King_Hrothgar

The AH-64 does have that weird monocle but that's more of a design issue than a technical one. The question isn't how it can be done, it's how do you want to display stereo vision on a single 2d screen. Fortunately, this problem has come up so many times in the past for all sorts of video games that the solution has been standardized. Of course, no compromise at all is required for VR, but that's an uncommon thing for now. In any case, I'm unaware of any AH-64 or F-16 work being done by ED or any of the licensed partners. The F-16 was brought up as an aircraft that could benefit from the code used for the F-18's radar, but there was never any claim they were actually planning to make one. It was simply used as an example. I recall one of the ED guys even clarifying the issue when it popped up after being mentioned in that particular thread.

What wing? :D

Properly coordinating turns in a video game is basically impossible. In a real aircraft, you do it by feel (you can feel it sideslipping), not by looking at the balls. In a game, all you have are those balls. I completely ignore it unless I can visibly see myself flying sideways. It's also largely a non-issue in jet aircraft, it really only applies to props and choppers unless you're running with an engine out on a multi-engined aircraft or with an asymmetric loadout. Think of it as sort of like trying to drive a car perfectly down the center of its lane. Trying to do so is extremely unnatural and actually fairly reckless as it requires far too much attention. You're much better off simply going with the flow of things instead of trying to fight it. As for maneuver names, wikipedia is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers It isn't a complete list and you'll need to check the links on that list for full descriptions, but most are fairly simple. The most fundamental terms to know for basic fighter maneuvering (BFM) are: 1) loop 2) split-s 3) immelmann 4) barrel roll 5) scissors (flat or rolling) 6) Yo-yo (high or low) 7) Pursuit (lead, lag or pure)

Yep, that's what it looks like.

Funny, I consider Slipknot and Static X as real metal (Nu metal) but not that particular Manson song. In any case, keep it up. Us whirlybird drivers have been neglected far too long. We need our fix.:drink:

The MiG-21's stock campaign is garbage admittedly, but I don't view that as a major issue in the context of DCS. And even as questionable as the campaign is, it is still better than the MiG-15's campaign.

Less actually, I'm in the USA and plan on working Thursday morning. I also have classes that week, just not on Thanksgiving day itself.

True, but what if it is 50 sales at $15 vs 5 sales at $50? It's hard to know how it all balances out and even ED doesn't know tbh. They've always done $40-60 as full price but I've often wondered if they would be better off using the industry standard addon price of $20-30 instead. Sales would then be reduced to only 20% off and offered only maybe twice a year at most. That might be a better model. On a related note, we should consider overall appeal and content. Why should someone pay $50 for an Fw-190D that has zero content and offers about 2 hours worth of training when they can get a Ka-50 for the same price that has 5+ campaigns, a suitable map, dozens of AI units and many hours of learning instead? From a development standpoint, they are also quite different. The most complicated system on one of them is the cockpit light dimmer knob while the other is covered in sensors and has multiple navigation systems. Even from purely the developer's standpoint, one is clearly more valuable than the other. Charging the same price for both is just silly. The old sales system made such things unimportant as those less desirable types ended up being things players picked up cheap during a sale, with only the die hard fans buying them at full price. Make them full or near full price all the time though, and that full price needs to be adjusted to better reflect what's actually being offered. Edit: Got super ninja'd, also, charge your phone battery. :P

You mean old AC/DC? Search for "Auld Accadacca" turned up nothing but that. If so, I'm not sure that qualifies as metal either tbh. Regardless, french whirlybird so clearly it needs french metal. :punk: And no, I can't think of any french metal but it must exist.

I don't think high fidelity combat sims are in danger of going away. They went away briefly from 2005 to 2008 and then came back with a series of strong entries that continues to the present. In any case, the list of planes I'm willing to pay $30-60 for is a hell of a lot shorter than the list of planes I'm willing to pay $10-15 for. I suspect I'm in the invisible majority on that. Hopefully the bigger sales continue, even if less frequent. Back on topic, it's my understanding that DCS 2 will go into open beta when DCS 1.5 is moved to official release.

Heh, cute. Definitely not metal, but funny.:megalol:

A Su-24M would make a very unique and fun addition. As for what it does that a Su-27 doesn't: 1) SEAD 2) Radar guided anti-ship missiles 3) TV guided missiles 4) TV guided bombs 5) Laser guided bombs 6) Laser guided missiles What it does compared to Su-25T: 1) Supersonic 2) Twice the payload 3) Radar guided anti-ship missiles We really don't have any flyable aircraft that are anything like it. It is a supersonic light bomber, similar to the F-111 in a lot of ways. I think both the Su-24 and F-111 would make excellent DCS additions. That said, I seriously doubt either are being seriously developed at this time. The Viggen and a WW2 thingy are all but certain at this point.

The MiG-21Bis is not a Vietnam era aircraft, it's post Vietnam. Regardless, I wouldn't mind an A-37 but it isn't very high on my wishlist either. It's the kind of thing I'd pick up for $15 (max) on sale.

True, but I'd actually prefer an A. It was the only type used in the 1991 Gulf War and a major type in the initial part of the 2003 Gulf War. It's also a better fit with other DCS modules currently in development.

Agreed, the AH-64A would be an excellent module and should be very doable. In general, I'm for all the major attack helicopters but the AH-64A is number 3 on my wishlist (Mi-24D/V/P and Iranian AH-1J being above it). I don't know why anyone would think it isn't declassified at this point, it most certainly is. At least that's the case for the parts that matter in a video game.

The trigger only fires the cannon, missiles use a different button. Your ASP setting has no effect on what weapons are active, all it does is change the aiming mode on the weapon sight

There are a few civilian aircraft in game atm, just not flyable. Someone could certainly script custom ambient ATC comms for them too if they wanted. Some additional AI civy planes would be nice though. Right now all we have are some Russian designs, a few western models for the NTTR map would be good.

The A-10A doesn't offer much insight into the nitty gritty of systems on the A-10C module, but is helpful I think. What the A-10A gives you is a way to practice flying the plane itself and using most of the weapons without having to worry about systems. This in turn makes learning the systems on the A-10C more a matter of button memorizing than actually learning how to fly the plane in combat. So yes, it is very helpful, especially if you are new to modern CFS's in general. Not sure if I've mentioned this before in this thread, but you might want to give the Ka-50 a look. It is a full fidelity module but has much simpler systems compared to the A-10C. Its weapon system is nearly identical to the Su-25T's even though one is FC3 level and the other is DCS. So it's a very easy transition assuming you can manage flying a chopper. Obviously other parts are more complicated, such as radios, the datalink and setting custom waypoints. But those are still a lot less complicated than the A-10C.

A video seems like it would help, so here ya go.

I don't think a heavily structured setup would be very helpful overall. The reason is DCS is a game, not a job or an actual class. People are going to show up when they want and do what they want. Trying to teach someone your way of doing something is unlikely to do anything but have them leave and never return. As such, an unstructured setup would be better. To that end, I recommend creating a server named "Basic Training" or something along those lines and have volunteers there willing to help whoever shows up with whatever it is they want to learn. If they want to learn how to do a proper pattern, teach them that. If they want to learn to get off the ground and into a fight as quickly as possible, teach them that. If they just want some help on hitting targets with rockets, teach them that. The point is to be helpful rather than overbearing. You can't force anyone to come, so you have to be willing to teach what they want instead of trying to teach people your way of doing things. Some regularly scheduled formal classes could be included on it too of course, but you need that solid training server foundation first. This setup has worked well in the New Wings servers in RoF. And the really nice thing about it is you don't have to have designated instructors. Anyone who's in the mood to help someone out can hop in for a bit with someone they picked up on another server. It just needs to be open, with voice comms available and well admined to keep any griefers out.

They specified F-5E-3, which implies APG-159-3

Assuming the F-5E doesn't have all aspect missiles, then the MiG will hold the advantage in a head on attack at range thanks to the R-3R. But those are really easy to evade tbh. In the end, all it means is the F-5E will want to dive towards the deck to break lock when going into the merge. I don't think it will be a major issue. The real question is will the MiG-21's greater speed and acceleration be enough to avoid getting an AIM-9P up the tail while B&Zing. The other big question is that of situational awareness. The MiG-21's forward viability is poor. If the F-5E's is substantially better, then the higher SA that offers could be decisive in the right hands.

Both work, but I prefer historical conflicts over fictional ones unless you go full fictional like the old enemy engaged series did with its dynamic campaign. The DCS devs don't agree with me however, as every single member of the Flanker/LOMAC/DCS series has always been around a linear fictional conflict in a real place. Looking forwards, nothing appears set to change. The first new map is NTTR, a place where the latest armed conflict involved muskets and cavalry charges. After that is the SoH, which other than a minor one day skirmish between the US and Iranian navies in the 1980's, is a place that hasn't seen armed conflict in hundreds of years, if ever as far as I know. And these maps were chosen over places like the northern Persian Gulf which has seen 4 major wars in the last 30 years, with the 4th one ongoing. Never mind other places like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Ethiopia/Eritrea and many other places. It has always struck me as strange that ED is so obsessed with getting the details on the planes and maps right, but then avoids representing actual wars the planes fought in like the plague. I don't know why they are even bothering trying to make accurate maps tbh. Why not just make "Generic desert map #1" instead of NTTR or SoH? It would be more consistent and a lot easier. Anyways, this is not a complaint, just an observation. To me dirt is dirt, sand is sand and NTTR really is just "Generic Desert Map #1.":smilewink:

Voted UH-60 but others I'd really like to see are the Ka-29 and HH-65/AS635 Dolphin.

Anything listed with advanced systems management (ASM for short) has a clickable cockpit. With that said, only the Flaming Cliffs 3 (FC3) aircraft lack this feature. The FC3 aircraft are sold both as the FC3 pack and as individual planes. FC3 contains the F-15C, A-10A, Su-27, Su-33, MiG-29A, MiG-29G, MiG-29S, Su-25A and Su-25T (sort of, it's now free). Anything other than those will have a clickable cockpit. However, you should beware the C-101 and Hawk. Although they have clickable cockpits, they have highly simplified flight models compared to the other DCS modules. Their creators have stated they will make high fidelity flight models for them later free of charge, but they are not available yet.