King_Hrothgar

Been done a million times already but this one is slightly different from the old stickied ones in that it isn't divided into nationalities and type. So... My overall wishlist in order from most wanted to least (including stuff in development): 1) Mi-24V or P 2) AH-1J or W 3) F-5E 4) MiG-25PD 5) F-4E (I have zero interest in flying it, but I really want to fight it in MP)

They specified the basic E3 model, I don't think that counts as a late model. In any case, I don't think the MiG-21 will be at a major advantage or disadvantage. The thing about the R-3R combined with the MiG-21Bis is it can't see against ground clutter. As such, all you need to do is duck below the horizon a bit. It doesn't take much of an RWR to support that. Even the MiG-21Bis's RWR is sufficient for that kind of thing.

It's arguably the most important armed helicopter ever built in western Europe. It's ugly and little more than a 1960's light civy chopper with a few manportable AT missiles duct taped to it, but it has also seen extensive action around the world for the last 40 years. And yes, it may very well be the saddest excuse for an attack helo ever made, but it's also one of the most important right alongside the Mi-24 and AH-64. I'm glad it is being made and will certainly buy it. I'll also frequently complain on TS3 in 104th about how terrible it is. Sort of like the MiG-21 I suppose, bad weapons system but fun to use regardless. Edit: as for the FM, you really can't tell much by watching a video unless there is something really egregiously wrong (think war thunder). Anything nuanced requires feeling the flight model rather than watching.

Keeping in mind other aircraft in development: Fixed wing: 1) Mirage F.1EQ (yes, the Iraqi one with Exocet) 2) MiG-25PD 3) MiG-23MLD 4) Su-24M (1980's) 5) F-111F Rotary: 1) AH-64A 2) Mi-24D (yes, I know BST is doing the P, want both) 3) UH-60A (slick) 4) MD-500 (armed, TOW capable) 5) AH-1G/F/J with TOW

Question for those who have NTTR working: how is your performance compared to the black sea map and what are your system specs?

That would make sense except it goes from normal FoV to crazy absurd fisheye view. I think pretty much all of us would prefer it start at normal view and then simply stay there.

Wow, how did he pass basic flight school? It looks like he was dragging the tail before it ever left the ground, and it was deliberate? In any case, good to hear it was repaired.

Did someone screw up the center of gravity or did the elevator jam in full up position?

As far as I know, no one has so much as hinted that an A-6 of any sort is under development.

Confirming bug still exists, hopefully it gets fixed in the next update.

Looks like Ka-50 S-8tsm's to me.

I'm pretty sure it goes to VRAM and 8GB seems to be enough for my system.

If it doesn't I'm sure someone will make one.

I don't think there is much reasonable doubt that it's a Viggen. I'm not overly excited about DCS: Viggen, it's a low priority aircraft to me. But it is the only plane thought of so far that fits all the clues and seems reasonable given the development window.

I think it's fine as is. A fighter might make a better demo plane, but whatever is provided as the demo plane needs to give a good first impression and also be easily approached by someone truly new (think war thunder mouse aim type that wants to try a proper sim). I don't think the MiG-29 fits that description. The simplest plane in DCS is the Su-25A followed closely by the A-10A and Su-25T. It might be better if the Su-25A were the free plane, but at this point it wouldn't make much sense to swap them.

I know absolutely nothing about what the system is supposed to look like, but the 3d model is good looking. :)

I don't think so. The HMS is little more than an overlay that follows your view around. I haven't tried what you are specifically asking, but I did center the thing so I could change FoV without it moving. From what I saw, it does not appear to support any sort of movement other than changing the fixed amount it is offset from center via a config file.

Ralfi is a hardcore TM WH fanboy, nothing he says about any joystick can be considered objective. With that said, the X-55 is half the price of the WH and as such, is more cheaply made. It is still a $200 HOTAS though, it's very much on the high end. Another good option in that price range is the CH Fighterstick + CH throttle. Their quality is beyond question even if they look like something you'd give a 3 year old. I have their pedals and have had one of their yokes in the past, they are indestructible. In any case, here's a more professional review for you by someone who reviews basically everything in regards to flight simming. QIM_kt_18yI

I have had an X-55 since January, no complaints. I had an X-52 Pro for about 8 years prior and upgraded to X-55 since I wanted more buttons. There was nothing wrong with the old HOTAS functionally. In regards to quality, one would hope a $400 HOTAS is better built than a $200 one. But as said, I haven't had any issues with Saitek.

124.5 MHz is 124.5 MHz. Who made the radio is rather unimportant if they are using unencrypted signals. TACAN is a navigation system, simply one of many. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from dropping a TACAN transmitter 1m away from an ARK transmitter, thus providing effectively the same beacon for two different radio navigation systems. And that's the non-technical version. You can certainly combine the two systems into a single device. The only real limiting factor are the IFF systems. It's my understanding that those are encrypted and thus have to be built as transmitter/receiver pairs. But I could be mistaken on that, my knowledge on IFF systems is very limited. But that sort of limitation is restricted to hardcoded devices, anything even remotely modern with alterable programming is subject to a software update that can add additional encryption algorithms. Incidentally, encrypted radio transmissions can be dealt with the same way. Back on topic, I'm still all for an LNS MiG-23. I'm not attached to LNS specifically doing it (BST would be fine too) but I would like to see it as a priority fixed wing (sort of) aircraft. If BST does it, I demand the Mi-24 and AH-1 first. Been waiting far too long for those. :cry:

I've noticed it too and it is my only complaint about the FM. Overall it is a very good FM I think, but that AoA locking is clearly incorrect. I have a B.S. in Physics and though my knowledge of aeronautical engineering is limited, I can say with absolute certainty that that particular aspect of the flight model is wrong. How? It violates Newton's first, second and third laws of motion at the same time on a qualitative level, never mind quantitative. Hopefully it gets fixed. I have noticed smaller changes to the FM in the various updates along with 1.5. So they are working on it still.

Excellent news. :yes:

PMDG 777 for FSX with no expansion packs is $89.99. The P3D one is $135. Source: https://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/product/FSX/777LRF.html It's also worth noting that P3D is intended as a professional simulation for flight schools rather than as a video game for home usage. It's like claiming blender should cost $3600 like 3ds max does because they both do basically the same thing. In any case, I think a lot of you are missing my point. My point is the prices of modules should better reflect their content. PMDG's 777 would be about like a DCS: Tu-160. Charging $90 for something like that is perfectly reasonable and inline with other hardcore flight sims (FSX/P3D, IL2 series, X-Plane). But charging $50 for a Bf-109 is not inline with them, that kind of thing typically falls into the under $15 category. And yes, on a plane like that the flight model is the biggest component, but DCS isn't the only flight sim running high fidelity flight models, so it is a fair comparison. Overall I think this would be a better pricing system: $15 or less for primitive aircraft. Examples: Sopwith Camel, Piper Cub. $15-20 for simple aircraft. Examples: Bf-109, F-86, Cessna 172 (VFR). $20-40 for medium complexity aircraft. Examples: UH-1H, MiG-21Bis, Mirage 2000C RDI, F-5E, Cessna 172 (IFR). $40-60 for high complexity aircraft. Examples: Mi-8, F-14, F/A-18C, A-10C, Mi-24, Ka-50. $80+ for extremely complicated aircraft. Examples: B-52, Tu-160, B-1B, B-17 (all crew positions modeled). This is all assuming high fidelity flight models and ASM. If lacking one or more of those things, the pricing should be drastically lower. FC3 serves as a good reference for pricing for those. Also notice that this list still recommends an overall price increase, it's simply more nuanced than ED's system. I'd also restrict sales to no more than 25% off of the above prices. So yes, I am in favor of bumping the prices up some overall, just not for everything.

I got about 2000 hours of enjoyment out of Skyrim and its DLC (about $80 total). I've gotten about the same out of the Ka-50 (also about $80 between BS1 and BS2). I've gotten no more than 40 hours out of the Bf-109K, Fw-190D, P-51D, F-86 and MiG-15 combined. I spent about $80 between the 5 of them. The only aircraft in DCS I am genuinely into are the MiG-21bis and Ka-50. I have all the others (except trainers) but if the price effectively triples moving forwards, I'm only going to buy what I really truly want. The stuff I would have previously bought (like the WW2 and korean war stuff) to either show support or just to try out when on sale I simply won't buy moving forwards. That money will instead be spent on other things. And that's the point. The stuff I am still going to buy is stuff I was going to buy at full price or pre-order price anyways. But the stuff I'd previously pick up cheap on sale I simply won't buy at all under the new pricing system. Thus ED's overall income off me as an individual player will decrease substantially with this setup. I am but a single player of course and I've been known to take unusual positions at times, but I don't think this is one of them.

If it isn't strong enough to feel (or see when looking out the window) then it isn't strong enough to worry about imho.