Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Malek

  1. Oh yeah! Thank you. Basically I had checked that, but maybe with a Vaicom update it changed or so. Great, didn't expect that fast help :thumbup:
  2. Hello there I experienced a weird problem. Yesterday I was able to play normally, without issues. Today I had to update just the Updater (weird on a Tuesday?) and if I now launch DCS it gets stuck in the loading screen at 10%. Task Manager says though it is still using resources. When I checked the log file, there is apparently an Error with starting the game GUI. I attached a picture plus the log file. Hope someone is able to help. Greeting Malek dcs_Log_03172020.txt
  3. I have no official statement, but in the preview video you can see the Tomcat in some scenes. So I'm very confident that the F-14 will be compatible :pilotfly: ->
  4. I'm Swiss and in the Swiss Army and I like to clarify some points. 1. Why the Swiss don't do CAS with the Hornet: As someone already explained, in a modern conflict in Switzerland CAS is tactically irrelevant, because Switzerland is so small. Nevertheless in 2012 the Swiss Air Force wanted to integrate the Paveway 2 Bombs into the Hornets, so the Air Force could precision Strike some high value targets. But the Security Committee of the Parliament decided that such a capabilitiy is not needed. 2. Why the Hornet was chosen over the Viper: Both types were seen as very capable, but the hornet fitted the Swiss Idea of an alpine Fighter better. Because as a Carrier Aircraft the Hornet had a stronger landing gear and with its two engines more thrust. So it would be more handy to use on alpine Air Bases, which are quite difficult to land on. On top, Boeing was ready to integrate the AIM-120 into Swiss Hornets, while Lockheed just wanted to sell Sparrows. In the end the evaluation committee stated that a fleet of Hornets would cost 15% more than a Viper fleet, but Hornets would be 30% more effective to operate. 3. Which fighter will be choosen: First, Eurofighter or Rafale have no chance, too expensive or too old. Next the Super Hornet would be quite capable as it is very similar to the legacy Hornet, but it is probably too big for the Swiss underground caverns. Furthermore the Swiss Air Force would have to rely again on the US (Boeing has the ability to deactivate any Hornet at any time). So I believe that the Gripen E will be selected again, as it is no longer just a project (like in 2014) but an actual flying aircraft, it is even cheaper to operate than expected in 2014 and it's avionics suit is top notch and as I can estimate superior to Super Hornet Block 2. Lastly, the Gripen E can use, like the Super Hornet, the AIM-9X and AIM-120C-7 which are currently in use with the Swiss Air Force, but also all other European Missiles like Meteor or Iris-T. And the last one, the F-35 will be just to expensive. 4. The "Office Times" of the Swiss Air Force: It is a true story that some years ago the Air Force was just available from 08:00 - 11:30 and from 13:00 - 17:00. But they are changing the system now. Today the AF is available from 07:00 to 20:00, next year from 06:00 to 23:00 and from 2020 on there will always be two fighters mission ready. 5. How the Swiss public can decide which Fighter. So first to say, the Ministry of Defense selects which aircraft to buy and the Federal Council decides how to buy them. Then the Parliament revises this decision how to buy them and afterwards votes for or against the purchase. If the public is not happy with the decision (And usually there is always someone disagreeing) they can make a "Referendum" and then in the last instance the whole public can vote for the purchase. So for example in 2013 the MoD decided they want to buy 22 Gripen E for 3.3 Billions CHF. The Federal Council decided to introduce a new law to create a Fond to purchase them. After some revisions the parliament accepted the law. But the left parties felt unhappy and initated a "Referendum" and in 2014 the public decided against the law, because the Gripen E was at this time just a project. So the MoD had no money to buy the Gripen. Today the Federal Council decided that the new Aircraft and the new ground Air Defense System (they need replacement too) will be put into one package, and the parliament, maybe later the public, can just vote for or against a "new Air Force". If accepted the MoD receives 8-9 Billions CHF to buy those new Jets and SAMs and is free to choose which types and how many. With this way the MoD and Federal Council want to prevent that the public votes no, because they are just unhapppy with the typen chosen. I hope I was able to clarify some points and give some background information.
  5. There is another issue why the autopilot might not engage. According to the manual, you should set the "Attitude Source Switch" below the UFC to standby during the start up, but with this switch in standby the autopilot will not engage. So I leave it on auto.
  6. I have no evidence like track files or tests, but I fired twice two Sparrows in WVR at a head on Mig-21, the first at a range of 5nm, the second at a range of 3nm and in both tests all missiles missed. That and the others comments make me believe that the Sparrow generally underperforms. (But this is nothing more than a believe.)
  7. Honestly, if you you really read about the AIM-7, you would know that the M and F versions are much more advanced than the older ones used in Vietnam. For instance, the production of the AIM-7M started in 1982 and had a theoretical probability of kill of 50% while it achieved actually a Pk of 79% during the second Gulf War in 1991.
  8. I'm still curious what NCTR does, is it a system to identify radar contacts?
  9. In Leathernecks release trailer it says "18.09.2014", so I think this module is available since three years. Which means: Happy Birthday DCS: Mig-21Bis! :megalol: And thank you Leatherneck/Magnitude 3 for this great plane! (Please correct me if I'm wrong with the release date)
  10. So it may be a bug coming from the Huey campaign where you fly as a Spanish UNO Pilot.
  11. I'm not sure. I believe it is working, because when I use it, the Hawk-batteries need longer to launch their missiles, but this might be only a wrong feeling. At least the lights on the panel, chaff and flares are working.
  12. No problem and yeah maybe that's the issue.
  13. Okey, I found the problem! You can fix the bug with the kneeboard when you go to your Keyboard.diff file. The file can be found usually at Users\ "Your user" \Saved Games\DCS\Config\Input\AJS37\keyboard. There you must open the file with a suitable editor (I would recommend Notepad ++) and search for the entries with the names "Kneeboard - next page" and "Kneeboard - previous page" (May be called differently). Under those is a command which says ["removed"]. Change this to ["added"]. Now your kneeboard should switch pages again! This is just a very rudimentary explanation, I'll post soon another one with pictures. Finally I can fly again the viggen! :pilotfly:
  14. As I wrote, I use at the moment no mods. Usually I fly with Bartheks GTM 6.5, but for solving this problem I deactivated it. (I'm using JSGME)
  15. Already tried that, but again it does not help.
  16. From what I can gather, there is nobody who has the same problem. So reinstalled all the modules and afterwards whole dcs, but still no change, I can't use the kneeboard.
  17. Hello everyone, Since the last patch on the 10.02. I can no longer use my kneeboard on the Viggen effectively. I can show and hide it, but all other functions as "switching pages" or "marking my position" are not usable. When I try to rebind the keys ingame nothing changes, but when I try it from the main menu the keybinding of "kneeboard - next page" is coloured red and when I change it my game freezes. Next, I tried it with and without the controller emulator from my HOTAS Warthog but still no sign of a change. My kneeboard is still working with all other aircraft. I'm using no modifications. DCS Version Repairing with the updater does not help. I hope there's a solution for the problem and I was able to deliver most of the necessary information, if not, feel free to ask. Kind regards Malek Edit: The problem with the freezing game seems to be a general problem with dcs and is not related to the kneeboard problem. But I'm still curious why the keybinding was coloured red.
  18. Hallo zusammen, ich wiederhole hier ein Thread den ich schon im englischen Forum geschrieben habe. Seit den letzten beiden Patches kann ich nicht mehr eine Tastenkombination oder Achse für zwei verschiedene Funktionen setzen. Beispielsweise hatte ich die TrackIR-Z Achse für die "Absolute Kamera vor/zurück verschieben" und "Zoom-Sicht" Funktion gesetzt, da ich natürlich mein virtueller Kopf vor und zurück bewegen möchte, aber zusätzlich noch die Zoom-Sicht betätigen will, damit ich besser Fahrzeuge entdecken kann, da mein Monitor sehr klein ist. Ich weis nicht ob diese Änderung beabsichtigt ist und ich bin mir auch nicht sicher in welchem Patch sie hinzugefügt wurde, aber für mich ist es sehr wichtig zwei Funktionen mit einer Achse zu belegen, da ich sonst keinen Spielspass habe. Bitte teilt eure Gedanken über das Problem oder sogar eine Lösung dafür. Oder vielleicht sitzt das Problem vor meinem Computer :smilewink:
  19. Hello everyone, Since the last updates I can't set any axis or key for two different commands. For example, I set my TrackIr_Z axis as "camera move forward/backward"(In german it's called originaly: "Absolute Kamera vor/zurück schieben") and "zoom-view", because my monitor is too small to spot ground vehicles and I still wanted to move my virtual head on the Z-axis in the cockpit. But now this is no longer possible. I don't know if this is intentious or if it is a new bug, but I need such double assignments. Further I'm not sure in which patch this was added, I'll check that tomorrow. Please share your thoughts about this problem and if anyone knows a solution, I'd be very happy to fly again as usual. Maybe the problem is sitting in front of my computer? :smilewink: P.s. Sorry for the bad english! I'll post the same in the german support forum.
  20. Alright. That's true, I took the dry engine thrust as a constant, which is a big misstate by me :doh:. Okey, now I have reason for abandoning my method. And I memorized to only use real aircraft charts, but I think that I won't do any more calculations in aviation until I have all mathematical tools to do them correctly.
  21. Okey Cauldron. 1. I don't feel bullied or anything why should I? But I think you and me are focusing on different aspects and then there is the cultural difference between America and Switzerland which is blocking this discussion. 2. Please read my last paragraph, which I was still writing when you posted your next reply 3. Yes, the basis of my laboratory data is F=m*a, because I just want to know how fast the mass m of the aircraft would be accelerated with the Force F in a vacuum, and because it is in a vacuum there is basically no drag, if the object isn't touching anything, which is the case in my thoughts. And you must agree that something is wrong, when the aircraft would accelerate in the vacuum with 5 m/s^2 and then it accelerates in real(ingame) with 6.5 m/s^2. 4. I don't want to find something different and do a big scientific work, I just did very quick some experiments which should show the problem. 5. Yes in my first reply I was insulting you because I thought you were as well insulting me before, probably the difference between our cultures. Later I just defended myself. Can we please stop this discussion as offered earlier?
  22. :doh: I know aswell what a M2000C is and the difference, like many of her pilots... I must admit you have the ability to create relations where no ones are :smilewink:. Have you recognized that the discussion is, that the MiG-21 feels underpowered since the last patch? The documentation gives some data for further interpretation. For example: I compared the Fishbeds laboratory acceleration with its in game acceleration, I saw that theres a big negative difference, then I compared the M2000C laboratory acceleration to its ingame acceleration and saw that there is a big positive difference. Although the technical difference between the M2000C and the Fishbed, their acceleration differences should be in the same direction, because it makes no sense that the M2K accelerates faster than her engine technically is able to, from where should she get this additional acceleration? From the sun? Hard to explain in words... Furthermore I have never wrote, that the MiG-21 should be equal to the M2000C? It was never my intention to say that the MiG should be similar to the M2000C. (Already written earlier) And btw. I know which airplanes were real opponents of the Fishbed but many of them are not in game and are for my conclusion, that those two aircraft seem to be not balanced to their real abilities, obsolete. So, my suggestion is that we stay how it is. With my knowledge about philosophical argumentation and physics I'd say that my test have shown that the actual flight model of the MiG-21 is underpowered, as many feelings already have guessed. Although the documentation is very confusing, because I did it within 1 1/2 hour. The test may be very unprecise but for me still usable. To argue here about the accuracy of the test and our knowledge is sort of off topic, you have submited your concerns about the test, but as long as you don't do a more precise test which unproofes mine, it should be used to support our feelings about the FM. If you'd like to continue arguing with me we can do that in private messages.
  23. Dear Cauldron, you are almost right. Yes, of course are my calculations very unprecise, I quote myself: "The results are not very precise, because aerodynamic drag is not included..." Please read the whole document. But the results are definitely not trivial, as I wrote, I did use the formula F = m*a for "laboratory accelerations" which means in a vacuum, so there is no air or another fluid which could generate drag. You probably don't know the exact definition of trivial, which means that a mathematical proof is so easy that no term operations are needed to proof it. Aerodynamic Drag was obviously included in the experiments, because DCS is a realistic simulation. So the empiric experiments are correct in the dimension of the project. To sum up, as I wrote several times, the laboratory speeds say nothing about the performance of the plane in real or in game, but it gives a reference point! A personal remark for you, Cauldron: They way you tried to proof me like an idiot or a liar is very unscientific. Furthermore it shows how arrogant you are, because you could have guessed from my calculations and way of argumentation that I'm still in education :smartass: and at the beginning of physics. And every academic, at least in Europe, wouldn't have used all your formulas to show what is wrong, because he had known that I won't understand them and that I won't use them. No physician is using formulas which he has not proofen by himself. So you have shown off your knowledge about physical formulas, but as well your need to be better than others. If you still feel that my documentation is still so "trivial" do it yourself. :thumbup:
  24. Sorry for those which misunderstood my definition of balancing. I didn't meant that all aircraft should be balanced so that all aircraft have the same chances, like in other causual games. I meant to balance the aircraft to their real abilities and performance. I'll change that in the document, so there is no more confusion.
  • Create New...