King_Hrothgar

That's how I see the Mirage 2k playing. It will need to be flown like the MiG-21 when facing F-15's, but it will be easier due to the better RWR, missiles and radar. In a MiG-21 vs Mirage 2k fight, I don't think it would be any different from the current MiG-21 vs F-15 fights. Either the MiG attacks with the element of surprise, or it dies. That said, I'd rather face the Mirage 2k than an F-15 if flying the MiG-21. AMRAAMs are annoying.

Toss up between trying to land a Ka-50 in one of the nuke test craters, seeing if I can drive around a parking garage in a tank and dropping an RN-28 on the strip just to see what happens. Don't look at me like that, you know you're going to do it sooner or later.:devil_2: Beyond that I'll be looking for cool areas for helicopter missions. Edit: Above was for NTTR obviously, for 1.5 I'm probably going to simply compare new and old frame rates along with system resource usage. I know, utilitarian stuff. The horror.

Good list of changes, just be sure to release it Wednesday afternoon and not before. Why? I have a math test on Wednesday morning. I don't need the distraction.:smilewink:

A Tiger is what I'm hoping for, followed by a Ka-52, AH-64E and Mi-28N later on. In regards to secrecy, I have to wonder how secret these things really are. They are current production aircraft, but they are also offered broadly on the export market to just about anyone with the money to buy them. So are they really that secret?

For me, Ka-50, Mi-8, UH-1, MiG-21, F-86 and MiG-15. I know every system on those aircraft I find useful and can fly/fight in them fairly well. The others I either haven't spent enough time to fully learn the systems or I can operate the systems but don't have enough flight time. I own all modules except the trainers.

Yeah, I don't get that. The MiG-25 is #1 on my Russian fixed wing wishlist but I want the standard PD. I've never understood the desire for super rare variants over more common ones.

I won't touch an SFM plane. Fortunately that doesn't appear to be an issue with RAZBAM.

The "MiG-28 skin" is from VFC-13 "Saints." It's a safe bet that particular squadrons markings will be included with the updated 3d model or the NTTR map since they play such a prominent role there. Also, I'm pretty sure it's BST doing the F-5, not RAZBAM.

Never had a G940 but I used the X-52 Pro for about 8 years before switching to an X-55 (the X-52 Pro never wore out btw). I'm also using CH pedals that I bought shortly after the X-55. In any case, I haven't had any issues of note with either setup. Both are of excellent quality I find. With that said, the X-52 Pro is much more ergonomic. Every single button/hat on it except the ones on the stick base are easy to reach. It's really a great HOTAS imho. The only problem is it falls short on buttons for the MiG-21 and especially the A-10C. Hence my switch to the X-55. The X-55 is well built from my experience with it, but the ergonomics fall short of the X-52 Pro. Some buttons/hats aren't accessible without completely shifting my grip. The stick itself is simply too large, it should have been shorter and had the head piece the hats are on recessed. It wouldn't have cost Saitek a thing to do that. But they didn't, and so it is universally complained about. With some getting used to, everything on the stick can be reached fluidly and without hassle. It just takes a bit of muscle memory that the X-52 Pro doesn't require. The throttle is the selling point of the X-55. It's a unit loved by all, even the TM WH snobs. My only complaint is that like the stick, it's just a little bit too big. Despite that, I can reach everything on it except the mouse nipple. Since mouse nipples on joysticks are useless anyways, it's no real loss. In terms of precision, both are limited only by the precision of the user. That said, the twist on the X-55 leaves something to be desired. It isn't inaccurate from a hardware standpoint, it's just harder to grip the stick, push buttons and twist at the same time than it is with the X-52 Pro. It goes back to the stick simply being too long. I'd been considering getting pedals before getting the X-55, but the poor twist on it finally made me do it instead of putting it off another 10 years. Edit: The X/Y axis on the X-52 are not pots, they are hall sensors. The same is true of the X-55. The other axis are pots and have the standard pot 1% jitter straight out of the box. It doesn't get worse with age from what I can tell. My old X-52 Pro isn't any less accurate now than it was when I bought it. A little deadzone or averaging fixes it easily. The CH pedals I have aren't any different btw. And their quality is beyond question even if they do look like they were made for 3 year olds.

The mass slaughter of civilians is typically a taboo topic in entertainment. This applies not only to video games but also TV and movies. It's a subject I'd like to see touched on more often, but doing so in a respectful manner is difficult and financially risky.

The UH-1 and Mi-8 have crew in all the positions if you turn pilot bodies on. I wouldn't expect other multi-seat aircraft to operate any differently. If you mean will you be able to tell what direction another human in your aircraft is looking, my guess is no. That kind of thing doesn't seem to be attached to pilot animations in DCS currently.

104th is the most populated server typically, they have 8 or more Ka-50's in all of there missions. They aren't always available though, it's a popular machine.

Last I heard (couple weeks maybe) their plan is Mirage 2000C, A-7E and AV-8B in that order. I occasionally see users mention the F-15E, but I've never seen RAZBAM officially state they are going to make one. Either way, I wouldn't buy an F-15E. Not a fan of 2 seat "fighters."

Yep, it's about time for some sort of announcement.

I'm not going to be able to make it today, so lead Ka-50 is open.

I deny that two seaters are generally more attractive. And I'm not talking about dedicated multiseat aircraft like most choppers and bombers. I'm only referring to single seat aircraft with two seat trainer versions. And yes I realize many of the trainer versions are fully combat capable, but they still lose performance due to added weight and drag. Edit: I should probably point out that if the F-16C were offered, I'd buy it day one. If the F-16D were offered instead, I simply wouldn't buy an F-16 module. That's how little interest I have in the two seat versions. I'll either wait for the proper single seat version or I'll do without.

I don't think that's a good assumption. ED has recognized the problems with the DM but I haven't seen them say much about it beyond that. I'm sure it's on their to do list somewhere, but the lack info on it suggests it isn't currently being worked on and that it is low on their priority list. It's too coarse. It was made back in the 1990's for the Flanker sims and hasn't changed much or at all since then. The coarseness isn't very obvious when dealing with 20mm gatling guns and air to air missiles, but it's a problem for M2's, MG151's and similar weapons. I think BoS has gotten it the closest to reality but CloD and even the original IL2 were pretty decent too. DCS has a lot of catching up to do.

I'd much prefer the higher performance single seat versions. And I really don't get the current obsession with two seaters. It's a feature that will likely be abandoned by the community within 2-3 days of being implemented. The one possible exception being the F-14.

I have all the modules except the two trainers (yes, even CA). I recommend skipping WW2 entirely at this time. DCS is an absolutely terrible WW2 sim, so terrible that I don't consider it a WW2 sim at all. The reasons for that judgement are obvious, the total lack of content and atrocious damage modeling. I see no reason to scare him off with that nonsense, give him a look at what DCS does well instead. So with that mind, the gems in DCS at this time are the Ka-50, A-10C, MiG-21Bis and F-15C. I think these best show what DCS can give. Of those, I don't think the A-10C is suitable for novices but the rest are fine. I also disagree with those who claim the Ka-50 requires rudder pedals. I've been playing BS1/2 since it first came out on DVD and didn't get rudder pedals till a few months ago. A twist stick is just fine. I would advise against the two current trainers as they are using SFM. SFM is not characteristic of DCS or modern flight sims in general. SFM is unacceptable for 2015 or even 2010. They never should have been released in their current state. If you really want to get him a trainer, wait a month for the L-39 or give him a MiG-15 or F-86. The two Korean birds are of similar complexity to a trainer but also first rate fighters within their appropriate time frame. But they suffer from a lack of content and overly coarse damage model just like the WW2 planes.

Wow that thing is ugly, but you can't be blamed for that :P. Your rendition of it appears to be of very high quality.:thumbup:

Generally you don't go dark until you are near hostile territory. I think that is what was meant by the dark rule. I assume the initial FARP and the ship pickup will be done with lights on.

FC level planes have their place in DCS. It's a good place for new players to start and honestly, I think it's a safe bet FC3 is the single best selling DCS module even today. I'm not sure if I support more FC style stuff though. So far, no one has made a DCS plane that's already an FC3 plane. Getting that kind of doubling up is financially risky and it's probably best to avoid that situation entirely.

I typically carry illumination rockets on the Ka-50 for night missions. They are useful for not only spotting but also keeping a lock and marking target zones. That said, the route appears too long to light the whole way. So I'm thinking it would be better to save them for the target area.

Full cockpit sim for P3D's F-35. It looks very cool, also looks very expensive.

Round one was fun so I'm in for the second. I can fly anything needed proficiently and am willing to take a lead aircraft if someone can help me setup whisper on TS and explain how to use it. Given a choice, order of preference for me is: 1) Ka-50 2) Mi-8 gunship 3) UH-1 gunship 4) Mi-8 slick