King_Hrothgar

You've never heard of Falcon 4.0 and the million or so additions to it? It all depends on how detailed you want it to be. Aerodynamic data shouldn't be a problem for just about any US (or Russian) plane and the same applies to basic operation of systems (what button does what). If you want to accurately model an ECM jammer to spec with all its functionality, you're going to have issues though. That would have to be faked. The F-4 has also be done before in various flight sims. Given that both have been done before, I can say with absolute certainty that they can be done again in DCS. But maybe not in a way that makes developers like the guys at VEAO happy. They might have to be done as FC3 level planes or as a hybrid of advanced and simple systems management. Edit: Ninja'd.

I used twist sticks for 25+ years of flight simming and my favorite DCS bird is the Ka-50. I never felt handicapped or merely "getting by." It works just fine. I picked up a pair of CH pedals yesterday, but I don't expect it to improve my flying any in the long term. I bought them for the same reason I bought a TIR5 a couple years back, to make flight sims more enjoyable. TIR didn't magically improve my flying any more than pedals will. I know people who fly online and do fairly well using nothing but an xbox controller. So ignore those who say you need to buy a $400 TM WH + $400 special order pedals + $150 TIR5. Those are nice things to have if you have the money to blow and nothing else to spend it on. They are absolutely not required. With that said, in terms of bang for your buck, a good HOTAS like the X-52 Pro or X-55 should be first, followed by a solid head tracking option (TIR5 is top of the line currently), and then finally pedals. Once you've reached that point, you may want to go back and get a more expensive HOTAS like the WH or the non-twisty CH sticks. But I don't consider the WH an upgrade over the X-55, it's more of a lateral move. Ditto for a CH stick.

I'd love an Apache but I think BST is more likely to make that one. Cobra has also stated they aren't doing any rotary craft at this time.

Turkey! :P Seriously though, others have done detailed F-4 models. There is one that recently came out for FSX mentioned above in this thread. FSX falls a bit short of DCS standards in flight modeling, but it did button punching pretty well last time I played it. That said, I can't blame you for trying your hardest to make the US/UK governments happy. It can't be easy getting the type of access you have to real Typhoons.

Silicone grease is what I use. It's safe on both plastics and electronics (used for sealing out water typically). You can get it at any hardware store in either the electrical or plumbing section. It costs next to nothing. Silicone spray does not work (I tried it), you need actual grease.

It probably uses CPU only for the little graphics it does display. I checked CPU usage while running DCS and the profile screen closed. Came up as 0% on my system, specs in my signature.

My experience is it uses basically nothing.

I found it trivial but I wasn't new to it. Had been playing RoF for a few years at that point (along with others prior to RoF). I actually find those planes more tricky since they lack variable pitch props (over reving is a big deal) and the mixture far more finicky. If the engine is operating within acceptable parameters, why would it fail? I fly the P-51D in DCS on full manual control (ignoring constant speed prop), it isn't a problem. I actually find it rather forgiving, no mixture to worry about and a lot less sensitive to abuse than the RoF/BoS planes. I don't say these things to be a braggart, though perhaps it's coming off that way. If you play WW2 CFS's, you quickly learn to optimize the engine without a thought in combat. The same arguments here on engine management could just as easily be made for operating the radar in the FC3 F-15C. We all know it's trivial once you know how. But if you try to explain it to someone, it's going to seem way more complicated than it actually is. On a related note, I don't actually want the La-5 in DCS at this time. My biggest complaint about the whole DCS WW2 thing is that it lacks concentrated content (ground units, proper AI, AI planes and so on). Throwing in an eastern front bird isn't going to help with that.

It wouldn't be nearly as bad as you think, the base model La-5's workload is fairly typical for a fighter of the period. It has throttle, mixture, RPM (constant speed prop) and a 2-stage supercharger, cowl flaps and oil cooler. Flying it consists of setting the mixture for whatever altitude range you're at and forgetting about it. The oil cooler is set to match outside air temperature and then forgotten about. The RPM is set depending on what you're doing (90-100% for climb and combat, less for cruising for better fuel efficiency) and forgetting about it. And the supercharger is a simple 2 position lever depending on if you are above 2500m or below 2500m. That effectively leaves only the cowl flaps and throttle as the only things you'll be messing with in combat much. And the cowl flaps, given the nature of combat, will likely be simply set to full open unless you are having a top speed contest with someone.

I used in game assignments, it's probably easiest that way. I have no clue how to export and share them though (tried once, didn't work). My initial setup was basically just a copy paste of the real thing minus the mic 4 way hat and some adaption of the boat switch (used the switches on the base for it). After learning the plane, I completely trashed the real setup and rebuilt it in a more sensible manner so that the button functions were a bit less randomized (seriously, who puts lock on the stick and unlock on the throttle?). Edit: Rather than make a new post, there are some things I should add. Here is a quick reference guide on the real A-10C HOTAS: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/w/images/8/89/A-10C_HOTAS_CHART.pdf As for your question about DCS:W, the A-10C is a plane within it. That A-10C game you've been playing is in fact DCS:W. If you buy additional modules, they will add new flyable planes (or ground units in the case of combined arms). But they are all played within the same DCS:W game.

I use an X-55 and it is a very nice HOTAS. It has twist rudder on it so pedals are not required. The far more expensive Thrustmaster Warthog does not feature twist rudder and so requires rudder pedals in order to work. DCS itself will recognize any controller setup as far as I know. You could theoretically have a CH throttle, TM WH stick (you can get it without the throttle) and a set of Saitek pedals. That particular setup isn't very sensible, but DCS would handle it just fine. In regards to playing online, buying a module makes the plane flyable and adds the associated single player content. The planes themselves are always available as AI and to any player in MP who owns them. So while you may only have the free Su-25T, you can still fly you're Su-25T with players who are in Ka-50's and Su-27's. In regards to CA, I bought it for $6 in one of the previous sales and can't say I've used it much. It adds a lot of things for players to do but DCS is ultimately a combat flight sim, the land based gameplay is a bit crude.

The only planes in DCS to which this applies atm would be the MiG-15 and the F-86. All the others cannot fly high enough or are supersonic by design. On those two planes, high altitude fighting is a bit frustrating at times as you stall out trying to turn while simultaneously popping the airbrakes out trying to keep it under mach .9. A dogfight at 10km+ in either the MiG-15 or F-86 is a rather unique experience in DCS because of this.

The F-86 is a good starter plane on the study sim side. The systems are much more simple than anything on a more modern plane or chopper. And given the jet engine, you don't have to worry about things like mixture and radiator settings like you would with a prop plane. Honestly, it's a better trainer than the trainer planes currently on offer. Content for it is a little light though, it lacks a campaign and has only a few single missions. Training for it is also largely limited to what you can find on youtube. But as said, it's a simple plane. Getting it in the air and firing the weapons is all fairly straight forwards.

That F-5, F-5, F-5 pic is actually pretty old. I've seen it used in other forums too over the years. But you are right, Rudel doesn't typically post pics or at all for that matter. With the F-14 we had in your face hints that left very little doubt as to what they were hinting at. But any hints we've gotten at other aircraft seem contradictory or terribly vague. Upon further thought, I agree the F-5E (upgraded) or F-5N appear to be candidates, but there are so many others that fit the various clues too. Hopefully they release a new newsletter soon to announce the other two projects. My ideal projects would be the F-5E + MiG-23ML or MiG-25PD. They'd fit nicely with the MiG-21Bis and F-14A respectively. But I'm not sure how well they line up with the overall hints. So much points at a WW2 plane in the mix. That leaves the question of what constitutes a duck if one of the birds is an F-5. Other than the Hs-129, I can't think of any WW2 planes nicknamed ducks. And there has been absolutely nothing to suggest an Hs-129. It would also be one hell of an orphan plane if they did make it.

You can also pop open the cockpit door. They'll always here you then.

Yep, my speculatometer is confirming DCS: Saeqeh as the next DCS module. Surprise release next week!:D

I'm with Sith on this one, nothing can be read into that updated model. I think they are trying to replace all the remaining original LOMAC 3d models before the release of DCS 2. It may or may not become flyable in the near future and may or may not use that 3d model if it does. I also don't know if that is an ED model or an LNS model. I don't think they ever said. The MiG-15Bis was added as an AI plane with the Sabre I think. It later became flyable and appears to use the same extenal 3d model. So there is certainly precedent for slipping the AI model in first.

Forgot to pay did we? :D Seriously though, we all have our derp moments. Enjoy your shiny new toy :).

Do what you did to start it, except in reverse. Though if you're in a hurry, simply hit the two fuel cutoff valves on the back left of the cockpit to immediately kill the engines. It will still take a minute or so for the rotors to fully stop.

Give it a day mate. I know it's frustrating but they'll get to it when they see it. In the mean time, check your email and your purchases list if you bought it through the DCS website. The key should be in both of them. Additionally, if you download it via the module manager in DCS:W, it should automatically activate in addition to listing your key. You may have already done all of those, but it doesn't hurt to mention them.

Ok, I knew some of them were piloted by actual pilots. Didn't know they were phasing those out.

The A-10C is super easy to fly and trimming is easy too. It has a pretty good AP but I rarely use it, the plane is just so stable that it isn't needed I find. The TGP is superb as well, far superior to the camera the Ka-50 has. It can also carry a ton of ordnance but when all is said and done, the Ka-50 can actually chew through targets quicker and safer thanks to the ability to hover. The systems on the A-10C are a bit on the complicated side and making the switch from other aircraft takes some getting used to. It uses context based HOTAS controls, some of which appear to have been assigned by pulling them at random out of a hat. But it works and certainly involves lots of fiddling around with stuff. I think it's what you're looking for.

Sounds like they are reversed. But I suppose the big question is does it even matter? I always found the lights to be nothing but a pretty thing when not being used and sitting on top of my speakers. Can't say I ever looked at them while playing a game with it.

I know on the MQ-1 they can fly it manually if they wish. I don't think it is typically done given the nature of how they are used, but the option is there and I've seen interviews with MQ-1 pilots where they talk about it. It's also worth noting that the MQ-1 is not the only military drone out there. There are a number of short ranged drones that are flown purely by hand like a traditional RC airplane (with a camera + laptop screen).

I tested this a few days ago in SP. The AI MiG-21's jammed my MiG-21 with their SPS-141's but given the way the radar is programmed, hitting the anti-ECM button causes instant burn through still. I don't know if human jammer pods do anything and if they do, how effective they are.