Robin_Hood

Must be an Israeli :D

I agree, I was pleasantly surprised that I didn't have to download the whole thing. However, in the module manager, I can't seem to find an option to say "install all modules I own at the same time", although it did suggest just that the very first time I entered it (with checkboxes). Am I missing something ?

Oh, my... Sabre dance, anyone ?

I am, by the way, not 100% sure I understood exactly what it will be like in the Flankers. I assume the EOS will not be gyro-stabilised either, but that we will have an elevation setting in addition (so that I could, for example, point my nose down and set the elevation up to still look at the horizon, or point the nose up and set the elevation up to look further up) ? That would make sense, I guess.

Usually a good trick is to shoot first, so that the bad guy is forced in a defensive mindset instead of you. Then keep on firing missiles everytime he tries to turn back to shoot you, and eventually he should get hit by one of your missiles. A basic understanding of missile guidance systems and evading maneuvers can also go a long way. Here's a very quick-and-dirty summary: - Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) missiles like the AIM-7 Sparrow and R-27(ER), need the launching aircraft to keep the lock at all time during missile time of flight. Thus, if you manage to break his lock, the missile goes ballistic and headed for a new inimpressive target (ie. the ground :D). Two ways you can break the bad guy's lock: maneuver (notch or pump, see below - this works with all radar-guided missiles), or make him maneuver out of his own radar gimbals (usually by forcing him defensive). Typically by firing a missile on your ennemy, even if he has already fired one (assuming long distance shots here, don't try this at short range), it will make him go beaming and lose his lock, so that you can continue offensively (this works very well against AIs - humans can get in a chicken contest with this kind of stuff :P) -Active Radar Homing (ARH) missiles, such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM or the R-77, have an in-board radar that may pick you up even if the launching aircraft no longer has a lock. Breaking the ennemy's lock will not make you safe in this case, although it may improve your chances, especially at long range. When the missile's close, it activates it's own radar (and you will see that on your SPO (russian Radar Warning Receiver - the light gauge will fill-in real quick because the missile has a (usually) high closure rate). Once again, it is possible to notch the missile. In this case, though, shooting back may not help you, for even if it breaks the ennemy's lock, it will not render his missile harmless, and yourself will be hampered in your maneuvers by the fact that you have to guide your own missile (since we're talking about Su-27/33, that are equipped mostly with SARH). Notching is placing the ennemy radar (either the ennemy aircraft or the active missile) at your 3 or 9 o'clock and above you (ie. you have to dive Under the ennemy's altitude) to exploit a weakness of the Doppler pulsed radar. A competent notch will break the lock of most aircraft radars, and sometimes even te lock of active missiles radar. It may be slightly hard to recommit afterwards, though, as it is a decidedly defensive posture. Pumping is, err... just turning your back to the threat and get the hell out of there :D Usually it is very efficient to survive if the ennemy's missile was fired beyond visual range, because 1) It may induce loss of lock, just like notching (another weakness of the radar), and 2) You may simply get out of the missile range, as it's rocket motor has a very limited burn time. Well, that was a longer post than I anticipated, but I hope it may give you some insight on what may improve your survivability. Note that while I believe the above is generally true, others might have different opinions. I also did not go into details or more advanced and subtle tactics (nor did I talke about Infra-Red missiles, and the nasty R-27ET (but I don't remember if it was already dumbed down in FC2 - I know it was deadly in FC1). Anyway I hope it may help you fly and fight :pilotfly:

Glad I could help :) The long press was a new feature from FC2 I think, and one that caused many a head-scratching :D (in good part because it was, I think, undocumented or poorly so)

I think in the F-15C, Weapon Fire fires the gun, while Weapon Release fires the missiles. Also, you might want to make sure you are keeping the key pressed for a whole second, because it requires a long press to fire missiles.

That's even better then, no (for that specific purpose) ? I think I read some time ago how units waiting for activation were still taking valuable memory space (some advised to deactivate units you didn't want instead of activating those you wanted), so if they are completely eliminated from the mission, I guess that makes this Condition memory-efficient. Of course, I'm talking about the specific purpose that is randomising which units are there and which are not (at all). A simple way to make missions more interesting, by having opposing force randomized. In particular, it's a good way for the mission Creator not to be omniscient, for those of us who aren't that great at complex triggering. PS: I'm thinking relatively short missions (~2 hours) for squad use, not all-day-long missions for dedicated server, for which the initial units at start is less defining, I guess

Talking about randomly activated units (not delayed), isn't there a new (I think) built-in option for that (see attached screen)? If it really is what I think it is, this will much simplify putting probability-based units

By the way, I don't think a new 3D cockpit was announced for the Su-33, at least not soon.

That being said, it is probably very hard to hit an airplane (even a relatively slow one like the A-10) with small arms, so maybe the infantry in DCS is a bit superhuman in that regard (I said maybe, I wouldn't know, I don't fly that low that they can try).

I'd like to see the Marneuli airbase, since it should be located on the current map, and is apparently a major airbase for the Georgian Army Air Section (formerly Georgian Air Force). I must admit I have never been able to locate for sure (in real life) the Alekseevka airbase mentionned here and there as the other major Georgian airbase, in the vicinity of Tbilisi - it doesn't seem to match any of the three airports we have, and satellite views did not show more airbases when I looked.

Do you mean in Flaming Cliffs 3 ? Because I'm pretty sure we're not talking about real-life here

In regards to the original post, the bottom line is that the 3D model is independant from flight model.* Thus, although chances are good (<= probably an understatement here) that intake (or more to the point, it's effects) will be modelized correctly in the AFM, it could be that the 3D model stays the same (of course, maybe they'll do the favor to fix it). * Test it yourself by replacing the A-10C 3D model by that of your choice, and see that it is still flying the same. PS: I'm joining VanjaB in the thanks for the insight at what AFM is about

The TWS mode, in the MiG-29A as in the Su-27 and Su-33 (ie. non Fox 3 capable aircrafts), may be used, as GGTharos said, to enhance situational awareness. In case you do not have friendly EWR/AWACS to feed your datalink with bogeys' track (ie. heading), TWS mode allows you to have this information. Whenever TWS detects a bogey, a symbol will appear on the HDD (Head Down Display), which will allow you to visualize its range and heading - and that can be really useful ! Unfortunately, that is pretty much all it does. It does not (very unfortunately) show altitude, or airspeed, or any other info that the STT is capable of measuring. Bottomline: can be handy to keep track of the bogeys' headings/aspects when datalink is unavailable (unfortunately, friendly fighers don't datalink between them) EDIT: The manual quoted refers probably to the F-15C TWS, which indeed show altitude. Russian TWS do not.

Thanks, good to know. Although Wrecking Crew has a valid question about negative numbers :P I think personnaly I'll just stick with numerical values, since they do the job. By the way, the Mission Editor is even more confusing (inconsistent) in that for Conditions, it has "Flag is True" and Flag is False", but for Actions, it has "Flag On" and "Flag Off".

Interesting info, the "anything other than false or 0". I find the fact that flags can take either boolean or numerical values confusing, as in " is 0 == false? is 1 == true? is 2 == true ? is a boolean value ever equivalent to a numerical one? etc...". I Wonder if it wouldn't be better to only allow numerical values. I think the original question stands, though. Would "Time Since Flag 1 is 20 seconds" be true 30 seconds after Flag 1 has been set? Personnally, I tend to imagine it would, since otherwise it would require the condition to be tested at the precise moment, and the frame-to-time conversion would maybe not readily allow that* I suppose it wouldn't be hard to verify, anyway. Something along the line of: Mission Start => None => Set Flag 1 to 1, Set Flag 2 to 1 Once => Time Since Flag 1 is 5 AND Time Since Flag 2 is 10 => Message Or with the radio menu *: Yeah, I wrote an export script with a kind of "if (Time == Time1 + 5)" and of course it wouldn't work EDIT: A quick test seemed to confirm that the condition Time Since Flag stays true after the exact time is passed

Actually, I think there is a script around that does pretty much what you'd like. Spawns infantry when vehicules are destroyed. It then calls for Medevac. Try searching for Medevac script. EDIT: Ok, found it. Dynamic Medevac Script Could do the trick. I haven't tried it myself

Also the tower frequency, which can come really handy

They will appear if you set the Dynamic weather. Static weather don't have those

Actually, not that much. Look at US F-16 vs Turkish F-16, they're pretty hard to tell apart (ie. they look basically the same). A lot of countries have adopted the grey paint scheme on their aircrafts. OTOH, while I completely agree that the current "coalition-by-countries" system is not really good, I suspect changing that might be more work that it looks like. I believe pretty much the entire mission core is based upon two coalitions, defined by a number of countries.

Virtual machine error is indeed fixed :thumbup: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1934701#post1934701

Fixed! With the last update, it works on Hyper-v now :thumbup:

Will check if the issue is still present with Hyper-V, and will report back

Hmm, sorry, but by that logic, they wouldn't model the unique casinos (like the Stratosphere) in Las Vegas for the Nevada map :doh: