King_Hrothgar

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.

There is no right or wrong way to do it so long as it works. With that said, the easiest way for me is to switch FD mode on, turn around and once retrimmed (if needed), disable FD mode. I should point out that I spend 99% of the time in FD mode anyways, so this is more of a theoretical thing. But on the rare occasion I'm in a true AP mode, that's how I change course.

They've stated they don't want to do that, so I think they are fairly confident DCS2 will be public by the end of September.

I think he's referencing the L-39 pics linked on page 276. One of them has an L-39 going straight up and it does look fairly real.

Welcome to official third party status and I'm greatly looking forwards to this whirlybird. Now get back to work! :D

You just need to upgrade to "let's go to the pub for a quick liter." That should make everyone happy, especially the bartender.

I think asking for genuinely realistic EW simulation in DCS is asking too much. But I do think it's reasonable to ask for faking it a bit better than is currently done. A few extra lines of lua could break radars into a series of classes and giving jammers a set of effectiveness ratings against each class would be a massive improvement. This is potentially an easy way to greatly improve our perception of EW in game. As an example, the Su-27's radar could be set at Class C. The F-15C's jammer would be set at 50% effective vs Class C radars. This would give the current effect of basically halving the radar range of a Su-27. But if we look at something like a MiG-21Bis, that might have radar Class F, the F-15C's jammer could be set at 90% effective vs Class F radars. In this case, the MiG-21Bis would almost never get a lock on an F-15C. Continuing with the MiG-21Bis, this system can further be expanded upon with the MiG-21's radar modes. In normal mode, it could have that 90% reduction but in continuous mode it might only be 60%. Moving on to SAM's, an S-300 might have radar Class M. The F-15C's jammer might be 0% effective against this but an ALQ-131 (such as on the A-10C) might be 40% effective. These numbers are made up examples to demonstrate the idea. I do not know off hand what would be reasonable values. It can also be expanded on with additional parameters fairly easily since it is ultimately just a table. It is also suitable for ELINT and RWR gear too.

Going by Wags comments in the live streams + Q&A's, we shouldn't expect anything major until the DCS2 update. Whether that is next week or next year, no one knows.

Yep, the UH-1H is already the training chopper. It's a basic full manual single engined low performance chopper. In any case, I'm solidly with those who want a US attack chopper. With the upcoming maps and aircraft, I think an export AH-1J (suitable for Iran and US) would be the best fit but any twin engined AH-1, AH-64 or Eurocopter Tiger would be fine. We just need something to fill that gap. The same is true on the eastern side. We have the Ka-50 which is very cool, but a standard issue Mi-24 would be much appreciated. UH-60's and other common modern utility choppers would be nice, but we already have a pair of those. So I think a pair of common attack helicopters, with the western one being more important, should be the higher priority. Hopefully BST hasn't put their AH-1 and Mi-24 on the back burner again but it seems they might have.

I noticed in today's stream that the gun smoke is the same as we currently have. Is that on the list things being updated?

I prefer metric, it's much simpler and I say that as an American. Other than gallons of gas and mph on the highway, I can't say I've ever used imperial. And even on the road it holds little meaning to me. Whether the signs say 75mph speed limit and 90 miles to xxxx or 120km/h limit and 144km to xxxx makes no difference, the calculation is the same. I suspect one of these days the world will tell the USA to ****off and everyone will switch to metric for aviation regardless of what the USA does. But that day hasn't come just yet.

:huh:

That ought to put all those TM WH snobs in their place. Ah who am I kidding.:surrender: Seriously though, that is a cool concept.

It's not just familiarity but also interest. Why would someone prefer a plane they can fly around in circles with when they can have a plane they can fly around in circles with while blowing stuff up too? Yes I realize the Hawk has some limited armament options, but not on the level of a proper combat aircraft. In any case, I don't think the Viggen is terribly obscure. I'd heard of it before all the way over here in the USA. Didn't know anything about it other than being one of those funny looking SAABs, but I had heard of it. I can't say the same for the Hawk, C-101 or Short Tucano. The Hawk is something I should probably have heard about before given how common they are internationally, but the other two aren't common at all. The C-101 was produced in very small numbers while the Short Tucano is an obscure British clone of a Brazilian trainer with little use outside of South America.

The pic is just a quick screen grab off google maps, I didn't intend for it to be taken too literally. For the map to work, it would need at least 1 significant military airbase per country and preferably a few other smaller ones. Map dimensions and location would need to be adjusted to make that happen. That said, the gulf itself is an important feature for the tanker wars and any scenario with USN involvement. So I wouldn't want to shrink that part too much. Oh, blacklion, is the SoH map area posted somewhere? I haven't seen anything on it other than it's in progress and expected after NTTR. I assumed the dimensions on it would include Saudi Arabia but perhaps that isn't the case.

I use TIR for head position only and have zoom on a rotary. Works fine for me but I did put a dead zone on the midpoint. My rotary also has a center bump. Things you may want to try are increasing TIR sensitivity on that axis and setting a custom default head position.

Given that LNS has started making maps in addition to aircraft, I have an idea for a stand alone map after the current projects are released. The map is the northern rim of the Persian Gulf. If you look at it, it's easy to have a map with relatively little land mass, lots of water and Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia on it. This particular area was host to a lot of fighting in the Iran/Iraq War, 1991 Gulf War and 2003 Gulf War. It fits the upcoming F-14 perfectly as well as half the FC3 planes, the A-10C, Mi-8, UH-1 and most of the planned upcoming fighters such as the F-5E, Mirage 2000 and F-18. In fact, nearly every major military aircraft type built since 1970 has seen combat there. It is the map to make for reasonably modern combat aircraft. I think such a map is beyond what could reasonably be included packaged with a plane, but it's perfect as a stand alone module. I bring it up since none of the in progress maps have seen much action on them. To me, NTTR is nothing more than generic desert map 1 and SoH is more of a hypothetical Iran/Saudi Arabia war map than anything else. The northern Persian Gulf is where the wars have actually been fought, so it makes sense to develop a map based on it. Edit: Map area I'm thinking of:

You might be right. Every sim is a compromise of various aspects. DCS WW2 planes have a lot of effort put into systems modeling (sparse as they are) and a moderate amount into flight modeling. Basically none is given to damage modeling, AI and content though. I consider clickable cockpits and full systems modeling a nice thing to have, but it isn't everything to me. I view the other 4 aspects I listed as substantially more important for a WW2 aircraft since systems management does not play a role in combat (other than the engine, but everyone models that). And that's where the difference of opinion arises I think.

Meh, I just have higher standards than some people here. If you enjoy it then good for you, but I'm perfectly happy playing 3 different CFS's to get the best experience in any given time period.

Agreed, and although I have all 3 of the current DCS WW2 planes (all purchased in 70%+ sales), I never use them. DCS is not a WW2 sim, it's a 1970's onwards sim that just happens to have a few random older planes tossed in. The Fw-190D9 in DCS is nothing more than a novelty to me for learning to startup the engine. When it comes to actually flying and fighting in a 190, I play the other combat flight sim. I know I'm not alone in that.

Lies, I'm predicting DCS: Shilka.