Bimbac

That is how it's supposed to be. Infrared light is blocked by fog in the same way as the visible light. Sent via mobile phone using Tapatalk

That is correct. I thought the active sequence goes the opposite way: MPRF -> HPRF. ???

Same here.

Yes. Do not engage 2 F-15s in single Su-27. Just run. Chances to win such fight are extremely low. If you want to beat them, bring at least 3 additional Flankers split into 2 elements, then and only then you would level the playing field.

Hello, I'd like to bring to your attention a significant bug in DCS, regarding taxi and landing lights of the airplanes (I didn't check the helicopters). At the moment, those lights operate in pretty much the same way as front lights of the car, which is absolutely wrong - they act like short-range and long-range lights (sorry, I don't know the correct term in English). But the main point is they shine straight ahead! Main purpose of landing light is to assist a pilot to land the aircraft, which means it has to be set in such a way that it illuminates the ground BELOW the aircraft. The picture is for reference only, but it shows exactly how it should look like. Usually the illumination axis of the landing light should be aligned with 3 degree glide slope. Taxi lights are mostly correct, but they should work like this:

Something I have presented too, some time ago. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=149893

During our training flights I have noticed some weird errors in objects external views. Please check the attached screenshots.

I agree.

The very same settings you have in the Mission Editor, as well as the drawing tools I mentioned in my post.

Our school is using this software: UniversRadio by TacnoWorld It's still in beta stage, but very robust and reliable. There are few bugs here and there, but so far the best software of the kind available. Try it and see for yourselves.

LANDING/TAXI LIGHTS I agree with my honored colleague. Also, I'd like to focus the developers to the persistent problem of landing and taxi lights. From what I noticed, the only aircraft which has them set right is the A-10C (there may be others as well, but I do not own them, thus not able to test). The point is that taxi lights are supposed to illuminate directly ahead to assist the pilot during taxi procedures - being more or less aligned with plane's X axis. BUT landing lights direction is adjusted DOWNWARDS to assist the pilot during landing, which means they are set in following manner: Since the normal glide slope is 3 degrees, the lights are normally adjusted by formula Landing AOA - 3 deg. ED, please, correct this ASAP, so we guys trying to land the F-15C at night would have our lives much more pleasant. Thank you in advance! :thumbup:

+1 - Weather and QNH readouts would be nice - Arresting gear, like cable or barrier, would be nice as well.

Interesting idea! I concur.

Hello, in my opinion, it would be great to have drawing tools available in Mission Editor, so we could put some basic shapes like circles, polygons and custom text directly onto the mission map - that, of course would be visible to the respective side (blue, red, all). In this way, a mission designer could prepare airspace boundaries, notes or whatever is needed directly into the mission file. A library of aeronautical chart symbols would also be extremely useful. I think it wouldn't be too hard to implement, since a very similar functionality is already in Ka-50's ABRIS system. Also, ability to toggle specific layers in ME (like a fore mentioned airspace and notes) would be great. It's already there, but having in Mission Map (F10 view) would be perfect. Thank you for your attention.

Hello everyone, there is something I'd like to bring to your attention. The matter is simple: Czech Air Force uses FOUR DIGIT fuselage and tail numbers for their aircraft. Examples below. The numbers are most often derived from particular aircraft Serial number. For example, Czech JAS-39C Gripen, number 9245, has the serial 39245.

Could it (the weather) be presented in a normal life, "aeronautical" format? Please! Can't be much difficult.

It would be nice to have a possibility to quickly switch the speeds - or IAS for aircraft and GS for ground units by default.

CW illumination is no longer used because of its disadvantages. Given the hardware currently available in DCS, the only cue that SARH missile is (possibly) launched is the STT warning, generated by RWR. Modern systems can detect other footprints, but generally, radar guiding an SARH missile doesn't change the waveform, just generates the M-link for the missile.

Terrific idea! I'm in for this as well.

Sorry, but I can't see the point in your statement, though I don't deny your logic. To the question you have asked, the answer would be: neither. We use DCS simulation to explain how the BVR works, so you could use same basic skills no matter what simulation you use or what aircraft you fly. Laws of physics and the law of conservation of energy applies to everyone and should be implemented in any decent modern aircraft simulation environment. So, the conclusion would be that we use DCS World to teach modern aerial combat tactics.

I'd like to get this explained a little bit more. In our opinion, teamwork is the key, so that's where our main focus lies. Training a very specific tactics makes no sense in DCS, because every patch usually changes some critical aspects, either sensors or missiles. That's why we focus on the BVR in a more general way, explaining principles and decision making. That way you can just do some minor adjustments, instead of developing everything a new.

From my point of view, it looks like the ED implemented all aerodynamic aspects of the Su-27, but haven't done the Flight Control System yet. That's why the aircraft behaves so badly. Although I know and fully understand it's still a Beta, I'd like to see it done soon. One of my colleagues, a former MiG-21 pilot, told me that this new FM makes the 27 handle much worse that the MiG. I really hope they will get it done as soon as possible, as it is, it's not flyable (at least not safe).

I should add that our focus is on all aspects of modern aerial combat, including all standard procedures: ATC, GCI, take-offs, landings, air refueling, etc. We even use standard NATO comm procedures (speaking English). Since the time we can spare for training is limited (most of us have families, you know?), when training a specific tactics or setup we usually start the mission in the air, because it can be restarted quickly without any unnecessary delays. If basic procedures training is on schedule, we always fly a full-profile missions, including bad weather conditions and radar-trail approaches. Every aspect of modern aerial combat requires different ways to train. I'm not telling that our way is the only one, or the best one, or the most correct one. I'm just telling that it works. Maybe you can find a different approach that will bring you the same result. Our motto for the training is the same as for the real deal: KISS (Keep it simple, stupid). ;)

The information about our ways of training is on the "need-to-know" basis, which means that you would have to train with us. I can say that we have some ex-military fighter pilots and some active duty personnel among us, therefore we use some real Air Force know-how. Despite some real problems and limitations, DCS World can be used as a very efficient training tool, combined with some key add-ons, like TacView and LotATC. We usually start our training fights in the air, because it saves a lot of time and when the engagement is over, we can start a fresh without any delays. In basic BVR training, it's better to use (as GGTharos said) Immortal and Unlimited Weapons, just to understand the tactics and mechanisms involved, hits are evaluated later. When our trainees go past this, we always use live ammo and "one life" to implement the psychological stress from "real" combat. If you like to elaborate this a little further, please let me know.

Indeed, but unless you start in the air, doing as you suggested would waste a lot of time, not mentioning testing nothing else but the damage model and effectiveness of the missiles' warheads. We usually combine both approaches, but being immortal with a thorough debriefing could be better sometimes. Anyway, I don't dismiss your opinion.