Robin_Hood

Just to make it clear, Eagle Dynamics will : - release stand-alone modules for the Su-27, F-15C, Su-25 and A-10A, that will all have an Advanced Flight Model (no Lock-on installation needed) - make said AFMs available as a free bonus to FC3 owners (who will still need Lock-on) Hope that dispels any confusion.

Because the question was which module will come out first. The FW-190 and the F/A-18C have both been announced. Hadn't noticed that. To be honest, I'm rather cautious about the F-35A (besides, it's pretty low on my list of favourites airplanes), but an F-4 Phantom (any version) would be an instant buy !

As a matter of fact, I think the game should allow several different actions being mapped to a the same key/button (of course, providing appropriate warnings about potential conflict). Maybe that could sometimes be used to simulate more complex avionics (like SPI-dependent key switch functions), or help those whose joystics have a limited number of buttons. For example, the key for the wheelbrakes could easily be used for something else when airborne (I'm thinking FC3-level fidelity there of course, DCS-level would seldom need this sort of things). Of course, great care (from the user) would be required not to mess up everything with conflicts. I think Jane's F/A-18C allowed that.

I think, the gauge goes to 100% RPM, but it will only match your max RPMs for certain conditions, depending upon how it was calibrated. Sometimes it will go at 98%, sometimes at 102%. I'm pretty sure there were some posts about the subject in the A-10C forums. That may explain why the gauge is graduated above 100%. Also, I confirm the various degrees of A/B power (I fly the Su-33), and I frequently use minimum afterburner when someone is flying my wing (so that they can still have a little bit of available excess power).

Yeah, that sounds like them :lol: Well, I don't complain, I like nice surprises.

That or have separate topics for the updates (closed topic) and the discussions (open topic).

Yeah, Soganlug actually looks a little like your second picture. Other non-flat airfields (but more slightly so than Soganlug) would be Tbilisi, Vaziani, Beslan and Mozdok. I think that's about it. It is easily tested in the editor map, check the elevation along the runway.

Ok, so here are the results of my tests. It is not a definitive study, but I hope you might find it of interest. A few things I'd like to make clear or point out. 1. I do not guarantee the precision of the data, although I have spent a fair bit of time on it. Sometimes it is hard to pinpoint the exact data. However, I thing it should be accurate enough. 2. Range tests have been made at medium altitude, around 12 000 ft. Engagement range might vary at different altitudes. I should stress that I have not extensively tested being engaged at different altitudes. 3. The presentaion is not optimal, but I do not feel like shaping up better than that right now. Feel free to shape it up or use it in anyway you might want. 4. Notice some SAM systems will launch as soon as they track you, so be aware. Fortunately, only medium/long range SAMs do that. Also, this may change in the future (and was actually tested in an earlier build). 5. I have indicated "UNK" when I have not been able to pinpoint the data (typically because of the limited ceiling of the aircraft used). 6. I have yet to do the tests with non-russian SAM systems. Also, no infrared-guided SAMs were tested. 7. All tests have been made with SAMs on "excellent" skill level. 8. "Minimum range" is rather speculative and only indicative, as it may vary with altitude. Here is a short explanation of the data: Search range is the range at which the system showed on the RWR. Tracking range is the range at which a tracking indication was shown on the RWR. Effective range is the range at which the system first fired a missile. Sometime several passes were made to make sure the "reaction time" didn't distort the data for the very first shot. Minimum range is the range at which the system started firing again, when overflown. It is only indicative, as it might vary with reaction time, altitude and such. Max altitude is the altitude (MSL) at which the SAM site could be safely overflown. Min altitude is the altitude (actually a height, AGL) at which the SAM site couldn't fire and/or track anymore. SA-3 "Goa" S-125 Search range: 75 km (40 nm) Tracking range: 75 km (40 nm) Effective range: 15 km (8 nm) Minimum range: 5.5 km (3 nm) Max altitude: 16 500 m (55 000 ft) Min altitude: 200 m (650 ft) SA-6 "Gainful" Kub Search range: 60 km (32 nm) Tracking range: 60 km (32 nm) Effective range: 25 km (13.5 nm) Minimum range: 6 km (3.2 nm) Max altitude: 11 000 m (36 000 ft) Min altitude: 30 m (100 ft) SA-8 "Gecko" Osa Search range: 25 km (13.5 nm) Tracking range: 15 km (8 nm) Effective range: 8 km (4.3 nm) Minimum range: 1.5 km (0.8 nm) Max altitude: 6 500 m (22 000 ft) Min altitude: 10 m (33 ft) SA-10 "Grumble" S-300 Search range: 135 km (73 nm) Tracking range: 60 km (32 nm) Effective range: 60 km(32 nm) Minimum range: 5 km (2.7 nm) Max altitude: UNK Min altitude: 25 m (80 ft) SA-11 "Gadfly" Buk Search range: 85 km (45 nm) Tracking range: 26 km (14 nm) Effective range: 26 km (14 nm) Minimum range: 4 km (2 nm) Max altitude: UNK (greater than 19 000 m - 62 000 ft) Min altitude: 15 m (50 ft) SA-15 "Gauntlet" Tor Search range: 21 km (11.3 nm) Tracking range: 18 km (9.7 nm) Effective range: 8 km (4.3 nm) Minimum range: 1.5 km (0.8 nm) Max altitude: 8 000 m (26 000 ft) Min altitude: 10 m (33 ft) SA-19 "Grison" Tunguska Search range: 15 km (8 nm) Tracking range: 12 km (6.5 nm) Effective range: 8 km (4.3 nm) Minimum range: UNK Max altitude: 5 000 m (16 500 ft) Min altitude: None

I might post the results I got soon, although I wouldn't pretend them to be anything like a definitive study. EDIT: done. See here

I will look at it and see if our data concurr. Plus, I managed to get above the SA-3 :) (obviously, I wouldn't picture an A-10C goint up to 50 000 ft or so). EDIT: Just had a look. Most seem to match, although sometimes we have one or two thousands of feet of difference. Except for the -3. Also, most engagement (range at which they fist shoot - that's what I used) ranges are spot-on, except for the -15 and -11, for which I found a slightly lower range. Exactly what I though (optical guidance) when I tested the Tunguska. By the way, it loos to me like this method makes it for a less maneuverable missile (maybe not less maneuverable per se, but guidance-wise). It seems to have a hard time guiding on high LOS-rate (just beaming the SA-19 usually resulted in multiple missiles missing).

Yeah, you could call them "6DOF optimized" cockpits, maybe. But indeed, they are actually 3D cockpits.

I concurr with others. Usually if you know what you're doing you will end up waiting for the alignment. In addition to the nice list Izoul123 gave you, while waiting you can also review your SMS for weapons profile, laser codes, ALOW altitude alarms and such. For those in a multiplayer mission, talking about the upcoming flight can also pass the time.

Is this possible for FC3 aircrafts, or will it be implemented later, with the overlay ?

I will try to answer some of that. Scripted landing doesn't mean that you don't land the plane manually. It means that the plane landing is not realistic. It is done by "if the plane touches the ground this or that way, the plane lands safely" kind of things, an therefore doesn't give a realistic feel. Furthermore, it will overlook a lot of things that can happen. For example, with scripted landings (FC3 planes - except Su-25), if you try landing with only one wheel touching the ground, then your aircraft will suddenly roll level and be landed with both wheels touching the ground. Another way of saying this is that you have two different "states" and associated behaviours for your aircraft: on the ground, and airborne. And the transition between the two doesn't really feel well, especially on some situations. With an AFM, the very same rules and flight model are used whatever state you're in, and a very realistic transition between them will occur. I hope I was clear enough (probably not entirely technically right, but I think this is the idea). As for 3D cockpits, several FC3 planes have 3D cockpits: F-15C, Su-27, Su-25 and A-10A, i believe. About buying FC3, now that we know that AFMs updates will be free for FC3 owners, I would say, unless you really are interested in only one aircraft, then buy FC3, especially since it is on sale now.

Not too keen about real time (although it would certainly be the simpler to implement), but I would like to see real-world weather importing like FS has had for quite some time. But weather engine has to be improved. I'm sure they are working on it.

I have made a few testing with the SAMs, so, actually: 1. In DCS there is a safe spot over the SAMs (confirmed for SA-3, SA-6, SA-8, SA-10, SA-11 and SA-15). To get there, either fly under their coverage, or above (see 2.). Of course, for most it is not recommanded except for testing purpose. 2. You can try overflying the following: SA-3, SA-6, SA-8, SA-15, SA-19 (by flying above approx. 17 000 m, 11 000 m, 7 000 m, 8 000 m, 5 000 m). I can however confirm the SA-11 (Buk) will shoot you even at 19 000 m (62 000 ft), so no chance there. All tests made with a Su-33 against UKR SAMs (skill "excellent"). I have not yet tested the non-CIS SAM systems.

Fuel flow vs fuel capacity would suck compared to the A-10, I guess. Just like loiter time for F-16s, F-15s and all the bunch does (A-10s, after all, were built specifically for the mission). And tackling the missions differently is great, I guess you mean more "come at 30 000 ft and drop a JDAM on target instead of going low with guns" (by the way, nowadays A-10Cs are very capable of doing the former), but what you have to keep in mind is that Close air support typically needs long loiter time because you never know when and for how long the ground troops will need you. I think that might be what Paulrkii had in mind.

I sure hope this means the CCRP is fixed also with other FC3 aircrafts, such as Su-27/33 and MiG-29 (I would guess so).

Well, the Georgian Army does have UH-1s, so not really out of place (if you don't nitpick too much about versions).

But doesn't the current DCS map still include a significant portion of LOMAC-era map ? The only part missing is the old Flanker-era Crimea, if I'm not mistaken. The best part of Caucasus (from anapa to Sukhumi and Maykop, I believe) is from LOMAC. PS: I would also like to see more or Turkey. Although, ideally I would rather have new maps around the world.

RSHIFT + r also silences the RWR I think (at least it used to, on russian aircrafts). Can't say I use that too often, but sometimes for training it is nice to silence the AWACS search warning.

Indeed. But there is one more difference. If an aircraft is set to "player", then the "failures" panel becomes available. By the way, if one aircraft is set to player and others to client, they are all selectable in multiplayer (even the "player" one), and any failure setting will work out on all playable aircraft (player and clients).

AFAIK, your are allowed to transfer the license, as long as you stop using it yourself (which would be copy, not transfer) and remove it from your computer. Here's what the End-User License Agreement has to say about it: Now, I don't see why you couldn't transfer your license to a friend, who would then transfer it back to you, provided you don't abuse it. There was a whole topic somewhere about this clause in the EULA.

Oh, right, I got that one too. Usually when spawning multiple times in the same misison (like A/A training - fire missiles, then respawn when out of missiles or shot down). Respawning again fixed it.

The UH-1H Huey is planned to allow multiplayer co-pilot and gunners, for a later update. This should be the first module with this feature, and hopefully will open the door to other multi-crew aircraft. :)