King_Hrothgar

Mk-82's would exceed the hardpoint's mass limits I think.

A variety of 1970's Soviet weapons including bombs, rockets and IR missiles. It could also carry drop tanks. In terms of what precisely, I don't have a full list in front of me but I know it includes S-5's (UB-16), R-3's, and FAB-100. Edit: Found an L-39 brochure http://www.l39.com/sites/all/docs/files/leporeloL39.pdf

There is a bit of a line for them it seems. I test flew the mission (first objective only) in all 3 types, it's a slaughter for the Ka-50's but tough for the other two.

That's some nice missile dodging. As for guns, get closer. Optimal range against a maneuvering target is around 50-150m and no more than 300m against a non-maneuvering target. Anything beyond those ranges against an alert target is just spray and pray. And yes, I am fully aware of just how close that is when traveling at mach .9. It's also helpful to aim in front of them instead of on them. Let them fly into your bullet stream rather than try to chase them around with it.

I don't think you'll be disappointed with CH. They look like crap, but have it where it counts. That said, I've had nothing but good experience with Saitek in general too. Saitek may have some QC issues, but I've never been a victim of them.

It should stay as it is for all reasons already listed. It actually irritates me that some of the other aircraft trigger/button safeties don't work this way.

So your complaint is that the plastic stick halfway between the plastic TM HOTAS and the TM WH is made of plastic? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but ok. Another option is the CH Fighterstick, it's $120 or so. Call CH stuff low quality and the forum here will probably lynch you.:lol:

I could definitely go for that. DCS: MiG-29 would be amazing.

Same, the F-5E is #1 on my western fixed wing wishlist both to fly and to fight. And no, our cheating AI friends don't count. I do wonder how far along it is. It's on Wags machine and has BST project written all over it, so it can't be that early in development.

It's been stated many times that 1.5 is going to be the next real update. The only updates before then are hotfixes for critical issues such as CTD's.

Your system is similar to mine, I get 40-60 fps depending on what's going on at max detail at 1920x1080. I can't say there is any noticeable performance difference between the MiG-21 and any other module. As for upgrades, I agree with the above about more RAM being useless. DCS + Wind8.1 won't even use 8GB, so no sense adding more. I'd also hold off on a GPU upgrade until after DCS1.5 is released. Only then will we know what the new graphics engine likes. My guess is it will be fairly happy with our GTX 770's, but it may want a 970.

My suggestion was an expansion of the current system. As far as I know, all jammers are equally effective against everything. I could be wrong though. The tree and ground clutter issues are separate, but I absolutely agree they should be higher priorities than they currently are.

I'm interested, can fly any of the three types proficiently but specialize with the Ka-50. I need to know what time though. Also, what kind of comms will there be?

An AH-64 doesn't have anything systems wise that other DCS aircraft don't already have in some form. I think the two major things holding it back are the requirement for an AI pilot/gunner and a lack of interest on the part of the various current 3rd party devs.

I don't think that links what you think it does. Also, the edit to that first post was made a day after I asked here. But thanks anyways.:thumbup:

I'm sure most of this is in the giant threadnaught on the Gazelle, but having not kept up with it I'm left with a few very basic questions. So here they are: 1) What level of flight modeling will it use? 2) Will it have ASM? 3) I've seen it mentioned a few times by various forumers that this will be free, surely that can't be true? 4) How far along is development on it?

It has a campaign, but I never got past mission number 3 due to boredom. Not sure if it ever gets beyond 40 minute sight seeing flights. The training for it is fine and the aircraft systems are very simple. It's easy to learn if nothing else.

1) B 2) B 3) B+C 4) A

EE only in the interests of getting it out faster. On a related note, can the EE use exocet missiles? I ask cause it will be a stand in Iraqi F1EQ's that could. It's also a factor for other arab nations with similar capability.

The MiG-21Bis didn't enter service until after the Vietnam war ended. That said, I highly recommend it as it is a lot of fun. Systems are fairly simple on it though using them effectively is another matter entirely. The A-10C and Ka-50 (Blackshark 2) are also very popular.

I see absolutely no reason for us to limit our flying and tactics to what a video game manual recommends. In any case, do what works best for you.

I think you can only use it on full priced modules, the L-39 is currently discounted and so is disqualified.

I disagree with that Fish, other than sometimes using hover hold in a low threat environment, I wouldn't even consider using the regular AP anywhere near a combat area. Flying into battle on AP is fundamentally a terrible idea. And even when using hover hold, I have a finger sitting on the emergency AP disable button the whole time. AP is a very, very dangerous thing in an area where someone might shoot at you. Regardless, you have it right Tacky, the FD mode converts any active AP modes into a stabilization mode. It makes flying a lot smoother, though you do sacrifice a little agility compared to full manual control.

Thanks for clarification, I may pre-order it then. My only concern was that they would be completely separate modules. Packaging them together but staggering release doesn't bother me at all.:thumbup:

The L-39 is the only trainer that interests me in DCS, mostly due to its combat activities in the real world. However, those are L-39ZA's and if the two L-39's are separated, there is only one that I'm interested in. So I'll be holding off for clarification too.