Auger73

That makes some sense. The Cromwells had the 75 mm ROQF Mk V gun, which had a good HE shell, and inferior AP shell. And Tiger I's were well armored, even on their sides. I would expect flanking to be more effective against Panthers, which had strong frontal armor, but proportionally much weaker side armor than Tigers.

I would think the rocket exhaust below the wing would lead to a momentary (and probably unnoticeable) decrease in lift. Pretty much the inverse of ekranoplan designs which featured the engine exhaust traveling above the wing in order to increase lift. The reduction in drag and weight from the fired rocket probably have much more of an effect.

Glad I could help you get started in the right direction! You could try looking for any installed application with "WIC" in the name as a potential suspect. If you have Flaming Cliffs 3, the Su-25A shouldn't be affected. The default T-51 also shouldn't be affected. Although this would really be limiting the aircraft you can use.

How much memory does your video card have? It looks like the 750 Ti comes with 1GB, 2GB, or 4GB. 2 GB is the minimum requirement for DCS. Have you downloaded the latest drivers from nvidia.com? The graphical issue is with the labels. Which are solid blocks instead of text. You could also turn off labels in the option menu, since you can't read them anyway.

It looks like the side skirt is there, just most of the panels are missing. Only 1/5 panels are there on the left, and 3/5 on the right.

My G940 is ailing, and I can't replace it when it dies. Cheers

Individual FC3 aircraft should work. It wasn't clear that the OP had FC, FC2, or FC3. It's pretty reasonable to assume that they have FC3, but it might be possible they have an older version.

Also, do you have Flaming Cliffs 3? The earlier versions won't work in DCS 2.0.

The A-10A, Su-25A, F-15C, Su-27S are offered as standalone. Both MiG-29s and the Su-33 are not offered yet as standalone (I think because they have not been upgraded from SFM to PFM). However, the 'standalone' versions are identical to the FC3 versions. The only reason to buy the standalone FC3 aircraft is if you only want 3 or less of them.

What does 6 gallons of 100 LL go for these days?

I'd love to see more 21 variants, and it would be sweet to have some 21-93 variant with the Kopyo. From a pragmatic perspective, I think Leatherneck made the absolute right choice with modeling the bis. It fits best into the FC3 era of aircraft, is very widely used, and can be limited by ordinance to sort of approximate older variants. And I think another 3rd party would be wise to model a different aircraft than the 21, as there are many popular airframes which people don't already own in DCS. Since a different 21 module would likely only be bought by people who already own the 21bis.

Hi Devrim, First off, thank you so much for your mods! I ran into an issue where the Su-25T English mod does not seem to work properly unless the Su-25A English mod is also activated. It seems to be related to 3 files in particular - parts02, tex02, and tex04.

When I went to flight school we were taught by definition a flat spin is a spin you can't recover from. An airfoil will not generate lift (and resultant drag) if it's maximum angle of attack is exceeded. I would think having something like vectored thrust would make all the difference.

Sounds like an excellent product for the price! The only downside I can figure out is that the PS3 Eye is not as capable as the Track IR 5 camera. The PS3 Eye @ 120 Hz has a resolution of 320 x 240, vs 640 x 480 for the Track IR 5 @ 120 Hz. It's resolution is actually a little worse than the Track IR 3 Pro, which is 355 x 288 @ 120 Hz. I'm not sure how other aspects of those cameras compare, such as viewing angle, etc. I will be recommending your product to a friend of mine!

Seems that project was canceled 15 years ago. Last flight April 27, 2000. Maybe the MiG-35? Or MiG-41? Supposed to be a Mach 4 fighter based on the MiG-31, so the images that come up in a Google search are likely just fiction.

If you want 100% effective computer security, cut the power cords, and bury it in cement. It's the only way to be safe with any OS. For the most part, being smart about how you use your computer goes much further to keeping your computer secure than anything else.

Windows XP Pro x64 uses the Windows Server 2003 kernal and code - it isn't really XP under the hood. It had a rough start, but matured into a really nice OS for the technically inclined - I used it for years. I finally ended up replacing it with Windows 7 Pro x64. You may want to go with Windows 7, which you can enjoy for 6 months or so before upgrading to 10 for free. I prefer 7 to 10, but in a little over 4 years, Windows 7 is going to reach it's end of support from Microsoft. Just skip Windows 8.

I got it sorted out by filtering by aircraft, and changing settings for each one. It gives better results.

What is the name to use to export the Su-25T Shkval to a viewport? I'm using a square "RIGHT_MFCD" (for the various FC3 aircraft & A-10C), and want a 4:3 aspect ratio Shkval for the Su-25T. If in addition to letting me know what name to use for the Su-25T Shkval, the steps to how to find the name would be greatly appreciated! Thanks for any help on this!

F-102 would be miserable to fly in a combat capacity, as Falcons and FFARs were both very ineffective. The F-106 with a gun might be fun, although the missile problems would be the same as with the F-102. From accounts I have read from Robbin Olds, the AIM-4 sounds like an incredibly frustrating weapon to use. I'd much rather see someone make a Fiddler...

DCS currently has multi-threading. The DCS sound engine is on one thread, and the rest of DCS is on another. Rendering, even on DX9, is done via multi-threading, since modern GPUs have multiple cores. What would be nice to see is ED possibly using additional threads for AI / physics, or wherever they can get more bang for the buck, since most machines running DCS probably have 4 cores these days.

The "computer language" used is not changing - I would be very surprised if it was written in anything besides C++. DCS extends it's engine with lua for writing scripts (to make it easier and simpler than coding everything in C++). All versions of Arma were written in C++. The game engine is what is changing, and the API (DirectX 9 -> DirectX 11) that said game engines use. They are also extending the capabilities of the engine itself, so it isn't purely cosmetic. This is a really substantial undertaking.

Just think about the multiplayer co-op possibilities of DCS: Death Star! I call dibs on operating the trash compactor!

I really like the Huey, and it is the liveliest DCS helo, and the closest to the R-22 I had a lesson in IRL. But I have to say I prefer the Mi-8 over the Huey, as it feels a little more tamed and smoother, yet still lively. The Shark feels a bit sterile in comparison - although the systems are what make it interesting.

This is a critical feature for DCS: Rutan Voyager. Also map rotation times in excess of 9 days. A vote for the world map is a vote for the Rutan Voyager!