King_Hrothgar

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.

The F-5E is very high on my wishlist, it's #1 for western fixed wing and I'd like it far more than the F-14. That said, it doesn't really fit any of the clues given out by LNS. It would be a relatively simple plane to make though and it has seen a ton of action around the world. It would fit anything from Vietnam to Iran/Iraq to present day training at NTTR. That said, the F-5E is already in game as an AI and the updated model for it was first shown months ago. I don't think there is any reason to think LNS is working on it atm in a serious capacity.

Not on an MQ-1 Predator.

Why would they? FFB is a gamey thing designed to make gamers feel more immersed. It doesn't enhance the drone or pilot's capability in any way. Edit: This thread diverged fast. So yeah, the coaxial design is inherently much more stable than a traditional rotor/tail rotor setup. This is thanks to a wonderful little thing called symmetry. On a purely theoretical basis, if the two rotors were mounted directly above the CG while perfectly level, then the pilot could adjust the collective between the two limits without altering the aircraft's trim at all. This isn't the case on our Ka-50 but it could have been setup that way. A traditional helicopter design is sort of like flying a plane with an engine on the right wing and one facing sideways on the tail. Not the most intuitive thing.

I'm using a Saitek X-55, the throttle and stick are considered two separate devices. My center TIR button on the stick (button 2) doesn't conflict with anything, certainly not button 2 on the throttle. That said, I use in game assignments rather than the HUD software. Shouldn't make a difference but maybe it does. TIR has supported this feature since at least 2012, that's when I finally made the switch and it worked from day 1.

FC3 does not add or remove anything for the Ka-50. It includes several aircraft, each with their own campaigns. All modules plug into the core DCS game and can be flown together in multiplayer. You do not need FC3 to fly the Ka-50 in MP that has other players in FC3 planes but you won't be able to fly any plane you do not own even if the server has those planes available. Edit: BS1 vs BS2 is a good point, but given that you joined the forum this month and that was your first post, I assume you are totally new and so using BS2.

Oh I think we're all guilty of loading the A-10's at 150% max gross weight at some point or another. I mean, why wouldn't you want 6x mavs, 6x GBU-12's, 6x Mk.82's, 2x CBU-97's, TGP and 4x sidewinders? We all want to win the war in one sortie solo right? :P Seriously though, this is just to verify that the loadout matches what the actual hardpoints can fit. Thus the infamous 24x Vikhr Ka-50 will be no more in MP. Though I've only come across one of those once. And yes, the 24x Vikhr setup works just fine. I tried it in SP a few times.

Don't forget the targeting circle must randomly float around for 30 seconds to get missile lock from 50m behind a plane flying straight and level.

Glad to see I'm not the only one. I find it amazing that there is anyone who would actually want a T-2 over a Harrier or a T-38 over an F-5 (saw that post a day or two ago) in DCS. In any case, I suspect the carrier update is a very long ways off. I'd be surprised if we saw any movement on that before 2017. This should be released long before then.

If I understand you correctly, you want to know how to get the most performance out of your plane. This is something that comes in a couple forms. The first part is knowing the airframe limits. For the MiG-21Bis in DCS at this time, you can safely do 1350km/h IAS at any altitude before you stall or blow the engine. IAS decreases relative to TAS as altitude increases. So at 10km, that 1350km/h IAS is close to 2300km/h TAS (Mach 2.2). For G's, you probably already know the limits of when various types of ordnance fall off. You should also already know that DCS doesn't model structural damage for most planes, the MiG-21 included. The next step is knowing how to maneuver efficiently, and I suspect that's what you're really asking about. This is something no one can adequately explain on the forums here. There is an awful lot of finesse in a dogfight. Simply yanking the stick into your gut isn't going to get you anywhere but low, slow and dead, even in a manned missile like the MiG-21. For this bit, I recommend finding someone who is skilled in the type you are training on and do a little game of follow the leader. It's amazing what you can learn from a master by simply trying to keep up with them. And they can help you along the way via voice comms as they spot your mistakes. As for theory, there is a lot. To get started, you need to know about energy. If you already know about potential and kinetic energy, then you need not read further in this post. If you are not familiar with it however, then it goes like this: Altitude = Potential Energy (PE) Indicated Air Speed (IAS) = Kinetic Energy (KE) Total Energy E = KE + PE In order to maneuver efficiently, you must always try to keep your E as high as possible. Ideally, you want to always have a substantial E advantage over your opponent. This applies in any sort of WVR engagement but does not necessarily apply to long/medium range missile jousting (there are other concerns). In any case, in a WVR fight, an energy advantage grants you options. My own rule for air combat is never dump the airbrake and never back off the throttle. If I'm going to overshoot, I pull up over the top of them to convert my KE into PE and then dive back down as I fall back behind them. In doing so, I am able to give myself the ability to power away at will while denying them the ability to fire. This type of dogfighting is known as energy fighting. A subcategory of it is boom and zoom (B&Z), which you probably heard of in your old IL2 days. It's where I first mastered it. Most think of this in the context of WW2, but it works just as well with WW1 birds in RoF (it was invented in WW1 btw), Korea and even modern jets. Edit: I do actually pop the airbrakes and reduce throttle at times. I shouldn't say never. But those situations are generally when things are terribly one sided and a quick snap shot doesn't carry any risk.

Well they didn't have a South American plane wishlist thread, so US is the best match. :P In any case, it's a cool plane. Not high on my wishlist but still interesting. And I think the US military does use them in a limited capacity.

Ah, was hidden under nesting. Thanks.

I looked that link over several times, I see nothing but 2 Mirage 2000C screenshots and some encouraging comments. Looking over their facebook page in general didn't yield any Harrier hints. With that said, a Harrier would be cool. I'd still prefer an F-5E or F-4E, but the AV-8B would certainly offer a unique experience.

It doesn't take that long. More like 30s. But yeah, my guess is you are forgetting to turn the INU on or the main nav power switch on the right side panel.

Cool. Startup doesn't seem to bad and neither does launching an AIM-54. That is assuming it's accurate of course. As for cat launches, that's something ED is working on, not LNS. Our F-14 will likely be purely land based for a year or two after release while we await ED's F/A-18C with revised carriers.

Hop on 104th server, it's typically the most populated and though theoretically a versus server, the ground attack element is mostly a coop type mission. It has tons of A-10 and Ka-50 drivers on there at all times of the day/night. Most are happy to help with tactics and more advanced features such as ID numbers, datalinks and countermeasures. Just be sure you can start the thing up and do at least some form of attack on your own, even if it's just mavericks and dumb bombs/rockets. Most of the people on there are fairly regular too, so although it isn't an official squad, if you turn up each night for an hour or two, you'll quickly get to know a few people there.

There are sales for both steam and here at the DCS store. Generally speaking, there is a 70% off flash sale for 1-2 days each month and a longer week long sale every 2-3 months on the DCS site. I don't know how often steam sales come up.

I find the opposite to be true. Systems complexity can be measured by the raw number of buttons required to perform a given task and how intuitive they are. The MiG-21 and A-10C require about the same number of physical buttons to perform all combat related tasks (weapon selection, shooting, sensor operation, trim and even flaps/airbrakes). Yet it took me about 15 minutes to learn the MiG-21 systems and closer to 12+ hours for the A-10C, and I still don't know it all. Why? Most of the buttons in the A-10C have more than one function. The function is based on what MFD/HUD is active, what mode you're in and numerous other things. In the MiG-21Bis, each button does one and only one thing. It will always do that thing no matter what mode your radar is in, what mode your weapons are in and so on. It's so much simpler. I don't know much about the operation of the F-14 from a systems standpoint. But looking at the cockpit and controls, it looks more like a Ka-50 or MiG-21 than the A-10C. It appears that each button/switch does one and only one thing. That should make it fairly easy to learn and map to a HOTAS/keyboard. I don't know how difficult it will be to pilot, but that part has never been an issue for me. To me a plane is a plane, even if it's a chopper, a 747, a supersonic fighter or a WW1 biplane.

I mostly want to know what the other two planes are. A few screenshots of them would be nice as would some details, but a simple one sentence announcement of what they are would be enough for now.

I don't think it will be anything special tbh but I'm looking forwards to it. It isn't like there are a lot of other options for a full DCS level modern jet fighter.

IR radiation in any amount that falls short of melting your face is not harmful to human eyes or any other tissue.