Robin_Hood

1) ECM operation is still manual, but it takes a little time to turn on, so that may be it. Also, maybe the ECM light is missing/buggy, I am not sure (don't really fly the -27) 3) There are actually very few keys to map, as 95% of the aircraft operation is done by clicking with the mouse. Are there tutorials with the free version? I remember the turorials for the -51D were pretty good.

To be fair, the F-18 was probably near idle to keep up and so didn't make a lot of noise. At airshows with that kind of formation, you can barely hear the jet, so I guess it makes sense that inside the cockpit with the prop engine noise, you wouldn't hear an almost idle jet besides you. Not that I'm disagreeing with what you said, of course. But with an afterburning F-18 it might have been different

I heard that story also. Also heard that the USAF tried not to publicize the incident too much for fear pilots may try this too often? Although, in the end, the same happened during the Vietnam war, with an F-4 Phantom (not sure which model, C or D probably) pushing another in pretty much the same way. That being said, as has been said, the F-86F is not capable of air refueling. Is any version of the Sabre equipped for that? Maybe a later model?

"That dam", the Inguri Dam is the biggest power station in the area.;)

Known bug. The Su-33 airspeed, AoA, G and fuel indicators are all showing incorrect data. The HUD is allright, though.

Except it doesn't differentiate between the two and only shows "29". Otherwise I agree with what has been said. The Beryoza has a slight edge in some situations, but massive drawbacks all-around. The worst thing is it can only really show you one single threat (supposed to be the primary threat), while others are barely indications that there may be someone over there. And very often it can happen that the "threat" it shows is actually a friendly* (like your wingman who is out of position behind you), so that you don't have much information about real potential threats. * Of course this can happen with the Eagle's RWR, but a) the aircraft type "may" allow you to discriminate between friends anf foes, and b) this doesn't prevent other radar indications from being shown, you will still see that MiG-29 50 miles in front even if your wingman is frying you with his radar right behind you. Because let's face it: wingmen are always out of position

Don't be put off by the P-51, I would say it is especially tricky. I expect the Sabre and the MiG-21 to be easier to take-off, land, and generally fly, particularily if you are more used to jets. Try the A-10C, it should be somewhat closer to what you can expect from those (there is also the F-15C, which has a great flight model and has simple systems modelisation, but it has a whole battery of compensators and automatic flight control systems that would make it farther from a 60's plane).

Probably because it is not really a bug, indeed. Although I also would love to see MANPADS (and mortars) being able to be transported.

Great, thank you (again), I got it now. So the A-10C settings are used as default for others. Time to do some testing!

Thank you again, towsim. Just to make sure I get this right: if instead of [A10C_mod] VOICE_MOD=1 FILTER=8 HULL=0 0 PRIMARY_BUFFER=99 BKGND_ENGINE=jet1.snd 10 BKGND_COCKPIT=UH1CockpitNoise.snd 5 BKGND_SILENCE=A10preStart.snd 0 I write the following [A10C_mod] VOICE_MOD=1 FILTER=8 HULL=0 0 PRIMARY_BUFFER=99 BKGND_ENGINE=jet1.snd 5 BKGND_COCKPIT=UH1CockpitNoise.snd 2 BKGND_SILENCE=A10preStart.snd 0 Then others will hear less background noise when I speak while I'm flying the A-10C (but not if I'm flying a P-51D or an F-15C), right? If I may put your patience to the test and bother you one more (hopefully last) time, I suppose FC3 and other "partially supported" aircrafts (Mi-8 ) use some default configuration. Is there a section defining that? Specifically what I want to do is lower the background noise, and as I'm flying FC3 aircraft, that is the bit I'm looking for. I'm sorry this must be rather obvious to you.

Thank you! I only have an [A10C_mod] section, will that change the level globally? (I feared it would work only when flying the A-10C).

This new versions looks pretty good, I must say! :thumbup: There is only one thing that is bothering me: is there a way to tune the background noise level (volume)? As it stands, my team mates and I find it kinda high, and it really garbles the transmission. I'd hate to turn it off, because I think it brings a lot of immersion, but I'd love to reduce it, say, by half. Is there anyway (preferably simpler than messing with sound files) to do it? I looked in the manual, but didn't find anything about that.

I think the only difference is that the standalone comes with a dedicated manual (while FC3 has an FC3 manual). I have not seen it, though, so I can't say if it differs from what there is in the FC3 manual.

From what I saw in your video, a good starting point for visual acuity would be: zoom in. You don't need to see your whole cockpit without moving the head. Personally, I like to adjust the zoom so that I can see (while centered) from the radar screen to the top of the canopy bar (or however it is called) - something like that, I don't use the F-15 that much. If you need to see something else in your cockpit, move your head, that's what TrackIR is for. Some people might differ, but zooming in slightly is the first thing I do whenever I enter a game.

Sure it will. And no, it's not a beam-riding (unlike the Vikhr), it has a radar receiver that will pick up the reflected radar energy from your own radar as long as you have the lock. Basically. And I'm almost sure it won't resume guidance if you lose the lock and re-acquire. Might warrant some testing to confirm.

This. You do not, as you imply, own the F-15, or the A-10A, or the Su-25. These are only the single-plane modules. You own FC3, however, that includes them all (and more).

That's right, I never thought about that. I don't think this is modeled in DCS, or is it (if so, I'll be carefulnext time both my wingman and I are "spiked" at the same time).

I think that is due to the fact that the Kuznetsov 3D model and its lighting is fairly old, and substandard to what you can now see in DCS (like some airfields).

I think the Mk20 and the LAU-61 have been taken out of the A-10A loadouts some time ago http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=117731

I agree it is not natural to actuate cockpit switches with a mouse, and is fairly uncomfortable while in flight. The problem is, is there really any alternative to actuate all those switches?

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I meant "what people think of when they say 'clickable cockpits' is more about systems modelisation" (example: a clickable pit without systems modelisation would be... strange). I disagree with you. I wouldn't say you are "familiarized" with the cockpit if you know that pressing LALT+RSHIFT+o actuates the CAS Pitch switch. Clickable pit allows you to know where in the cockpit each switch is located, and that's what I call "cockpit familiarization" (which is different from "avionics familiarization"). Sure it can. But I don't see any good reason not to add the clickable part. Only people who have built a fully functional home pit can get away with the "full system modelisation but no clickable pit" (no, remembering 200 or so key bindings won't do).

Yeah, they used to do that in F-4s in Vietnam for the missile selection switch, because it was put in a fairly inconvenient place. So they put a bit of hose to extend it so that they could find the switch by feel only (ie. not taking the eyes off of the ennemy in the middle of the fight). Just to mention, clickable pits usually (and should) allow you to map each switch to a key, so you can do that without actually clicking. Clickable pits are more about the underlying systems modelisation than the actuation of the switch. And the option to click the switches, even if combined to unique keystrokes for each switch (which is actually the case with DCS modules), has to stay, if only for cockpit familiarization as you mention.

Sounds like you are not looking for an RWR guide (which would tell you which RWR symbol means what radar), but a threat guide listing engagment range and altitudes for different threats. There are several reason why you may find conflicting figures: - there are several ways to acquire the data (in-game encyclopedia, "real-life" data found here and there on the net, in-game testing that can produce different results depending on how you do it, etc...) - the SAMs are evolving in DCS World. In fact, I think they changed the engagement envelope a few patches ago (1.2.7 if memory serves), so even carefully tested data may not be valid anymore.

Good points, I'll add these: 1. Pulsed Doppler Radars are always worse in look-down than look up. That is, when you are looking down with your radar, you will have worse performance. Even if your signal processor filters ground clutter, you may not detect ennemies in the notch (90° aspect) because of the filtering. So generally speaking, you should expect degraded performance when looking down. This shouldn't prevent high-alt radar search, though, ony detection range may be slightly less, and some aircrafts may have trouble showing up. 2. First thing is, be sure to be supersonic when climbing above 30 000 ft. Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.6 is reasonable (when clean, at least). That should get you around 60 000 ft without too much trouble - if your aircraft is clean and you're at full A/B. Depending on your configuration, I suppose you might have trouble getting above 50 000 ft.

To the OP, whose initial questions have not yet be thoroughly answered. This will depend on whether you are searching for a specific contact whose BRAA you already know (Bearing, Range, Altitude, Aspect), in which case you are better off setting the range, elevation and PRF manually, or if you are just scanning the sky, in which case the best course of action IMO is to set a reasonable range (say, 30 to 60 km), and scan the elevation periodically. Just to make sure you understand correctly how the settings work: the search range setting is exclusively used in conjunction with the elevation setting, to point the center of the radar beam (read: cone) to some position in space. You will nonetheless be able to see other contacts within the limits of the cone. Two important things to keep in mind are: 1. the cone is obviously smaller close to your aircraft, which explains why it is difficult to keep contacts on the radar when they get closer, and 2. a low range setting will make each elevation increment be big angle, while if you set a long range, elevation increments will only affect slightly the elevation. Hence, if you wish to drastically change the elevation, a lower setting is better, but it may also induce gaps in your search at long range. This may depend on your search plan. I would rather advise to split search responsabilities by altitude (high/low), or sector (left/right) than by PRF, but I suppose some specific situations might dictate otherwise. Personally I like High PRF, because it will detect threats from farther (assuming threats are coming towards you, which they usually have to, to be, well, threatening), but mixing some interleaved once in a while can be good practice (especially if you suspect that bandits might have got somewhat close to you). I would say contacts may take 1-2 seconds to appear. The delay may be increased in TWS mode. As I mentionned earlier, a change in range setting will not do anything if your elevation is at 0. The radar is gyro-stabilised to the horizon, so what you do is usually good practice. The beam is not angled down into the ground. I hope this helps a bit :book: