King_Hrothgar

Good list but I have serious doubts about ED releasing 6 aircraft/terrains this year in addition to merging 1.2/1.5/2.0, completing NTTR and getting all the third party stuff in. That just seems like too much for a single year if we look at their previous release rate. So I expect we'll see the L-39ZA, Spitfire and maybe 1 additional plane (P-47 probably). We will also get 1.2/1.5/2.0 and NTTR squared away. Anything beyond that will need to come from 3rd parties I think.

Added a CCRP bombing tutorial to my previous post.

I agree with the above, though as it stands as of this very instant, even the MiG-29A out classes it. Its closest opponent, as modeled, is actually the MiG-21Bis surprisingly. A combination of under performing Super 530, lack of IFF and over performing R-3R/S means it ends up being about even. I've had a blast with it on a Mirage vs MiG-21 server, it's right at home there and those servers seem to be filling up quickly. Hopefully the popularity lasts. On 104th (where everything fights everything), it suffers terribly. I have 2 kills with it there, 1 enemy fighter (Su-27 or F-15, can't remember) and one friendly F-15 that didn't respond to repeated raygun calls despite being on ts3 with me. I've been shot down about a dozen times on 104th in it.

That's what I thought and thanks for looking into it. As it stands, I don't think I've ever seen any radar source pop up outside the inner circle. Mostly they are stacking on top of each other right next to the center. It seems the signal strength aspect either isn't working at all, or it's scaled incorrectly and only doing maybe half the inner ring. Hopefully it's an easy fix.

I posted these in the Mirage videos thread that got moved, but I they belong here more I think. The first two videos assume a runway start instead of cold start, the third is air to air missile usage since the first attempt ended up being a gun fight. Edit: CCRP bombing added

Same question, what DCS module realistically models IFF currently? I have all except the trainers, none of them model IFF as anything but a magical device to tell friend from foe. And how is not having it at all better than having it faked? In any case, it's a moot point. RAZBAM will add it and in keeping with all other DCS modules, it will be faked. They may decide to put in some cosmetic features so you can set codes and such, but I don't think they will have any meaning in game since the game doesn't support that.

My thoughts on it: Flight Modeling It passes the physics sniff test but I know too little about the real Mirage 2000C to make any accuracy statements. In terms of feel, it's at least as good as the MiG-21's FM in terms of fidelity I think. As for actually flying it, with FBW on it's super easy. The FBW system won't let you stall, over G or anything else bad short of nose diving into the dirt. The system is really good about keeping it stable at low speeds too, so stall fighting couldn't be any easier. With the FBW system off, it becomes a different beast. It isn't the most unstable thing around but it's harder to handle than most of the other DCS planes. I will say it's easier than the Su-27 with FBW off. I guess overall it's kind of like some of the less stable aircraft in RoF. So it's certainly possible to fly manually. Systems In terms of systems, a lot is incomplete. As has been discussed ad nauseum, IFF and INS do not work currently. Some of the other bits such as the engine startup also seem to be only halfway done. With that said, once those systems are fully implemented (and Zeus has said they will be), it will be at similar fidelity to the other DCS modules. As it exists today, I find the lack of IFF problematic, but the other limitations don't bother me too much. In terms of complexity, it's similar to the MiG-21Bis to learn. It is more modern so there is less switch flicking and button mashing to do any specific task, but it has more features so the total amount of controls to learn remains similar. Content It doesn't have any training missions in the training section but other than that, I haven't looked. The manual is a half written version of the full manual, no quick start guide exists at this time. Users, including me, have started releasing youtube training videos on various tasks though, so the info is readily available if you look for it. Other thoughts The module overall is incomplete and buggy, but I still find it enjoyable. With a little more work, I think this will be one of the more popular DCS modules. It's also a better match for the MiG-21 than I thought it would be. But that might be due to a flight model issue with the Super 530. So we'll have to see how it fairs after that is sorted.

Activate spin recovery and put your pilot into a coma with the G's from a simple roll. What you're seeing is a FBW limitation, not a FM thing.

Really? And here I thought I was the typical American by wanting to carry half the armory with me on every sortie.:lol: Regardless, I'm pleased ya'll are working on a series of Harriers next. I still think the eastern block needs to be a priority for the next round of modules, but of the western stuff, the Harriers offer something different from the existing and upcoming stuff. Day 1 buy for me I think.

DCS doesn't really do IFF or ECM other than through magic and BS, so I don't think it will take too long for it to be added. It is important though, so the sooner the better.

A few quick tutorial videos, they do contain some errors but are good enough to get someone started. These videos detail drop tank usage and how to go from a runway start to battle ready. Air to ground: Air to air gone a little sideways from what I intended: Air to air with Super 530D and Magic 550:

My initial impressions... It's incomplete, not only from a content standpoint but also the aircraft itself. IFF, RWR and INS all still need a lot of work it seems, but the flight model seems to be in good order. I am no Mirage expert, so I can't comment on accuracy, but I can say it passes the physics sniff test. That's a big deal to me and if I had to choose between a solid FM and more complete systems in the initial release, I'll take the FM every time. Hopefully the systems are completed over the next month or so. Moving beyond that, graphically it's standard DCS, so no complaints there. I also appreciate the inclusion of multiple skins in the initial release, most other modules skip that. Sounds are immersive, though I can't comment on their realism. In combat, the lack of IFF and squished RWR output make it tricky. It's somewhere between the MiG-21 and MiG-29A (without R-73 or R-27ER/ET/T) currently but that may improve as features are completed. In air to ground, it does ok though the Rockeye's damage output needs to be looked at. The strangest thing I've noticed about it is the FBW system. With the wings level, it's perfectly trimmed. But the instant it is rolled to the side, the nose drops hard, even in shallow turns. Due to the way the FBW system works, it seems impossible to properly trim the aircraft with FBW turned on. I don't know if that's realistic or not, but it did strike me as strange. In any case, the initial release is about what I expected. Lots of bugs and some incomplete systems but it's mostly there.

Thanks for the update, love how open you guys are :). I can't say I have any interest in DCS: WW2 anything (for a number of reasons) but for those who are interested, it's a good choice given the lack of ground attack aircraft.

In the past I've been strongly opposed to doing civilian aircraft as I thought it may take away from the military side, however I've changed my opinion on that. I think DCS as a whole would benefit from a little general aviation tossed in. DCS does not support large aircraft currently, so DCS: 747 is a terrible idea imho. But smaller, private aircraft and helicopters could eat into the FSX/P3D/XPlane crowd. DCS already has a reputation as a very good helicopter sim, so I would suggest any developer start there. The basic Cessna 172 would also be a good starting point. With that said, this is more of a growth oriented thing, I don't think it would be commercially viable in the short term. I personally probably wouldn't buy much in the way of civilian aircraft and they'd have to be relatively cheap (under $20 at full price) to be appealing to me.

If you're looking for a whole lot of content, my suggestion is FC3 and Blackshark 2. FC3 provides a bunch of aircraft, each of which have their own campaigns and single missions. The Ka-50 in BS2 has around 5 or 6 campaigns included and since it is the oldest DCS module, it also has a ton of user made ones too. There is also a payware campaign for it that was recently released. Obviously, the Ka-50 is an attack helicopter, so I don't know if that interests you. But in terms of content, I think it's currently the biggest single module.

Agreed Jcomm. I haven't touched FSX in a very long time, just too outdated in terms of physics, never mind the code itself. My current flight sims are DCS, BoS/BoM and RoF.

Nomnom Tiger.

True, but the Mi-8 also represents around 99.999999% of the eastern block + third world utility helicopter force. Ubiquity certainly counts for something, it's the main reason I bought it.

For supersonic jet fighters, I agree. For WW2, it's a deal breaker for me. I will not purchase any additional WW2 modules until the AI FM and DM are of similar or the same fidelity as player aircraft. Obviously, upping the detail there requires true multicore support. I also don't see that happening any time soon for the reasons I already mentioned. Fortunately (in a sense), I'm totally burnt out on WW2 anyways and so I just don't care. But if I did care, I'd have to burn you at the stake for such a heretical comment.:P

A Tiger, Panther (armed) or H135 (armed) would be interesting to me, I'd probably pass on a Puma or NH-90 though. I can't say I understand the appeal of them, they strike me as the chopper equivalent of a school bus. Even a basic UH-60A would be more fun than that imho.

The above is mostly true, but is only half the story. The armament at the time must also be considered. The F-16A entered service in 1978 if memory serves, that's about the same time as the MiG-23ML's were coming about. But while the MiG-23ML's had true BVR capability with the R-23/24, the F-16A and 1980's C's were armed only with AIM-9's and a cannon, it could not use AIM-7's or any other BVR missile. Against this kind of foe, the MiG-23 would actually hold a substantial initial advantage. It's also worth noting that the MiG-29A was introduced in 1982, only 4 years after the F-16A. The F-15A was better than the F-16 of course (also far more expensive), but the AIM-7's in service at the time were the same ones used in Vietnam, which is to say marginally more accurate than an unguided rocket:lol:. The engines on the early F-15's were also problematic from what I've read in pilot accounts. One notable comment from an F-15A driver was something along the lines of engaging the AB was just as likely to have the flames shoot out the air intakes as it was the nozzles. Obviously an exaggeration, but they were clearly problematic. With that more nuanced look, it isn't anywhere near as one sided. The MiG-21 was still out of date by the end of the 1970's, but that's true of the F-5E too. Both soldiered on due to low production and operation costs. They were the poor man's fighters and never intended to be the best. As for the F-14A, it was a something totally different from anything else at the time, sort of like the MiG-25.

Agreed on more European stuff, my vote is MiG-23, MiG-25 and Su-17.:D

It is not difficult to create a new program to use multiple cores from the start. It's actually pretty easy tbh, you just have to do it. But going back and trying to modify an existing program with millions of lines of code to use more than one core is another matter entirely. That is a huge undertaking, so huge it borders on rewriting the program from scratch. As for the payoff of doing that, it would allow us to have bigger battles or allow for higher fidelity AI flight and damage modeling. The former isn't a serious concern, the current I5's can run a fairly big mission just fine as is. So there isn't much to gain there. The latter creates it's own issues as flight modeling is the single most time consuming part of something like an FC3 level aircraft. And that means that not only would they have to rewrite DCS's foundation, then they'd have to create dozens of new FM's and not get paid directly for it. It would have some monetary benefit in the role of keeping DCS fresher, much like the new graphics engine. But it's hard to take a screenshot of an AI flight model and thus harder to advertise.

Rockets have a fairly decent blast area currently. It's true that fragmentation isn't modeled, so ED exaggerated they blast radius instead. With that said, you shouldn't expect to kill any modern tank with an 80mm HE/frag rocket even with a direct hit. They are most effective against infantry and unarmored trucks. I typically do barrage fire, letting all 40 go at once from 2-3km away. You do need to keep in mind that they are an area of effect weapon rather than a point weapon. So unless absurdly close, you should be trying to carpet an area of targets instead of trying to pick off individual units.

It's time to move on I think. XP was a good OS for its day, but that day has long passed. Windows 7 was the proper successor to it and Win10 is the proper successor to that. Some stuff was shuffled around of course, so you will have to learn where various things are again But the new features and the ability to run programs and hardware made in the last 10 years more than outweighs that minor inconvenience.