Svetlin

Hi guys, may I ask for some guidance on the BaseSize parameter for carriers? I wanted to fly the Super Etendard out of the R91 CDG in Single Mission, but initially could not do it, until I saw that R91 CDG was set up as BaseSize=SMALL, while the respective setting for the Super Etendard required MEDIUM size bases. So, that got me wondering which entry would be correct to edit - that for the carrier, or that for the aircraft? I changed that for the aircraft, just to test and the problem was solved, but the questions remain. How do we decide whether to set up a base as SMALL, MEDIUM or LARGE? Is there any difference with respect to that setting for land bases and carriers? If it was up to me to decide, I would set up amphibious assault ships as BaseSize=SMALL, smaller aircraft carriers as BaseSize=MEDUM and large aircraft carriers as BaseSize=LARGE, but that of course is not based on a specific rule or knowledge about the way the game works, simply on the number of aircraft a ship is able to carry in real life. Based on that logic I would actually change the R91 CDG base size from small to medium and restore the Super Etendard setting to the original state. Thank you in advance for sharing some knowledge on the topic.

Thank you, Wrench! Yes, you are correct of course about BaseSize=LARGE for heavy bombers and transports, though the game would not populate such on an aircraft carrier, even if it is set as CarrierBaseSize=LARGE, unless someone edits the bomber/transport aircraft data.ini with CarrierBased=TRUE and the proper nation entry. The R91 CDG has in fact slightly shorter flight deck than the Essex class, but much wider and carries fewer aircraft (probably because of the aircraft size difference). Mr_Tayto, yes, I have launched and trapped on the R91 CDG, no problem. I am not sure if the game really "knows" what the runway surface and be able to choose which aircraft to populate on rough fields and which on paved runways only.

Fiddling with the stance of the Crusader. The stock stance did not seem quite right, so I played a bit with the numbers.

Hi Gepard, here is a picture of F-86F on airhistory.net, which is listed as taken in 1968: https://www.airhistory.net/photo/635200/53-1387 One more from the same page from 1971: https://www.airhistory.net/photo/10110/53-1255/AF53-255 Also one from Wikimedia, also from 1968: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:104th_Tactical_Fighter_Squadron_1968_Pueblo_Crisis.jpg There are a few pictures of F-86H in camo also here: https://www.piccianiaircraftphotos.com/f-86h_sabre One picture from 1966 here: http://www.forgottenjets.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/f86h-sabre_531229-531528.html By the looks of it, some F-86H were operated by the USAF in camo between 1966 and 1971. I did not come across pictures dated before 1966 and after 1971. I am sorry for sharing links rather than the actual pictures, but that way you could see the source and judge for yourself if it is a trustworthy one or not. Hope that helps!

Well, the word-for-word translation to "experience is important" is correct. A rather loose translation could be "experience makes difference". In other words a newer and more modern aircraft does not guarantee victory over an old F-16A, if the latter is flown by an experienced pilot and instructor. Pictures from Top Gun with Skyhawk against Tomcat come to mind So, it makes some sence to me, could be totally wrong of course.

I hope I am not nit-picking here, but you may choose to edit the text under the throttle. In your picture I see М.Г АЗ (Г interval А), and it should be М. ГАЗ (М, then dot with no interval, then interval, and then Г). М. ГАЗ stands for малой газ, which virtlually means little power, or in probably better technical term - idle power, or idle throttle. Love your attention to detail though.

Friday, September 13th, 2024 - a sad day for the Bulgarian Air Force. During a training flight for an airshow, that should have taken place today, while performing low altitude maneuvers 2 air force pilots in a L-39ZA flew away forever. RIP! Deepest sympathy to their families...

First picture: The red button on the left says EMERGENCY BRАKE (АВАР. ТОРМОЖ.). The upper red handle on the right is a selector switch - selects between the main and the emergency (or back-up) air-pressure sensor (in russian air-pressure sonsor is abbreviated ПВД). So, the text there is ПВД and also АВАР. and РАБОЧ. (АВАР. stands for emergency and РАБОЧ. stands for working, i.e. main sensor). The lower red thing is a cover over the button, which engages the emergency release of the landing gear. The text there is АВАР. ШАССИ (which stands for emergency and landing gear) Second picture: The red button on the left says EMERGENCY BRАKE (АВАР. ТОРМОЖ.). The other one says DE-ICING PRESS (ПРОТИВООБЛЕД. НАЖАТЬ). So, the first one engages the emergency brake and by pressing the other one the de-icing system for the windscreen is engaged.

Looking great, though there are some minor typos. 1st picture: СВРОС ЦЕЛИ must be СБРОС ЦЕЛИ (so В must be Б) БПИЖН must be БЛИЖН (so П must be Л) 2nd picture: I am not sure, but may be СТВКЛ should be СТЕКЛ (so В may have to be replaced with Е) ИЗПУЧ must be ИЗЛУЧ (so П must be Л) Considering you are not of slavic origin, overall you have done great with the Cyrillic alphabet. Keep up that great work.

This is Have Glass II, not V, so not sure if it will serve your purposes.

The MiG-21bis flight manual for DCS identifies that instrument as an indicator for the distance to the ground Radio System for Close-distance Navigation (Индикатор дальности РСБН). Source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/8a3/6o8xp14vqfyna8eos7jn6g5vynfopr3f/DCS MiG-21bis RU.pdf The manual contains some detailed information about the use of the indicator as part of the aircraft navigation system. The problem is that the text is in Russian and a bit too technically complicated for me. Apparently the flight manual of the aircraft specifies a recommended flight profile for approaching an airport. At a predefined distance from the ground Radio System for Close-distance Navigation, the aircraft must be at a predefined height. So, that instrument informs the pilot for the distance to the ground system and he controls the height and speed he is flying at, making sure he is approaching the airport in a proper and safe manner. Hope that helps.

I am sorry, I do not know what exactly this one does, but it is some sort of a distance counter. The Cyrillic text says "Distance in km" at the top, then "Increase" at the right side and at the bottom the text says "Set starting with the hundreds in the range between 0 and 9". I hope that at least the translation could be helpful.

Hi, ravenclaw_007, I am observing an issue with the GPU-2A_Grey. I tried to download the file again and same result (in-game shot and a shot from MUE's lod viewer):

Eduard are an excellent company for highly detailed model kits and model kit upgrade sets. Here is the photo etched set they used to offer for the MiG-21F-13 cockpit: Yes, it is not a picture of the real thing, but if Eduard went for these colours, chances are those would be close enough to the real thing. Using these colours as a base should be good enough I believe. The photo etched set came pre-painted, so it was just a matter of cutting, folding, and glueing.

Looks very, very nice! That centerline pylon though should disappear

Hi, the following video contains some close-up shots of the Shafrir 2, though I do not know if that could help from modelling perspective.

Could that be somehow hard-coded into the model during the construction in 3DS or Blender? Honestly, I have no practical knoweldge about 3d modelling. I am drawing my conclusions from my fiddling with data.ini files in trying to add or fix turning front landing gear and shocks. There are models where no matter what ini dancing I did, the front gear would not turn properly along the correct axis and/or the shocks would not function correctly. That made me believe such movements are somehow hard-coded into the model during the construction in 3DS or Blender. So, my guess is, that unless these movements are planned for and provided for during the model construction, the ini file alone will not help. I would put my bet the same applies also for rotors rotation axis. Of course it would be best if one of our 3D experts could confirm or reject that and shed some more light on the topic.

I apologize, Nyghfall, I did not realize the file was removed on purpose. I deleted it from my post above. I apologize once again.

Yes, that's logical. There is hardly any more evident example of this trend than the Hornet and the Super Hornet. On the other hand it seems to me the F-16E/F were labelled E/F instead of F-16C/D Block 60 simply in an attempt to convince the buyer they are buying cutting-edge technology and not something outdated. So, some play with blocks and versions - "Nah, no biggie, it's just another block." vs. "Oh, no, that's a brand new thing, look, it is not the C/D anymore, it is the E/F now", that kind of thing. And that is going further with the F-16V now.

Hi, will the canopy be animated to open/close? If it will, may I suggest that you used the same animation slot to animate the upward turning air-pressure-sensor mast? When the F-13 was parked on the airfield, the technicians would turn the mast up as a safety measure. It would be cool to have the canopy and the mast operating under the same animation.

Well, that is most interesting. I was not aware that other air forces also created locally and used recon pods based on the UB-16 rocket pod. I guess that was some Warsaw pact sharing of ideas and experience

I do not mean to argue, but it does not seem likely that those were modifed MFs. They have the MiG-21R wing with the radio-electronic warfare wingtip pods. Also they have the MiG-21R tube installed on the right upper side of the nose with just an air pressure sensor, whereas the MiG-21MF has other sensors added on the same tube. Why would anyone downgrade by removing some useful sensors to convert a serial MiG-21MF into a MiG-21RF? Some countries, Bulgaria included did have their own recon version of the MiG-21MF. Here it was labelled MiG-21MF-R and at the beginning it was planned to operate with the MiG-21R pods (after removal of the GSh-23L gunpod). That did not work out well, so later on, the MiG-21MF-R performed recon missions with a locally built small pod with camera, converted from a UB-16 rocket pod. That was the RFC-2 pod and shapewise it was something like this (this is just a shape, no skin):

Yes, exactly, Egypt made a local modification to the MiG-21R by adding permanently cameras in a fairing under the nose as in your picture. Sadly I do not have good reference for the recon pods, but it seems the old Eduard 1/48 MiG-21R model kit would be a good reference with respect to stencils and panel lines. Here is a review of the model kit: https://www.themodellingnews.com/2014/06/review-eduards-fishbed-mig-21r-in-48th.html

Having followed the different threads on the topic, I would say we are looking at the result of a cooperation between GKABS and yakarov79. The base models come from GKBAS (A-6A early and late already released here, the A-6B is yet to come) and yakarov79 is making fine-tuning and adding additional details to the models also adjusting his skins to the models.