King_Hrothgar

I recommend a little bit of dead zone on all axis. Even on my fairly new Saitek X-55, I still have a 2% dead zone on all the axis just so that my plane isn't constantly rolling/pitching from me resting my hand on the stick. In regards to dogfighting an A-10, you have two things working against you. First of all, the A-10 is substantially more agile in game. You simply cannot out turn him. The Su-25T is faster though and climbs a little better, so going for a higher speed fight instead of a turn fight is definitely the way to go. The other issue is the missiles. Both the Su-25 and A-10 have cold engines compared to a fighter. Because of that, the IR guided missiles tend to struggle in locking them except from behind at relatively close range. The AI does cheat and so they can get a missile lock even when a player flying the same plane cannot. Helicopters are even harder to get an IR lock on. Generally speaking, your cannon, regardless of which plane you're flying, is going to be your best bet against those.

Then it is not a Short Tucano, it's an EMB 212. :P Either way, the EMB 214 was suggested, not the EMB 212. The point is they are not the same aircraft and so Sukoi25 wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes by making it.

The JF-17 would be my top pick as a full DCS plane as it would be the most competitive with current and planned DCS offerings. Tied with that choice but not offered is the J-10. Both would be day 1 buys from me at the regular module price.

Which is only relevant if the intended victim is bumping the launch rail of the attacker. In all other cases, it's whether or not the missile can reach the intended target before the target's energy exceeds the missile's energy. A fighter going mach 3 at 20km has an awful lot of energy, even when compared to a fighter doing mach 2.2 at 15km. A missile fired by that lower and slower fighter is going to have a very hard time reaching the higher energy target in anything but a head on attack. The faster plane also has the option of avoiding the fight entirely if they wish. Being able to pick your fights is a hell of an advantage to have even if your plane comes up short in all other ways.

They would like to do a Short Tucano at some unannounced point in the future, not the Super Tucano. The Short Tucano is an unarmed British clone of the EMB 312 trainer. The A-29 (EMB 314) is a modern attack plane based on the older EMB 312 airframe. It's similar to how the F-5 evolved from the older T-38.

Not trying to derail the thread, just stating why I think a COIN aircraft would be a better pick. I'm sure those would have broader appeal too as Cessna 172's have been done to death. In any case, some COIN planes I'd be interested in include (in order of preference): 1) A-29A Super Tacano 2) AT-802U 3) Yak-130 (trainer/COIN) 4) A-37 Dragonfly 5) A-1 Skyraider I favor the more modern types due to survivability improvements. We all know the AI gunners in DCS are a little too accurate, so guided weapons are a major bonus. Unfortunately that does mean working with glass cockpits. I don't know too much about any of these particular aircraft, so the glass cockpit may or may not increase development difficulty.

My view is if it can't carry guns, bombs, rockets or missiles, then it doesn't belong in DCS. Beyond that I'm fairly open but I do think additions should complement current DCS offerings rather than go the orphan plane route (in terms of both air and surface friends/opponents). So no, I don't think a Cessna 172 has any place in DCS. Those types of planes fall firmly into the realm of FSX, P3D and XPlane. But I do think an AT-802U or A-29 would fit in just fine. I'm not saying I'd buy them, only that they fit.

I'm pleased with the Saitek X-55 I bought back in January. It has enough buttons on it for everything important and durability seems just fine. My previous stick was an X-52 Pro that I used for about 8 years. It still works but I wanted more buttons. If you're considering pedals, another good option is a full CH setup. It will run you about $350 total but $120 of that is the pedals you're thinking about anyways. CH sticks do not have a rudder axis, so pedals are required for them. All the Saitek sticks I know of have twist rudder and thus don't require pedals. There aren't any other options in that price range that I know of. VKB and the TM Warthog are far beyond that.

They've been officially developing planes for DCS for 3 years and have yet to release anything. Given that, it seems unlikely they'd suddenly release 3-4 planes in the next 2 years.

That's the intercom static sound. Why it's playing once you lift off is a mystery to me.

He made no mention of the A-10, he could just as easily be talking about a UH-1H. In any case, I agree that DCS needs an update to the damage modeling, including pilot injuries. I also agree that DCS should give the various air to air missiles another look and do something about the omniscient AI. The latter bit isn't critical to the NTTR map or SoH, but at some point a new non-desert map will be added and it will come up. I don't think any of these features are necessary for an initial release of DCS2, but they should be fairly high priorities going forwards.

That requires a fairly broad definition of modern to hold true. But in any case, he didn't specify modern aircraft and the H-19 is most definitely not modern unless you consider an F-86 a modern fighter and a 1950's Ford Mainline a modern car. Regardless, I still think it's nothing.

Try turning the intercom off, sometimes it catches a case of stupid and sends static endlessly.

My guess is trolling, new AI aircraft or a map sector of something interesting.

You've asked a very complicated question, one so complicated it can't be answered in anything less than a few hundred posts. However, to start it helps by knowing what kinds of turns there are. In general, we can break them down into the following categories: 1) Maximum sustained turn rate: This is measured in degrees per second and is the fastest you can turn the aircraft without losing energy (altitude + speed). 2) Maximum turn rate: This is the absolute fastest rate at which the aircraft can turn in degrees per second without ripping itself apart or departing controlled flight. By its very nature, it is not sustainable as energy is expended rapidly to perform it. It is worth noting that it looks at the turn rate of the aircraft's velocity vector rather than the position the nose is pointed. Nose pointing ability is something else entirely. 3) Maximum G load: Once going fast enough, aircraft hit their G limits before their aerodynamic limits. Generally speaking, this is 9G for a jet fighter. 4) Minimum turn radius: This is the smallest radius a plane can perform a turn in. Generally speaking, this is a very low speed turn that comes no where near the max G load or maximum turn rate. It really only comes into play when fighting near stall speed. 5) Maximum angle of attack (AoA): This is the ability of an aircraft to be flying one direction with its nose pointed elsewhere. Most fighters max out at around 20-30 degrees, but some can do far more, even going so far as to fly backwards (I use the word flying loosely here, really they are just falling while still in control).

Source: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2426446#post2426446 Nothing regarding development has been said beyond that that I know of.

Agreed, best not to get too far ahead.

That isn't anything new. The Ka-50 does that bouncing nonsense in DCS 1 whenever it lands without its landing gear. At least it eventually stopped in the stream. My last Ka-50 belly landing had me bouncing until the ground crew repaired it 4 minutes later.:D

That's why I'm nuking them along with you.

I'd be on final approach on the opposite end of the map after blowing you and the airfield up before you finished getting your CDU aligned.:D

The kitties be flying a MiG-21 with RN-28 though.

Obviously the Ka-50 since it looks the coolest. On a related note, hamburgers are the best food in the world and cats are better than dogs.

I think they'd have to be differentiated. Let's say someone has both versions, that person may want to fly the FC3 version for some reason instead of the DCS version. Unless you're going to start handing out refunds for stuff you sold years ago, you can't remove the ability to use what someone has already paid for. Thus some ability for the player to dictate if they fly the FC3 version or the DCS version must be included. The simplest way to do so is to differentiate them in the mission editor. Thus an obvious solution is as follows: FC3 F-15C remains "F-15C" and the DCS: F-15C is named "F-15C MSIP" since that is presumably the specific variant. Splitting them like this means that MP missions can specify which is used.

If you're going the modding route, you can also carry 24x Vikhrs. 24 of the little buggers is an awful lot of tank busting power, even if the individual missiles aren't anything special. And yes it works just fine. You have to point the chopper's nose at the target prior to launching, but that's really not an issue. Edit: I should stick 8x R-60's on it one of these days. Could have some fun with that. :D

Once again, that's where mission builders come in. The mission builder can create an historic mission, realistic mission or a balanced mission. That should be left up to them, not a DCS developer. It is the developer's job to give them the tools, not dictate how they are used. It's also worth noting that even among historic minded mission builders, some fudging will have to be done since DCS can't possibly model every plane in every model. Hence LNS's upcoming F-14A (1980's model) will have to work as a stand in for the 1970's F-14A's used by Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Similarly, a MiG-23MLD would be a reasonable approximation of a MiG-23ML used by Iraq and makes even more sense given the F-14 situation. It isn't perfect, but it works. Incidentally, this isn't a very balanced scenario looking only at those two planes. I fall in on the historic side of things and let the chips fall where they may. But I also favor historic scenarios that were reasonably balanced to begin with, which the Iran/Iraq war certainly was. And that does mean adding reasonably balanced planes, such as F-5E vs MiG-21Bis, F-4E vs MiG-23MS and F-14A (1970's) vs MiG-23ML. The F-15C in DCS is from the 1990's. How do I know? It has AIM-120's (entered service 1991). Our Su-27 is from 1985 and the AI only Su-30 is from 1996. It's also worth noting that the Su-30 in DCS is a trainer, it doesn't have anything the basic Su-27 doesn't have except a second guy in it (meaningless to AI). I don't think you'll find many people agreeing that an F-5 is as good as a MiG-29 or Su-27, not even a heavily upgraded one with AIM-120's. It was considered a better turn fighter than the MiG-21 in it's day and that's about it. And I happen to be a pretty big fan of the F-5E, but I'm also not wearing any rose colored glasses. But to directly answer your question, the obvious answer is the MiG-31. It was mass produced in the 1980's and remains in widespread Russian service. It isn't directly comparable to anything in the west, but as a pure air to air heavy fighter, it can be lumped in with the Su-27 and F-15C. In the case of Russia lagging behind, that is only partially true. Their standard gear still dates from the 1980's I think, but they've kept upgrading a few dozen aircraft every few years up to the present. It's also worth noting that the MiG-31 is probably the best plane they have in the hundreds and it isn't flyable in DCS. They've also offered numerous upgrade kits to existing aircraft, such as the MiG-21-97 which adds modern radar, RWR and missiles to the MiG-21. Upgrades like this have been fairly popular in many smaller airforces. You might find this hard to believe, but I think a MiG-21-97 might be fairly balanced with the upcoming F-18C in the air to air role. Oh, and yeah a moderator should probably break this off into it's own thread. This has gone way off track but it is a worthwhile discussion on its own.