King_Hrothgar

1) Unlike FC3 aircraft, the Mirage's radar is actually attached to the virtual aircraft. As such, pitching the nose up points the whole radar scan zone up and rolling to the side causes the radar's scan zone to roll with you. 2) Not sure off hand what the scan zone limits are, but +- 10 deg is about what I've found them to be in the vertical (relative to aircraft). As an interesting side note, rolling to the side is a pretty decent way to pick up contacts far above or below you. Just be careful to lock them prior to rolling upright as they will be a ghost contact the instant your aircraft rolls or changes direction. 3) I haven't had any issues, but as said, both aircraft must remain very still at such short distances. Any pitching or rolling on your part can make even a fresh contact a ghost contact. Reducing the scan zone helps a lot here. I recommend 15 deg sweep for close quarters, anything more than that updates too slowly to be of use.

mmm, 1800 lbs IR camera + wifi router. I'm sure it costs a pretty penny too and uses the latest in vacuum tube electronics!:P Seriously though, I'm with Sweep, I'd rather see our F-15C downgraded to an early 1990's standard.

Seems you missed the news. The F4U-1D, AJS-37 and F-14A/B are the next 3 aircraft. They were confirmed after the info was leaked by steam. So no, those various background pictures are not of any significance.

Looking good :)

Now that's a thought:megalol:

Voted AV-8B as it has seen more combat but I honestly don't care. Looking at wikipedia, it appears the differences between the two were mostly cosmetic (avionics and such).

It's pretty clear you're just a troll at this point. Good job though, I previously bit. You slipped up when you contradicted yourself only minutes apart.

This. You can takeoff and head to the target area while the radar is still warming up but will be left without a radar initially if you forget to start heating it before takeoff. You can't do that while INS is aligning. The ALCM timer strikes that sweet spot of long enough to matter but not so long as to waste the player's time. I think that solution should work by default in all missions. This way those wanting a quick start with working INS have it and those who want to sit there for the full 8 minutes can do that too.

Think I'll pass on this, would prefer they stick to choppers since no one else is doing those.

There is a big difference between having realistic interactions with a system and simply hitting the power button and waiting 8 minutes. One is an interactive process, the other is a stop watch. So as said, it should be an option in the misc or special tabs. I'm for options, it's some of you who seem to want to take them away for whatever reason. And I do have to wonder just how much spare time some of you have that you're willing to spend a minimum of 20% of your flight sim time just sitting around waiting for the INS to align. And it isn't like you're doing other things while waiting, the rest of the Mirage takes under 30 seconds to start up. The mission briefing bit is valid maybe the first or second time you play a given mission, but the missions are all hand made so we end up playing them over and over. That briefing is rather meaningless on the 30th play of that mission.:smilewink:

The F-86 and MiG-15 have this feature, the very first thing I did when I realized why my seat was randomly moving around during takeoff and landing is disable it. I don't care either way if this is added so long as I can turn it off.

You do realize the Ka-50's alignment time is 3 minutes in game and 30 minutes (or so I've heard) in the real thing right? Shortening the Mirage's isn't setting a new precedent. I think the alignment time should be represented, but I don't think wasting 8 minutes of everyone's time at the start of every single mission (especially MP where there isn't any time acceleration) is appropriate. There should be an acknowledgment of INS alignment's existence (like in the Ka-50 and A-10C) but nothing more.

They can do it with every other plane in DCS in MP except the A-10C (which takes 4 minutes to start anyways), so might as well keep it consistent. And I fail to understand what exactly is being simulated by having the player go make a snack while the INS aligns. It's just wasting the player's time imho. And it isn't realistic either as that's what the ground crew is there for. If you want to sit there for 7-8 minutes doing nothing every time you start it up, then there is nothing stopping you. But I have little interest in sitting around all day not playing the game because some guy on the internet decided that slapping an arbitrary 8 minute timer on the startup procedure was a good idea. I want a Mirage 2000 flight sim, not a Mirage 2000 INS alignment sim.

You must really hate the idea of people using the Mirage in MP.

I think that's the best option. Placing a "fast alignment" option that knocks it down to under 2 minutes in the special or misc tabs should make everyone happy.

I had a lot of fun flying both planes on the Mirage vs MiG-21 server the first 2 days but after that it quickly turned into a complete slaughter. The MiG-21 really doesn't fair any better against a semi-competent Mirage than it does against the Su-27.

Nearly all modules starting with "DCS:" are of very high fidelity. The only exceptions are the Hawk and C-101 which fall far short of the other DCS modules and even most of the FC3 aircraft at this point. Regardless, these are my thoughts on the modules (I have all except the trainers): Hardest to fly: 1) Mi-8 2) UH-1 3) MiG-21Bis Most difficult to learn systems: 1) A-10C 2) Mi-8 3) MiG-21Bis Most difficult to use in combat effectively: 1) MiG-21Bis (air to air) 2) MiG-21Bis (anti-ship) 3) MiG-21Bis (air to ground)

That doesn't hold though since BST, LNS, VEAO, RAZBAM and even ED (to an extent) are all in direct competition with each other for module sales. I also doubt many people will automatically reject most other modules simply because their favorite is already in game. I had no illusions about the Mirage 2000 bumping off the Ka-50 as my preferred aircraft, but that didn't stop me from buying it. Incidentally, the aircraft I most want in DCS is the Mi-24 and if/when BST makes it, I'll still buy other DCS aircraft, even other attack helos as they are offered. Edit: On a related note, the Mirage isn't exactly an obscure or unpopular plane. It's one of the best known fighter series in the world. It's arguably less obscure than either the A-10 or the F-14.

The radar on the Mirage as modeled is highly sensitive to notching. This will cause you to lose lock and thus the missile to lose lock too. It helps if you keep your target above the horizon, but doesn't solve the issue entirely.

The answer to why none is doing an F-16 at this time is very simple, all the development groups have decided there are other aircraft they'd like more. That doesn't mean those other aircraft will sell better, it just means they are more interested in doing other types. There is nothing wrong with that approach. It's a lot of work making a DCS aircraft and the pay is questionable. You have to be passionate about it to make it happen. Back on topic, of their wishlist aircraft, I'm most interested in the Harrier and A-7. The A-6 will also make a good addition and I'll probably buy it too, but I'm less excited about it. The F-15E is likely something I'll pass on as the F/A-18C does everything it does and a whole lot more (admittedly with less payload capacity). I'm also not overly fond of the F-15's in general, more of an F-16/18 guy. As for the F-16, it's a single engine F/A-18C as far as I'm concerned.

104th for 1.5 has the same issue, no drop tanks. Strangely their 2.0 server has them, but they also have the MiG-21's nukes so I'm guessing it's running totally unrestricted.

Adding stuff like that goes against the whole realism thing. However, I do generally support adding additional payware variants to DCS aircraft if they are substantially different. For example, I think it would be a good idea for RAZBAM to do a Mirage 2000-5 as both a stand alone product ($60) and as a $15 addon to the Mirage 2000C. It would not overwrite the Mirage 2000C, we would simply have an additional model of it. A reverse upgrade would also be appropriate in such a case, so if someone bought the 2000-5 first, they could then get the older C model for $15 as an addon to that.

Yes.

Confirming these bugs. I have to cycle all the radar controls at the start of mission to get them updated to what they are actually set at.

I was recording missile tests when this popped up. It's funny and the Mirage may very well fly with a wing completely shot off, but flying like this seems unlikely: