Leaderboard

Thanks for the info! As always when I make my assets, I spend a lot of time researching. And it always ends up inconclusive or conflicting. So at the end I have to make a choice of what and how to implement something. I don't doubt your information, but for every bit of information there are always as many telling me the opposite. For example, here is a picture released by the China Military Online (sponsored by the PLA News Media Center) of the hull 629 Tongling 056A firing their 30 mm CIWS, also with their box launchers in the background. The reason I chose to name it the 056A was because the 056 is being phased out and transferred to the Coast guard (where most of it heavy weapons will be removed). But I'm happy with my 056A asset, which surely can be used as an analogue for both the 056 and 056A in DCS missions. Consider it a 056 slowly being refitted to a 056A.

Are you trying to say that dogfighting on an F-4E will be more troublesome than on an F-16C? Whoa! I would never have said it!

Not yet. There's still a lot to be done. I want this version to be different, more authentic. Unfortunately, I can only play with the textures and not with the landclass itself - so when something looks nice in one part of the map, it doesn't look that good in the other. Looking for compromise sadly takes a lot of time.

Military Asset Pack China 1.1.0 released! Changelog Version 1.1.0 Added DF-21D LBASBM Added PGZ-09 ability to fire while moving Added PGZ-09 gun trajectory forecast Added PGZ-95 SPAAG Added PHL-11 SPMRL Added PHL-16 SPMRL Added PLZ-07 SPG Added SX2190 Truck Added Type 054B Added Type 056A Corvette Added YJ-12B LBASM Added ZBL-09 IFV Added ZTL-11 AFV Added tracers to 052D Type 1130 CIWS Added tracers to 055 Type 1130 CIWS Added trajectory forecast to 052D Type 1130 CIWS Added trajectory forecast to 055 Type 1130 CIWS Added trajectory forecast to 022 AK-630M CIWS Changed CJ-10 CEP Changed CJ-10 textures Changed PGL-625 FB-10A targeting and guidance performance Changed HQ-17A radar and weapon performance Changed HQ-17A textures Changed Type 052D HHQ-9B model Changed Type 052D wake visuals Changed Type 055 HHQ-9B model Changed Type 055 wake visuals Changed Type 1130 CIWS ammunition performance Changed radars reflection and countermeasures parameters Changed weapons reflection and countermeasures parameters Fixed CJ-10 LACM tracking and terrain following altitude Fixed CJ-10 loadout model in ME Fixed HQ-17A loadout model in ME Fixed HQ-22 LN loadout model in ME Fixed HQ-22 SR loadout model in ME Fixed HQ-22 STR loadout model in ME Fixed LD-3000 loadout model in ME Fixed PCL-181 loadout model in ME Fixed PGL-625 loadout model in ME Fixed PGZ-09 loadout model in ME Fixed Type 052D VLS animations Fixed Type 052D loadout model in ME Fixed Type 055 loadout model in ME Fixed Type 1130 CIWS conflict Fixed YJ-21 CEP Fixed ZBD04-AT loadout model in ME Fixed ZTQ-15 loadout model in ME Removed burst fire for 052D Type 1130 CIWS Removed burst fire for 055 Type 1130 CIWS Removed burst fire for PGL-625

What's 100% likely is that they're just having fun. Why is this even a discussion?

I can't really put this to numbers, or a specific date, all i can say is progress has been made on a daily basis, and i continue as i overcome the difficuulty walls that lies on each challenge.

That means all the four download links have reached their transfer bandwidth limit. They reset automatically every 24 hours.

That's an impressive amount of new models and fixed or added things. Your work makes the DCS environment so much more rich and divers! I assume for now other packs will come first, but if you come back to the China asset pack someday, I would love to see chinese coast guard units and maybe some maritime militia ships if possible. Oh,and regarding to packs: How about something like "insurgents asset pack"?

Updated pictures for the Theme/Wallpaper Testing goes well

To add to what Gunfreak said, I'd just like to remind that this May we'll be celebrating 7th anniversary of WWII Asset Pack release and out of 10 AI planes planned for Normandy 44 back then, throughout these 7 years we got 4 (and even these are still not quite fully finished yet). Granted, noticeably more planned ground and naval units were added, so at least there's something to place on the terrains down below. Moreover, out of 21 official 3rd parties making content for DCS currently, only 2 work or plan to work on anything WWII related. To sum it up, I suspect we may get an early Spit or Hurri, even flyable ones at some point in the future (Mr Grey indeed mentioned BoB planes a few times and he does treat DCS as a bit of a MSFS-style but-more-detailed warbird collection). However, If anyone here expects anything remotely close to half - fleshed out BoB experience to ever come to DCS in next 2 decades, he's delusional. WWII stuff has always been a bit of a "sidequest" for ED and it will most likely remain so. Mr Grey might be an avid warbird enthusiast, but he's first and foremost not a business - idiot. He can fly them in real life because he's knows a thing or two about making money. He knows who majority of DCS customers are (modern combat aircraft fans), what sells best on this platform (modern combat aircraft) and he'll not change it.

Spin up time on the M61 is greatly exaggerated by people. As you can see, the gun fires almost instanteously, quicker than the F-5 with it's blast doors. Pilots are also taught to fire 1 second bursts, which is about 100 rounds. Dispersion. It's intentional with both the M39 revolver cannons and the M61. When boresighting the M61 you boresight 3 of the 6 barrels and they never boresight to the same spot on the target. The gun is designed to fire with a shotgun effect, in this case, an 8 foot spread at 1000 yards. I believe the SUU-23 gun pod is the only one that was driven by an electric motor, the SUU-16 was driven by a ram air turbine that required the aircraft to be moving at 300mph minimum but 400+ was optimal. M61's mounted internally on aircraft are generally driven by the aircrafts hydraulic system. ROF advantage goes to the M61 almost instantly. *Edit* Edited for accuracy.

yes. its also deeper than that. a lamp isnt just one component, theres multiple things that come to play for each individual lamp in the entire cockpit and all of them have their own wear/tear

Unfortunately... But your mod gives it the second life anyway

Hi currenthill, the 056A you made should be the 056 frigate, not the 056A. The biggest feature of the Type 056A frigate in appearance is a large opening at the stern, which is equipped with a towed anti submarine sonar The main difference between 056 and 056A lies in their anti submarine capabilities and weapon configuration. The Type 056A has strengthened its anti submarine capabilities on the basis of the Type 056, mainly reflected in the following aspects: Anti submarine capability improvement: The 056A model has added an active and passive towed linear array sonar system, enhancing the anti submarine capability of searching and attacking submarines. one Differences in weapon configuration: The 056A model was equipped with a 14.5mm machine gun, while the 056 model was equipped with two 30mm single barrel naval guns. The Type 056A launches the "Fish 8" anti submarine missile, while the Type 056 launches the "Eagle Strike 83J" anti-ship missile. The 056A model has added two 9-mount multifunctional rocket launchers, while the 056 model does not have such a configuration. Shipborne helicopter: The Type 056/056A frigate can carry one 4-ton Z-9 multifunctional helicopter, but the Type 056A has a helicopter takeoff and landing platform at the stern, while the Type 056 does not have such a design. The Type 056 is mainly used for coastal defense and undertakes daily patrol tasks. It has replaced the Type 053H frigate series and the Type 037 hunting submarine series, and a total of 22 ships have been built. On the basis of the first model, the 056A model has strengthened its anti submarine and mine sweeping capabilities, with better performance and a larger number of constructions, reaching as many as 50 ships. With some modifications to the 3D model, there will be coexistence of 056 and 056A in the next update

Its a real pain in the ass for us mechanics when they do this <profanity>,,,,, everything has the be re greased and rechecked.....thank God its not normal practice.

But has it been done well, enough? Clod was a hot mess. And a long time ago. Anything in this decade?

Thanks! Yeah, I plan to make Chinese helicopters. But there were a lot of of additions and changes in this release, so it'll have to wait until the next one. Until then I would suggest using a Blackhawk with Chinese livery. Since the Z-20 is based on the 70s UH-60, that would be a reasonable analogue for now.

For those who come from a background of airframes that in effect have no vices and aid the pilot, it can indeed be frustrating trying to utilise an older aircraft in a manner to which your muscle memory and expectations are accustomed to. The F-16 & F-18 are both types that have a multitude of computer assistance to enable safe and effective flight. The F-14 and especially the F-4 are from an age where if you are ham fisted or subscribe to the “bang-bang” method of flying (stick stirring) then you have an airframe that will actively take part in your demise. It WILL try to kill you. That’s not to say that newer flight crews could not handle an older lady, they will just need a few more “get to know you” hours to learn its idiosyncrasies before handling it, and learning that there is no brain to stop you from killing yourself. Dont take Movers performance as an indicator of older being just “too damn hard”, it is just something that those used to “flying laptops” will have to realise that you are now in a situation that demands finesse and forethought.

Hi guys, For both the missile and the cannons we use the DCS standard model (which is what we should use in principle, keep in mind the M-2000 was released before ED took control of weapon implementation and the F1 afterwards). The missile seeker while the missile is still on the aircraft is our own model and DCS' model the instant it is fired. We will contact RB to see if they have info, what if any different design choices they took... This might be something that doesn't need a fix, something that we can change (in the case of the seeker) or something that needs ED's intervention. Just to reiterate and be clear. None of the weapons behaviour themselves have been developed by us, irregardless of the internal naming, ED is now in charge of weapon modelling.

Stop, please. We do something for the Lunar New Year every year and we do promotions for many different companies, creators and 3rd Parties. Please don't bring in extra drama here.

T-45 Goshawk, no question. It has no weapons, but best for overall learning.

As we will get our first Soviet Cold War 4th Gen Fighter Full fidelity, beside him the closest Full Fidelity 80s available for now is the M2000 and F-14A So what is the plan for a Cold War Scenery with Such lack of 80s fighters? Panavia Tornado could be another candidate. F-15C makes sense too. of course Mig-23ML and F-4, they are just a Gen behind but both sides were plenty of them. Probably in mayor number than 4th gen. no news on early F-16 versions or F-18? Both of them were really part of the 80s European scenery?

UPDATED 2024 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313697/

For those unaware, two (unwillingly) retired fighter pilots occasionally make DCS content showcasing BFM engagements . In the linked video, Mover has trouble at times handing the relatively analog F-14 against Gonky in an F/A-18. Note these people are trained fighter pilots and thus more experienced than your typical DCS player. If Mover had some trouble, it’s safe to say the average YouTuber used to 4th generation tech is in for more challenges flying and fighting the F-4E, especially for BFM. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same people hyping up the F-4E now online turn against the aircraft once they lose BFM bouts - either to bad tactics (4th Gen “lift vector and PULL” won’t work here) or to bad aircraft handling like adverse yaw or fighting with the yaw stability augmentation on. The manual nature of weapons delivery will probably be another nail in the social media coffin , since it’ll be dead reckoning nav & mils/airspeed/ dive angle instead of a JDAM and targeting pod. Pave Spike and Maverick will offer electronic targeting options, but it’ll be a shadow of later tech.

Only a Remark.... P-51D and Fw-190D-9 was ED modules before the RRG Studios KS. The Defunt KS was rescue by ED and get the Honnor to complete all modules (Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8, P-47D, Spitfire Mk.IX, missing the Me262 on research). After them, ED has make the Mosquito FB, and now the F6F Hellcat (all talked in the past by Nick Grey).... WW2 assets pack has the work of 3D modeles, with request some reward by your work and surely the new PTO units, get into them. The channel map and Marianas WW2 has ED work and Ugra Media complete the Normandy map and build the update Normandy 2 (We dont know if your next map will has a WW2 map) Meanwhile M3 has continue with your plans about PTO with the F4U and your PTO units, and surely that is not the "only" WW2 module by that 3rd party (No team map yet, but remember they was plans to build Okinawa map). Octopus-G move to continue make WW2 East Front units after the I-16, with the La-7 and Po-2 (no AI assets pack or map teams yet). And I think, that is not the last 3rd party with plans on WW2... Nick Gray doesn't have to prove anything vs other company... when he promised that he was going to make a Mosquito FB, a Hellcat F6F (possibly coming out this year) and then, was very clear to make BoB modules on the future. Remember the last interview at VIAF and previously about the BoB aircrafts on the Fighter Collection and associated team friends with BoB aircrafts on fly.

Comparing a 30+ year old dead game to a game that isn't any older DCS and is in active development is a strawman. You can argue you don't like the other game and doesn't fill your need(though complaining about lack of vr isn't very valid as the game will have VR long before DCS even starts on Bob) That other sim that covers late ww2, doesn't do it very well, it does everything worse than DCS,( except number of aircraft available) And so I feel it's perfectly valid to wish DCS to do market garden and boddenplatte even tho that sim already does it. As it doesn't do it well, ground graphics are almost abstract especially trees and buildings. The engine can't handle even medium fights well. There are no long range bomber, no drop tanks. Some very suspect flight modeling, terrible effects graphics from explosions to bullet hits on the ground. AI doesn't go higher than 12 000 feet. It just doesn't simulate what it's suppose to simulate well. That other sim that covers bob, simulate bob extremely well, you can probably simulate battle of Britain day and the hardest day 1:1 scale. The AI fights to their aircraft advantages, the AI will use the entire sky from 30k down to sea level. They won't all dive for the deck as soon as the fighting starts Ships blowing up will create huge black plumes going many thousands of feet up, same with blowing up fuel tanks. . It has drop tanks working for later periods. it ha radar use foe night fighters. It will get 3 4 engine bombers the next few years. DCS won't come close to simulating BOB as well unless huge changes happen to priories and the way DCS works. Can you have cool battles in DCS with a full fidelity Hurricane and full fidelity 109E, sure but that doesn't make it a proper BoB simulation. And that's the difference. It isn't just that someone has already done it. it's that someone has done it and are still doing it better than DCS will unless DCS WW2 completely changes how it does stuff. But sure if ED says they'll release 10 full fidelity BoB aircraft. 10+ more AI aircraft, appropriate ships and ground vehicles. Fix the AI(i know they said they are working on that) and everything else needed to make a proper Battle of Britain simulator. I'd be very happy and buy all the planes and asset packs needed. Reflected would make fantastic bob based campaigns and the dynamic campaign would just be fantastic. But I don't think that will happen. But I will buy any bob plane they DO release. And have fun with whatever I can use them for. Even a dynamic campaign for 1944 is still missing so much to make it feel like a proper simulation of that period.

Difficult one, if I were to pick my top 3 from this list it would be Mil Mi-6 - we already have 2 helicopters it would fit fairly well with, it's relevant for the Sinai, Syria and future Iraq and Afghanistan maps, it was fairly prolific (though not as many built as the Mi-4, nor the number of operators) Mil Mi-4A/AV - prolific, staple helicopter of the mid-Cold War, would fit on many of our maps, but unfortunately is kinda lacking other units it would fit with. Mil Mi-26 I would've been very interested in the Ka-27PL and to lesser extent the Ka-25BSh, but these helicopters are practically entirely dedicated to ASW and IMO ASW in DCS is frankly as good as absent. Heck, naval warfare as a whole in DCS is sorely lacking IMO and unfortunately I don't see it improving in a meaningful way within say, the next decade. Especially when you consider the amount of work needed for aerial and land warfare as it is and that the amount of functionality and content missing from naval warfer and ASW could easily justify an entire game. Mil Mi-10 - I don't know, it feels perhaps too specialised and kinda lacking a practical purpose within DCS World (though not to the extent of the Ka-15). I think I'd rather have the Mil Mi-6 which is more relevant to DCS as it currently stands. Ka-31 could be good, but I think it would make much more sense as an AI aircraft. For the Ka-15 I'm not really interested - we lack Soviet air and naval assets from the period and it would largely be without a practical purpose in DCS, if we had a more comprehensive showing of Soviet helicopters, I might be more open to it, but seeing as we don't it's difficult for me to be interested in it. As for Soviet aircraft not on this list, I think I'd be most interested in the following: Mi-8TV/TVK - an earlier version more applicable to the Cold War and the Soviet-Afghan War. The TVK incidentally has a 12.7 mm bow machine gun and 9M17 ATGMs, which could be more interesting. Mi-24V - quite similar to our current P, but replacing the GSh-30-2K with a turreted 12.7 mm YakB. Only really because it's a bit more prolific and iconic IMO. That said though our Mi-24P is missing features that would be perfectly accurate for it, which would also apply to the V: PKT door gunners, single-rack ATGMs, removable PZU, reduced-load S-8, L-166 (even as just a 3D model). I'd also include the Mi-24D here. Ka-29TB - while a naval helicopter, it's designed for assault and so is less affected by the issues of naval warfare.

The map runs on the old version of the engine, so I imagine nothing else can be done to improve it.

Fixed : RBM azimuth sector not following cursor if latched on SP Fixed : Cursor not synced when latched on SP Fixed : HRM patch video and symbology scaling slightly off causing designation errors Fixed : WSO MRM/SRM radar presets programming Fixed : Missing OBST (TFR) warning light on front cockpit Fixed : STT not triggering RWR alerts between F-15Es Fixed : AN/APG70 and AN/AAQ13 having mutual interferences Fixed : Swaped SRM/MRM radar presets Fixed : Small glitch on RBM scope refresh sides with crosswinds Fixed : IFF Mode 4 returning hostiles as friendlies Fixed : RWR Threat icons does not show true distance from aircraft Fixed : AG Gunsight accuracy. Note: Range to Ground is still WiP Fixed : LANTIRN AAQ-14 TGP still functional if pod is removed from the aircraft due to enemy action. Fixed : LANTIRN AAQ-13 NVP still functional if pod is removed from the aircraft due to enemy action. Fixed : LANTIRN TGP when RET cued is locked to the Velocity Vector Marker instead of the AG reticle Fixed : PACS release pogram keeps station boxed despite it being empty. Fixed : PACS release program not cleared during rearming Fixed : Smart Weapons PACS not updating correctly during rearm Fixed : CDS NOT LOADED warning message being displayed when Smart Weapons are loaded. Fixed : Smart Wpns sync problems during TGT XFER when both pilot and WSO push the MPDs buttons at the same time. Fixed : Smart Wpns PAC not sync'ing after bomb release. Fixed : Smart WPns XFER of a SEQ PNT always displays SEQ 1.1. Added : Radar elevation reset upon entering GUNS mode Added : Radar GUNS mode quickstep/bump Added : MGRS programming Added : AUTO AGR Improved : Mutual interference accuracy Improved : Front Cockpit Auto Acquire Switch HOTAS logic. Updated : AA RDR contact sticks now show Releative Heading (RH) instead of aspect Updated : RWR Behavior to radar lock and weapons launch. Updated : RWR Audio Warnings. Updated : Bomb fuze delay for penetration set to 0.005 seconds Updated : AUTO Release consent for LGBs Updated : Aircraft Models. Updated : HUD coating on combiner glass. Fixed: JDAM MC sync *** Added: ANVIS | AN/AVS-9 NVG Googles. (Not Coded/only 3D Model Change) Added: Visor ability to move up or down. (Not Coded/only 3D Model Change) Changed: Aircraft Models (Exported with latest EDM Plugins using Max 2024) Changed: HUD coating on combiner glass. Fixed MPDs Rocker Switch bleed through.

I think the problem is that there are probably as many ways people would like to sat it as there are users. I use aliases quite a bit and they allow you to customise to your hearts content. This isn't to say that some commands wouldn't be better have core aliases added (I wouldn't remove the existing commands as you will probably throw long time users who have them in their mental 'muscle memory'.

That is true for many Russian fighters, but ironically not for Su-25, which has Western-style toe brakes. The Soviets tested the F-5 they got from Vietnam around the time it was developed and the brakes was one thing they really liked. The real Su-25T retained the system, though ours does not have separate toe brakes. The paid Su-25 does. Amusingly, the previous Russian aircraft to feature toe brakes was the I-16, where they were not hydraulic but purely mechanical, like a bicycle brake (the thing was notorious for having weak brakes, not that this was a bad thing in a taildragger). They switched to pneumatic brakes around WWII and have kept them for a long time, with Sukhoi and Tupolev eventually going back to toe brakes with hydraulics. MiGs use pneumatics with a shared lever to this day.

I discovered the T-45 Goshawk not long ago and tried it out. It’s a jet trainer, carrier capable and simple to fly. Really well done little mod I reckon. Multiplayer as well I think?

This should be available, starting warbirds in the dark is not easy until you have SOME light.

The only other module I know of which also doesn't support the "engage my target" wingman command is Heatblur's F14, at least the last time I tried it.

we need this one as a full SC module side by side with the Super Hornet , time will tell ,but meanwhile would agree seeing development of some other conventional CV like the Kitty Hawk or Coral Sea

I recommend you to get Tacview so you can watch what went wrong (its free) https://www.tacview.net/ What Helped me with SAM evasion was also watching Growling Sidewinders guides:

The war on terror just doesn't sound as exciting with the infantry units we have... Now if they were to improve to a more (please don't shoot me I am sure there are better examples) Call of duty-ish AI like infantry, THEN that would be fun. When the southern expansion does come out Desert Storm is going to be a blast as it was more of a vehicle on vehicle type war. Anyway, I think the southern part of Iraq should have been done first until the AI infantry improves...IMHO

Nonsense. The point I was making is that the idea that a DCS BoB should be discarded because "it has been done before", is not rational. So has PTO. So has Eastern Front. Etc, etc, etc. You mentioned Bodenplatte. Seems I've heard that one done elsewhere before too. The only relevant point would be if it had been done already in DCS, which of course it hasn't.

If you use discord we have a dcs log analyser where you can attach your dcs log and it will give you advice. Follow this link if you wish to try it. You will need to be a member of the server, read the rules and click the little thumbs up for access. https://discordapp.com/invite/eagledynamics

It depends on your definition of quality, in graphics and sound no not close. In flight model not quite, but closer to DCS than IL2. In damage modeling it is superior by a good margin. In quality of AI fighting better by a huge margin. On giving a complete ww2 experience far far superior. VR isn't out yet. Partly because they are waiting on stuff from 3rd party things. It's being developed by a team smaller than even probably the ED bug hunting team. I'd be perfectly happy to pay for P47 and especially P51 upgrade (that adds B model as well as improving the graphics quality.(like the A10 upgrade)

Thanks a lot for the tip, I found the skin pack that contains it: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3314233/ and it looks perfect:

Big Thanks for new units!

That would be nice, but don't forget I pay for every Google Drive account I add.

wip wip ... Pylons and gear bay doors are not built yet Liveries added after September 17, 2023 --- -200 = Kazakhstan government 2008 (screenshot above), Vision N768VA, WESTSTAR 2022 -300 = air astana 2008 + 2023 (screenshot above), Japan Airlines 1996 + 2005, OAI n351ax 2014 + n441ax, Vietnam Airlines 2004

I see that ED is endorsing the Pimax Crystal now, so I feel that I need to drop a warning here about Pimax's business practice. Last summer I brought a Crystal which did not function according to specifications (battery lasted only for 2 hours playtime even with power cable connected). After some back and forth, Pimax has ultimately acknowledged the defect and agreed to my demand for a refund. What followed is a half-year odyssey of Pimax resisting to accept my return shipments of the Crystal, with shipments not being picked up by Pimax and getting returned to me. They say they will not refund me until they get the Crystal back, at the same time not actually taking the Crystal back. After half a year, this is still ongoing. For anyone considering doing business with Pimax, especially with this endorsement by ED, I encourage you to consider these business practices.

I'm with GJS. If all you are doing is madly typing in coordinates and flying following a line, then you're missing all of the fun. That's why I'm so looking forward to the Phantom, it's going to go a long way towards weaning people off of the crutches, and perhaps, changing their mindset into one of a real world pilot. You can't count on the automation or the INS or even the TACAN. The dirty little secret that you are missing, is that flying an attack or recce run at low level using time, heading and ground speed is a BLAST! I'll probably put up a little paper are TARPS in the F14 forum shortly, on where to find how to do this, and some examples and tips. Otherwise, TARPS from stored point to point in a sim will be boring. Learning to navigate isn't difficult, and it unshackles you from electronics, which results in confidence of knowing that if it all gets taken down, you can still find your way to the target and get home. My guess is that I share a lot of the same, fond memories as G.J.S, sitting around a table, telling sea stories while mission planning with my mates. More later. F4 Learning Curve The F4 is going to be easy to fly for those who know how to fly a regular old airplane. It's easier to land than the F14, it doesn't have the trim changes that the Tomcat has with wing sweep and power inputs, and it has a superior attitude reference in the AJB-7 ADI. You can do a full aerobatic sequence referencing nothing but the ADI. We had a similar instrument, the AJB-3 in the TA-4J, and on a student's first flight in the aircraft, they performed a "squirrel cage" sequence, under the bag, in the back seat. Rolls, loop, half cuban eight, Immelmann, split-S. It's magnificent. The Phantom is going to be a ton of fun. Change your mindset, embrace basic flight tasks like trimming, which become second nature in mere minutes. The F4 is a very straightforward airplane. Everyone I know who flew it loved it.

Honestly the F-4 with AIM-7M isn’t probably far off from MiG-29 9.12 with R-27R. The closer you get the bigger the advantage to the MiG. Though I think the MiG-23ML is a very worthy opponent for F-4 with AIM-7M, 29 9.12 with 27R improves on it capabilities in some more evolutionary then revolutionary ways, with the focus being on dogfighting with 29 As said, F-14 with AIM-7, even Phoenix A, or Mirage 2000C are good opponents. F-15 with AIM-7 would be a close fight I think, F-15 would have quite the BVR edge with its large radar.

To answer your AP question, pressing the AP disconnect switch will turn it off. Problem with AP is that it can sometimes be on with no indication and it will screw things up. On Case 1 recovery. It is hard in the F/A-18 since everything has to be done correctly and parameters are tight. To do it correctly, you have to learn the basics and practice them repeatedly until it becomes second nature. 1. Learn the correct procedure in the manuals and watch videos of how it works. 2. Learn how trim works correctly with the F/A-18 and the concept of reversed commands: 3. Practice airfield landings, both straight in approaches and the overhead break, until you can do them correctly consistently; 4. Only then should you try carrier landings; 5. One last tip, turn on the ILS. It will show you a cross which allows you to line up correctly on the Carrier. Good Luck! Nothing more satisfying than catching the 3 wire.

Honestly I think this is the most significant improvement in the history of the game. Not really an understatement. With its focus on realistic gameplay and flights, DCS suffers from the fact that unless you’ve got over an hour to commit to it, there’s nothing much you can really do. It affects everything from broad appeal to sales of the DLC campaigns which are sorta unapproachable for the average player due to the time required. Besides the complexity and controllers required I think this is one of the chief reasons the game and genre are such a niche. Gamers tend to play in 20-30min sessions, even ED’s on data shows that about DCS. But again there’s nothing meaningful you can do within that time limit here. Now the future is wide open.