King_Hrothgar

It took 6 days for someone to bother checking it probably. I rarely check any of the third party's websites or facebook for that matter.

Good to know it's now official.

I honestly don't get the obsession on this forum for multirole aircraft. What's wrong with pure bombers and pure fighters?

You'd think our community would be beyond that kind of thing, but it isn't. RoF demonstrated that very early on (before it was free if memory serves), hence seat locking/kicking was added pretty quickly. And as said, it isn't just malicious players that worry me. Someone simply hopping in to try something new but not bothering to ask for permission or communicate with the pilot is almost as bad. It's unfair to ban someone from a server for that, as they mean no harm, but it's just as damaging as the trolls. Hopefully this is on the to do list, if not, could a moderator please mention it?

That's a real shame. It will need to be addressed before multiseat aircraft are usable in public servers. Otherwise the trolls, AFK'ers and people who refuse to get on voice comms are going to ruin any aircraft that allows a second player in it. :( Anyways, thanks for clarifying.

I don't have the L-39, but was hoping one of you could answer these questions. Is there a way to lock the extra seat in your plane in MP so that no one can join it? Is there a way to boot a player who joins but you don't want there (without booting from entire server obviously)? Can they join you in flight or only at spawn? Thanks!

Until you get a troll who jettisons all your ordnance and then hops into a plane on the other team. Thinking of which, is there a way to lock the extra seats in your plane so no one can join you? I don't have the L-39, so can't test for myself.

I was under the impression 32 bit support was dropped long ago, perhaps it wasn't. I think 1.2.16 is the official release version, though most or all of us are playing the 1.5 open beta. In any case, your machine just barely meets the official minimum specs for the old version. My recommendation is if there is a 32bit version of the game still offered, then try the free Su-25T first. If you're happy with how your machine runs it, get the A-10C. If you aren't, then don't as both aircraft should give similar performance. At least they do for me on both my current and old machines.

As said by others, a switch to 64bit shouldn't be an issue by itself. My real concern would be the hardware. It sounds like you have a very old PC, probably from around 7-10 years ago. That kind of hardware simply won't run modern games. Edit: I should point out that my current system (less than a year old btw) is listed as the new minimum spec, but it runs DCS very well (typically 60fps+ at 1080p and max detail, even when dodging trees). It is certainly possible to run a lower spec machine with good results, but I have serious doubts about your machine. Of course, it does depend on exactly what's in it. I have seen some frankenstein setups on this forum that run DCS far better than most would expect. But the upcoming DX11 requirement is a hard limit. Any GPU from before 2009 is simply incompatible.

I don't think any Harriers carried RB-04 anti-ship missiles though. And that little hint is what solidified the Viggen as the only likely option for the "modern" plane. Besides, the Harrier (UK variant) is on VEAO's wishlist and I think it's also on RAZBAM's list (AV-8B) for 2nd or 3rd project after the Mirage 2000C.

Given your initial post, I'll go with Little Richard. So 1950's it is then, I'm largely unfamiliar with that music. Carry on.:music_whistling:

Define Rock & Roll. Do you mean 1950's guitar/drum quartets (mostly) or the "everything not country or Rap" music of 1960 to present? If the latter, then there are far too many to list, but I think Sharon Den Adel of Within Temptation is worth a mention.

I haven't had that kind of problem in years, but it has come up. The only solutions I've found is to either unplug the offending device or disable it in control panel. But as said, I really haven't had that come up in a long time.

Is the MiG-31 classified? In any case, I think I'd prefer the MiG-25PD anyways. It's seen combat, including against F-14's.

Depends on what I expect to be shooting. I use S-24's for heavy armor, S-13's for light, S-8's for soft and bombs for structures. Given the short legs of the Su-25, I typically bring a pair of drop tanks on the inner most racks too. I don't find the guided weapons to effective in most situations, but they do have their niche uses. So with all that said, I run basically 4x Su-25 loadouts: 1) Full rack of S-24's + 2x drop tanks + 2x R-60 2) Full rack of S-13's + 2x drop tanks +2x R-60 3) Full rack of S-8's + 2x drop tanks + 2x R-60 4) Mix of precision weapons or bombs + rockets of some flavor + 2x drop tanks + 2x R-60 I typically don't mix rocket types as rockets are area of effect weapons only effective in volleys. For an Su-25A campaign mission, I'll read the briefing to know what kind of targets I'm hitting, select the appropriate rocket type and then try to let it all loose in 1 pass. The Su-25A is very much a get in and GTFO plane. It's not something you linger over the battlefield for 20 minutes in.

If you want the FSX/X-Plane crowd, the Tiger Moth probably isn't a good pick. I'd say either a Boeing 777 + a North America map or a Maul M7 + Alaska map would be the way to go for that. Hmm, I'd actually pay $5 for an L-4 Grasshopper to putt around the NTTR map with. It's WW2, it's a trainer and I can reskin it in standard Cub Yellow. I do mean $5 though, not $50. It isn't worth anywhere near that to me. And although I previously said I wouldn't buy any WW2 trainers, I might be willing to buy a random non-combat plane (which includes WW2 trainers) just to fly around the Nevada map for $5. But that really is all I'd pay for such aircraft. Edit: I should point out I'd only be interested in those with high fidelity flight models. I wouldn't bother with a SFM plane even if it were free.

I wouldn't buy a WW2 trainer and I agree there are far more important things to spend time on developing, especially since some of those are pretty good training aircraft themselves. A good example is the Ju-87. It is not a complicated plane and was known for being very easy to fly. It would make a suitable training plane while also being a critically important combat type. I suspect it would have far broader appeal as well. If someone is insistent on making a dedicated trainer though, I'd recommend one with the broadest possible appeal rather than an obscure or exotic type. As such, there is only one viable option, the AT-6 Texan. It was the main trainer type used by all the major allied air forces of WW2 and continued service far beyond WW2 around the world. It also has marginal combat capability, which is always a bonus.

True, but it's also worth noting that the F-14 isn't next either. In fact, it's expected to be their 4th release. I really hope they do both the MiG-23 and MiG-25, but I just don't see either of them being the next two planes. They don't fit the clues given at all.

Just checked for myself, yes, other AI only aircraft (that are not considered likely flyables anytime soon) have their own custom sound files, but they don't have their own sound folders. The only two AI only planes that have that are the Spit IX and the F-5E. I wouldn't take it as confirmation of a flyable F-5E, but it's one more bit of evidence to suggest its coming in the near future.

I think what he prefers are single purpose aircraft that are fully optimized for their task. The F-35 is most definitely not that. I don't understand his complaints on the F-20 though, it was just an updated F-5 when all is said and done. And yeah, I think it would have made a very good fighter around the world.

It isn't for sale on steam yet. I don't think any DCS modules are available on steam as pre-order, you must wait for official release to buy there.

It's an old plane that uses old fashioned navigation. You can navigate to airports and a few other locations via radio navigation, but everything else is best done with a simple map, compass and Mk.I eyeball.

I haven't noticed unrecoverable stalls but it does seem to get stuck at high AoA's sometimes without jamming the stick forwards. In any case, the only real difference I've noticed in the FM is LNS upped the control authority a bit. The initial version had way too much authority, the second clearly had too little, I suppose this version is about right. It will depart if you push it, but not without a heavy hand.

2 Fuel tanks, Vikhrs, 2x KH-25MPU's and the ELINT pod is my standard.

Your system should be fine in terms of hardware. The only question is the operating system. If you have Windows 7, 8, 8.1 or 10, then you are good to go provided it is 64 bit (I'd be shocked if it isn't, 64 bit has been the standard version since Vista). If it is Vista or older, you need a newer version of windows as I don't think Vista will run anything higher than DX10. In regards to RAM usage, I checked, I topped out at 62% while running DCS and that includes what Win10 was using. The 8GB of RAM is more than enough currently, but that could change with NTTR and other future maps.