King_Hrothgar

Looks about the same to me. Just a different angle and the back third of the canopy is cropped out in the lower pic.

I've had the same thoughts on it, looking at their previous releases, the "official" announcement was always made a mere 4-5 months prior to the beta release. The official announcement for the F-5E3 was made Oct 15th of last year and the secret about it was out for a couple months prior to that.

Very nice find. :)

The fact that there are only 4 airfields currently and they are contained in a single 130km long strip of dirt deserves a mention. I say that as an NTTR fan, I highly recommend it to my fellow whirlybird flyers.

There is a higher resolution cockpit available in the user files section as well as some other mods, but nothing in the way of black shark 3 as far as I know.

No, it's just a bug. What happens is if you apply brakes via an axis, the compressed air tank will drain until it is empty regardless of further brake usage. I suspect what happens for you when you air start is you never use the brakes until landing, thus the air doesn't drain.

I saw a documentary a while back where they interviewed a Gazelle pilot from the 1991 Gulf War. He was fighting a tank (T-55 I think) and was trying to shoot him on the move but had trouble hitting him, so the final shot was done while hovering, which finally found its mark (he'd fired 2-3 missiles on the move first). I wasn't able to dig up the documentary but it is on youtube somewhere (unless deleted of course). As for how the wire is kept out of the way, I assume it's on a spring loaded spool. Given that the missile is substantially faster than the chopper, the chopper moving forwards shouldn't be an issue. Minor course changes should also be ok from the wire's standpoint (tracking maybe different). Obviously you can't really turn the chopper as that would cause the wire to snag on something, so maneuvering is very limited. I think a bit of side slipping, changes in altitude and pitch up/down would generally be ok so long as you were mindful of the rotor blades.

Wasn't fixed as of last night in DCS 2.0.

This bug is still present. Braking chute does not work if brakes are on an axis, this is independent of dead zones.

I just wish the parachute worked at all. It doesn't work if you have brakes on an axis.

I agree with all the bolded points, however, I also have zero expectation of any of that being implemented in the foreseeable future. We must play the game as it is offered and that mostly means max range games for ground attack. With that said, the missiles fired by the T-72/80/90's can't track moving targets well. I've used real world Mi-24 attack methods with the Ka-50 in game and they work pretty well so long as you stay out of MG range. The Gazelle will be forced to do the same against those types of targets as it lacks the range to snipe. Overall, as I stated earlier, this little chopper will be more enjoyable in lower threat environments. You have to keep in mind that the Gazelle is a legacy aircraft. They stopped making them 20 years ago and both the aircraft and its weapons date from the 1970's. The SA-342 is the same vintage as the MiG-21Bis and upcoming F-5E. Playing with units of that period is where it will be happiest. I do not think going up against T-90's, BMP-3's, M1A2's and Tors is going to be an enjoyable experience. Those are targets for the Gazelle's replacements.

Could have sworn it had a different engine, maybe it was one of the modernization kits instead. And yes, the gun is a permanent addition. I didn't mean it was removable, merely that it is carried externally in a pod under the fuselage. Sorry if there was any confusion on that.

Never had any major problems with the Ka-50's vikhrs at night. Requires manual target tracking unless illumination rockets/flares are used, but otherwise it's fine. But that does raise a question, does our upcoming model of the Gazelle have FLIR? Regarding the AH-6, do you have documents for an AH-6 or an MH-6 (or MD500 for that matter)? Just curious, might explain the lack of explanation for the hellfires. That little chopper has been around forever and has a fair number of variants with wildly different capabilities.

Opposite really, the AV-8B fans are going to want the AIM-120 equipped AV-8B+ for the most part. The AV-8B-NA would be a substitute for them until that is released. The Gr.9 is the first choice of a lot of people though. So it makes sense to do that one and simply wait for the US version until the AV-8B+ can be made. With all that said, I'll probably only buy one late generation Harrier. It will likely be whatever is made first but I'll have to examine that once more info is available. I am open to an early model too though, I consider that completely separate.

Here's the short version: 1) 4 wing pylons instead of 2, able to load a maximum of 2x 500kg bombs or 4x 250kg bombs. For comparison, the L-39C can only muster a pair of 100kg bombs. 2) Centerline cannon pod. 3) Bigger engine that delivers far more thrust. I was unable to find a source on this immediately, but I know I've seen it a few times. Will keep looking.

Attack helicopters are just fine with things as is, though I agree that collideable trees and some AI additions would be nice. The thing is, the Gazelle is not an attack helicopter. It's an old civilian light helicopter with a few man portable AT missiles duct taped to the sides of it. It was never intended to do what an AH-64 or Ka-50 can. Much like the UH-1 and MiG-21, the Gazelle will require lower threat missions to be effective. It isn't something that's going to feel at home with A-10C's and Ka-50's. It belongs with the older aircraft facing less capable opponents.

As a target drone for T-72/80/90's missiles?:lol: I'm looking forwards to the Gazelle since it's one of the most produced antitank choppers ever made and I'm eager for a new tank busting chopper in general. But I don't see it doing anything the Ka-50 can't do a whole lot better.

The new 3d model has been in for a couple months at least. The F-5E and F-5E-3 appear to be identical as well in appearance, skin options and armaments. But yeah, it's good looking, I can't wait to fly it.

That's a modified CH Fighterstick. On a related note, why the two seats? Edit: Link to their website: http://www.chproducts.com/Fighterstick-v13-p-181.html#4

The cockpit is from FSX/P3D. And you also have to keep in mind that the Gr.9 and NA are the same basic aircraft with marginally different equipment installed. To this date, after following all the threads here on it closely, I'm still not entirely sure what the differences between the two are beyond the roundels painted on the wings and the lack of a gunpod option on the GR.9. To that end, I'm changing my vote to GR.9 on the assumption that the radar equipped AV-8B+ will be added later. I see no reason to skip a brit version in favor of a US one that will basically be replaced by another model later on.

In 2.0, go behind the C-130, fly in a straight line and shoot. In 1.5, I haven't had any success yet. The restrictions on the missiles make shooting an evasive target basically impossible. The only thought I have on this is to extend outside the AI's aggro range and then try to sneak up from behind and fire before he reacts. It worked for me in an L-39 vs Hawk mission I made, so I assume it would work in this one too but I haven't tested it.

Ah, my mistake, stores it is. In any case, those are your hardpoint keys. I assigned the first 4 to one of the hats on my X-55 and haven't clicked those buttons since. Just wish I could get the selective jettison + FBW controls on there too, real pain having to click those things.

Go to settings>controls>Mirage 2000C>PCA armament panel. It's PCA 2 I think.

MiG-23 and MiG-25. Moscow is in Europe, so they count.:D

You have to wait for the laser to finish its cooling cycle. There is a count down timer on the left side of the HUD showing time remaining. Typically it's around 10 seconds.