johnv2pt0

The only evidence I saw was one of the latest videos with two sections of rocket runs. The first 3 shots looks like PIO to me and once he gets coordinated again, the fourth flys true. The second clip shows absolutely zero hint of any type of recoil forces. That's the only evidence I've seen so far...everything else has been different weapons from different platforms. I mean, ED is smart enough to build AFMs so they're smart enough to recognize differences between an air launched weapon and it's minimal interaction with the airframe to a jeep mounted weapon catching most of the blast as the shot is fired. Another avenue to try to confirm the legitimacy of the documentation stating lack of recoil might be to look at the documentation for other airframes that have fired tube launched rockets because we know there's a felt interaction there. I believe someone said he flew with them on a helo back in the day. If that documentation specifically talks about ttps to overcome the "recoil" or whatever yawing moment the pilot feels, then you can be doubly sure the documentation about no recoil from hvars is accurate. There would be guidance for the pilot on how to most effectively counter the inherent problem of recoil (if there was one). If the more modern tube launched system doesn't mention any felt recoil, well then all bets are off on the hvars, and I wouldn't have a problem just letting it be the way it is lacking better info. It will be interesting to see what if anything comes of this regardless. If there is a great reason why it's in the sim I'd love to learn it. Just because you aren't supposed to do something doesn't mean a pilot won't do it anyway in a combat environment...especially when it's something so easy to mess up as being a little hard on the rudder during an attack run.

Not trying to stir the pot, but why is this a bad argument? Things are written in these manuals for a reason. Programming off the manuals should be the rule and not the exception. There can be slight differences between things written for an operator's eyes vs an engineer's eyes, but in this case that would read something like "there's virtually no recoil" or "recoil is marginal." That is, unless ED has had lots of experience with official manuals stating false information? I think a good question here is to ask why ED felt the need to program it this way in the first place? What spurred that change? If it wasn't based off of anything except gut feelings or trying to change gameplay mechanics then it should be changed back to what official documents state without further ado.

This problem of hvar "recoil" has always bugged me too. A couple of things I've noticed in this discussion and a tidbit from personal experience. There is official documentation stating the absence of recoil...specifically highlighted for superior performance of such a weapon fired from an aircraft. All the guncam footage I've seen of hvars being fired from WWII aircraft show no recoil. No guncam footage has been provided showing any recoil. The only "evidence" of this recoil has been from different weapon systems mounted on different vehicles. Not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Shouldn't that be enough evidence? I mean I don't see why this is even a long debate unless it's to defend ED's programming honor or something. Nobody is out to get ED and nobody is denying the awesomeness that is DCS. I've read this a just constructive criticism to get the most realistic experience possible...not to dumb it down. Now, for personal experience: I was a USAF pilot, so I am familiar with how documents are written and why things are worded certain ways. It's a very precise language...everything is precise. Heck, the boldface pilots have to learn and write down is required to be identical...down to the hyphenations, case of letters, and even a typo if it was in boldface your were given. If the manual says "there is no recoil," then there is no recoil. That's not really language that leaves a lot to interpretation. The only wiggle room I will give this is that the Air Force wasn't even a thing yet, so perhaps the writing of documents improved over the years. That said, I highly doubt something so gross as this could be the case. Just my .02 and my experiences...YMMV Oh, just found this beauty. Debate closed: no recoil on a remote control Mustang firing bottle rockets. :megalol:

---Oops, posted in wrong thread. DOH

So, no news then? AvioDev...knock knock... I hope it's ready tomorrow, but even if it's a "don't expect it until DCS 2.0" I'd like some sort of update. Unlike some other unnamed light attack / jet trainer, I'm very impressed with the EB so far and am really looking forward to the CC.

Lol! Time for the flu shot again...

Sent via Email. Thanks for hosting this ~

Great, thanks man. I love it :thumbup:

Legit. :)

She's a great ride! You might like these:

+1

Great looking sim! Do you have experience with real world HUDs? (I do). I'm curious if having the hud projected out in front and not where it would normally be is annoying. Or if there are any other problems associated with that. What's your opinion? Also, I'd be curious to know approx what you've spent on this so far. PM is fine if you want. Gonna move in a bit and am considering what type of pit setup I'll be building :) Oh, and one more question. Do you use TrackIR or fixed perspective?

Remember that the poll question is would you buy this aircraft if it were developed. That has nothing to do with blocking the development of such modules. To that question, my answer is a resounding "no." DCS doesn't do what 90% of flying is about very well, or at all. There's really no point to this type of aircraft in this sim for many reasons. If you'd like to take it up and practice some stalls or spins or something, more power to you. But for the amount it would inevitably cost to buy this module, based on the developers costs and profit margin, there is no way I'd buy it.

Accelerating time will screw up your tracks too

Roger, thanks for the info.

Agree with the above comments. Another thing to remember is that if you do use them with monitors (which again, is IMO the only way to use them) you will take a substantial fps hit. The ability to run more monitors and keep the same frame rate may be possible when dcs 2.0 comes out, but for now you will lose fps and that's something to think about. I built a box to house 2 8" monitors with the Thrustmaster MFDs on them and it's just sitting behind my monitor because I don't use them. They work wonderfully and I would love to use them, but for my pc I will go from 50-70 fps down to 30 or less and for me fps > cool factor/immersion. As others have said, your mileage may vary :) Welcome to DCS!

It's now almost July and there's already a manual out for the Mig-15. What is the status of the F-86 manual Belsimtek? Did I miss the release? I don't see anything on your website.

:drunk:

DCS 2, Georgia Map update? I know this has been talked about partially, but does anyone know if the horrible legacy map objects from lock on/flanker will be updated or removed? I'm talking specifically about the cranes at ports and other random things that are extreme fps killers.

Lol, this really made my day! Well done sir...

Still exists post 1.16

This doesn't work single player or multiplayer, bf or fw. Any word/

...now I'm hungry. Do pickles and eagle meat go well together...of course I like a lot of salt but I do like sweet too so maybe I'll host a mission where eagle drivers can't use aim-120s and harvest me some sweet sweet eagle tears. Thanks for the video man...it's fun. :)

Sounds like a typical fighter turd to me ;P Your hate makes me warm on the inside...