Rex854Warrior

Well then i didn't understand what you wrote in a hurry, thought you said the CP/PD worked in SP. And you're just making me run out of patiente because it really seems you want to get something right :). Anyways that's enought talking about that.

So first of all, no it doesn't work in SP either, second stored landing fields means there is a landing waypoint placed in the editor and third because using a synthetic runway makes it much easier to land in those conditions, is cool, and It's Nice to have it, if mirknir doesn't add them, It's not a big deal but that's why It's a proposition not an obligation.

Pretty much like cypc sayd, and to be clear what i meant by It's not working is the waypoint CP/PD when you input it manualy, the synthetic runway does Work but when a landing waypoint is placed in the editor. Mirknir, it would be very nice of you to add landing waypoints in the editor for the Mirage ^^. Anyways, this isn't a Mirage argument thread, i think i proved my point, so i will stop speaking about it.

Hum, no it's not ^^ just tried it and it's not working. Show me a video of you doing it, might help

Yes you can, but that's not the point, programming the waypoint in the INS won't make the synthetic runway appear. Btw i don't understand why you quoted my message on the Spectator bug.

I am very familiar with the CP/PD function to create a synthetic runway, the only problem is that to my knowledge this function is not implemented yet. So you have read the manual, but since the feature isn't here yet,....

I do find this to be a nice bug thought, it makes it possible to have a GCI, wich will do a much better job then the terrible in game AWACS, and the vision you have in spectator might not be realistic because you see everything, but not far from realistic since the terrain is flat (mostly).

What pefman means by synthetic overlay (the correct term is synthetic runway) for the Mirage, is very usefull for ILS landings as a synthetic runway appears on the HUD making it "visible" even thought it's dark or there's alot of fog. For that to appear, the Mirage needs to have a "landing" waypoint on that airfield.

Well after searching a bit, The "yellow" for target information idea is good but isn't realistic.

Is it the end ? Hey guys, i noticed a week ago that the mission wasn't up anymore, same thing for the website. Did the NA guys drop the mission, is it the end of KO ? I would think not considering the work that has gone in this mission.

Energy loss is due to many more factors then just G's, depends on AoA, speed, power to weight ratio, etc.... In the Mirage it really depends on AoA, high AoA, high drag, high energy loss.

The GBU-24 is completly bugged, it's not up to RAZBAM to fix it, you might want to report that bug on the DCS 1.5 / 2.0 bugs forum as it's the bomb that is not working properly, not the aircraft :)

It's good to hear from KO's dad :D Thanks Deadbeef, just checked, units are back on the objectives, server is running and i'm happy :)

Looks like the server is bugged, the webmap isn't updated, and all of the ground units on the server are gone :( Our new layout didn't last long, at least it gave us something to do in the afternoon :D

Admins, please..... Hello, So, we the very active players (ZHeN, Redbat, Dean, Archangel, Leumi, me, and others) have been slowly walking away from the server. This is why i'm beging the admins to make some changes, and if you have no idea what to change, contact Deadbeef (or PM me an email address) and ask him to transfer you the emails i sent him. In these, i have proposed quite a few fixes for the problems that exist, improvements,... for this mission. Of course these are just propositions. One of the biggest was the change of Standard map layout : And in the quest to see if it works, a small team of elite players (joke of course) worked all day to make it happen : This is supposed to fix most of the balance issues we've had with the old North to South layout (Elbrus antenna, Inguri Dam,...), up North it creates a BVR "Zone" since there are no moutains to hide behind :) And in that BVR zone, in this base layout, it's only Mirages against Mig-29Ss wich, in someway, is more fair then M2Ks vs Su-27s. It makes Nalchik a very attractive airfield to capture, to win superiority in the region. The thing is, the mission wasn't designed to be like this, and so, the Reds have no A-10s, no Mirages at Senaki, but they do have 4 Viggens, 4 Su-25Ts and 4 Mig-21s (wich makes no sense), Beslan has no helicopters, making the capture of Nalchik (for whoever starts with that airfield) impossible without a very brave pilot who has two hours to spare. And probably other problems, but hey, solves multiple issues, also creates new ones... but it's refreshing. So please admins, do something, the server is dying at the moment, and we don't want that to happen :) :thumbup: Sincerely, Rex

No, the Mig-21Bis does not have any countermesures in the airframe, the ASO-2 pod or the jammer pod is needed.

NA Server 2 is down, needs to be restarted please :) Rex

Couldn't agree with you more. Except if we get S-300s and Patriots (wich btw, would ruin the mission as the area is too small) we do not need Kh-58s. MPUs are challenging (rarelly) and that's a good thing. Please remove them :) Rex

So, apparently this is a DCS problem in general, introduced in one of the lastest patch. We can see all the units in spectator, and that would be alright if the consequence wasn't as bad. We can also see all the units before jumping in an aircraft (choose a slot don't press flight and watch the map). And you can communicate with your teammates, basicly making the one using it a god that sees everything and can report it immediatly to his teammates. Someone discovered it today and used it, as exepected, it was a riot. On blueflag they've managed to disable it, please admins seek a solution. EDIT : sorry to Archangel, Redbat, Dean and Leumi.

Yes indeed, still since the efficiency is exponential (specialy against HEAT, less against Kinetic penetrators) i would say the SFP, perpendicular to the armor, would go throught. And i think that would also be the case for the turret roof. It's probably worse on a T-90, the engine is protected by a trapdoor : http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y297/timroberts8/13263.jpg And the transmission is under the radiators, possibly a little bit of armor but i doubt it.

I'm wondering what really happened..... :D

There is no exact data, but i have seen an engine bay of a modern tanks (M1 Abrams). And i'de say i was roughly 10 cms ish on the top. and that's pretty thick already. http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1_Saudi_Refurbishment_AAD_USAR_lg.jpg You can see the engine being worked on, the engine cover is the tickest and what's under the turrest (when it's facing forward is quite thin (5 to 10 cms)

I haven't seen a single tank with ERA on the engine deck, and nor are they thickly armored, that's a fact.

Well in that case we will have to see what the CBU does after the new damage model goes out. When did they announce that tought ?

Do all of that to a T-72 ? Well a skeet going trought the engine bloc for example will destroy the engine, that's not optimistic at all and that works with every single tank. The skeets will go most of the time for the engine, disabling the tank (as i said in my last reply, none of this is simulated so destroying the tank is the easiest option) And you're speaking about penetration values. This is not a tank simulator, all units have hitpoints. You want something realistic but the problem is that the whole ground part of the game isn't. The only solution would be to have a random % of a kill or not when the skeet hits and that would be overall less accurate then what we have now. For the animation only the deployement of the submunitions isn't animated (well not the greatest animation) all the rest is there.