Leaderboard

The secret is to enjoy what we've been given...maybe even express a little gratitude that someone has given the fruits of their labor to the community...not to ask for "at least" something else

All new cirrus clouds in v1.9. 20 unique variations in total!

Пускай делают также, как и остальные - относительно новым кокпитом. Адепты "засранности" кокпита могут обернуть монитор пищевой плёнкой, закрепить это парой резинок, взять самую жирную курицу и привести визуальную составляющую в родной для них вид. Даже не будет особо понятно - так засран кокпит, фонарь или визор.

The reason as why the two assets aren't player controllable at the moment is because I chose to implement a more advanced radar (with channels), compared to the old core assets. I always prioritize to try to make the assets as realistic as possible as AI. That said, I've reworked the two assets with the aim to make them player controllable in an update.

Introducing AI_ATC for Kandahar AF (OAKN) on the Afghanistan map. In this video I demonstrate Interacting with AI_ATC using VoiceAttack, along with some of the basic functionality for Helicopters.

You have the answer: "Maybe. Not soon". In this case, ED cannot be ignored, because despite the sincere intentions of many developers, everything depends on implementing this in the DCS engine, which requires involvement on the ED side. This especially applies to weapons but let us be optimistic about the future. Personally, it's a cool idea, but its not a priority for me. I'd prefer to have paratroopers and vehicle transport capabilities first, with the Rapid Dragon System somewhere at the end of development if there will be the time and desire.

Correct, this one gets me every now and then as well. I’m getting better about it. Follow the dive checklist from the POH prior to entering the dive, and it has you consciously close them, which helps to remember to reopen them after the dive is complete.

Yes, developing simulated aircraft on DCS is a labor intensive job, which can take well over a year even for a "simple" variant. The only way such a development would be worthwhile is if there are enough DCS users willing to purchase it. As we already have two variants of the Fw-190 my guess is that not many people would purchase a third, I certainly wouldn't as I'd rather have a completely new aircraft. My guess is that an earlier 109, like the 109E, would sell well only if it was acompanied by a similar spitfire variant, say a Mk II, or even a Hawker Hurricane of the period. For my taste I would purchase a Spanish Civil War Bf-109B in an instant, and pair it against the I-16 (even tough the DCS variant is a much later one). In my opinion, a WW2 best seller would be the Me-262 as it would appeal to both WW2 buffs and early jets lovers. Well, for one not every user is fixated on reliving history just as it happened, on my case I love to do missions that stray away from history a bit, for example having chilean P-47 doghfight against F4U from Argentine for example The best way to convince ED that there is in fact a market for WW2 is to BUY .. that's why I have purchased every WW2 Module so far (and every map), and I'm enjoying the Corsair a lot, in spite of its expected early toothing bugs. And that's why I will purchase the La-7 as soon as it hits the store. Eduardo

Рекомендую вообще ничего не писать, если писать нечего кроме как переходить на личности. Я написал и контекст строил по Мигу 29А, чей кокпит показывали на ютубе. Вы кроме того как придумали себе свою кабину даже не разобрались, о чём был именно разговор.

no, just place its folder within /saved games/dcs/mods/aircraft/

Да ужж.. Карта Кольского полуострова вышла из раннего доступа, а маяков АРК или РСБН как небыло так и нет на аэродромах. И как по мнению разработчиков летать на технике красной стороны? (Кроме примитивных ГС3). Да и оптимизация и качество просто несопоставимо отвратительное. Остров Лумбовский просто кек, сетка уровня CS 1.6.

Please make this a priority. We can't experience the damage model if we can't taxi and get into the air. Thank you!

Spectacular Cirrus formations at dawn in Afghanistan.

Added to the roadmap the updated weapons EDMs into DCS W directories on the last path. GBU-10 Paveway II GBU-12 Paveway II GBU-24 Paveway III GBU-31v3B JDAM GBU-32 JDAM GBU-38 JDAM GBU-54 JDAM Mk-40 DTS Destructor Mine Mk-81 Bomb Mk-82 BSU-33 (Retarded) Bomb Mk-82 BSU-86 (Retarded) Bomb Mk-82Air (retarded) Bomb Mk-83Air (retarded) Bomb Mk-84 Bomb. Mk-84Air (retarded) Bomb

Hi ED team, This is a safety request. I fly DCS with a motion simulator chair. I use Sim Racing Studio (SRS) to read DCS telemetry and drive the rig. The problem is what happens after the player aircraft is destroyed: the airframe tumbles unpredictably and the telemetry reflects that. SRS dutifully follows the data, and the rig thrash violently, without a secure harness, a user could be thrown around and potentially injured. The first thing I did is contacting SRS support, and this is their replay: I’m not asking for a gameplay change. DCS is already amazing. I’m asking for a small telemetry addition that would let SRS (and other motion software) switch to a safe profile as soon as the player’s aircraft is no longer flyable. Proposed solution ( any of these would work ) A boolean flag: playerAircraftDestroyed (true/false) An enumerated field: playerFlightState = { Normal, Ejected, Crashed, Destroyed } Why this helps: Third-party motion apps can immediately cut motion or fade to a neutral pose when the flag/event appears. This is backward-compatible, doesn’t affect gameplay, and meaningfully reduces risk for motion-rig users. Thanks for considering this. It’s a small change with a big safety impact for a growing part of the DCS community.

Dear Eagle Dynamics, First of all, thank you for the incredible work on DCS World and for continuing to expand its scope. Hiring modders like CurrentHill shows real commitment to quality and community content, and it’s something we all appreciate. That said, there is an issue that is increasingly frustrating the player base: the ever-growing size of the CoreMods folder and mandatory livery packs. The Problem Many modules include 10–15 GB of liveries (e.g., F-14 = 14GB, F-4E = 12GB, others = 8–9GB). These are downloaded by all players, even those who don’t own the module, because they’re placed in CoreMods. The result: Install size is inflated by tens of gigabytes. Frequent updates are huge and slow because they touch massive files. Players are forced to buy new SSDs or split the game across drives just to keep playing. This isn’t just an inconvenience. It actively prevents new players from trying DCS, and makes existing players frustrated when every update eats bandwidth and disk space unnecessarily. Why This Matters We understand the reason behind CoreMods: everyone needs to see the same aircraft and skins in multiplayer. But the current implementation is heavy-handed. Right now, we’re downloading and storing content that many of us will never use. Constructive Suggestions There are practical solutions that would keep multiplayer compatibility intact without punishing everyone with bloated installs: Optional Livery Packs – Move liveries into modular downloads (via Module Manager). Players who want them can install, others can stick with a default skin. Fallback System – If a client doesn’t have a specific livery, DCS should display the module’s default skin instead. This is common practice in other sims. Lightweight Core Option – Allow players to choose a “Minimal Core” install that includes only essential assets. Great for single-player or those with limited storage. Better Compression/Deduplication – Many liveries reuse textures or differ only slightly. Optimizing this would cut gigabytes without removing content. Conclusion DCS is already a large, complex game, but it doesn’t need to be unnecessarily bloated. With every new module (and now with more asset packs from CurrentHill), this issue will only get worse. We ask that ED prioritize a solution to reduce storage and update overhead caused by CoreMods and excessive liveries. This would improve accessibility, performance, and overall user satisfaction. Thank you for considering, P.S. CoreMods>tech>Animals contains only one animal a Cow and it is 51MB in size!

Hi all! I have been playing DCS for 5 years on a 2D-monitor. Today I bought the Quest 3S, jumped into DCS and was completely blown away! DCS is a completely DIFFERENT game in VR, not only that you are suddenly sitting inside the cockpit, all the proportions is completely different! I have never liked or enjoyed the A-10C, but now I am IN LOVE with the A-10! This bird is HUGE in VR and the cockpit is sooo beautiful! I also jumped into the P-47 and ohh man, let me tell you, if you enjoy warbirds, you are teleported back 50 years inside the real P-47 and it looks NOTHING like on a 2D monitor! The thing is I am running a pretty crappy home computer, RTX 3080, 32 GB Ram, I5 and the most simple VR-headset a Quest 3S for 300 dollars, I am getting a solid 40-60 FPS in singleplayer even on Normandy map. This is the best spent 300 dollars in my entire life, I am NEVER going to play DCS without a VR-headset again, just doing some simple flying is 10x more fun then before

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add reasonably realistic night sky and milky way. I am new to DCS and find it quite awesome and beautiful in VR. However, I was flying a night mission at 34,000 AGL in the incredible raven one fury campaign and the DCS night sky was completely immersion breaking! You got the clouds, the sea, and the moon, all perfect and intoxicating in VR, and then the night sky is totally lame. I guess if you are located in Moscow or another big city, with extreme light pollution, it is maybe possible that you have no idea what I am talking about, maybe you have never actually seen more than 50 faint stars above your head at once, but there are actually stars up there and they should look glorious from high altitude. look it up. I am aware people are complaining about this for a long time, and I find it quite puzzling you have not fixed it yet. PLEASE HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IN 2025 THE AWESOME DCS WORLD HAS SUCH LAME INEXCUSABLE NIGHT SKY ?!?

Isnt it about time to get some more axis planes in the virtual skies? I mean when was the last axis piston engine plane released? In the meantime we get one allied plane after another without anything to put up against them.... Isit reall that much effort to for example make some variants of the A8 available? Or a few more 109 variants? Allied: P51 P47 Spitfire Mosquito F4U I-16 Soon: Bearcat (or was it the hellcat) LA 5 - what is this supposed to be flown against? Just to fly around in it i can get one in MSFS, cant i? Axis: BF 109 K4 FW 190 A8 FW 190 D9 Soon: Zero (probably will be 2 years from now) Tiny little imbalance IMHO. Dont get me wrong. I love each and every plane in DCS. Its a great sim. But there is simply far too little that can be put up against each other while maintaining ANY KIND of historical accuracy.... Thats just not understandable for me. Winger

Hello Hind lovers. I want to ask ppl on this side of forum if they want to have more situational awareness then we have with SPO-10`s 4 lamps. If someone will check In flight manual, then he will find L006LM mention. And if someone will tell you that L006LM was not used at russian Hinds, I have some pictures with L006LM installed. So, we live in time when Kiowa have no APKWS in operators manual, but has it in DCS, and Hind have L006LM in real life but not have it in game. Funny situation, isn`t it? I hope that ED will use their full fidelity MiG-29A experience with L006LM for our Hind. If ED think L006LM "too overpowered they can add it as variable option in armament menu. So, if you are interested in this feature, you can vote or comment. Thanks. Mention about L006LM in manual and some russian Hinds equipped with SPO-15:

Alright guys, v1.9 is out! Give it a try and let me know what you think. 8/26/2025 - Updated to version 1.9 - ALL NEW cirrus cloud textures - 20 unique highly detailed cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus variations - New shader code insures a different cirrus texture loaded with each mission reload for better variety. - Shader "patch mask" helps break up repeativness, adding gaps of clear sky between areas of cirrus - Moon size increased - Star size decreased back to default - New LOW RES version available for people using VR or lower end PC. (see link below for download) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jEVEdgFXQAVfvUsUMLnOiC4RaUGxEaA5?usp=sharing

Zurück in Deutschland auf unserem (vorläufigen) Heimatfliegerhorst Büchel - einige Aufnahmen vom gestrigen Flugbetrieb, der ACT in der TRA205 beinhaltete: Start auf der RWY 03, die Feuerwehr (gesteuert von unserem ATC) hat alles im Blick. Butterfly Setup Dogfighting. Overhead break. Roll-out. Die 1./JG71 "Richthofen" ist auch weiterhin offen für neue Piloten, die Interesse an möglichst realistischem Übungsflugbetrieb der Luftwaffe im Setting der 1980er Jahre haben. Schreib uns eine PN hier im Forum, wenn Dein Interesse geweckt ist. Darüber hinaus suchen wir Kontakt zu "like-minded" virtuellen Staffeln und ATC+TAC/C2, um miteinander oder nebeneinander auf unserem "Cold War Germany NATO Training Server (CWGNTS)" zu fliegen, den virtuellen Himmel zu bevölkern und so gemeinsam eine realistische und immersive Flugverkehrssituation zu schaffen. Auch hier gerne Kontaktaufnahme via PN hier im Forum

That sounds possible since I'm increasing the size and resolution of the cirrus cloud textures. I'm about to release v1.9 and will do a performance comparison video on the CWG map for reference.

На тех видео они не выглядят чрезвычайно облезлыми. По крайней мере приборная доска с приборами. РУС - да. Второй момент - а что это за борты вообще, на которых кому-то дозволено пощелкать всем чем можно, включая кран шасси и «огонь»? Внутри профессии крайне не приветствуется на рабочем борту чего то там клацать почем зря. Каков их возраст и состояние летной годности нипанятна. Я вообще не против сильной облезлости, мне она просто меньше нравится. А курицу пусть скушает Арнольд и хорош уже

Please if you have actual evidence from the block and year we have modelled DM me directly thank you

Now with the PTO it seems to go somewhat into that direction of historical accurate matchups. And we get the La-7, not La-5. But besides that, there were plans about a different variant of the A8. But just like the AI 109G6 that was planned to come, I think it's safe to say as of now, it's just too much work/absolutely not a priority. I too would love some more axis aircraft, but if you look at the grand schemes of things, it's gonna take another decade probably before we see anything in that regard.

Wholeheartedly agree. A fully fleshed out cargo ops > a novelty weapon addition. We already have dozens of modules that can blow things up on the ground, so im not gonna hold my breath if I don't see rapid dragon anytime soon.. take your time team and do the most important bits first

Есть и проверку проходят, зависит от сервера. Так же у нас уже есть практически готовая кабина, но её же надо лично вам обязательно засрать? Тоже позволю вставить не менее остроумную цитату: "Не трогай то, что уже работает".

Ukraine operates 2010s Era MiG-29MU2s, recently upgraded to utilize western weapons such as AASM, MALD, HARM, SDB and JDAM-ER. ED is making a ~1980s era MiG-29 9.12A.

Утка жирнее. И если визор то лучше на себя плёнку наматывать. Кокпит и фонарь должны двигаться вместе с картинкой. Там плёнкой не получится.

1TB ssd is currently sub 50 bucks..... just saying.... Games getting bigger (greetings from the 4K-era), and storage becoming vastly cheaper is just the way the cookie crumbles nowadays. I'm curious to see how many GBs GTA VI will have.

You might want to checkout: https://github.com/Munkwolf/dcs-community-keybinds If they are present in this mod, it will end up on the F-14 as well as soon as we come around to integrate the mod like we did for the Viggen already, cheers.

It’s indeed a not very well documented one, less talked about than Ploiesti or Schweinfurt. But an epic operation nonetheless a grandiose idea and cooperation between the allies. I didn’t always include the runway to use because sometimes the AI lamds on a different one than they use for takeoff it’s always a bit random. Check the smoke from the chimneys for the wind

Has there been any word by Aerges if they will add the Corail pod to the official module? I would love to have it in MP!

Thank you Bankler！ Learned alot！FINALLY！

Here's a quick video I made today. Spitfire, BF 109, FW190 A8 & D9, I16, P51 all behave very similar to the P47. I understand there are probably feature sets that have higher priority than this subject, and I'm aware it's early access. I was thinking after recording the video maybe there can be a compromise where on the carrier deck you navigate the \ F8 menu to get reset to the rear of the deck or something... Usually the airfields have enough space to get forward velocity and steer around, but on carrier decks, no chance. I think that alone is enough to warrant some investigation from the Devs.

Well I think I know what the issue was. I put Pimax plays quality to custom and put it at 20% and it was still crystal clear. Which I thought was odd. There was not perceived quality loss at all. Went through the config and noticed the resolution was at at like 1700x1700 per eye. Then put it at 100% and it was at like 3840x3840 per eye. Deleted pimax play and reinstalled. 100% slider was at 2880x2880. ( I used steam VR to check the actual resolution coming through) I guess a corrupted pimax play install was it. Or it thought my OG crystal was the super. Jesus I was going mad. Also, there is an argument to put pimax play and DCS on the CCD1 without the cache. Average FPS was down like 10fps but it was stutter free. Putting it on CCD0 with the VCache had a higher overall fps but there was more stutters. Also, reapplied thermal paste and there is no change in temps. So in conclusion Pimax play had my resolution almost two times higher than what my headset is rated for. A reinstall fixed the issue. And P.S. There was a performance uplift going the AMD 9950X3D. Instead of 90 to 100fps. I was getting 110 to 120. Then when switching too DLAA and DLSS (the new transformer model got rid of the ghosting completely) pinned at 120fps. Thanks everyone who chimed in.

Follow the instructions to create thunderstorms in the first post, and you should see lightning along with it.

The new version from 07/23/2025 is missing the chapter about AN/AAQ-28 LITENING TGP from before.

Thanks! For the moment nothing has changed, they’ll just be making guest appearances in screenshots and videos. Think of it as free helicopter wallpapers Oh and regarding your comment on YT about the pilots, no work has been done it's just that the previous video was using old footage. I'm wrapping up the CopterLife assets pack, though. It's not going to be as polished as I'd like but it's been sitting on my HDD for too long. It contains ground vehicles, ships, driveable ships, sinking ships and static objects. More pics in the imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/hrjpEid

Short version of the Mover and Gonky Show with Wags where he reveals what is in the works:

Hope you enjoy another Su-22 mod showcase, despite replay for external views being buggy and me missing some missile shots. This time, most of the cockpit is clickable, it has proper cold start, custom sounds for engine or launch authorised and more! Everything is still work in progress, estimated release Q4 2025.

DCS MiG-29A 9.12 - support of NS430 GPS:

You'll get different replies and experiences. I test drivers every release, with same games on same areas to check for microstuttering, looking at frametime graphs and 1% / 0.1% lows. In my own personal experience, the Nvidia's driver 537.58 are still notoriously the best for all RTX30-series GPUs, with 566.03 being a close second. Tested with different systems, with RTX 3090 24GB, RTX3080 10GB, RTX3060Ti 8GB, RTX3060 12GB and diferent CPUs (12700K, 12600KF, 10700K, 11400F, 5600X). Especially if it's a "clean" driver, it'll further increase such differences, as these are lighter and have all unnecessary bloatware removed from the official ones. There is a "Clean Version" driver (already debloated) of the mentioned 537.58 in HERE. If you really want the fully bloated "official" default version of 537.58, then it's HERE. Matter of opinion but, I would not recommend installing drivers after 566.36 on RTX 30 and RTX 40 series, where problems start to increase exponentially. But if you're one of those guys/gals that "have to have the latest driver" but just want a clean version, there's a fella doing them and are usually all up-to-date, with every new official Nvidia drivers release, in HERE. Or, you can debloat the official drivers all by yourself, by using NVCleanstall (link here). If you never done this, there's a video tutorial here (there may be others around) to see how it's done. Lastly, and as side note, never ever upgrade Nvidia drivers if the reason is only to get newest DLSS version, because you can download/install whatever DLSS version regardless of Nvidia driver version in use (drop the desired DLLs in same folder location where the game executable is): NVIDIA DLSS DLL --------------------------- https://www.techpowerup.com/download/nvidia-dlss-dll/ NVIDIA DLSS Frame Generation DLL -------- https://www.techpowerup.com/download/nvidia-dlss-3-frame-generation-dll/ NVIDIA DLSS Ray Reconstruction DLL ------ https://www.techpowerup.com/download/nvidia-dlss-3-ray-reconstruction-dll/

Well, looking at all the bug reports of all the modules in DCS, we already have random-like failures.

This topic sparked a desire to really sit down and do a proper comparison of the three trainer/light attack aircraft in DCS. There is a lot here though. I used a custom mission I made a while ago, which is a low level deep strike mission to take out a convoy of SCUDS far behind enemy lines. I played through this mission twice from start to finish with each aircraft which takes between 80 and 95 minutes a run and recorded the results below. I also ranked each aircraft on certain categories based on my time with each of them. Keep in mind, these rankings are just my personal opinion and subjective in a lot of ways. C-101 Run One: 66% Fuel 4x 7ct Hydra HE Rocket Pods 1x DEFA 30mm Cannon TOW: 12117 lbs. Fuel = 2612 lbs. C-101 Run Two: 75% Fuel 2x 19ct Hydra HE Rocket Pods 1x DEFA 30mm Cannon TOW: 12475 lbs. Fuel = 2970 lbs. L-39 Run One and Two: 100% Fuel 2x Drop Tanks 2x 25ct Rocket Pods Internal Cannon TOW: 11387 lbs. Fuel = 2673 lbs. MB-339 Run One: 100% Fuel 2x 320lit Wing Tanks 4x 18ct Matra Rocket Pods 2x DEFA 30mm Cannon TOW: 12355 lbs. Fuel = 2523 lbs. MB-339 Run Two: 100% Fuel 2x 500lit Wing Tanks 2x 25ct HEI Rocket Pods 2x DEFA 30mm Cannon TOW: 11980 lbs. Fuel = 3148 lbs. For poops and giggles I decided to throw the A-4E and F-5E into the mix, but only ran each once. A-4E Run One: 100% Fuel 1x 150gl Drop Tank 4x 19ct Hydra HEAT Rocket Pods Internal Gun TOW: 20122 lbs. Fuel = 6441 lbs. F-5E Run One: 100% Fuel 2x 150gl Drop Tank 2x 19ct Hydra HEAT Rocket Pods Internal Gun TOW: 19581 lbs. Fuel = 6460 lbs. Ranking and Review: Ground Handling: 1: MB-339 - Great ground handling. Nose wheel steering which is both precise and smooth. 2: C-101 - Good ground handling. Differential braking can take some getting used to, but is precise and smooth. 3: F-5E - Good ground handling. Nose wheel steering which is overly sensitive. 4: A-4E - Ok ground handling. Differential braking which can be temperamental. It also randomly spawns with the castor wheel pegged to the left or right occasionally. 5: L-39 - Blasphemy. A differential braking abomination. You can get used to it, but it still sucks. Has good rudder authority at slower speeds to compensate though. Take Off: 1: F-5E - Monster power. 25 seconds from idle to v1 @ 180kn 2: A-4E - A lot of power. 25 seconds from idle to v1 @ 150kn 3: MB-339 - Good power. 35 seconds from idle to v1 @ 145kn 4: L-39 - Good power to weight. 35 seconds from idle to v1 @ 120kn 5: C-101 - Long take off roll. Run One: 55 seconds from idle to v1 @130kn - Run Two: 59 seconds from idle to v1 @140kn Climb: 1: F-5E Max+AB 22000pph! 2: A-4E Max 8000pph 3: MB-339 Max 4000pph 4: L-39 ? 5: C-101 Max+MPR 2200pph Ingress: 1: F-5E - 98%rpm 5200pph @360kn 2: A-4E - 90%rpm 4000pph @320kn 3: MB-339 - 88%rpm 1984pph @255kn 4: C-101 94%rpm 1350pph @225kn 5: L-39 97%rpm ? @225kn Weapons Systems: 1: MB-339 Dead simple. Master Arm, Select Pylons and you are ready to go. Can fire Rockets and Cannon at the same time. 2: F-5E Easy. Master Arm, Sight Mode, Weapon Mode to Rockets, Select Pylons and that's it. Can fire Rockets and Cannon at the same time. 3: C-101 Easy. Master Arm, Select A2G Mode, Weapon Mode to Rockets, Select Pylons, Toggle Trigger and Pickle Safety. Can fire Rockets and Cannon at the same time. 4: A-4E Moderate. Master Arm, Weapon Mode to Rockets, Select Pylons for Rockets and Select Salvo. Has separate Gun Arm switch and can't fire rockets and guns at the same time. Pylons have to be un-selected to fire guns. Weapons controls partially hidden behind control stick makes them tricky to use without hotkeys. 5: L-39 Difficult. Cannon Arm, Master Arm, Rocket Arm, Select Salvo, Select Pylon, Toggle Trigger Safety, Gun Power and AoA Limiter. Not only can you NOT fire Rockets and Guns at the same time, but you have to un-select the pylons and hit the EXPL.CHARGE GS button before you can fire the gun. There is a lot to remember in the heat of battle and switches are partially obstructed and all over the cockpit. Weapons Employment: 1: C-101 Super stable even at slow speeds. Gives you plenty of time to line up your shots. The DEFA canon is very accurate with a very flat trajectory. Great for ranged snap shots. Hydra rockets are the least accurate of all rocket options. 2: MB-339 Slow and stable, especially with the Wingtip Tanks. Both Matra and HEI heavy rocket pods are very accurate with a flatter trajectory than the Hydras. The DEFA cannons create a pitch down moment when firing which makes it difficult to aim and unpredictable. 3: F-5E Very Stable, but it's speed gives little time to line up shots. The nose mounted twin 20mm cannon is very accurate and predictable. 4: A-4E Very Stable, but has the weakest gun out of them all. I don't know if it is the slow fire rate or what, but visual shots on target never seem to cause damage. Switching between rockets and guns between attack runs can lead to errors/accidents if not careful and or practiced. 5: L-39 Slow, but very unstable and lacks power to pull out of a dive. Has a tendency to tip stall after a strafe run and takes a long time to climb/turn around. The rocket pods are fantastic though. Very flat and straight trajectory. The gun is like a garden hose. I think every round is a tracer. It shoots with a slower/higher trajectory with more bullet drop and also has a AoA limiter. It takes some getting used to. Switching between rockets and guns between attack runs can lead to errors/accidents if not careful and or practiced. Egress: no stores 1: F-5E - 98%rpm 6200pph @550kn 2: A-4E - 90%rpm 4000pph @400kn 3: L-39 97%rpm ? @300kn 4: C-101 94%rpm 1300pph @275kn 5: MB-339 - 88%rpm 1984pph @270kn Total Time/Fuel Used: 1: F-5E 55mins / 5000lbs ~ 5400pph average 2: A-4E 65mins / 4500lbs ~ 4150pph average 3: MB-339 Run One DNF: 70mins 2523lbs ~ 2200pph average - Run Two: 80mins / 2950lbs ~ 2200pph average 4: L-39 90mins / 2370lbs ~ 1500pph average 5: C-101 Run One: 95mins / 2550lbs ~ 1600pph average - Run Two: 90mins / 2250used ~ 1500pph average Things of note: The MB-339 lower RPM and speed for Ingress and Egress. The MB-339 does not carry a lot of fuel and has a thirsty turbofan. I ran out of fuel the first run and barley made it home on the second run. The 88%rpm 1984pph seemed to be the best for fuel economy with this load out, but I have not tried every option. I also had 4 Matra pods in the first run which was a lot more drag compared to the 2 HEI Heavy's but I still don't think it would have made it home with the smaller tip or drop tanks. The MB-339 is an absolute dog with full tip tanks. Especially in roll. It does help with stability though. The first run with the L-39 I could not get the gun to fire and after a few passes just went home with two SCUD launchers intact. About halfway home, I realized I had the outer pylons still selected and that's why I could not fire. The first run of the C-101 I completely whiffed using the rocket pods. Two SCUD launchers were smoking, but not on fire. I finished them all off with the excellent DEFA cannon, but it took a few more passes. I made it back to base but ran out of fuel just as I parked. That's why I gave it a bit more fuel for the second run. Also, even though the weights are about the same, the 2x 19 pods must have had less drag than the 4x 7 pods. I was a little faster and had better fuel economy the second time around. The A-4E has very long legs and probably could have done this without the drop tank. The F-5E burns a ton of fuel, but it makes up for it with speed. Especially with the clean egress. I may be able to get away with a single centerline tank rather than the two wing tanks. I tried this mission with the A-10CII as well. It had plenty of fuel even without drop tanks and carrying ALL of the weapons, but was slower than molasses. I also took a burst from a 12.7mm on the way home and it took out the left engine. I did manage to limp it home, but I barely had enough power to climb out of the canyon. I also had no nosewheel steering after landing. Maybe a flat tire. Anyway, with a one engine egress the data was no good and it was so slow I did not want to try again. So I just left it off of this comparison. It was funny though, a plane known for it's legendary toughness was taken out by a single burst from a 12.7mm. I have all this recorded and planned to make a video version of this, but the raw video files are too big to fit on my macbook for video editing and my iMac is packed away at the moment. I may still make this at some point though when I get my iMac back up and running.

I wouldn't touch any thing from Razbum with a 10 foot stick. They're done, but they lack the faculties to realize that lol

Адепты чистых кокпитов могут проделать то, что сказал Шварцнеггеру один из главных персонажей "Красной жары". Для них это решительно не составит никакого труда, в отличие от какой-то курицы на плёнке.

Same testing parameters, Only difference is 35k ft altitude. All have been done with full fuel & no fuel only to see if how much of a factor weight was and tested over a 40nm span, Which the differences in fuel of that have been incredibly insignificant. "2x PL-5 + 4x SD-10: Max Speed of Mach 1.15 before complete fuel exhaustion" This of them all is the biggest concern with it all, Now let me also say I am not questioning this in a sense of I am right and it is wrong. I just merely don't understand how a loadout similar to; "2x PL-5 + 2x SD-10 + 2x GB-6 SFW" Has a 45% higher drag value, weighs more (I will see exactly how much more later when I am home) and somehow gets closer to its top end much faster than the first loadout. While at the same time only reflecting a 15% difference in its top end.

@RogueSpecterGaming No, I am thinking that the phrase "Air to Ground Radar" should mean that there is a radar in the air that is emitting radio waves to the ground, not a fancy looking F10 map plotted on MFD.