Auger73

They may surprise us and announce something totally unexpected, like a Tu-128S-4. Go big.

I had the same problem the OP had, and landing with too much fuel was my biggest problem (not that I can't improve my technique). Per the manual, you should start your approach at around 700L of fuel remaining in a clean configuration. Fuel limits with external stores are detailed in the manual. Since you can't dump fuel in the 21, you may want use the (2nd) afterburner at low altitude to chew through fuel if you think you will have too much when you start your landing approach.

The elevator fairing looks like it is from a MiG-17, and the open gear door next to the fuselage also looks like it is from a MiG-17. And the dorsal fin under the tail looks like it is from a MiG-17. If you google "MiG 0327" you will see pictures of this airplane, typically along with info that it is a Lim-5 (or MiG-17F). I'm not saying Vietnam didn't operate the MiG-15. Only that this picture doesn't appear to be a MiG-15.

It looks like the smoke is definitely visible from the cockpit, but DCS probably does it a little heavy. The color part of the clip has some major brightness issues (the lit parts are very bright, and shadows very dark), so I think the black & white part of the clip may far be more reliable for guaging smoke. Unfortunately, it doesn't show the whole plane, which would have been helpful. As a side note, the real F-86 clip in the first video may have been a F-86F-2, with the 4 x M39 20mm cannons.

Man, a 152 would be awesome. I got my private pilot's license in one of those.

5 discrete states would just require 3 bools to describe. It is just like how 119 is still a decimal number, even if you don't have 119 fingers. (Just think of the HOTAS setup you could use with 119 fingers, even if it made you looked a bit like something from Cthulhu fan fiction!)

Anything digital can be represented in "on or off" binary terms. You may need more than 1 binary switch. Everything your computer processes is binary and digital. I am more interested in the "non-takeoff brakes" to be honest - as taxiing and landing are where I mostly use brakes. Maximum performance take-offs are fine, but I rarely do them. Having a separate "take-off" brake system would be fine, though.

Binary is digital. And by digital I meant it is either "On" or "Off" - it isn't just a Soviet thing. :) Yes, you can have digital controls mimic analog controls, such as digital potentiometers, and analog controls can have their signal converted into a digital one. I would argue the toe brakes on my G940 feel more like Soviet toe brakes than American toe brakes from the description. :music_whistling:

Arguing from the perspective of ergonomics of the real aircraft doesn't make sense, as the ergonomics of how 99.99% (probably higher) of DCS players are nothing like the aircraft they are simulating. Unless you have a sim pit designed with the layout of the real bird, you really aren't experiencing the ergonomics of the real bird. Don't get me wrong - if you can afford to do it, kudos to you! Most of us plebes have to make due with what we have. The real question is whether the Soviet aircraft had digital or analog brakes. Like every other control in DCS, you should be able to map the input wherever you want. For me, I have a Logitech G940, which has fewer control inputs than I like, and unused wheel brakes are wasted controls. On the MiG-21Bis, I map the right brake pedal as my brake lever, and I am cool with that. I would have no gripe doing that for all aircraft which only have 1 brake control.

I agree that doing that type of mission could be really gratifying. I've flown more MP in the old IL-2, and am not as familiar with MP in DCS, but having victory conditions in MP including transporting cargo to forward airbases could be really interesting. My main concern would be that you would be much more limited in the MP environment, as missions would have to be tailored to transport aircraft.

Times have changed! 1. Alienware is not the same since it was bought by Dell. They aren't the high-end rigs they used to be. 2. UEFI has been replacing BIOS (it is much easier than BIOS - graphical interfaces, etc., - there is even automatic "one button" overclocking). If you want a powerful machine, you either need to learn and build it yourself, or pay a hefty premium. Even after you pay the massive premium for a Mac, you still are behind on the power curve compared to high-end PCs. Since you should anyways thoroughly research buying a new computer, imho, it is worth it to invest the extra energy and effort into building it yourself.

I agree that aircraft in DCS should have some sort of military application. Even though I fly DCS for both combat and non-combat (I really enjoy the updated & new FMs), I would probably not buy a non-military aircraft. I would be much less likely to buy an unarmed military aircraft as well (like transport, AWACS, etc.), although I might consider it. Even for combat trainer aircraft, such as the L-39 - the fact it has been used in combat makes it more interesting to me than a combat trainer aircraft that has never seen the front lines.

I strongly suspect the pilot was actually looking at a better image on their monitor than what is represented in this video. The letters in the video sort of drift around a little bit and warp (watch "TGP" at the bottom), which leads me to believe that there have been problems with the recorded media. There are even moments of rippling in the recording, which shows that there are clearly some external factors going on.

Unfortunately a lot of this thread has been keyboard vs. stick, which is sidetracking the issue, and unhelpful. The real question is whether the keyboard controls (of the virtual flight stick specifically) are consistent between aircraft - if it isn't, then there is a real bug, imho. If difference FN is experiencing is caused by how each aircraft responds to the stick input, then it isn't a bug, imho. ED may consider adding keyboard helpers in the latter case, but that would be "additional development".

C:\Program Files(x86)\Eagle Dynamics\LockOn Flaming Cliffs 2\ by default.

In the training, you can hit 'Esc' to bring up the pause menu, and then click on 'Take Control' to take control of the aircraft in the training mission. This way you can watch how the training mission should be done, and then practice doing the training mission yourself.

While I strongly dislike flying by keyboard, I get what FN is saying. Since ED already has implemented this control setup for keyboard in DCS, it should not be a major effort to implement it for the F-15C or Su-27. There would not be any "further development", but rather porting that control code - at least in theory - provided that specific code is well-written OOP code. It is up to ED to decide if it is worth it to fix or not. I hope they do, for FN and others who want to fly by keyboard.

This is the normal course for a software publisher. I think the general idea for ED is that as time goes on, modules should need fewer and fewer fixes. So, if you grow the number of modules slow enough, it shouldn't give too much strain on testing. The real problem comes when core changes happen inside the DCS engine, which can then ripple into unexpected behavior inside individual modules. I bet ED is very careful about this. A lot of testing can become necessary, and all those extra modules give extra pain. Every time you make changes/fixes, there is a potential to introduce or re-introduce bugs. At some point, a developer will have to say, "I can live with the bugs, as the product is overall better as a result of this patch". There is no "perfect patch" or "perfect software". I've worked long enough in the software business to know that if you encounter a bug on released software, chances are very good (probably > 90%) that the developer knew about it before release. Which is not to say that they understand the behavior of their software perfectly, or how it runs on all hardware.

Are you starting it up yourself? If so, you may want to just start the mission hot to see if that helps. This can help you figure out if you are missing something in the startup procedure, or if you are missing something elsewhere (technique, etc.). I suspect you may need to increase the throttle. I hope you get this worked out - I like the feel of the Hip the best of the 3 helos. Although the Huey did wonders for helping me fly the Shark better!

Win 7 x64 & GTX 560 Ti

It is a 2 part process: 1. Map toe brake through CH Control Manager to a button. 2. Map button to wheel brake in DCS. You have to use the CH Control Manager software (and the Control Manager has to be running while you are in DCS). You may need to look for help on the CH forum on how to map the brake pedal axis to a button. I am 99% certain this can be done. I used to have a CH HOTAS setup, although I haven't had it for about 5 years, so I am fuzzy on the details.

The Bunny Fighter would be really cool. Yes, it was an MF, and not a Bis, but the design is interesting, and the story is cool: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2155597

The only part of software products I am against are software patents, which I think should be abolished. And you are presenting a false dichotomy. I do want to support LN, and I do want (and did buy) the DCS: MiG-21. These are not mutually exclusive things. I think you should support those who provide things you want. If you want LN to make more modules (and considering the financial health of our hobby - this isn't COD of BF), you should consider purchasing the 21. Especially if you feel it helps DCS go a direction you would like to see it go. If LN decides it isn't worth it for them to make another module, they probably won't. And that might be taken as a warning sign to other potential 3rd party devs, who might decide it isn't worth it to try to put out a module for DCS. On the other hand, if LN does well, it might provide additional interest for 3rd parties to develop for DCS, which would mean more potential modules. I bet you most 3rd parties are watching closely to see how things go down with LN and ED. EDIT: Saying I am against all the business in the world is nonsensical, because I am advocating buying products to help specific businesses.

Having more model than you can see will give additional performance cost without benefit. Better they bound your virtual head inside the glass. Not to mention that you don't get an unfair advantage of an incorporeal head in MP.

You could buy the 21 from Steam (for $45), and then somehow donate ($16.25) to LN/ED so that they get the same amount of money as a direct purchase. But all you would be really doing is donating ($11.25) to Steam. It doesn't make financial sense. I do care about supporting the hobby, and as such it makes sense that as much of the purchase price as possible goes to those who make it. By simply giving money to the makers of sim products also defeats the purpose as well. The point is that we, as a community, want our hobby to be healthy, with a variety of high quality products. That is what we need to reward, by buying the products, so that more products are made. Simply giving money to the fine folks at LN may be an act of kindness, but it won't be as meaningful toward the future of our hobby. EDIT: Steam has a very valuable use for our community, which is to expose people who otherwise not be aware of these products. I am a Steam user, and like it very much in general, but decided to stay away from it as far as ED products were concerned.