irisono

I see I'm not alone in hoping that the Mirage III/V family will join DCS soon. Syria, Sinai and South Atlantic maps finally need their protagonists. It's long overdue.

This question that was asked over a year and a half ago still remains unanswered. Is there really no key bind for the VTH (HUD)-functions: A/G Gun Reticle Switch - CCLT A/G Gun Reticle Switch - PRED Could a Mirage 2000 expert or RAZBAM please comment on this?

No, because of the great importance of this aircraft in military aviation and its widespread use in global conflicts, a full fidelity module should be made. I am convinced it would be a commercial success. And by the way it is one of the most elegant and beautiful aircraft in history.

As part of the ever-increasing popularity for Cold War scenarios in DCS, this is a very popular module that many are eagerly awaiting. It is worth taking a look at the RAZBAM block: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/241384-mirage-iii/page/3/#comment-5260880

Yes, the elevator trim of the Bf 109K module is wrong. It's pointless to rehash the whole evidence discussion here. Many, and some of them competent DCS users, have tried to convince the development team of this in long and heated discussions. They just got kicked out. I find it cheeky that DCS simply ignores data from original documents, video interviews with current pilots and veterans who have flown the Bf 109.

I see this behaviour as well with the Fw 190D and M2000 modules. Communications with wingman, AWACs, ATC and IR-missile tones were affected. For me it occurred when I generated an SP mission and started this from the ME. Restarting the ED simulation didn't help. But when I restart the whole PC, it did. The error occurred in both modes, MT and ST.

How far might the Dagger be? The demand for a delta-wing Mirage III / 5 / or 50 is constantly increasing.

I fervently hope it will be a Mirage 5 or 50.

Pretty confusing. I'm sorry but I can't understand the message here. The purpose of a simulation is to reproduce a process or an event (or for me a historical event) as realistically as possible. Every factor contributing to high reality, such as protagonists, the spirit of that era, place and time etc. is crucial. As we begin to compromise these factors, we move more and more towards fantasy worlds or arcade games. DCS is committed to providing the most realistic flight simulation available on the market, as they themselves claim. That's why I, and I believe most DCS users, use this simulator. If realism hadn't mattered to me, I would have chosen an arcade simulator. My apologies for deviating from the main topic "1967 adaptation? "

There is no doubt that OnReTech has delivered a technically very good map here, but...There is a large DCS community that is interested in historical simulation. These folks like to create historically accurate flight missions. And as we can see from the very numerous threads, posts and video clips dealing with this topic, this community seems to be big. From the first day of publication of the Sinai map, I created many missions that actually took place in the Suez Crisis, 6-day War, Attrition or Yom Kippur/Oct. War. To put it mildly, I am disappointed in what this Sinai map is offering in this regard and to put it bluntly, it wasn't the plane or assets sets that were the problem. There are enough alternatives with mods, place holders etc. to get around this. Rather, it's the immense urban areas, huge industrial plants, highways, large, super-modern cities, oversized air bases and all the vehicles that are wrong. All this does not fit into the period 1956-1973 in which these conflicts took place. It kills all the immersion. In fact, DCS maps do not cover the major conflicts of the jet aviation era. The only exception being the Normandy/Channel map that covers the time of propeller-driven aircraft. It's a pity that the new Sinai map has not remedy this deficiency. An opportunity was missed here to cover conflicts that were so important for the development of military aviation. But maybe a Vietnam map 1960-1980 will come soon and improve the situation regarding aviation history.

I fully agree with killerfliege and Awger opinions. Their statements are fully confirmed by the literature. In the reference publication for aircraft guns (the "Flying Guns" trilogy, by Antohony G. Williams and Dr. Emmanuel Gustin) one finds in vol. 2 on pages 329-331 a comparison of the most important WWII aircraft guns and their ammunition. Data used for this publication are based on real live tests of the RAF, the Dept. of the US Air Force TO 11A-1-39 and further validation test by the USN. Here is a tabular extract of the weapons that are of interest to us: Gun Cartridge ROF Gun Power Gun Weight Gun Efficiency MG17 7.92x57 20 21 12 1.75 MG131 13x64B 15 45 17 2.65 Breda 12.7x81SR 12 36 29 1.24 .50M2 12.7x99 13 58 29 2 12.7UB 12.7x108 17 102 25 4.1 MG-FF 20x80RB 8 120 28 4.3 MG151 20x82 12 204 42 4.9 ShVAK 20x99R 13 169 42 4 B-20 20x99R 13 169 25 6.8 Hispano II 20x110 10 200 50 4 Hispano V 20x110 12 240 42 5.7 Vya 23x152B 9 234 68 3.4 MK108 30x90RB 10 580 60 9.7 NS-37 37x195 4 424 170 2.5 ROF= Rate of Fire for an unsynchronized gun Gun Power= It’s a calculated and normalized number that takes into account the destructive force of different types of ammunition multiplied by the ROF of the weapon. These calculations were compared with empirical data from RAF experiments. The results were nearly equal. Gun Efficiency= To judge the efficiency of a gun installation in a plane the Gun Power was divided by the weight of the gun (in kg). The outstanding performer here is clearly the MK108/30mm, which achieves ten times the destructiveness of the 0.50M2 for only twice the weight. For our discussion the Gun Power is decisive. Here you can see that the Hispano Mk II (Spitfire IX) has only 34% of the destructive power of the Mk108 and the NS-37 about 73%. According to the in-game experiences of many players (including some experiments) these facts do not seem to be taken into account in the DM of OpenBeta V 2.8.6.41363 As for dismantling wings and some planes resisting huge damages, the current DM falls far short of the documented values in WWII real life. The discrepancy between AP/HE (Hispano II/V) and the German mine projectiles (M-Geschoss 92g, MG151/20 and M-Geschoss 330g, MK108) is far off in the current DM version. The mine projectiles do not cause the damage that is calculated and documented in the literature. These calculations were compared with empirical data from real life experiments (by RAF, USAF, USN). The results of these studies are nearly equal.

Priority for AI, that's exactly what it needs to improve emergency and sim quality for single players. The WWII part and some Cold War modules (Mig-15, F-86, F-5, Su-25...) are in bad condition regarding AI. And yes, there will always be a white knight who will quash any well-intentioned criticism of DCS. Even if it doesn't make any sense and delays the progress of this fabulous sim.

Yes, I fully agree, and what frustrates me the most is that the long-announced AI improvements, if they were introduced at all, are barely noticeable.

Experienced flickering with the M-2000 and F-86 and only with the Sinai map. It goes away when you turn off the mirrors.

yes I totally agree

There we have it. This chap also loved his Hunters and Sabrinas. A very interesting story. Enjoy it.

In fact, DCS maps do not cover the major conflicts of our time, with the only exception of the Normandy / Channel map. And it's a pity that the new Sinai map won't remedy this deficiency. An opportunity was missed here to cover conflicts that were so important for the development military aviation, such as the Sinai-Suez War 1956, 6-Day War 1967, Yom Kippur / October War 1973. But maybe a Vietnam map 1960-1980 will come soon and improve the situation regarding aviation history.

+1 Hawker Hunter It had a long successful career and was in action in major conflicts from 1956 to late 80ties. Many claim it is the most beautiful fighter plane ever built. Remembered by its pilots as a sheer delight to fly.

Such a shame the Hunter isn't represented in DCS. Such duels are unfortunately not possible for the time being in DCS and it looks as if they will not be possible in the foreseeable future either. Maybe I should switch to the other simulator. Enjoy this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdRItwa9eAo

The same issue occurs here too. Should be looked at by Aerges.

I knew the video beforehand. It's a very good analysis of the situation Cold War Simulation enthusiasts will find at DCS. This user group has grown a lot over the last few years and is getting bigger every day. Both in the Multiplayer and SP scene. It is no exaggeration to say that RAZBAN plays a very important role in this scenario with its modules. The imminent release of the Mig-23MLA would be a milestone for the Cold War Simulation community.

Both, the flight behavior of the F1 with asymmetrical loadouts and the roll trim have been significantly improved after the new update. Many Thanks to Aerges team !

This module is overly sensitive to asymmetric loading. Once used, the roll trim can hardly be trimmed back to neutral. Other comparable aircraft (not FBW, elevators, similar wing configuration) I'm thinking of F-5E, F-86E, Mig-19P, Mig-21, Mig-29 are much more comfortably to fly in DCS. Perhaps Aeges should take a closer look at this quirk.

I'm a big proponent of aircraft from the 1956-80 period and I'm very sympathetic to the ongoing trend in DCS towards Cold War simulation. In view of the upcoming introduction of new modules like Mig-19S, Mig-23MLA, F-4E, F-100D, A-7E but also the Sinai map, a Mirage III/5 would be a great addition to the DCS community. The Mirage III/5 was an extremely successful airplane series. It has served with over 20 air arms around the world. It had a long successful career from 1962 until well into the 90s. In action in major conflicts: Indo-Pak Wars 1963-71, 6-Day War 1967, Yom Kippur/October War 1973, Libya-Sirte 1972, Falkland/Malvinas 1982. Many of these scenarios can be represented with the maps Syria, South Atlantic and the upcoming Sinai.

I respect this attitude and I can also imagine that a group of people like to do this. But BVR means watching at 2-dimensional screens and orienting yourself in a cockpit that has at most a focus distance of 3 feet. This is not exactly breathtaking for VR users. ACM, on the other hand, means searching the airspace, keeping visual contact with the opponent and fighting in a 3-dimensical space. Mudmovers want to put in at low altitude along deep canyons to their targets and combat them. They want to see their weapons effect in 3D and not over a screen. Apart from WW II, early Cold War scenarios can offer this. Whether we like it or not, the future in the sim genre is VR.