Despayre

Like that's never happened before... how do you think we get the term shanghaied? (also seems fitting for a Chinese jet )

I think that's a really relevant question, cuz I can't find that either.

Just fired up openbeta, decided to try A2A refueling, the mission starts, you're a little behind the tanker... and at some point you'll probably notice the same thing I did... There's no refueling probe attached to my cockpit! I'm at 10,000ft, can someone bring me some jerry cans? I know we can add the refueling probe via the ground crew options, but obvs, that's not gonna work here... am I missing something? (other than a refueling probe!)

"Dr, it hurts when I do this...."... "Well then, don't do that.".

Did I read something about new landing gear somewhere, or am I just imagining they look better now?

Do you use the same curves for pitch, roll, and yaw? And what do you do about X,Y,Z axes?

Ok, first of all, ignore the epic failure on the world's easiest road landing, lol... the oncoming traffic threw me off... ya, that's what I'm going with... but still, here's the question... how does this jet, with no engine (if there were, it should be in afterburner, and you could see the exhaust), no wheels, but still somehow showing 100% rpm, and airbrakes on, in the dirt... roll *backwards* across the flat road? (I do realize, that this should "probably" in no way affect general flying of any kind, it's just not realistic, or does the Mirage have some cool retro-thrusters up front I was unaware of? ) Nope.trk

I just played both (Red Flag was the other one for the Mirage that I ran through) campaigns recently, I can't speak to how they used to play, but I didn't notice any major issues related to the plane when I went through them. The trickiest part was making sure that the radios were always on the correct freq. Even though both radios can be tuned to the same freqs, if the comms tell you to switch to channel X on red, and you select the same freq on green instead, I didn't always hear what I was supposed to. Other than that, I was able to complete all the missions, and I do know that the author, Baltic Dragon is responsive here and maintains them. (I noticed a couple of typos that I posted about, and within a couple days he responded that he would fix them in the next update).

Why isn't it Tomweasel? I'll also show myself out...

Seems odd to have a plane that can't idle without trying to go somewhere, but if that's more realistic, I guess it is what it is... but that still seems ... counter-productive. Oh well, I'm off to map the handbrake to the HOTAS now...

Since the update, I've noticed my fuel flow at idle is 15, it used to be 12. Now, when I come to a stop, and release the brakes, it starts to roll again unless I apply the handbrake. Is there a reason for this?

Thank you for the guide, much appreciated. One tiny issue... There's a typo on page 86. Item 30 on the list is the Ground Start button, however, in the picture, it's incorrectly labeled as "20". (and it only took me 15 mins to figure out why I couldn't find a "30" anywhere... )

It wouldn't be fair to all the F-18's if our plane was just better at *everything*!

Newp. Buddy-lase or JTAC only.

Also, the Paveway 2000lb Laser Guided Bomb too.

In Nepal (the Himalayas) they have a saying, "We don't fly in the clouds, because the clouds have big rocks in them."

After the last update, mine stopped working as well, until I re-ran the included update file, update_pw-dev_script.bat After that, everything worked again. I suspect that might be something we'll have to do whenever there's an update.

I haven't had any issue with it, inside Chrome, on several machines, or via straight download. The entire manual is only 25.6MB anyway, which of course, put in RAM terms is only 2.56% of 1 GB, that doesn't seem like a size that should be taxing for any reasonable system these days, when a bargain basement level PC (and I doubt anyone here has a basement level machine for DCS) comes with 4GB of RAM, and much more commonly, 8GB. It also loaded fine on my phone, which is only a PIxel 4a, no monster by any means.

If I'm reading that correctly, does that mean we'll be able to snap that nose around even faster now when dealing with those pesky F-18's? Errr, I mean, so we can do a standard break pattern...

They assimilate; resistance is futile. Wait, wrong sim...

We definitely agree on that part. I decided to look into this further, and found a post that explains why codes are what they are, (btw, I was thinking 1688, "1655" was a mental typo ) More details on that, here:

I understand your point, but I just can't get myself all the way around to agreeing with it. This movie is one of the highest grossing movies ever, and you're suggesting that somehow the "Hollywood-ness" of it, is "counter productive"? I don't see that. I can also tell you that I went to the movie with someone that knows nothing about planes, and as non-technical as the movie was, he had dozens of questions about it later, realism would have made that so much more confusing.... not to mention the 8 minutes we'd all have sat there staring at the screen doing nothing else while the Tomcat INS warmed up.... and then stumbled into the various potholes, before crashing into those poorly placed grain silos (or whatever they were supposed to be). More realism means that SU-57 hits him with IFF, followed by a Fox1 from about 50 miles out, which doesn't even trigger a launch warning, and Cruise & Co, fall down go boom. But instead we get, "His partner just moved into his weapons envelope...." uhm, what? The SU-57 has off-boresight helmet mounted missiles, it's weapons envelope is pretty much a complete globe around the aircraft, moving outwards for at least 50 miles, it has no reason at all to move in behind the Tomcat. However, based on that, for ppl that thought the movie was too long, realism would definitely solve that problem.... this mission is over in about 5 minutes. To be fair, I did like the realism that was in the movie, such as knowing that the Tomcat needed ground power and oxygen to start up, that's not common knowledge, and I thought that was one of several pretty cool realistic touches, so it's not that I just don't like "realism", but this is a Hollywood action movie not a documentary, both are good, but when's the last time you saw a documentary that made 3/4 of a billion dollars in the first 3 weeks of release? $747,044,000.00USD worldwide gross so far says Hollywood might have got this one right, just the way it is. Complete with flaws and everything. (source: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2500036097/) Sidenote, I also noticed in the movie that the code for the laser guidance was 1655, the same as the default code in DCS, which I assume coincides to something realistic cuz I can't assume that's a coincidence.

Aha, there's where you went wrong. Maverick is a film about human emotional growth and closure, and new relationships. The cool plane stuff is there so that guys will go see it too.

They have said they will be populating the map with more airbases when they turn their attention to the mainland, their first priority was getting the Falklands look right before anything else.

I did skim through all the pages, and did not see this livery shown. This plane was on display at the Air Museum in Palm Springs when I took this picture. According to Wikipedia, it was an important squadron in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VFA-161