Ala13_ManOWar

Let it be, that hammerhead in the video is pretty much the same you can do in a P-51 in DCS, but hammerheads have a trick, you must do it perfectly to the numbers or you end up in whatever but a hammerhead at all. You have to use a certain engine while climbing to the vertical, you have to step in the rudder (it depends on whether you do towards torque or against torque either) at a certain exact speed while still climbing, a second sooner or later and hammerhead is not happening. But he knows better, so let him live in his fap-adorian wet dreams of superiority, he's happy there, ignorance is bliss .

We all hope . Since it's ED's, which happens to be the main company and not just a happy trigger third party, I wouldn't know why anybody could think they just changed their minds about this map of which we've already seen screenshots and all and decide, "hey, on a second thought, let's ditch all the work we've done so far" .

Still, just having tested the quite good mod out there (video posted some posts before) one can figure out why 104, no matter how cool it looks (because it does either), was a pretty useless aircraft outside of it's cold war bomber interceptor role. You don't need much, download the mod, watch a couple videos on how it's used and how realistic intercept profiles are, and it's just obvious. Out of that role it's a rather limited aircraft since quick take offs to climb stratospheric and intercept a supersonic bomber with your two sidewinders isn't exactly the most varied and usable aircraft ever.

AFAIK no, they always relied on buddy lasing.

No need to replace if you tell updater/cleaner to keep the files.

Pages are in a folder, you can edit, erase, add, or whatever you like. If an APP is used it's even simpler, like kneeboard builder (google right away).

Si funciona en una dirección y en otra no tiene pinta de contafuegos por algún lado, sea en sistema operativo o en el router. Yo comprobaría toda esa parte lo primero.

Thanks Chicho!! That was my suspicion, but since this is a simulation and users usually claim for more options no matter how far fetched they are I wouldn't be surprised if Aerges finally decides to make it available for whatever the version they think of. If I'm not mistaken we've already seen (yesterday, or the day before I think) a video where a CE fires a R530F missilewhich apparently shouldn't be able to, so…

Unclear no more . In the first batches a total of 6 two seaters were bought, but since they're single engine airframes loses during regular operations summed up as much as 3 of them at least, so that's why several more second hand two seaters were bought from Qatar and France. Not sure about the Qatari ones, I believe none of those airframes were overhauled at all (cannibalized for spare parts though) neither single or two seaters, but actually the single F1B from Armèe de l'Air was updated so at least one more two seater was available in M configuration, Sincerely I don't envy Aerges having to choose among a myriad of models which one, in which configuration, to model or not. If they stick to the originally bought models it's fine but they're mostly older variants and lacking features, which we know DCS fans want as per usual, until more recent updates, if we look closely among the later second hand and overhauled ones number of choices start to spread like butter over a hot toast…

Curiously I read somewhere about the exocet, despite not being in SAF service, could be used in later models F1s, I believe it was M version that they mentioned which would make sense though I wouldn't really know if that's a thing at all since it wasn't a weapon ever used in Spain or Spanish forces at all so it probably was some kind of misunderstanding, but who knows. When we get M model at least we'll see what Aerges come up with, I guess.

I believe I already told this story somewhere else. I recall an ex-F-4C pilot conference (also in Spanish service) telling they had this problem with F1s every time they fought in trainings, F1 came high (about 30.000ft) while Phantom usually came in about 15.000 ft (IIRC the numbers), and they struggle saying, "for you to get a kill on me up there, you better come down here so I get a kill on you". That was C version, we'll get at first a not quite early E which would be more powerful for sure, but still F1 apparently can manage itself as long as you know your strong points.

Handling at high speeds isn't exactly bad dive performance, but I get your point .

Yeah, strictly speaking they don't, but I don't see why it's so bad at dive while I can hold my controls quite fine and keep it stable. Last time I bagged a careless 109 online I just dove to him 25lbs of boost and had no problem in stability, neither to reach him nor firing. Who knows.

I guess that depends on many things of which the lesser one isn't the controls you have available at home and the used you are to them. To me it isn't "unstable" at all, twitchy if handled carelessly? sure it is, but once you get used to the controls (and since we're in a sim those controls configured good enough for you) it isn't at all, it's quite stable and pleasant to fly. That's why if we only take our own experiences as the only "reference" we all have a different one depending on how it went to oneself at your home, with your rig, with your controls and your controls setup. Anybody wonders why that own home experience of each one matches closely RL stories and data in some cases, while it wildly disagrees in others? You can start searching there for where does the differences come from.

As said, yes you proved it. If you really think that's a diving test… A dive test means climbing up to 10.000 metres and dive all the way to the ground or the aircraft structural limits, whatever comes first, to check behaviours and all. You can't dive test anything from 2000 ft . Anyhow, flying in those conditions (I also had that kind of joystick some 25 years ago, it's awful, yes, but 30fps aren't helping either) just do whatever suits you, you have not many choices left actually. If you get used to 109 which flies quite nicely to my taste there you go .

While we remain not feeling the consequences of those manoeuvres in our bodies sadly that's not going to change. People in video games do crazy stuff running for their virtual lives that never would happen IRL.

Ha-200 series also saw some combat in the North African colony, though most combat there fell over Buchones and T-6Ds. Anyhow, perhaps it's a rather slow and limited aircraft aside from the Willy Messerschmitt design anecdote to be interesting enough to the sim community, and since it's probably little known outside Spain I'm not that sure it could be interesting for the devs as a paid module. After all they've to make some profit out of whatever they model, not just for the sake of profit but to keep the team alive till the next module.

Few days ago I read about F1 in a website unrelated to simulation it used 530E (talking about Spanish CEs, of course), though I wouldn't know if that's even correct or what are the characteristics of that missile.

They haven't said a thing, but currently the modules they've done are the ones they could find info about, which happen to be ex-Spanish Air Force ones, so their sources might well be related to that. It's not you restrict yourself into anything, it's the info you manage to get. Hope they widen their scoop of course, but currently it makes sense they keep with what they can more or less easily get with regards to info available, hence Mirage IIIEE makes all the sense either.

I think it was released a time ago. Though I haven't used it myself so I don't know where should it be in ME, sorry.

Just lost in translation mate. It happens, he's not an English native. VIIc/41 I believe, not exactly a flak U-boot.

Not exactly mid 90s, overhauls started around 1997-8 or the like, last aircraft handed over was 2001. Last aircraft retired in 2013. Relatively modern, not that much though.

Not really, IRL it's usually the pilot the weakest "structure" of it all.

Could it be it just flames out as usual in sudden though minimal pitch yanks, but with the new controls model it's just more critical now? I mean, I've flamed out -21 engine even just in low level high speed (not higher than critical though) and while flying just "straight and level", or I thought so because it's easy to yank the stick even just slightly and that movement apparently can flame out the engine also. Now with the change in controls model (which I don't like very much honestly, I have a long stick and it lags really badly in cockpit from my actual movement, also control surfaces in external view does) I noticed it's even more sensitive than before, don't really know if it's been done on purpose or it's some kind of bug, sincerely. But whatever it is hat wouldn't help with flame outs definitely.

Bad choice of words from automatic translator, perhaps you aren't understanding the other way around since you probably only read that as our answers. No I'm not the boss anywhere nor I tried to be, thanks . I know you wouldn't read, and even if you try most probably you wouldn't understand, but I'll tell anyway. It was explained somewhere on these very forums that that behaviour is common in old instruments since they don't have whatever the device invented and used later to stabilize the readings. If you let free flow current alone the instrument readings are like that you mention since they point only direct readings with all the instant jumps all around happening in real time as one flies. Later instruments weren't like that, but Mosquito still had that kind, same as most British aeroplanes of the time hence Spitfire does too. They're trash for today standards? Yes, they are. Is it impossible to fly with those? No, it isn't. Is it cool to see that kind of simulation even for real instruments behaviour? Yes, it is a hell of a lot of coolness since no other simulation ever to my knowledge bothered to represent that ever until now .