King_Hrothgar

I don't think the Su-35 would have an overwhelming advantage. Its main claim to fame over the Su-27SM's is thrust vectoring, a system of questionable use in combat. That said, I agree that a Su-27SM2 would likely be a better fit. All we really need is an Su-27 derivative with R-77's. That would balance the situation out fairly well in MP. An update to the MiG-29's would also help a lot. They are perfectly capable right now, but no one wants to fly them with that horrid cockpit and flight model.

Does windows game controllers properties say it is centered? Keep in mind that rudder is Z axis, not x/y (neutral for those is top left corner of box). In DCS, do you have rudder assigned to the rudder pedal axis or is it assigned to the toe brakes? I ask because mine were all messed up in DCS when I bought them. I had to clear all axis and button assignments for them. Additionally, are you flying a prop plane? Cause those require almost full right rudder on takeoff in DCS.

I wouldn't buy it.

104th has issues with the Mi-8 in a lot of missions, I'd guess about half of their scenarios don't allow the Mi-8 to rearm at the FARP it spawns at. So that's part of the problem. The other part is you need to have your cockpit open to talk to ground crew unless you use the radio properly. Beyond that it should work fine.

You forgot the Ka-50 and a few additional western birds but even so, the future is looking incredibly lopsided based on number of modules alone. In any case, I don't think we'll be waiting that long for DCS2 to be released. Seeing where they are at now, it looks like they pretty much have it done with a few odds and ends left on the NTTR map. So if you're right, maybe in a month or two we may start seeing all sorts of announcements.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/balance?s=t I don't see anything in there about turning hardcore sims into unrealistic arcade games. Everyone here except you is using "balance" to mean putting planes in of comparable era and/or performance. No one but you is suggesting making any sacrifices to realism. As for your F-22 example, the obvious answer is add something other than an F-22 to the game. You could take those same resources and build an F-16C instead. The F-16C does have comparable eastern opposition fighters that could be modeled. One is already in game (MiG-29S) and more could be added. That's the point I and many others have been trying to make. Aircraft choices should be made not only on how well they will sell, but how they will fit in with other DCS content.

I have an SSD already, but might need to clear some space for that. That's pretty big for a single map and Nevada isn't one I'm really looking forwards to that much (to me it's only a generic desert map until something better comes).

It is interesting. Given that both FC3 and the A-10A are listed, I assume he has double installs of all the FC3 planes. Thus one of the two F-15C's on there is an FC3 plane. The other one though... This does make me a bit uncomfortable in regards to BST's previously planned AH-1W and Mi-24P. Those are my two most desired upcoming modules. Hopefully they haven't shelved them in favor of other things.

Works fine on my Win8.1 desktop.

My guess is it is something to demo some new stealth mechanics. I look forwards to it but I really don't think they have DCS: F-117 hidden up their sleeve for a live stream in 2-3 weeks.

I noticed that too. I'm inclined to think it's a flight model by BST + rest by ED but there isn't any way to know without an official confirmation. On that note, I missed the initial Q&A, was anything said about the F-5E?

Stream was smooth for me. Also, thanks for taking a closer look at the craters and Hoover Dam.

An A-7 would make a nice addition. Thanks for the link.

Exactly.

Yes, because DCS doesn't have enough trainers already in development.:chair: Seriously, there is no reason to gimp one of the finest light fighters ever built by going with an overweight and underpowered trainer version The E is the obvious model to go with and I'm glad they are. It was the most produced version and saw the most combat in the most places.

If it's played for fun then it's a game. Flight sims are merely a genre of games. That said, I do come down solidly on the side of realism. In the context of a CFS such as DCS, balance is achieved via what planes are modeled. There is always a bit of leeway in what is chosen for any given scenario or period. As an example, the P-40 was in service until the end of WW2. However, most of us would not want to fight Me-262's in a P-40. Thus, we typically favor something more along the lines of Bf-109K vs Spit Mk.XIV or some similar setup. Both scenarios are equally realistic, but only one of them can be considered balanced. Balance absolutely has a place and it does not need to contradict realism. All it requires is thinking through your design decisions a little. As for what could reasonably be added to DCS, I'm sure something from Russia or China developed after 1990 could be made so long as you weren't picky about what.

I think it's been settled as a Viggen + WW2 USN or Japanese fighter.

Notice it's identical to the MiG-15 icon we already have. I think they simply recycled that icon until they have a new one for the L-39.

What are bengals? In any case, do the standard chaff/flare mix work for you? Cause they do for me. I haven't tried altering the ratios, perhaps that feature isn't supported with the ASO system.

Correct and I understand what you are trying to do with it now. In general, all you have to do in this particular sub mode is keep the inner bar lined up with the outer bars to follow the assigned route.

Use zoom/FoV. The HUD is focused at infinity, and thus no matter how close or far you are from it, everything stays the same size since infinity - 10cm = infinity still.

I think you may be thinking it's something it isn't, though I'm not sure what. What flight director does is put any activated autopilot channels into a stabilization mode. This allows for semi-manual control without the aircraft drifting all over the place constantly. Think of it as a fly by wire system, similar to what the Su-27 has in DCS. Alternatively, you could think of it as traction control on your car. It is worth pointing out that FD doesn't do anything if other AP channels are not turned on. If you have only pitch turned on with FD, then it will stabilize your pitch only. The same applies to the other channels. Generally speaking, FD is used with pitch, bank and heading channels, but not altitude. Just like traction control on a car, this will reduce maneuverability some. Separately, the HUD features a pitch ladder just like any other aircraft with a HUD that is completely independent of the AP systems. If FD is switched on, it places a bracket like thing on it and makes it centered and horizontal (relative to the HUD, not ground) whenever you trim the aircraft. This icon on the HUD is intended to tell you how the aircraft was angled when you trimmed it, nothing more. I find it of no value and ignore it entirely. This bracket appears even if FD is not operating on any AP channels.

22" 1080p by AOC.

Yes to R-77 and R-73, not sure on radar.

You forgot one: *In active service with Iran since the 1970's, making it critically important for the upcoming SoH map too. And yes, yes it can use AGM-65's. I think the very first one to roll off the assembly line could carry AGM-65A/B's.