DarkFire

No. I think DCS has sufficient gamification options as it is. DCS is after all catering to the hard core end of the simulation market, small as it may be. Other games such as IL-2, War Thunder and some older flight sims cater very well already to the 'game' end of the market. I feel that adding more gamification options would detract from the extreme realism that DCS represents, and would needlessly consume dev time that could be better spent working on new stuff, bug fixing etc.

Agree completely with this, it should definitely have those features :thumbup:

The log book we currently have in DCS is OK as far as it goes, listing score, total flight time for individual aircraft; air, ground & maritime targets destroyed etc. I'd like to see greatly expanded functionality to the log book. In addition to the current statistics recorded, ideally I'd like to see it track each individual flight per aircraft type in a similar way to the records that commercial pilots keep, with start & end points listed, distance flown and any victories achieved in that particular mission. ideally I'd like the log book to link each individual flight to the relevant TacView ACMI file (for those who use TacView) so you could instantly review any particular flight in any particular aircraft right from within your pilot log book.

Good idea! +1

Well I'm late to this topic, but for what it's worth I have the following to offer: 1) I'd like to think that the DCS community is somewhat more mature and certainly more welcoming than the rampant toxicity that's all too evident on most game forums. Personally I think that for the most part this is true of the DCS community. 2) We should be welcoming to anyone who wants to play DCS and contribute constructively to these forums and to the community in general. 3) Given how difficult it can be for female gamers to find a welcome in most gaming communities, I'd like to believe that the DCS community would go out of our way to be extra welcoming & demonstrate that we are, as I believe, generally a good and friendly bunch. 4) The 'pink planes' issue is a frankly somewhat infantile concern. As others have commented, the very first alternative skin for the Su-27 all the way back in Flanker 2.0 days was pink. And it was a very difficult opponent. Real world for a moment: there was a time when the Royal Navy, that bastion of traditionalism, seriously considered painting some of their warships pink. More evidence? In desert campaigns the SAS paint their landrovers a pink colour to fit in with sunrise & sunset colours. The SAS. They even call the pink landrovers "pinkies". So, Elysian Angel, I'd consider you and every other female DCS pilot to be welcome members of the community here. Hopefully we can all be welcoming to each other :thumbup:

Happily I can't take my work home with me so I usually have roughly 1 hour per day to practice my DCS flying.

From an entirely empirical viewpoint 70 degrees seems a little on the low side for the edge of the notch, but 80 degrees sounds entirely reasonable.

Totally off topic, but that's an amazing looking Su-33 skin. Where did it come from?

Maybe I should have been more clear in my original post on the subject. If your closure rate with the target is below a certain value then some radars will filter out the target as a false return or ground clutter etc. Depending on the intercept geometry one way in which this can be achieved is by flying perpendicular to the approaching aircraft so that your relative velocity to it is the same as it's ground speed. As GG explained, some radars will generate track files and will try to interpret based on known target movement where and when a target might re-appear. The track files are usually discarded after a certain period of time as they are considered to be of insufficient probability of being accurate. Other radars can interleave PRF frequencies in an attempt to maintain a valid target track.

Interesting theory, and it would make sense. R-27ER, R-77 & R-73 would make a powerful combination.

This. As far as I'm aware the F-15C and Su-27 currently have the most finely developed flight models in the game, despite being FC3 aircraft with somewhat simplified systems. As I understand it the FM's for both have been tried & signed off by actual type pilots. Not sure if this situation will change with the introduction of the F-18, but in terms of flight model accuracy the F-15C and Su-27 are where it's at right now.

That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks. :thumbup:

I like to reach the point where basic admin tasks such as comms, mode manipulation, systems adjustment etc. become instinctive muscle memory before I move on to weapons & combat. One thing I forgot to mention: since we're not actually risking our lives or £100,000,000 worth of cutting-edge aircraft, I do like to take things beyond the limits which inevitably ends in crashes. You won't really know where the bleeding edges of the flight envelope are until you push out there & exceed them. I'd never do this online or in a combat mission, but just single practice I like to get comfortable and instinctively know how far I can push the limits before a departure will happen, and if it does, what to expect & how best to recover if possible. Simply put, I like to learn how to fly an aircraft before I start learning how to fight in it.

I can only speak from the perspective of an Su-27 driver. In this case, though the Eagle is competitive at WVR fighting, do not allow the enemy to suck you in to a WVR fight. At anything under ~6,000m altitude (~19,500 feet) the Su-27 enjoys a slightly better sustained turn rate, however the combination of better absolute nose authority, helmet mounted sight and the off-bore capabilities of the R-73 will give the Flanker a decisive advantage assuming equal pilot skill. The Su-27 pilot also has significantly worse situational awareness, unless he / she has an active AWACS or EWR datalink. Even then the RWR in the F-15C will give you better SA than the SPo-15 in the Su-27. Last and possibly most significantly, you have the ability to launch your AIM-120 and then extend if necessary as soon as the missile goes pitbull, whereas the Su-27 pilot will have to guide his R-27ER all the way to impact. Be careful though because the R-27ER will out accelerate your AIM-120 by a handy margin. My advice would be to launch & crank, and avoid getting sucked in to a WVR fight if at all possible. You should also keep your eyes on a swivel, because the EOS allows the Su-27 (and MiG-29 in this case) pilot to launch IR missiles at you without warning from your RWR.

This is interesting. Is there a complete English translation available?

What is the maximum angle at which aerobraking should be performed to avoid a tail strike? Does the maximum angle alter with weather conditions, e.g. crosswind?

Despite owning all modules except the choppers (I have the Ka-50 but can't get on with it) I'm still looking for something that will prise me out of the cockpit of my Su-27. The F-18 may do that for a bit. I was looking forwards to having a Eurofighter, but I guess that may or may not happen now. Dammit, I want my 4th gen red air!

The steps I usually follow are: 1) Read the pilots manual. 2) Read it again. 3) Read it again just to make sure. 4) Go through the in-game training modules 1 by 1, with the manual to hand. 5) Make sure I've mastered each section before moving on. Once I'm competent at start-up, take off, navigation & landing I'll spend hours & hours just practicing flying under all sorts of conditions before I even think about learning about weapons employment. DCS is definitely a sim that rewards practice & hours spent on patient practice.

The same thing happens operationally occasionally. No idea how true this is, but legend has it that Russian MiG-25RB's on reconnaissance missions over Egypt were intercepted by Israeli F-4's, resulting in the MiG pilots red-lining the engines & going to over Mach 3. Allegedly both aircraft needed total engine changes after the flight.

I don't think anyone was claiming the R-27 missiles are poor as such.

Cannot tell if artfully done troll post or utterly ignorant of physical reality :disgust: With regards to the stand alone F-15C, I'd definitely recommend purchasing the FC3 pack. I started out wanting to fly things like the A-10 and Su-25 but fairly quickly fell in love with the Su-27, even with all it's quirks. You never know what you'll really enjoy flying until you give it a go, and in that respect FC3 offers superb value for money.

You have to select a task for which the Su-24 is available. IIRC they can be used for ground attack, pinpoint strike and I think SEAD & anit-ship missions. Once you chose the aircraft flight task you should find the Su-24 in the list of available aircraft.

This fits with what I've always suspected - that the VKS essentially hasn't bothered with the R-77, with the exception of a very small number used on Su-35's deployed to Syria, although those could have been export marketing essentially; and are probably waiting for the Izdeliye 180 / K-77M which will arm the T-50 / "Su-57" when it eventually enters service.

So the graph shows "max range against non-manoeuvring targets." I'm confused, is that supposed to be Rmax or Rtr? Either way, yes that is a bit disappointing.

It's also worth noting that at relatively low altitudes any RPM setting that will allow for steady speed will result in a speed that's too high to allow for neutral manual pitch trim. I say manual because both the radar & barometric altitude hold modes of the ACS will allow for neutral pitch trim at these speeds.