DarkFire

This. Apart form excellent armour in the A7 version, the Leopard has always relied on maneuverability for protection somewhat more than other similar western designs such as the M1A1HA or Challenger 2. Using a tank as a fixed turret can work under certain conditions, but using one as a fixed emplacement against insurgent forces isn't it. Foolish use of a modern tank.

From the perspective of an Su-27 driver, while the Eagle is impressively capable as a WVR BFM fighter, that's not where its greatest strength is. If you find yourself in an engagement with something like an Su-27 or MiG-29, use your better acceleration and better climb rate to your advantage. Try not to get sucked in to a WVR dog fight, but if you are, also bear in mind that your roll rate in the Eagle is also superior which can help to keep you out of a valid gun firing solution. All very dependent on the situation, and all highly dependant on the actual situation in which you find yourself.

This. Somewhat counter-intuitively the speed of sound in a gas is almost entirely dependent on the temperature of the gas and not the pressure, though for "non-ideal" gases the pressure does have a small but measurable effect. Good Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Equations

Might be DCS, might not be, might be a derivative of DCS developed specifically for that cockpit simulator. To me though the grass texture, runway / taxiway texture and the anisotropy of the lines in the pavement squares remind me strongly of a vanilla DCS 1.2.26 installation. If I had to put money on it I'd guess that it's a specific derivative of the old DCS 1.2.26 developed specifically for that cockpit simulator. Probably not the free download version :)

It definitely looks like DCS. I'm guessing a customised version to simulate the Su-35 / -30MKi, possibly with custom theater. Maybe the monitor on the right hand side of the photo is showing some sort of F10 view.

This is allegedly a photo of the Su-35 / Su-30MKi cockpit trainer. Notice what software is running on that giant display...

Depends on what your preference is really. In the absence of dedicated interactive training missions for aircraft such as the F-15C, A-10A and Su-25, the best way to learn those aircraft is to construct training missions for yourself so you can practice what you want, and at your own pace. There are also a decent number of training missions in the user files section of the DCS site itself. I guess the challenge with the FC3 aircraft is less learning to operate the various systems and more learning to effectively employ the systems that are modelled. And in the case of the Su-27, learning to fly the thing at all. Not particularly forgiving for new pilots, though much better than it used to be. If you enjoy the challenge of learning very detailed systems and spending hundreds of hours reading the manual and practicing to get the very best out of the aircraft, though I don't fly it myself I'd definitely recommend either the A-10C or if choppers are your thing, the Ka-50. Something to bear in mind is that most multiplayer squadrons tend to focus on the arguably more glamorous A-A stuff, making competent ground pounders very valuable assets. Another reason to go for the A-10C I guess. Something to realise about DCS level aircraft in general though is that they all reward patient, diligent learning with much referring to the manual. Due to the level of detail in which they're modelled, expect to spend the same amount of time mastering them that a real air force pilot would spend. Expect frustration, confusion and setbacks. That being said, when everything does click in to place it's incredibly satisfying and a huge sense of achievement. Never be afraid to ask a question here on the forum. For the most part this forum is one of the most informative and friendliest that I've ever encountered as far as internet gaming forums are concerned. No matter how dumb you might think a question may be, chances are there are many others who also wonder what the answer is. If the A-10C is going to be your thing, I'd thoroughly recommend watching Bunyap's videos on the subject. Most informative. https://www.youtube.com/user/4023446/search?query=A-10C

To understand what FC3 is, I guess you have to know the history. What is now known as DCS started as a cell-shaded flight sim called simply "Su-27" back in about 1995. That then evolved in to a fully textured sim, again just including the Su-27. As time went on more flyable aircraft were added - the F-15C, the Su-25 (A and T variants), the MiG-29, A-10A and Su-33. None of these aircraft had or have clickable cockpits, and all have more basis system modelling, though some like the Su-25T have slightly mode advanced system modelling. Then the Ka-50 came along with it's clickable cockpit. Initially it was actually a separate game from the base sim, though used the same engine etc. The came the A-10C with it's very advanced system modelling and fully clickable cockpit. This was also technically a separate game, though I think it was with A-10C that multiplayer cross-functionality was first brought in so that people could fly the original simple-systems-modelling aircraft along side the Ka-50 and A-10C. Eventually the core DCS World module was developed, and all the previous aircraft became essentially plug-in modules. This is the situation we have today. It appears that the current policy of ED is that for the future all modules, i.e. new aircraft, will be at the full "DCS" standard, i.e. clickable cockpits, full systems modelling and professional flight models. With the exception of the MiG-29 and Su-33, all the Flaming Cliffs aircraft also now have advanced flight modelling. Apparently the flight models have been tested and signed off by real-world pilots. The F-15C and Su-27 flight models in particular are arguably amongst the most sophisticated in the game, though both are tweaked occasionally. Unfortunately, it seems at the moment that none of the FC3 aircraft will be updated to full DCS module status, i.e. with clickable cockpits and advanced systems modelling, though I think that most fans of the FC3 aircraft wish that they would be. Anyway, hope that helps to illustrate what FC3 is. It's true to say that the FC3 aircraft don't have the same complexity of systems modelling as some of the full DCS modules, however learning to fly them and employ them effectively is not much less a challenge.

That's true as far as their effectiveness against A-A missiles is concerned, but the Sorbtsiya pods do have other uses: they reduce the lock range of SAMs and can be used tactically to help set up an engagement because jamming masks your altitude until the enemy radar achieves burn-through.

I vaguely remember a time when password protecting missions was possible. Su-27 SCE? Flanker 2.0 possibly? Somewhere around that sort of time. It was a feature that nobody used, even amongst the thriving MP / mission writing community of 20 years ago. I guess because nobody used the feature it was removed. Can't say I've ever since thought it would be a necessary feature to bring back.

Sounds like you're doing well with it. It varies with weight & speed but 7 degrees AOA sounds about right for most landing conditions. As far as a non-ILS approach is concerned, ultimately the Su-27 is fairly forgiving because adjustments can be made fairly easily as you approach the runway. That being said, a good setup is important: aim to intercept what would be the glide slope at the correct place & altitude: you should be at roughly 1,000m altitude, lined up with the runway axis, at roughly 15Km distance. Your "return" navigation mode can help here: select your destination airfield and I'm pretty sure that the range-to-waypoint corresponds to the middle of the active runway for that airfield. So, you want to be at 1,000, lined up, at 15Km range. Place the runway threshold in the lower 1/3rd of your HUD and adopt the standard 5 m/s sink rate approach. It won't be 100% accurate but it'll be good enough to get you to the runway threshold at a very acceptable altitude & sink rate. Visualising the runway threshold in the lower 1/3rd of your HUD can also help with landing if your HUD is damaged and not working. As you do more and more landings, ILS or not, you'll get a good feel for the sort of altitude you should have at various points during a standard 15Km approach. After 50 or 60 landings it'll become so second nature that you'll be able to automatically adopt a correct approach path without the ILS. You'll also develop a feel for where the aircraft is really going without having a flight path marker. Cross-wind landings are the one time where I wish the Flanker did had a flight path marker. You learn to live without it and judge wind drift by visually estimating your radial deviation from the runway axis but expect to make gentle corrective course adjustments throughout your final approach. Anything over a 10m/s cross-wind component gets really interesting, & not in a good way. That being said, 10m/s = 19kts crosswind. At that sort of wind strength I'd be inclined to think about an alternate landing field anyway. Hope this helps :)

I've experienced a similar thing in MP missions: some times the engines won't start, but re-starting DCS usually sorts things out. Normally as long as your physical throttle is at the zero position the engines should start. I wonder if this problem is somehow tied to the same issue that was causing the mouse pointer problem...

Sounds like you did everything correctly. Looks like there's an IFF bug that needs to be squashed.

As a bit of a last-ditch attempt, try re-assigning the start left & right engine keys in the options menu. Some keyboards don't report keys as you might think they do. For example, according to DCS, my backslash key to open the comms menu is reported to the game as being "User key 102" or something similar. Might be a keyboard mapping issue. If that doesn't work, short of a full DCS re-installation I have to admit I'm out of ideas :(

So, the game can see your throttle. Keyboard works correctly. Not an axis assignment issue. Other aircraft also work correctly. OK, lets try a few other things: 1. The engines on the Su-27 don't like starting unless the throttle is actually at the 0 position. Make sure that your throttle actually goes all the way down to 0 reported input. 2. I'd recommend enabling "Synchronise cockpit controls with HOTAS controls at mission start" under Options --> Misc. That will make sure that if you have your physical throttle closed that the one on your Su-27 will also be properly closed. 3. If all else fails, try repairing your DCS World installation. It could be that there's a problem with the input.lua file for your Su-27.

This. This is the cause of probably 95% of all axis issues in DCS. By default the axis commands page of the control options tends to look something like this: Note that here I have pitch, roll, yaw and throttle assigned to physical device axes on both my stick and throttle. This causes all sorts of issues. You need to make sure that only 1 axis on 1 physical device is mapped to 1 in-game axis on your aircraft. For example, my axes page for the Su-27 looks like this: Here I have 1 pitch axis, 1 roll axis and 1 throttle axis.

Not sure if it's still the case but it used to be that mission pictures would only work in .png format and not in .jpg format. If that's been fixed then happy days :) I really wish briefings at the very least could be written as some sort of RTF document so that we could apply basic formatting. Ideally it'd be awesome if briefings could accept multimedia files e.g. 1080P pictures & maybe 720p video files. I can imagine that the size of mission files would explode, but it'd be worth it to have so much more detailed & immersive briefings...

The waypoint AGL bug has been here for ages. AFAIK setting an AGL altitude for waypoints has never worked, since at least as far back as 1.2.16 :(

Did you get the attacking ground targets to work? Normally aircraft need some distance between their IP waypoint and the actual position to be attacked. Not sure if it's the same for choppers...

Hmm weird. Let's see if we can rule some things out first. In the options menu, if you try to tweak the throttle input axis, can you see the input move? Is the game seeing your throttle device? Similarly with the keyboard - is it just the engines that don't work or do none of the keyboard commands work? If the game can 'see' your throttle input, but the engines don't start, then I'd suggest trying to repair your DCS world installation. If the game as a whole doesn't recognise your throttle at all then it might be worth checking to see if you can calibrate it under windows. If so, then the problem is somewhere between the throttle & the game. Try plugging it in to a different USB port. Specifically, make sure it isn't plugged in to a USB 3 port, a lot of peripherals don't like USB 3 or USB 3.1 for some reason and need a USB 2 port instead.

What's the exact problem you're experiencing? Engines not starting?

The real Su-27 has a HUD mode that allows datalinked information and GCI guidance cues to be shown, however our DCS Su-27 doesn't feature this so as Ironhand said, the only thing that your HUD will show is data from your own on-board sensors, be it radar or EOS. This is why it's a good idea to also pay close attention to your HDD: together with your SPo-15 it's your primary source of situational awareness. For more on how the HDD works with the datalink read this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160144

This! My first thought was "Hmm, someone at Leatherneck is a Maiden fan!" Awesome video, can;t wait to get to grips with this Swedish monster!

On balance I'd have to vote no. We have plenty of choice for a light attack aircraft with current and announced modules. Personally I'd rather see more cold war era aircraft, or for prop planes more WW2 aircraft. If we're considering a dual-prop, how about the legendary Mosquito?

Hmm weird. As far as I'm aware every time I've used it the radar has transitioned from TWS to STT at 85% of Rmax, and the transition has always occurred at a percentage point rather than the transition being dependant on something like target type. Probably a bug, though it'd be rather nice if the transition point changed depending on something like estimated target type, e.g. the transition occurred at Rmax for "large" targets, likely transports, AWACS, tankers or the like; and happened much closer to Rtr for "small" targets that are more likely to be agile fighters. Hope that made sense.