King_Hrothgar

That's not true though. DCS is an anomaly when it comes to MP CFS's. The IL2 line from 2002 up to the present has always been mostly side restricted with frontline ground objectives. They aren't meant to be exact depictions of real battles, but are supposed to be characteristic of a real setup. RoF is the same way and so were many other CFS's over the years. DCS is an oddity. And the thing is, DCS MP can be balanced in a "realistic" way just like all the others were. As things stand at this moment, east's advantages are SEAD and an attack chopper, west's are the AIM-120 and A-10C (far better than Su-25 for general ground attack). But those things can be balanced. Target area air defenses can be setup so that the A-10's have it easier than the east does since the east has proper SEAD ability. In terms of balancing the ground attack ability outside of SEAD, the A-10C and Ka-50 balance pretty nicely as is even if they couldn't be more different. This just leaves the air to air component, which can be balanced with SAMs. The thing is, the eastern side has a far larger variety and far more effective SAMs than the west does both IRL and in game. Given the West's lack of SEAD ability in DCS, this can be used to create safe zones near the front for eastern aircraft to duck into, without harming the A-10's at their target areas. The F-15's might have better missiles, but with proper air defenses, they could be forced to fight on the Su-27's and MiG-29's terms. The ultimate goal here is asymmetric balance. If one side has better fighters, give the other better air defenses. If one side has better ground attack ability, have that side fight tougher ground targets. This setup can be extended further as gaps are filled. The problem is, this kind of mission design requires thought while going with mirror images really doesn't. The hard part of bringing this change about is convincing 104th_Maverick and others to actually put in the effort to create a series of fun, reasonably balanced and semi-realistic missions instead of simply mirror imaging stuff all the time.

The advantage of that kind of setup is reduced cost. A traditional helicopter has a staggering number of moving parts that have to work just right for the rotor system to function. The fixed blade, multi rotor designs most cheap-ish drones use (quad copters being the favorite) are far simpler and easier to produce, thus cheaper too. They are also easier to maintain as a brushless electric motor with a fixed pitch blade requires basically 0 maintenance over its lifespan. Compare that to a traditional helicopter's transmission... As for this one specifically, it's either a foolish design or made purely for marketing purposes. It's far too expensive and impractical to be commercially viable.

I come across far more new Ka-50 drivers than I do new L-39 + C-101 + Hawk + MiG-15 + F-86 + Fw-190 + Bf-109K + P-51D drivers combined. That said, MP is not necessarily representative of DCS as a whole. The vast majority of players never touch MP and of those that do, I suspect the results are skewed towards more modern combat aircraft that are competitive with the FC3 stuff. But that's just a suspicion, so tea leaves on assuming trainers and WW2 stuff are more popular than what I see in MP. In any case, the point is the Ka-50 is still sold regularly. Was it the best selling module of March 2016? Probably not, but I'd be surprised if it was in the bottom 3. :smilewink:

I think that was a reference to future live streams in general, not the Gazelle specifically. In any case, the Gazelle supposedly went into closed beta test this week. So provided there are no major problems, it shouldn't be too far off.

I would not buy an F-105. It would be an orphan plane with few period appropriate AI units. Also, you don't need to spam this request in every forum section.

It's true for all the included liveries except the Greek one, which is available to Greece and France. I don't know why they did that tbh, all skins should be available for all nations. It's the mission builders job to sort what he/she wants to use and where.

The additional skins are only available if the aircraft belongs to France in the editor. All other nations have default skin, unfortunately.

You must really love the Su-33 then, it can carry 14 missiles. Regardless, the AJS-37 is an attacker, not a fighter. In a head to head matchup, my money is on the F-5E and MiG-21Bis despite the AJS-37 being 20 years newer than either of them (it's also newer than the Su-27, MiG-29 and Mirage too). I expect nothing out of it other than a super sonic AGM-65 carrier, which would be handy on 104th and similar servers. The thrust reverser should also make for some quick land and rearmings.

I've always loved aviation. I can't exactly afford to buy every aircraft ever made, thus flight sims have been a substitute. Been at it as far back as I can remember.

HOT 2 confirmed! :prop: Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't hate me! :surrender: Seriously though, I'm sure this will never end. It's like the Ka-50 and the requests for RWR, FLIR and AA missiles. Edit: Just so there is absolutely no confusion when someone reads this, the above is a joke. I shouldn't have to write this but if I don't, someone will no doubt take it seriously. The quote is cut from a much larger statement saying there will NOT be HOT-2 for this specific version of the Gazelle. There, hopefully no one reads this the wrong way.

I'm sure the reason the limit is there is to prevent our brain dead AI from flying into buildings and the sides of mountains. I'd like to see the restriction removed too, but only if doing so actually works.

Just about every time I'm on 104th, I find myself talking to someone who just picked up the Ka-50. So no, not tea leaves.

I have all except the C-101 and Hawk. Below are my favorites: 1) Ka-50: I'm a big fan of attack choppers and you have to admit, the Ka-50 is pretty damned cool by any standard. It also has loads of content, fits perfectly into DCS as a whole and has solid flight and systems modeling. 2) MiG-21: Good flight and systems modeling, but what really makes it is just how much fun it is to fly. Content is a bit weak for it, but I mostly play MP or build my own missions anyways, so that isn't a major issue. I don't have a third favorite. I fly the UH-1, Mi-8, L-39ZA and Mirage 2000 somewhat regularly, but I wouldn't call myself much of a fan of any of them. They fill roles, but are little more than placeholders for more interesting aircraft to me.

The extent of my support for civilian aircraft in DCS is limited to aircraft that fit the maps and strengths of DCS as it exists today, not what it may or may not have 5 years from now. I think small general aviation aircraft, choppers in general and aerobatic planes fit well. With that said, these types generally aren't worth all that much to me. I can't think of a single unarmed aircraft I'd be willing to pay more than $25 for, and even $25 is really pushing it tbh. Edit: Not true Ebabil, there is another one very much alive with new stuff constantly being added. But DCS is the only one doing post WW2 military aircraft.

"the Belsimtek team is now focused on bringing DSC: F-5E Tiger II to Early Access within the next month" I took that to mean the next 30d. Either way, should be close.

mmm, F-5E coming this month hopefully.:bounce:

That's a very real possibility. This isn't a feature I've used in years tbh. I use the datalink for situational awareness, not actual targeting.

1) Press and hold the lock button, this will allow you to slew around. 2) Did the target move? Did the target die? Is your laser on? Did the person who marked the target for you have his laser on?

Q: What are the limitations on the targeting camera and laser? Do they overheat? Do they have maximum run time (similar to MiG-21's radar)? Any other issues with the targeting system we should be aware of?

My 4690 (vanilla, not overclocked) is no where near maxed for DCS on any single thread in any mission in SP or MP I've played so far. This includes DCS 2.0 with some fairly big missions (100+ infantry vs 100+ infantry + 20-30 tanks on each side + dozens of aircraft). My GPU may grind to a halt in that scenario, but the I5 4690 does just fine. So with that out of the way, this is a question of do you currently have a 4690 or not? If so, an "upgrade" really isn't worth the trouble, nevermind the $450 for CPU + Mobo + Win 10. But if you're building from scratch and need all that stuff anyways, I recommend the newer one. The price difference is trivial ($220 vs $240 for CPU), so you might as well go with the newer model. Mobo prices are about the same too as is the RAM. The RAM is where you may ultimately save some money, as that should replaced DDR3 in the next couple years. So if you do go with the newer setup, you might be able to recycle the DDR4 while the DDR3 would have to be replaced. Just so you know where I'm viewing this from, my specs are as follows: CPU: I5-4690 (not the k) GPU: GTX 770 2GB OC (current bottleneck) RAM: 16GB DDR3 PC2400 OS: Win 10

Seems the puppy did it.

The basic Ka-50 could use some love. ED does still sell copies of it fairly regularly so a graphics update (mainly in cockpit) is appropriate. Now yes, I would love a Ka-52 or Ka-50N, but those are requests for totally new modules without touching the existing Ka-50. I strongly support both ideas, but the latter is OT.

That was someone at VEAO, it struck me as a BS statistic though as it's far too big without labor and not nearly enough with. It's even more dubious given that they have yet to release a single finished module. In any case, pre-orders help new developers get a bit of cash on the final stretch, but I'm not so sure it helps established ones. This is especially true since pre-orders tend to have a discount, so they end up making less money overall but get part of it a little sooner. But I would be surprised if LNS didn't offer a pre-order option, since it is fairly standard in both DCS and the gaming industry as a whole.

The Hawk is the most common jet trainer in NATO. A modified version called the T-45 is used by the USN. The C-101 is a Spanish trainer, last time I checked, Spain was in NATO. And that multi-seat capability in MP is coming to both last I heard. When it will happen is unknown, but it was promised. Back on the topic of the A-37, I'd like it but it isn't very high on my wishlist either. It's the kind of thing I'd pick up for under $15 like I did with the F-86 and WW2 stuff. I probably wouldn't bother with a C-37 for more than $5. At the $5 mark, I'll buy just about anything with a decent FM, including FC3 type aircraft and true civilian like a Piper Cub. Incidentally, the F-117 falls into the $15 category for me. It's cool from an aviation curiosity standpoint, but it isn't something I'd fly with enough regularity to justify anything approaching full price.

Collective increases or decreases blade pitch for all blades collectively, hence the name. Cyclic can work two ways, it can change the angle of the mast (kind of unusual tbh) and/or alter the pitch of individual blades to create asymmetric lift, thus resulting in pitch/roll. Since the blades are spinning, the change in pitch is cycled through all the blades, hence the name cyclic. Regardless, I think what dimitriov is getting at is the Gazelle doesn't descend as quickly as the Ka-50 with collective decreases, so more pitch is needed to get the same result.