King_Hrothgar

With the radar in reasonable working order, I've started flying this plane a fair bit and one thing I've noticed is the first 50% or so of control throw for both pitch and roll do basically nothing. This is independent of AA/stores mode and is even true with the FBW system effectively shut off. I was chatting with some other players last night about this on 104th and everyone seems to have the same experience. I was using a completely linear joystick curve with 0 deadzone on my X-55, but I've since put a -40% curve on it (super sensitive at center, less so further out) to try to make the in game control a bit more linear. Is this intentional? Is it a bug? Bit confused on this one as I don't think it handled that sluggishly back in December. It's also unique to the M2K.

September 2011, a wifi card.

There is a degree of truth to that, but the A-7 is still substantially different (it's a late 1950's fighter adapted to ground attack). I suspect the F-15E will fall into that trap more than the A-6 or A-7 would.

FC3 is a paid addon to DCS:W and thus you need it all. I also have no clue why you are trying to do this. It makes zero sense and is likely to give you all sorts of problems.

I doubt LNS will touch the A-6E given RAZBAM's recent statements, even if it is a long ways off. I'd prefer they go back to eastern block for a bit anyways though. We are getting an awful lot of western aircraft of all types but nothing on the eastern side. So maybe instead of another USN plane, they could do stuff meant to sink a Forrestal class carrier.:D Obviously those strikers need some escorts too, so umm, DCS: Su-24 and MiG-23 confirmed? :cheer3nc: :P

The F-35 deserves every jab ever thrown at it, including the false ones. Anyways, interesting video. Nice find. :)

What does an obscure WW2 dive bomber have to do with the A-6?

Jammer on and jammer off. That is the extent of the ECM abilities DCS allows for.

Tombeckett, I agree it makes sense to recycle a lot of the coding. There really isn't much of a difference between a Mirage 2k, an AV-8B and a B-52 as far as the in game electric system is concerned. If the base code is written as a template rather than for a specific plane, it should be fairly easy to apply it to just about any aircraft relatively quickly. The LNS guys said they spent about a year after the MiG-21 setting up precisely that kind of system. RAZBAM is an experienced FSX/P3D and full time developer I think, so I'd be surprised if they didn't do that from the very start. In regards to A-6 vs A-7, I agree with both of you to an extent. DCS is a combat flight sim and as such, every aircraft needs to have a reasonable set of playable and non-playable units relevant to it. This is why I keep pushing for DCS to focus on 1970 to the early 1990's. That's where all the AI stuff is currently, so it makes sense to expand on that with new player and AI units for a fuller experience. As we go on, additional AI assets should be added to both ends of that core period. Both the A-6E and A-7E fit right smack in the middle of that focus and they have seen extensive combat. Additionally, both aircraft offer something truly new to DCS. As such, both aircraft would make excellent additions but, they both do the same thing for the same team. And that's where I agree with Tom. I think both aircraft should be added, but I think there are higher priority aircraft before we get the second. Below is an incomplete list of aircraft that I consider more important than having both the A-6 and A-7 (in no particular order): Fixed wing: 1) F-111 2) Su-24 3) Su-17/20/22 4) MiG-23 5) MiG-25 6) MiG-27 (mutually exclusive with Su-17/20/22 for same reason as A-6 and A-7) 7) SEPECAT Jaguar 8 ) Tornado 9) J-8 10) Q-5 11) F-4E Rotary wing: 1) Mi-24 2) AH-1 3) AH-64 (mutually exclusive with AH-1) 4) Mi-2 5) UH-60 6) CH-53 7) CH-47 (mutually exclusive with CH-53) 8 ) Ka-27 I excluded officially confirmed projects from the list as well as aircraft that offer similar capabilities for the same nation/alliance (the F-16 was cut for this reason due to the F-18 ). Anyways, as you can see, that's kind of a long list of stuff I think would add more to the game than having both the A-6 and A-7. One of them should certainly be there, and I consider whichever one is chosen to be a medium-high priority aircraft. But whichever comes second, should also be second to a lot of other things that add more to the game as a whole.

It's a mod. I've seen it on the modding forums, may or may not be in the user files here.

APQ-159, last we heard no mav display but hopefully that was reconsidered.

I saw that but didn't pay much attention. We already know their next 3 aircraft are the AV-8B NA, Tucano and Super Tucano.

No, all flyable aircraft are available to all nations in the mission builder. It's always been that way and I don't see it ever changing, nor should it.

It's going to be a while before they get to it if they decide to do it. We'll get the Gazelle shortly I think but it will be at least a year before we see the Bo-105. The Tiger has been strongly hinted at as their third aircraft. If we assume that takes a year from the Bo-105's release, we're looking at 2019 at the absolute earliest for the 4th aircraft which may or may not be a Tornado. That's pretty far off imho, a lot can happen by then including a new third party popping up and doing the Tornado as their first aircraft for DCS. Edit: Not trying to be a downer here, just trying to be realistic.

An F-14A that simply allows for carrying R-27's and R-73's would be great I think. I doubt the cockpits are much different for reasons already stated. My only concern with this is in mission design for MP. If this is done, we need the F-14A offered in two copies, a standard USN model and an IRIAF modded one. These can be copy paste of each other with only the weapons lua changed. But we do need that separation since DCS doesn't allow weapon restriction on a per aircraft basis. It shouldn't be a technical hurdle at all, just something that needs to be done.:thumbup:

It's an idea and I've kicked it around myself some. I think a better idea might be making door gunners on the UH-1 and the RIO on the upcoming F-14 free. That could solve a future multiplayer problem (lack of non-pilot crew, it will be a problem, I guarantee it) while also providing a new hook for DCS. This setup does have precedent btw. RoF has always allowed everyone to take gunner seats regardless of whether or not they owned that particular aircraft. It has some issues with trolling, thus locking/kicking seats is critically important, but it does draw new players in who might otherwise not give the game much of a look. For my part, I got a few people from other games into RoF by having them gun for me.

Same. The Mirage 2000C S5 RDI we have rolled off the assembly line in 1987. It's actually newer than both the MiG-29A and the Su-27S but older than the F-15C we have. In terms of workload, it isn't a MiG-21. I find it to be about the same as the FC3 F-15. It has a dozen switches for the startup process instead of 3, but that's meaningless in combat. In combat, the only additions are the master arm and FBW modes. That isn't exactly a crippling workload, especially since that stuff isn't typically messed with in combat anyways. Those bits are taken care of before hand.

:D

I've been thinking for a while that the A-29 would make a good A-10 replacement. Yes, it is less capable, but it's also cheaper. An A-10 is more than a little overkill for ISIS and similar foes anyways.

The entire generation thing is a bit arbitrary anyways. I think when all is said and done, 5th generation will ultimately be defined as fully digital and reprogrammable systems combined with sensor fusion rather than all aspect stealth against X-band radar. The all aspect stealth bit is shaping up to be an oddity, much like the MiG-25's mach 3 speed is for 3rd gen jet fighters. Under that definition, I'm not sure the F-22 actually makes the 5th gen fighter cut, it might only be 4.5 gen. Regardless, it's an arbitrary term. What matters is how it performs against opponents of the same vintage. I suspect the PAK FA will be near the top of the food chain assuming it ever starts rolling of the assembly line. In regards to pictures, it's a fanblade. They all kinda look the same. The only thing secret about something like that is what it's made of (maybe) and possibly how it is made. A picture doesn't tell anyone anything of value for an object like that. Obviously that doesn't mean there aren't any rules against it. It just means it doesn't actually give away any actual secrets.

The trouble with some of those setups is they make the ground attack side impossible. AI SAMs/AAA are not subject to limited visibility. The ground pounder areas would have to be adjusted accordingly.

The industry is increasing though. DCS has more developers with more on the way it seems, there is a revived IL2 series, X-plane is alive an well and then there is that new not MS MSFS in the works. On top of that, the arcade side of things like WT also seems to be sending us a steady stream of fresh blood. Things are actually looking pretty good for our little niche genre atm. Back on topic, I'm not surprised it wasn't released today. I have next week partially off, so of course it wouldn't be released. Sorry guys, my fault.:tomato:

VEAO has just about every fixed wing aircraft used by the UK's military between 1940 and 2016 on their roadmap. I don't think it is one they are actively developing and so is fair game. That is one of the few 1950's onwards combat aircraft I'd definitely skip though.

Overclocking and more than 8GB of ram are unnecessary for 1.5 (12GB+ should be considered the minimum for NTTR). Agreed on the SSD though, that makes a world of difference.

Real men don't read the manual anyways.