Azrayen

@ Zeus: Cool; is 65NM against biggest target? VS fighters, I would have chosen a lesser value (i.e. 50-55NM vs a MiG-29/F-16 sized one, 55-60NM vs a bigger Su-27 or F-15). Anyway, good progress :) @ OldE24: Let's stay on radar topic here, shall we? I agree that RWR looks still WIP, but the present thread is already massive so... ;)

I admit it's gut's feeling only (+educated guesses), and yes I'm comparing to ED's missiles, because that's the environnement we have. Let's assume you're right and the "better shape" of the 530D negates its bigger size vs the AIM-7 re: drag. So curves for the 530D and the Sparrow are OK. Now, is it OK too that the 530D retains a higher speed than both the AIM-120 and the R-27ER at 45"? Looks weird to me...

Thanks :) At the beginning, looks good: more acceleration, higher top speed. In the end, same feeling as before: the 530D should drag a bit more and its curve tend to rejoin the Sparrow's one. I'm not surprised the Alamo A is below, that's consistent with what I heard. ++

Hi IASGATG, Would you by any chance be OK to add the Alamo A (R-27R) to you graph? S-530D should indeed compare to both AIM-7 and Alamo A; from public sources, a bit better than the latter. From you second graph, I guess the 530 currently isn't draggy enough (vs the Sparrow): I would guess the green curve should more or less join the blue one ~45 seconds. ++ Az'

Nope. GCI ;)

Agreed. In fact its range is too much currently. Yesterday I could detect a friend at 80NM (head-on, iso alt), he was flying an Eagle then a Fulcrum. He saw me at much lesser ranges.

Well, really, all is on this very page. Describe what you're doing, step by step? We'll be able to pick up the error (if there is one).

The Lafayette squadron (EC 2/4) is 100 years old in 2016. During WW1, it hosted American volunteers pilots. Its emblem, a Sioux head, is well known around here because TFC uses it as logo, too. A very very nice livery on a M-2000N => http://alert5.com/2016/03/27/ramex-delta-tactical-display-teams-paint-scheme-marks-100th-anniversary-of-24-squadron/ Perhaps someone can adapt it for our C? I know, not the same airframe, but it's so nice I won't nitpick (for once). ;) ++ Az'

Bonjour, Avec "un peu" de retard (c'est sorti début 2016 en fait :doh:), l'équipe de localisation francophone de DCS est heureuse de vous annoncer la mise à disposition du troisième des manuels de vol traduits en français dans DCS : :pilotfly: Manuel de vol du P-51D : Format PDF, 193 pages. Fichier DCS P-51D Flight Manual FR.pdf disponible dans \Mods\aircraft\P-51D\Doc Ce manuel du premier des warbirds de DCS devrait également concerner le TF-51D (version désarmée du Mustang, appareil par défaut / gratuit de DCS World) mais il semble y avoir un souci de distribution sur ce module ; croisons les doigts pour une correction rapide. Bonne lecture ! :) Les anciens profitent de ce message pour souhaiter la bienvenue à Quent et Luzi qui ont récemment joint leurs efforts aux nôtres pour vous rendre service :thumbup: Pour la suite, nous travaillons de front sur trois autres manuels de vol, sur les entrainements/missions/campagnes (le Su-27 devrait être le prochain) ainsi que sur la mise à jour continue de l'interface du simu au fur et à mesure de ses évolutions. Fly safe! L'équipe de traduction francophone : Cameleon33, Cedaway, Bad CRC, Maraudeur, FireHuey, Psycho, Quent, Luzi, et Azrayen. PS : Si votre DCS n'est pas paramétré sur la langue française, z'allez rien voir, forcément. Ô joie, vous pouvez toutefois modifier la langue de référence de DCS en suivant ce tuto (pas pour versions Steam).

Mhmmm pic from '96, most probably SEMs (upgraded SuE's) ;)

Oh yes, one did. :) And he was no alone around here. :D That's the goal of simulation. It's never attained, of course, but the closer the better. ;)

For French missiles: Orange means dummy totally inert just for PR or to simulate weight, drag and CG of the real thing Blue means training i.e. with sensor but no engine nor military charge/detonator Yellow indicates live warhead Brown indicates live engine For air-to-ground bombs Blue are training i.e. droppable rounds without military charge I heard that sometimes blue and orange may have been reversed.

Thanks Zeus! Coming along nicely :) Please see my last note on 33820, there was a mix-up (my mistake). ++ Az'

No. This is a cockpit tip error. The dial is linked to the LL = decoy dispensers, it selects a preset decoy program. Well, French EW is generally praised, and so was RDI in its time. I guess the thruth is elsewhere, but you can't really expect detailled information to be public at a time when the aircraft is still in active service, do you? I can't comment on the F-16, but I would be surprised if physic wouldn't apply to it too ;) The starter is based on a JFS. Battery starts the JFS => JFS starts the engine. No idea. A guess: tests never made because no use, no money for that? Remember M-2000C is not a dedicated bomber.

Yep, you're right... and wrong: in the A-10C, left or right click move the 2-position switches. The left down / right up guideline is for the 3-position switches, I forgot that. I didn't check if it's how it's done in the A-10C. Indeed, that's the most important point.

Agreed. And unless I'm mistaken, that's what ED guidelines recommend. I also agree that the M-2000C cockpit feels still WIP about this.

Je suis d'accord avec toi sur un plan général, Psy, mais ça me semble étrange dans le cas présent = pour un combo HOTAS Warthog + A-10C. Par défaut le A-10C est le seul module qui devrait avoir "tout bien" paramétré avec ce HOTAS, ED ayant fait l'effort de coder ce qu'il fallait puisque le périphérique correspond exactement à l'appareil (y'a que les trims qu'ils ont zappé au profit des vues IIRC). M'enfin ça coûte pas grand chose de vérifier...

Maverick?? :huh::huh::huh: Where does that come from? Did you mean Magic? Anyway. No "little arrow". Follow the "little house" (put your flight path vector inside it, that's all).

It's required by procedure/orders. :smartass: If your real question was: is the M-2000 technically able to get airborne with MIL power, then I guess the answer is yes (of course it depends on multiple factors e.g. runway lenght and aircraft weight). 2nd question could be why is A/B mandatory? Because it allows the aircraft to accelerate quicker, so more safety margins; it was decided that safety > engine wear. Remember a delta wing is not so fond of low speed. There probably is a zone where it drags so much that you can't accelerate out of it in level flight.

Mhmmm... always liked this livery, nice! :)

If you want it realistic, then afterburner is mandatory for every M-2000 take-off. No exceptions.

Enemy? Like in "I'm sure this is an enemy"? Because all IFF interrogators are capable of 3 levels: - "Friendly, I'm sure, all is matching" - "Mhmmm... I got some data, but I'm unsure, it'a a bit garbled" - "No data". OTOH getting positive identification of an ennemy aircraft requires to know and replicates ennemy system, in order to be able to: - trigger an answer from him yourself (complicated, you would probably need codes too, unlikely) - of be able to "intercept" a interrogation/answer from another source, and classify/correlate it... ambitious to say the least!! So sure, that's possible on paper (and I'm sure it was tried), but history has it that once compromized, such a system would be modified (a MiG-25 story comes to mind), so I doubt this is a real operational/working capability.

Entièrement d'accord :) Et pour en trouver... http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=410&t=180691 ++ Az'

No.

AFAIK they're not implemented in DCS. I don't know if Razbam plans to do so. They're used to manually set a "DO" (Désignation d'Objectif) which is a kind of virtual target on your radar ; the purpose of the mechanism is to do the math in your stead (both to make appear the "plot" on radar and to use interception guidance capabilities = RDO on the PCA). I don't think it's that much useful (or used) IRL because it's somehow tiresome to enter all the data (it takes time, and it assumes that the target will fly straight & level). Developpment time would be IMO better spent by coding a way for a human ATC using LotAtc to provide automatically DO data to a Mirage pilot (there is some kind of limited datalink for this purpose). ++