viewing an AI wingman in a MiG-19 is fine and mouse movement feels normal. I haven't had a chance to check if the problem occurs while viewing another player's MiG yet. EDIT - the cause seems to be the camera trying not to clip through the aircraft model. This response is drastically higher around the wingtips - zoom in too close, pan too close to the wingtips, and it kicks you way back out very abruptly.

Still an issue, seen again just the other day... any word on this?

A PSA about the trees in Syria, by the way: the leaves are very strong. You can't get away with scraping the upper branches like you can on the other maps. Between that and how well they conceal things (ground units or even aircraft flying low against them), never mind red or blue, I think green is the real enemy here :lol:

I was the 19. I just about crapped myself when I realised you were a 14, and had to scramble to defeat what I (thankfully correctly) interpreted as an incoming Sparrow by watching the smoke trail. It barely missed underneath me. I thought I got back onto your tail but it must've been the second Tomcat, which I didn't spot - I thought there was only one of you - and I managed to get an R-3S away at him before your second shot killed me. Unfortunately for me, the R-3S did what it often does, saw a flare and went with that instead. It was pretty cool to get a shot away on a 14 in a plane I am woefully bad with, though, maybe there's hope yet... As for 29/14. When the 23 arrives, it should be able to carry R-3S and R-13M, so you can still have rear-aspect heaters; the F-14A should, at some point, also get rear-aspect heaters. With that said, the problem with all-aspects before was that everyone had them and so merges tended to end very quickly across the board. If only 2 aircraft at a time on each team have that capability, it's not so bad. Regarding the Gazelle: the FM is only part of the issue. The bigger problem is that the Mistral is an all-aspect missile with an almost instant lock time, and so approaching within a few miles of a Gazelle (whether you know it's there or not) is taking your life in your hands. The only reason it isn't even more of a menace is that Mistrals are comparatively weak in terms of destructive power, and so like the Stinger it often takes two to destroy a MiG outright rather than annoy or perhaps cripple it. They aren't used to escort other helicopters or destroy red's helicopters, they're used specifically to kill MiGs. It's funny the first few times, but the humour does eventually wear thin. Even R-60s were unreliable against them and so now, we generally have to either gun them, or just avoid the general area they're in. I am totally fine with the Ka-50 losing its Vikhrs. In fact, I'm hoping once the Mi-24P comes out, the Ka-50 goes away altogether. It's a cool machine, but neither Cold War (mid/late 90s IOC...) nor widely produced (what was it, about 120? 130?). Blue definitely needs an attack helicopter, and I hope they get it soon, but until then pairs of Gazelle M/Gazelle L will have to suffice. The problem with this becomes that anyone who wants to join during that mission needs the mod, needs to have the same version the server is running, and then the inherent problems with the Skyhawk itself appear: it will be a worse nightmare than the Gazelle is. The FM and damage model are just not where they need to be to put that thing into a PvP environment. It's all well and good to say, well it's a strike aircraft, but I think at this point we all know that it only takes one person to realise how potent it is against other aircraft and suddenly you're back to F-5s running strike missions because all the strike aircraft are off playing Red Baron. In the future, I hope this is resolved, but in its current state - it's just going to become a future cause of lengthy arguments in this thread and people souring on the missions including it. One proposal I would make is turning the requirement for pure textures off, as this would then allow use of some of the wonderful retextures the community has created to help breathe life back into Caucasus. I'm sure there are ways to abuse it, but no matter what else we might bicker about here, I don't think any of the regulars would entertain that thought.

Did some quick testing. Interim solution: - Turn ARU from AUTO to MANUAL; - Hold ARU selector switch UP until gauge displays it's on long arm mode (FULLY LEFT) - Don't pull more than approx. 1/3 stick travel. Half travel if you're feeling spicy. This should give you the authority you're missing without overstressing the jet. It might take a bit of getting used to, though. Bonus here is that it also teaches you to edge the AoA at low speed as the permissible stick travel is about the same (albeit the consequence there is a stall, not ripping your plane apart). e/ The poor longitudinal stability is also one of the MiG-29's most noticeable flight characteristics in DCS, it's not just the 21, and it is indeed a feature of the design from everything I've read.

It seems the ARU is limiting control authority too much in short arm mode, topping out around 5-6G. I'll have to test some more later, but that was the one change I did notice - the ARU seems more restrictive at speed. When people said they couldn't pull AoA my brain switched into long arm mode and assumed they meant at low speed, which is the only time I'd be looking at that gauge. In long arm mode there's no effect on handling, as you'd expect, and the aircraft still behaves exactly the same way it has for months. So yeah - at high speed, you've got decreased turn performance (and I also noticed a few odd oscillations around the transonic region, but only occasionally). At low speed, business as usual. She still stalls ~33* UUA-1 as expected. If you're experiencing violent wing rock the only thing I can suggest is don't stick wank quite so much and keep an eye on the UUA, try and commit the sweet spot for 30-32* to memory so you can edge the stall when you need to. Be mindful that at very low speed or as the ARU switches modes, a miniscule amount of extra pull can very easily tip you over the edge and cause a stall.

I mean, it's a tailed delta with good control authority. At 600km/h the ARU would be in long arm mode, so you're getting maximum control response, and you can very easily throw the aircraft into a departure like you did there. There's no thrust vectoring about it, you just made a very violent control input, stalled the aircraft, deliberately (?) induced a severe pitch oscillation that coupled into the stall and produced something you couldn't recover from. If the aircraft had thrust vectoring or behaved as though it did, you would've been able to control and recover from that manoeuvre, but as it is you managed to find about the one thing the 21 can't recover itself from and rode it all the way into the ground. It's also worth bearing in mind that the more you stray outside the aircraft's normal flight envelope, the less we can be sure about what the exact 'right' behaviour is, because no pilot in their right mind would ever do what you just did in that video - or if they did, they probably didn't live to tell the tale. If you fly the plane within said envelope or at least reasonably close to it, it behaves a lot more 'normally'. Obviously, the 2015 video is showing some bizarre things, but the module was very new then and a lot less complete than it is now.

It feels no different to me now than it did before the patch. The stall onset has not changed at all, the approx. amount of commanded pitch at ARU long arm to ride the critical angle hasn't changed - nothing. The only thing that felt like it had been altered to me today was that it feels like I can't quite get as many G out of it at high (>700km/h IAS) speeds, but at low speed, it's exactly the same as it has been for months...

Something's definitely not right, assuming you mean 16 indicated on the UUA. If you mean the F2 telemetry bar - I'm not sure, I can't remember what the relation is between UUA units and true AoA. Either way, anything below about 32 indicated should be fine, with a subtle wing rock developing sometimes between 28-32.

I'm a habitual low-speed turnfighter so I wasn't really familiar with the ARU scheduling at high speeds - but I can absolutely say you can hold well beyond 15/16 indicated AoA per UUA-1 at any speed, at any altitude, comfortably. Stall onset remains around 32-34 as it always was. I'm not sure why you'd be getting any stall behaviour at all at 15 indicated, that's well within the safe envelope and not far off what you should be holding for a landing approach. ARU seems to transition fairly abruptly around the 700km/h mark, which is the only way I could overstress the aircraft consistently. If you're holding the stick to your guts for max turn at higher speed and the ARU suddenly flips, I could see that causing the jet to skate out from under you before you realise to relax the stick, but the jet's always done that for me - it's just more pronounced now.

The A-7 used beam slant range too, IIRC, though with a much more advanced avionics fit to work with it. It wasn't unheard of, but it wasn't a common feature in older or less complex aircraft.

Incredible work so far! The ability to hide the glare shield for the TV and radar displays is a nice touch as well.

Yeah, my bad - I meant the 14A. It should be coming with early missiles for both AIM-7 and AIM-9. Also - the 23ML in particular will be more than a match for a Cold War Phantom, in almost all respects. If we were getting a 23M it would be less clear-cut, but the ML is almost like a whole new aircraft - lighter, higher load limit, significant improvement in engine power, and a somewhat reasonable lookdown radar with close combat modes and no need for a second crewmember to use. The problem is that US and USSR aircraft were never quite 'in-phase' with each other, especially as the Cold War dragged on and design philosophies diverged. It shouldn't outclass the F-4 to the point that it makes the F-4 unable to compete, but the Phantom pilots will definitely need their wits about them.

MiG-23 will have R-60M as its best close-range missile, but with very rudimentary close combat modes (so better than a 21, but much worse than a 29 - no helmet sight for sure). For radar, R-23R is equivalent to an early model AIM-7 and the R-24R is about equivalent to a 7F, from memory. IMO a limited number of aircraft, and/or missiles, should be fine - the missiles are smoky enough to be seen from a distance. The main thing will be discouraging their use against Sabres for example, which can probably be done by limiting number. One of the big, underappreciated uses of the more modern aircraft is to let their radar fill gaps in EWR coverage and vector the older aircraft from that - I used to try and do it with the Mirage when it was still in missions. The MiG-23 can carry the R-13M and R-3S as well, so it's possible to limit the R-60s to avoid all-aspect heater shots. As for the F-14, early AIM-9s and AIM-7Es should be fine. The biggest issue I think people will have with the Tomcat is actually defending against it once it closes to gun range, even the 14A will be a handful.

Don't pull the stick so much? The aircraft will develop a wing rocking tendency and tip stall at angles of attack well into the "red-and-black zone" on the UUA. You can edge it if you know what you're doing or have a good feel for stick position, but snatching and pulling the stick like you're in an F-18 will cause a departure, exactly like you would expect from a jet that first flew in 1955 and does not feature any kind of control augmentation beyond a simple G-scheduler and damper system. The only difference is that before the aircraft would stall symmetrically, because the tip stalls weren't working, which was obviously easier to recover from and less detrimental in combat.

Kiryat Shmona was amazing, literally never a dull moment! Once the Mi-24 (and hopefully shortly after that, AH-1 or AH-64) arrive, it'll shine even more. Having to land on the smell of an oily rag to rearm and refuel, while the airfield was under direct fire from ground forces, was crazy. I broke a lot of MiGs today but I think we only lost one or two Sushkas in that time.

The R-3R is actually absolutely brilliant for dealing with people who like flying high enough for the radar to detect - and it won't care how much they try and flare, thinking it's a heater. The 21's radar isn't good but it's criminally underrated.

Early(ish) heaters for the 4th gens are fine IMO - just maybe limit the number available in warehousing. The R-73 is definitely too much, but since the 29 can carry R-60Ms and the MiG-23 carried R-60s as standard, that should improve things a bit. Still very capable missiles, but much shorter range, less insane turns, and easily distracted by flares. I haven't had much time to test out the F-14's earlier Sidewinders yet, I'll have to check that out later. The problem then becomes stopping the MiG-21s from trying to 'borrow' the R-60 supply. It's a shame we can't disable the Shchel-3UM (not least because ED did it wrong, it should be a monocle like the Ka-50 and not some gamey HMD overlay) - it would definitely help lessen the 29's dominance in close range fights. The reaction time that thing gives you is insane.