King_Hrothgar

Appropriate MiG-21Bis opponents include F-4E, F-5E, Mirage III, F-15A, F-16A, AV-8A, AV-8B, F-14A and other lesser known designs. Of those, three are currently AI only. The F-15A and F-16A can be faked by restrictive armament settings. For player aircraft, only the F-14A and Mirage III appear to be in the works. The F-14A seems likely to be released within 1 year. The timeline for the Mirage III is harder to judge.

I prefer my cake un-iced and steaming hot though.

Fighterstick by far. That said, you won't be using the wheels on it for zoom. Zoom is used in combat to ID targets due to poor monitor resolution/size compared to the human eye. The whole point of a HOTAS is to not take a hand off the stick or throttle while in combat. You will most likely end up assigning zoom to a pair of buttons instead.

The advice from above posters is solid, but I'll add to it. One thing you should always try to do is to keep your eyes outside the cockpit. Never get fixated on the targeting camera or instruments. Given the single seat nature of the Ka-50, you are your own spotter. Spotting threats is first, shooting them is always second. To assist in that, map the HMS to your HOTAS or an easy to reach keyboard command. Use the HMS to get a rough lock on a target, only using the camera for fine tuning prior to launch. Also, don't get too mixed up with the AP. The AP is there to help you, not hinder you. Route following is great for reaching the target area, but once there I strongly suggest switching to FD mode. This is almost manual control, featuring only some dampeners to smooth things out. In this mode, I use what I call drift hovering. It's not a true hover, instead I trim for a hover and then drift about at 20-50km/h. This method accomplishes two things. First, you aren't completely still and thus a harder target to hit. And second, all it takes to dodge a threat is a quick flick of the stick. You don't have to worry about shutting off the AP or fighting it. You are ready to go at near max agility already. When it comes to engaging itself, always go for the longest range you can. As others have stated, the Ka-50 is an excellent aerial sniper. You can launch a Vikhr at lighlty armored targets (such as Shilka's) at up to 9km from a hover. You must override the system to do this, but it works fine. For heavy armor, try to fire from 5.5-7km. Within this range bracket, just about anything will be a 1 shot kill (M1 Abrams frontal armor being the exception). Do not come any closer than 5km unless all tanks and IFV's are destroyed. Once all tanks, IFV's, SAMs (excluding manpads) and radar assisted AAA are dispatched, you can close to 3.5-4km for some cannon sniping against light armor and soft targets. Among those targets are manpads and those little AAA trucks and emplacements. Once again, I suggest the drifting method I described above. You don't want to be moving quickly as this will throw off your aim. But you must also be ready to evade a manpad in an instant. On that note, pop a pair of flares every few seconds when at these closer ranges. Do so even if you don't see any launches. You have tons of flares, you won't see every missile fired. So just assume someone is trying to launch one at you at all times. Also, manpads will often lock onto the flare instead of you before they even launch. It's always funny watching them fly at a flare you fired 5s ago. Oh, one last thing about survivability. In the campaign missions it is helpful to stay over friendly lines when attacking. Obviously your guys aren't going to shoot you, so you need not worry about ground fire. They will also attack any enemy aircraft that come into their range. They may not shoot them down, but a whole bunch of friendly tracers flying up into the air is a pretty good warning system.

If using the HMS, the cage/uncage key is used to slew the camera to where you are looking. It isn't accurate enough to aim, but it's a quick way to get the brackets near the target before fine tuning your aim with the slew hat. My general approach to attacking is as follows: 1) HMS on 2) Cage/uncage 3) HMS off 4) Fine tune aim with slew 5) Lock 6) Fire If targets are clustered, I skip the 3 HMS steps for rough aiming. If the targets are widely spaced, I'll start over at step 1. I'm able to attack targets rapidly using this technique. Once done with the targets or repositioning, I'll reset the system. This turns the camera off and returns the HUD to navigation mode. I use reset so often it is mapped to my joystick along with the HMS and normal lock button.

It does limit the list but the list is still far greater than we can reasonably expect to be developed. I see no reason to add prototypes and limited use planes before we have a good assortment of mainstays. If we ever reach a point where we start running short on planes that have seen combat, then by all means, bring on the ones that haven't. :)

Hmm, I could have sworn they said they were using a scaling system. Either way, they did something right.

My vote for these types of planes has always been something that's seen action, is relatively common and preferably interesting too. The Harrier and entire Mirage line meet those requirements. The SAAB planes are interesting, but as far as I know they've never seen combat.

Probable power use issue. Make sure it is on a powered USB and the only thing plugged into it. I'm serious. The first time I plugged my X-55 throttle in my entire PC blinked off. It drew that much power off the back panel. After a bit of shuffling around between the back panel and a separately powered front panel, everything works flawlessly. I know the issue you have sounds like a software issue and it may very well be. But the first thing you should do is what I described above. Nearly all confirmed issues, no matter how strange, have originated with power use.

Mmm, you seem to be missing a Vietnam bird in there. You should add DCS: A-1 Skyraider or DCS: A-6 Intruder to your wish list. I hope the latter is added soon-ish. Iconic bird that saw tons of combat. Also has SEAD ability. :) As for flight modeling, I once saw someone on the forums here describe it perfectly. Can't remember who or the exact quote, but the basic idea was: in DCS WW2 props want to be jets and in BoS WW2 props want to be biplanes.

For me, 1970's to present is what I'm most interested in for DCS. As others have said, RoF covers WW1 nicely and WW2 has been done to death. Even if you still hunger for more WW2, you have several options, all of them with better spotting, flight and damage modeling than DCS. I love all periods of military aviation. So I'm really itching for things I've never seen before, like a high fidelity MiG-23/25/29, F-4 and F-5. And that's ignoring those we already have or are confirmed as being in progress.

Yes and no. The F4U comparison was an exaggeration yes. But it also isn't what you and others are making it out to be. Whether an engine is mounted on the wingtip or centerline has absolutely zero impact on complexity from a programming standpoint. The physics of it must be calculated either way and the equations are identical. Some values within them change, but the process does not. Unless you enjoy making your life needlessly difficult, you'd write a program to perform all calculations for you (that aren't done live in game). These can then be repeated any number of times for however many engines are present. So no, not quite copy paste but not massively more difficult either. It's a question of iteration, not complexity. LNS mentioned in a newsletter that they developed precisely this type of system after the MiG-21 to make FM prototyping faster. In any case, I think there is agreement it isn't going to be a horribly complex plane like a Tu-95. It will be something relatively simple, likely making use of assets used in either the MiG-21 or the other two new projects.

The problem with something like a Tu-95 is all the 3d modeling that would have to be done. I don't think there is a lick of difference from a FM programming standpoint between a Tu-95 and an F4U, but there is a massive difference in terms of all that cockpit art that has to be made. Given their other 3d modeling projects (AI units, maps), I don't think that's something they'd want to get bogged down on at this time. I'm betting a single seater or a heavily duplicated (or spartan) 2 seater. The A-7 is an interesting option. Hell, it even fits a lot of the old F-14 clues as to what's next. It's a plane you'd expect the USMC to have flown yet never did and may have one or two engines. :P But it does fall short on the something for everyone category. As I've said numerous times, three USN planes in a row is most definitely not something for everyone even if they are spread across periods and roles.

Not yet anyways, planned for MiG-31BM upgrade. Regardless, the MiG-25PD is my top pick among the reasonable planes to add. Don't know why the PDSL is listed, only a single PDSL was made and the difference is the addition of ECM. ECM isn't terribly relevant to a plane that can evade just about any missile by simply switching the AB on.

I used a Saitek X-52 Pro for 8+ years without once touching Saitek's programming software. I normally didn't even have it installed, simply used windows default drivers. Never had an issue. Going with this approach, assignments are made in game and yes, you can leave the stick disconnected. The throttle alone works just fine. Obviously you only get one function per physical button/axis this way. So no tripling things up.

Don't think so. The game was made to be rendered at a certain FoV. If you expand beyond the intended FoV, you will get the fisheye effect. It is present in all games that allow heavy zooming out. Standard FoV for most FPS's is 75 degrees as that displays best on a standard single monitor. DCS seems to use a similar setting.

Interesting. The most important detail I see in there is that the actual range (relative to ground) is about 160km with a speed still over mach 1. Maybe it's just me, but that's the only distance I actually care about and it seems to be a shockingly difficult range to find in original source material. They always list engagement profiles but never seem to give a pure range with x velocity at y altitude chart.

It's an amazingly good looking cockpit even without textures. I have obvious performance concerns about it but if it works as well as the current MiG-21 does, then you've raised the bar yet again.

Try closing the HUD software and using in game assignments for an hour or two on a single plane. This is just to see if the problem is in the HUD software or more basic. The X-55 has more than enough physical buttons for anything in game, even the A-10C if you skip some of the ancillary stuff.

How many planes has the USA deployed against Russia to defend Ukraine? As for Chinese aggression, have they actually attacked any neighbors yet? Or are they just flying about over international waters? I suggest paying less attention to the propaganda. The simple fact is the only thing Russia, China or the USA cares about is whether or not the other guy has nukes and the means of delivering them. If the answer is yes, everyone plays within certain boundaries. Edit: should probably put this back on track. I think the F-14 will fair reasonably well in a dogfight. The poor roll rate may be an issue at times but overall I don't think it will be a problem. The DCS AI is far too stupid to take advantage of that weakness and players are generally so inept at dogfighting that it won't be an issue there either. Not that DCS encourages dogfighting, plane visibility is rather problematic and no one turns on icons. So anything beyond a simple flat turn is basically impossible atm, which the F-14 should do fairly well.

Actually, that would be a very practical thing to do. F-22's and F-35's serve no purpose in the USAF/USMC/USN. They were built to fight the Russians and Chinese, countries the USA will not go to war with in the next 20-30 years. Against the countries we will fight, some modernized F-5's (F-20 would be a good pick) are more than sufficient. And don't forget what Stalin said, "quantity is a quality all of its own." Between our vast numerical advantage, better training and better support (such as AWACs and satellites), a near 0 loss victory against any nation other than Russia or China would still be assured in the air.

This one The only F-14's to see significant combat! Excuse me while I run into this bunker over here.

Not really. Plastic can be cheap or nice. There is the CH products cheap plastic that both feels and looks like it was made by Fischer Price and then there is the X-55 which has a nicer plastic grip than a high end handgun. Not all plastic is created equal.:smilewink: Note, I'm not knocking CH products. They make first rate equipment that puts both Thrustmaster and Saitek to shame in terms of longevity. But that doesn't change how it looks and feels. In any case, I haven't had any issues with mine. It seems well built and has plenty of buttons on it. The only plane that it runs short on is with the A-10C, but you have to admit that thing requires 2-3x as many buttons for any given thing as it ought to. Even so, I've managed to get everything I actually need on it. I only use the keyboard for things like flaps and gear and this is with a single mode assigned in game. I don't use the Saitek software and thus don't have 3 different modes on it. Most of the switches on the throttle base are unassigned btw. The things that aren't assigned are those that I couldn't figure out what they did.

To me the F-14 is just another plane. There is nothing even remotely special about it. Thus it's competing for my cash with every other DCS plane that may be released in the same time period as well as other CFS's and even totally unrelated games. I am certainly not alone in that. The higher the price, the fewer people will buy it. It's that simple and LNS knows it. Cobra has stated very clearly they aren't going to break from DCS pricing conventions. If you really want to pay $500 for it, no one is stopping you. Buy 10 copies and there is your $500 F-14 module. I'll consider paying $50 for it, but may wait for a sale if other more interesting planes/games are released in the first few months after release. And to the person who spends $100 at the movies, I don't think I've ever spent more than $30 and that was for 2 people + a medium pizza + drinks. And that record setting price was only a few weeks ago, on a Saturday.

The X-55 uses Hall sensors for the stick and pots for the throttle and rotaries, just like the warthog. Accuracy is not an issue with the X-55 or X-52. Both are high end sticks. In any case, I replaced my 8+ year old X-52 Pro with an X-55 a couple months ago and haven't had any real issues with it. It's accurate and is made of high quality plastic with a nice feel to it. I will say it doesn't feel like a cougar or warthog. Those have extremely heavy springs on them, the X-55 is sprung more like a regular PC joystick. A lot of WH users dislike the feel of it for that reason and I've heard stories of a few hamfisted users actually breaking it, though that seems unlikely without deliberately trying. In terms of longevity, my old X-52 Pro still works fine after 8+ years of heavy use. I can't comment on the longevity of the X-55 but I haven't had any issues so far. With all that said, there are two common problems with it that pop up. One is power usage. It uses too much power for the average back panel USB. You will probably need a powered USB hub for it to work properly. Common issues due to a lack of power are ghost button presses, losing calibration and in my case, the entire computer switching off when I plugged it in the first time. The other common problem is the stick tends to come without lubrication, thus it is sticky. The WH has the same issue of course, as does pretty much any other joystick. It is easier to lube the X-55 with a little silicone grease than most, so not a big deal imho. Overall I'm very happy with my X-55 and would recommend it to anyone. But coming from a metal stick with an absurdly heavy spring, it may not be for you. I'd recommend checking one out at a store to see if you like the feel first. It comes with 4 springs, the default being the heaviest. Most I've talked to prefer the lightest spring and I do too.