King_Hrothgar

Not sure about you, but if both my engines die, a temporary HUD failure to go with it wouldn't be terribly high on my list of concerns.:joystick:

Thanks for update, really looking forwards to it all. :)

Just a random video of a Syrian Gazelle blowing stuff up. Thinking of which, a Syrian skin would be nice, as would an Iraqi one.

Doesn't matter, that's what that big glass bubble around you is for. It tells you speed, altitude, heading, time of day and much more!

The above is irrelevant tbh. What's important is whether or not an object is displayed on the screen and what it looks like when it is. We've had these imposters for a few months now and I don't think they address the root problem. The real problem is the LoDs have a certain cutoff range at which point nothing at all is rendered regardless of whether or not it should still be visible. Very clear examples of this include outposts and large warships. These big objects can go from having an area of 50+ pixels to 0 pixels simply by moving the camera 1 extra meter away. That's the problem and the imposters in their current form make no attempt to address that. They aren't rendered close enough to avoid the pop in/out for most objects and instead are used at extreme ranges that the objects really shouldn't be visible at anyways. This issue applies to all objects in DCS, not just the big ones like ships and outposts. Those are simply the clearest examples of it. In the case of aircraft, I often see planes go from being nearly able to see the markings on it to 0 pixels instantly all the time. These are at ranges of less than 2km where I am tracking the target and know exactly where it is when it suddenly vanishes. This is a LoD issue and it needs to be fixed either by adding additional longer distance LoDs and scaling them correctly, or moving the imposter range from the current 5-50km range down to 0.5-10km, fading out as distance increases.

22" here.

No, the reflector gunsights in the first World War were also displayed at infinity and didn't flicker (unless the bulb was loose of course). The flickering you see in recordings of old CRT's and HUD's is caused by the camera not being synchronized with the device being recorded. If you record your monitor at 24 fps (old school video camera rate), I promise you you're 60Hz monitor will also appear to flicker. Now imagine it's running at 24Hz instead of 60, you will see tons of flickering on the recording that simply isn't there on the actual device.

Very true Will, but not all scenarios done here are intended to be modern ones. Consumer GPS units may very well be completely normal on Su-25A's today, but that wasn't the case 30 years ago when those Su-25A's were new. So having the option to restrict it would be best and as I already mentioned, we have this kind of ability in the mission editor. So placing it there just makes sense. That said, I'm not aware of any populated DCS servers that lack the self icon on the F10 map. So it's kind of a moot point anyways for the moment. But the option would still be nice.

I haven't heard of anyone having issues with the MiG-23MLD. It was long ago retired from Russian service as well as from most of Russia's core allies. It does share an RWR with the MiG-29A and Su-27S though, as well as many other late Soviet designs. That part likely still is a secret but that isn't too much of a problem for us. It's already faked for the FC3 aircraft and all the DCS level aircraft are using best guess RWR's as well. I just don't see it being a problem. In fact, I don't think any aircraft in the poll is unreasonable. The Su-27S might need to be an SK instead (export model), but I don't think any of them have insurmountable problems. Incidentally, the MiG-29A should be on it too.

The most logical place to put it is in the equipment section in the mission editor. Many aircraft have options for things like the instructor for the L-39, hardpoints for the UH-1 and Mi-8 and assorted other things. Putting the GPS there would allow it to be restricted server side without cluttering up the realism menu. It also allows for granting it to some aircraft but not others, which is always handy.

You are incorrect, there is an actual auto-hover mode on on the Ka-50. It is called "Hover on/off" and is toggled via a button on the cyclic (real aircraft). You must be in or very near a hover with the aircraft trimmed for it to work properly. You must also disable FD before activating.

Thanks for the quick startup tutorial. I know I'm being greedy here, but any chance we can get a quick missile tutorial to go with it? :)

Agreed with the above. The main difference to me between the study sim and FC3 level modules is mostly what is done on the ground. The only substantial difference in combat is engine restarts after a flame out. This is the only place where the workload in an FC3 aircraft is lower (since you don't even have to hit a hotkey). I do prefer the ASM modules, but the problem with FC3 vs not FC3 has nothing to do with workload, it's the fact that the FC3 aircraft are massively superior to the non-FC3 ones at this time. Of course a 1972 MiG-21Bis isn't competitive with a late 1990's to early 2000's F-15C! It also won't be competitive with the F-18C when released nor is it competitive with the 1987 Mirage 2000C (now that it has mostly working radar). Incidentally, the instant AIM-120's and R-27ET's are removed from a server, the Mirage 2000C is on a level playing field with the Su-27, MiG-29 and F-15C. It is the better missiles that give those planes the advantage in a typical anything goes TDM server, not the planes or their workloads.

The FC3 level aircraft (including the A-10A) are like the free Su-25T you have already tried.

People often seem to forget that Japan had an airforce too. The IJAAF was generally far better about updating to new aircraft than the IJN was. The K-44 and Ki-61 were nothing to laugh at, both were in widespread frontline usage in 1943. In any case, I suspect that pic is for an AI aircraft or the F4U itself (I haven't looked closely at its engine). LNS has stated the F4U will be packaged with Iwo Jima and appropriate AI units. The A6M is certainly an appropriate AI unit even if one of the least capable Japanese fighters around at the time. I also retract my previous statement about none of the pics matching, on further inspection, yes, the plug is in fact centered.

The center most plug on the 3d model is not centered, it's off to one side. None of the pics so far match that.

There is always a chance, it's just that the chance is likely somewhere around 0.0000000001%. It's a cute little plane though, I'll give ya that.

A good I5 and a GTX 970 or 980 + 16GB of normal RAM (PC1600 DDR3 is fine tbh) is my recommendation. My I5 4690 (not overclocked) is more than enough for DCS, BoS, RoF and all the various non flight sims I play. I'm GPU bound with my GTX 770. Depending on which I5 you have, you may be best off simply grabbing a monster GPU and adding another stick of RAM. An SSD is just a great thing in general. It won't boost your FPS any, but they work miracles with load times, especially for windows itself and flight sims.

Not interested in a full manual at this time, but a quick start guide on how to start it up and fire a missile would be great. A video would probably be the best format. :)

Seems like it isn't far off. I expect some sort of announcement prior to release but they may not bother with a pre-order. Honestly, developers lose money on pre-orders if they have a good product. Pre-orders only make sense if you know you're releasing a bad product (so people buy before it gets reviewed). If your product is good, you just lose potential income from the obligatory discount. This is a general rule, I'm not making any statements about other DCS products.

Excellent news :)

In theory it should work provided they are the same voltage, but in practice it rarely seems to. I recommend simply buying a full set of RAM. RAM isn't exactly expensive these days, I picked up 16GB of DDR3 for $60 a few months ago.

Most people use FBW to refer to a computer flying the aircraft with the pilot only giving high level instructions to it. It's also why I said "effectively turned off" instead of "turned off" without the disclaimer. As the M2K exists in game today, it is possible to disable all helpers and restrictors, thus granting full manual control. Back on topic, give the plane a try. It's really obvious just how much input you have to give it for anything happen. I can't believe it's accurate, no one could fly tight formations or hit something with the gun with it as is without a huge amount of extra practice compared to a more responsive design.

Nice find, brand new video :)

1.5.3 Edit: Just tested DCS2, it has the same issue.