King_Hrothgar

The movie was dumb, but it had its moments. It also helps that I don't find any of the actors in it particularly bad. My main gripe about Top Gun is Tom Cruise. The average Walking Dead zombie extra is a better actor than him. I can't help but cringe at just about everything he spouts on screen regardless of the movie.

As already mentioned, your computer is woefully below the minimum spec for this game. Your biggest problem is the graphics card. I had a very similar processor before my current system and with an equally old Radeon 6850, I managed 20-30 fps except at a few particularly sluggish airfields where it was under 10. Assuming an entirely new machine is out of the question, I recommend a real graphics card. The GTX 770 2GB I use is a good budget minded card. Your CPU will be a bottleneck, but it should allow you to get by with playable framerates. I can't say from experience, but the Radeon 270x is allegedly pretty decent on the budget side too.

I watched firebirds last night, typical 80's to early '90's action flick. I thought it was ok though. And yeah, I think Cobra said the next update would be mid April. So maybe sometime this week.

As the two aircraft are modeled in game, I find them dead even. The MiG-15 will out accelerate and out climb the Sabre easily. The Sabre can flat out run and out dive it just as easily thanks to a higher critical mach number. Both are capable of running into issues with transonic flight in level flight at any typical multiplayer altitude (0 to 10km). When it comes to turn fighting, I find the two equal but there is a catch. The catch is the MiG-15 is easy to fly at its limits. It has gentle stall characteristics and lots of warning. The F-86 is the opposite. It has little warning and will quickly drop a wing. Any hesitation on recovery is likely to result in a tumble. Although it is still fairly easy to recover, the energy and position lost in the process will instantly reverse the situation from attacking the enemy to defending. Given how even the aircraft are, it is very difficult to regain the initiative. At this point the best course of action is to dive to the deck (assuming you aren't already there) and power away. As long as you are flying above mach 0.9, the MiG-15 cannot touch you except in a head on attack. Another note on turn fighting is flaps. I've noticed many DCS players shun the use of combat flaps in combat. Don't fall into that trap. If you are flying slow enough to use them, use them. Use everything you have to your advantage. These two planes are perfectly matched in an asymmetric manner. If you do not fly your plane better than the other guy flies his, he will get you. And don't forget, mach 0.9 and above is your get out of jail free card. If you've lost position, dive away. It helps to also understand the perspective of the MiG driver, so below are tactics for them. In the MiG-15, use your thrust and gentle handling to your advantage. Most DCS pilots are accustomed to missile jousting with FC3 planes, not WW2 style dogfighting. This likely applies to you too. The MiG-15 is a plane you can toss around without a care in the world much like an F-15 or Su-27. The Sabre can be tossed around just as hard, but only by a skilled pilot. The average pilot will go tumbling out of the sky if they try to follow you. It's also important to keep an eye on your speed. Anything above mach 0.8 is going to seriously harm your agility, so keep the speeds below that if you can. Given that sabres can dive away at will, it's best to force a descending, low speed turn fight if you can. This removes their ability to quickly dive away. They can still flat out run you, but if you're right on top of them, they likely won't be able to get away in time. If the sabre gains the upper hand on you, use your acceleration and climb rate to throw them off. If it's a low speed fight, throw them off a firing position however you can and then power away in a climb. They can't follow but as with the sabre's top speed powering away, you do need a little room. If they are breathing down your neck, you can't get away in time. If they are breathing down your neck, you do have an option to force an overshoot. The Sabre stalls at a much higher speed than the MiG-15, dumping power, popping out the airbrakes and flaps while pulling up is a sure fire way to have them either over shoot, tumble out of the sky or run into you. Hopefully the last doesn't happen but that depends on them mostly. A snap roll at the last moment might get you out of the way if it looks like they are going that route. But it does leave a bit to chance. Once they are off, use your acceleration to get some distance and then climb away.

Thank the gods. I suddenly have the desire to watch that movie though, never seen it or heard of it before. I have a feeling I'm going to regret it.:helpsmilie: I'm mostly with you on that. I'm not attached to any particular nation's planes but I think it would be a mistake for LNS to do three US planes in a row. I much prefer the alternating approach BST does. It gives something for everyone and keeps things interesting.

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.