Dragon1-1

If so, the recent spat won't be, either. This is a semi-regular thing in those parts. There were several instances of full scale conflicts breaking out, featuring classic jets that we have in DCS. The F-86 in particular on Pakistani side, and MiG-21 flown by India.

Now? Someone hasn't been paying attention to, oh, the last century's worth of history of the region.

I'm not. ED clearly stated RAZBAM asked them to take down the modules. They also clearly stated (after people were complaining they were still selling RAZBAM modules) they were obliged to keep selling them until RAZBAM asked them to stop. There's no conspiracy, only Ron Zambrano posting reckless public statements about a private court case. If you did some research, it would have become fairly obvious.

That's nice and all, except when said emplacement or infantry position has a great big string of tracers coming out of it towards your helo. Weapon fire should immediately reveal a unity.

Temporarily uninstall some Steam game to free up space.

It's probably a holdover from the earlier, incorrect version. Mirage 2000 looked very different before ADA stepped in and worked with RAZBAM to correct it. The floods were probably part of it, but they didn't rename them in settings, maybe to preserve compatibility.

That's exactly the opposite of what RAZABM seems to want. They took down the modules, not ED (well, ED physically did it, but at RAZBAM's request). If they wanted to make a deal, they would have done that already.

I think that the T-50 Golden Eagle would be a perfect free module, if ED made the FA-50 as payware. It's a very modern trainer (post-2010, so maybe a little too modern), can go supersonic, so performance is decent, and in its FA version it's a significant ground attack aircraft today. As a bonus, the controls look very similar to the F-16. Differences between T-50 and FA-50 seem to be marginal, so the P-51 and TF-51 type relationship could be possible.

In fact, that's exactly how the current civilian traffic setting works. It both helps the performance somewhat and sidesteps the issue of civilian casualties. Which is why you turn it off in ME the moment the fighting starts. That said, it would be appropriate when you are flying scenic flights over the countryside. Intangible, invulnerable people wouldn't be a problem if you're not trying to bomb them... exactly like the current civilian traffic. I think ED should investigate adding some on foot traffic milling about, in addition to vehicles. Mission makers would just need to be aware of the limitations of that feature (just like they currently are, seeing as most force traffic off when there's fighting).

If you've got the airflow, then air cooling will suffice. Water isn't really superior in performance unless you go with some sort of multi-radiator custom setup. There are some configurations where you might see a difference, but with a big, drafty case, cooling the 9800X3D shouldn't be a problem with a sufficiently beefy air cooler. Incidentally, while the X3D CPUs generally aren't much for traditional overclocking, you might want to look into undervolting. Same with the GPU. Also, one more thing, try to have at least one more fan blowing inwards than outwards. It will tend to create positive pressure inside the case, keeping the dust out to some extent (assuming there's some kind of filter on the intake, of course). The other way around will result in dust being sucked into the case through any openings which don't have a filter.

Mirage III is interesting, but I'd rather have a Super Etendard. Spain didn't fly those, but they've had a very long combat history, and would be notable as non-US carrier aircraft.

It's up to you, and will depend on the case you're planning to use. 9800X3D will need a lot of cooling, for water you probably want a 3x120mm radiator, a 2x140mm one is equivalent but rare. Both option require a large case to fit them, especially if you want a top mounter radiator (vastly superior configuration, but with those sizes only possible in very large cases). If going for air, a large heatsink and good case airflow is a must, and that means you'll need a fairly wide case with a lot of fans. Someone else can probably elaborate further on that, I personally use water and plan to keep doing so. Incidentally, while RGB RAM may raise costs significantly, off-brand RGB fans are not that expensive, and most serious gaming hardware (including both your mobo and GPU) features fancy lighting in some form by default. AIOs commonly have some RGB, as well (these days the fancy ones are the ones with an LCD on the pump). It's neither hard or expensive to make a spiffy-looking rig these days.

One more thing, you may want to look at a different RAM altogether. I'd go for 64GB of RAM (2x32GB) and aim for CL26 latency. IIRC, latency does more for you than the clock these days. If you're looking to save a bit of money, get a non-RGB kit, too. Unless you're really big on making it look spiffy, it'll just raise costs for no good reason. In general, for a new build, you want to get two RAM sticks. It'll perform a little better, plus it leaves you some room for upgrading. If you later decide you do need 128GB, you can always buy another, identical pair of sticks. It's not bleeding edge optimal, but it should work.

Sparrows were available on some export versions and I think ANG Block 30s or 32s. A very specific version of the Viper, one that we don't have.

Like it or not, it was done at least once, on at least one aircraft. No word whether it took of like this, but it seems like it flew like this. That said, perhaps the reason this photo exists is that the pilot "fixed" it mid-flight, with nothing better available, and then snapped a photo because he thought it was funny. Even if you're out of spares, kapton or 100mph tape would've been available, and would've done the job better. I wouldn't trust scotch tape to hold up under Gs (that said, it likely wouldn't be the only thing not to trust on those Tomcats...).

Even taxi directors are far from finished. Leaving aside the obviously placeholder (and annoying) magic teleport, they're very limited.

The problem with most of the Hornet's training missions can be summed in one sentence: they were made years ago. That means the module was incomplete, some things didn't work, some things worked differently. Waypoints, for instance. That mission could explain things like markpoints, creating a new waypoint, designating one as target... only, it was made so early that "click two buttons and fly around" was more or less all you could do. While most of the stuff works, the way it's explained is behind the times. You also can't "fast forward" the old missions. The last few missions are a better experience, being much more recent. IMO, all missions should be remade to that standard. Some could be consolidated, too.

If anything, it shows that the concept of a trainer is very much relevant in DCS. It's just adequately filled by FC3 aircraft, with their simplified avionics. A trainer is supposed to be simpler to fly and operate than a proper combat jet, and FC3 Eagle is just that. Yes, it has powerful engines, but IRL trainers have wimpy engines so that they're cheaper, not because it confers anything in terms of training benefits. Same reason most of them can't carry AMRAAMs (plus, real radars are not as easy to operate as the FC3 Eagle). Software side, it might well be on a similar level. As for the hardware, it can use a motion platform and a full cockpit sim. You just have to own them (and some do).

In fact, that's the reason for Mode 4 on Western aircraft. Modes 1, 2 and 3 are not encrypted, so anyone could do that sort of thing by simply interrogating them. If you don't turn off those modes, anyone with an interrogator can see exactly where you are.

It doesn't, sometimes the check seems to fail, in the Phantom, at least. Jester declares a bandit while in friendly airspace. It's also worth noting that some aircraft (friendly or otherwise) don't have IFF. Civilian ones, in particular, would never respond in Mode 4. This is rarely a factor in DCS, but occasionally it can be.

They work just fine against fighters if you shoot fairly late, leaving the missile with a lot of energy. This is part of the fun, you need to be aware of the ranges and decide whether to fire earlier and risk a miss, or fire late and risk being launched at before the missile goes active.

One more thing, we should remember that he likely never fired a real Phoenix at a real, high speed target. Training in those days was done using timelines and calling out shots, which would be evaluated based on a number of parameters. As they didn't have computers to help them (they were expensive and took up a whole room back then), it had to be simplified somehow. Without more information, it's hard to say whether this is a factor here, but depending on the assumptions taken, it could lead to actual flight time being off.

I'm flying the Hornet campaigns now, and damn, I even miss that idiot in the back. Mostly analog flight controls, just enough displays to do the job, and you can foist some jobs on the backseater. The Phoenix feels more rewarding than the AMRAAM, too, it's more difficult to use while still keeping you on top of the food chain if you did figure it out.

So I thought, but the next two missions seemed to have some trigger weirdness, too. I made a separate thread for M23, M22 also told me to support the ground troops (and I did, with all fifteen bullets I had left), but then seemed to get stuck. This seems to be affecting several missions in the campaign.

In a reverse of my usual complaints, the M23 is too easy. Normally I don't mind that too much, but I saw that the Su-17s I was supposed to go after, along with their escorts, were torn to shreds by a Chaparral and a Bradley before I even got there. Nothing for me to do, Phantoms were doing just fine with the other bombers. I suspect that's not how the mission is intended to play out. I'm also not sure if the mission was. After I landed (at the right airfield), the results were still zero. Called bingo just to be safe, you may want to check the mission completion trigger (I never got the "mission complete" message, I did get voice info to divert).