** DCS AJS-37 Development Update + Manual RC1 Release **

[IronMike]

And the General dev status.

Which includes the bk90...

 

 

 

 

The BK-90 for Multiplayer is being worked on atm and will hopefully be available to you guys very soon. Thank you all for your patience!

[rainyday]

Just quick thanks - crashing seems to be a thing of the past, Viggen has worked smoothly since the patch! :thumbup:

[paeagle]

Todays changelog (marked as DCS 2.5.2.20036 Update 8 in DCS World 2.5 Changelog and Updates of Open Beta section) is almost the same for Viggen as it was two weeks ago (DCS 2.5.2.19641 Open Beta Update 7). Is it mistake?

 

 

Edited December 1, 2019 by paeagle

[razo+r]

Todays changelog (marked as DCS 2.5.2.20036 Update 8 in DCS World 2.5 Changelog and Updates of Open Beta section) is almost the same for Viggen as it was two weeks ago (DCS 2.5.2.19641 Open Beta Update 7). Is it mistake?

 

 

 

The U7 was for Open Beta and now U8 is for the stable release. No mistake in my opinion. Just updating the stable version to the latest one.

[RyanFlint]

But stable got updated with the u7 fixes last week. This weeks update is for open beta, so the inital question is still valid.

[razo+r]

But stable got updated with the u7 fixes last week. This weeks update is for open beta, so the inital question is still valid.

 

Negative. Read the version numbers that he quoted.

 

"Todays changelog (marked as DCS 2.5.2.20036 Update 8 )"

 

and

 

"two weeks ago (DCS 2.5.2.19641 Open Beta Update 7)"

[RyanFlint]

Negative. Read the version numbers that he quoted.

 

"Todays changelog (marked as DCS 2.5.2.20036 Update 8 )"

 

and

 

"two weeks ago (DCS 2.5.2.19641 Open Beta Update 7)"

 

They merely forgot to add the "Open Beta" in their post, mate.

I just updated open beta branch to 2.5.2.20036 from 2.5.2.19682.

 

 

Also see 'This week, July 25th, will be a merge to Stable, and the next update to Open Beta should be August 1st.

 

Thanks!

EDSA Team.'

[Cobra847]

Yes, this is a mistake. There are no changes. The reason for the mistake is because we added the changelog to the usual place but it was not compiled that way for the previous update.

[paeagle]

The changes shown in the screenshots above were implemented in the stable version last week :-) .

See DCS 2.5.2.19682 Update 7 in this thread ...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=214251

[RyanFlint]

Thanks for the clarification gentlemen!

[sc_neo]

Concerning the RC1 manual; are you guys working on further revisions i.e. will there be chagnes made in the not too distant future, or is this a keeper worth printing?

[svaty]

We're revamping some stuff in the RB-15 section (I need to ask for specifics).

There are also some spelling issues. I would wait for the RC2, but I don't know when Heatblur is going to release it.

[sc_neo]

Dang....just got into the Viggen and i'd like to sink my teeth into a hard copy manual. Gotta be patient then :)

Edited August 1, 2018 by sc_neo

[Palten]

I printed a few hundred pages from the latest manual at work, and the toner almost ran out, doh!

[MBot]

There is still an old logic mistake in the graphic on ingress speed on page 171. According to the rules described, the leg between M5 and B6 in example B should be red and not green.

 

If a target waypoint is after the ingress waypoint, the ingress Mach speed will only be applied until the target and economic airspeed after this.

[Holton181]

There is still an old logic mistake in the graphic on ingress speed on page 171. According to the rules described, the leg between M5 and B6 in example B should be red and not green.

 

If you re-read the first part of your quoted paragraph carefully, you will see there is no logic mistake:

The Mach speed is used for the calculations from the set ingress waypoint to the next set ingress waypoint. The last ingress waypoint speed will be applied until the primary landing base.

This describes case B in the picture. Note there is no target waypoint after B6, there is one between B2 and B6, but that's not relevant. Your quote refer to case A where there are no ingress waypoint after last target waypoint.

I would have chosen to swap the cases in the picture (A->B,B->A) because I find it more logical to have the first case described in the text as A and the second case as B, but that is just a minor detail.

[MBot]

If you re-read the first part of your quoted paragraph carefully, you will see there is no logic mistake:

 

This describes case B in the picture. Note there is no target waypoint after B6, there is one between B2 and B6, but that's not relevant. Your quote refer to case A where there are no ingress waypoint after last target waypoint.

I would have chosen to swap the cases in the picture (A->B,B->A) because I find it more logical to have the first case described in the text as A and the second case as B, but that is just a minor detail.

 

While this may or may not be the actual logic that is applied, it is not what is written in the manual. The complete paragraph goes:

 

The Mach speed is used for the calculations from the set ingress waypoint to the next set

ingress waypoint. The last ingress waypoint speed will be applied until the primary landing

base. If a target waypoint is after the ingress waypoint, the ingress Mach speed will only be

applied until the target and economic airspeed after this.

 

That unambiguously says that after a target waypoint, economic airspeed is applied. So either the text or the graphic should be corrected.

[Holton181]

Well, I agree the way "if" is used here makes it a bit ambiguous, and they could rewrite it to make it less so. I'm fairly sure the picture is correct and the wording badly chosen.

As I see it, the combination of the text, the picture and some "combat logic", it is fairly easy to see that there are three main situations possible (not taking special cases into account):

1) no need for surprise attack, and no real threats to you exist: economic speed throughout the flight

2) the target need to be taken by surprise, but no real threats to you exist (at least not after the attack): Case A in the picture. If intermediate target waypoints, keep speed up as to hopefully take all targets by surprise.

3) the target need to be taken by surprise, and there is a high risk of threats to you, even after the attack: Case B, and keep speed up if intermediate target waypoints.

 

The correction you suggest above for the picture can hardly be considered a main case. You suggest to slow down after M5 in case B (but not after M4 in case A?) just to ones again speed up at B6 until landing. There might be situations where this could be an appreciated sequence, but I can't see it being a routine tactic.

 

My guess why the "if" confusion got in there is that standard practice for a single target waypoint might be to speed up before a target and return to economical speed directly afterwards. Only at situations with several target waypoints and/or when there is a need for high speed after the last target waypoint you deviate slightly from that rule. The authors seem to have shuffled the order in which they should have described it in the text without rephrase the "if" part.

[Holton181]

Just to clarify regarding my post above, I do agree some adjustment to the manual might be in place here, it's a good find you did. I just don't agree the error is within the picture, nor in the text per se, but in the order in which the cases are presented in the text (I take back my suggestion about switching the cases in the picture).

[Jivopira]

Good day.

Will the manual be in Russian?

If yes, then when ?

 

Доброго дня.

Будет ли мануал на русском языке ?

Если да, то когда ?

[Johnny Dioxin]

I mentioned before about the typeface used in the manual, as did someone else. Nevertheless, I have tried to get on with it - but it's just awful to read. I never get through more than a couple of pages before I have to stop to avoid a headache.

 

Why it couldn't be done in the typeface (font) that devs such as Eagle Dynamics use is a mystery to me.

 

I bought the Viggen on day 1 and was quite excited about it, but have only done the basics with it up to now - start-up, take-off, navigation and landing - because I wanted to wait for the manual and learn everything else by the book.

 

Learning from the manual is now not an option, so this will be the last Heatblur product I purchase, as there is no way to tell if future manuals will be the same. If the dev were to make or get someone to produce official tutorial videos (like the excellent ones Wags has done for the Ka-50 and A-10C) that would be a viable alternative, but otherwise, thanks but no thanks.

[Cobra847]

I mentioned before about the typeface used in the manual, as did someone else. Nevertheless, I have tried to get on with it - but it's just awful to read. I never get through more than a couple of pages before I have to stop to avoid a headache.

 

Why it couldn't be done in the typeface (font) that devs such as Eagle Dynamics use is a mystery to me.

 

I bought the Viggen on day 1 and was quite excited about it, but have only done the basics with it up to now - start-up, take-off, navigation and landing - because I wanted to wait for the manual and learn everything else by the book.

 

Learning from the manual is now not an option, so this will be the last Heatblur product I purchase, as there is no way to tell if future manuals will be the same. If the dev were to make or get someone to produce official tutorial videos (like the excellent ones Wags has done for the Ka-50 and A-10C) that would be a viable alternative, but otherwise, thanks but no thanks.

 

Sorry you feel that way.

Please get in touch for a refund if you'd like.

 

We used times new roman (or a font very similar) for it's gold standard in readability and use.

 

Thanks

[imacken]

Sorry you feel that way.

Please get in touch for a refund if you'd like.

 

We used times new roman (or a font very similar) for it's gold standard in readability and use.

 

Thanks

 

Nick, talking about the manual, I have sent you 2 PMs over the last 2 weeks and I haven't received a reply from you.

[imacken]

I mentioned before about the typeface used in the manual, as did someone else. Nevertheless, I have tried to get on with it - but it's just awful to read. I never get through more than a couple of pages before I have to stop to avoid a headache.

 

Why it couldn't be done in the typeface (font) that devs such as Eagle Dynamics use is a mystery to me.

 

I bought the Viggen on day 1 and was quite excited about it, but have only done the basics with it up to now - start-up, take-off, navigation and landing - because I wanted to wait for the manual and learn everything else by the book.

 

Learning from the manual is now not an option, so this will be the last Heatblur product I purchase, as there is no way to tell if future manuals will be the same. If the dev were to make or get someone to produce official tutorial videos (like the excellent ones Wags has done for the Ka-50 and A-10C) that would be a viable alternative, but otherwise, thanks but no thanks.

 

While I feel that is way over the top in terms of the typeface. I do agree that it should be consistent with all other DCS manuals. Times Roman just feels a little dated these days.

However, to suggest that it is unusable because of this, is frankly, a bit silly.

[corvinus]

Learning from the manual is now not an option, so this will be the last Heatblur product I purchase, as there is no way to tell if future manuals will be the same. If the dev were to make or get someone to produce official tutorial videos (like the excellent ones Wags has done for the Ka-50 and A-10C) that would be a viable alternative, but otherwise, thanks but no thanks.

 

There are some excellent Viggen tutorials on youtube (granted, they are not from Heatblur).

 

For example

xxJohnxx

 

GrimReapers

 

Bunyap sims

 

I have found these vids to be very helpful, perhaps you will agree.