ThePops

I never stated that "old is bad", nor that "new is good". As a matter of fact, that seems to be your view all things considered. What I said was that this is the end of an era with new and surprising assets from Currenthill every other month, and lots of them. It was a very cool thing, sort of a game within the game, like a mini Christmas every now and then Now, these assets becoming a native part of DCS is of course a positive direction. Nevertheless, there are other aspects here. We have gained some and lost some, even though the gain is larger than the loss.

My point was that although this is good for ED and players right now, this is also an end to Currenthill as we know it. In his FAQ he writes that there will be no more new assets. Not enough time due to all the additional work with the substantially more complex "ED-certified assets". This is the end, not the beginning. Some might say it is a good end, and I agree. It's still the end though. I mean, new assets every couple of months from CH was a big thing. Something to look forward to, there were always lots of surprises. DCS has become a better game due to this, but it's not without a cost, a rather substantial cost. No more new stuff will come unless a new "Currenthill" emerges from somewhere

There are more sides to this. CH assets was a thing all by itself. Lots of cool stuff with regular updates adding lots of new cool stuff. This is now gone, dead, replaced with a more stringent and bureaucratic update path. The assets have also become more complex, LOD, consistent damage model etc to adhere to ED standard. The good: Higher quality assets, better graphic performance More consistent assets and therefore more usable in general Available for everyone from the start. The bad: No more "old school" Currenthill assets, other than the leftovers Much slower updates Any new assets are likely to be decided by ED, no more "odd and cool" stuff In essence it's a good thing right now. DCS will natively come with lots of cool stuff that wasn't there before, but it still was available for everyone! At the same time it's the death of CH assets for all foreseeable future. New stuff, not already in the current CH asset packs, will grind to a halt more or less. Good for ED right now, much bleaker for the community looking a few years ahead.

I'm sure the footprints will increase for all of them over time. My problem now is I have 3 largely undone maps (Kola, Afghanistan and Iraq), and no space left for yet another largely undone map (Germany) A typical first world problem, but still. It will be a long time before Germany gets purchased and installed. I don't know if it's just me, but I really don't care all that much for graphics details. They all look perfectly fine by me. What I care more about is the maps being populated by airfields. I would rather the devs used their time making those maps functional first, and then gradually increase graphics detail and other make up. Playability over looks should be a priority IMO.

It's mostly 2D flat desert, rock and sand. Not exactly wowwww IMO

There's 737DIYsim https://www.737diysim.com/product-page/737-fmc-v4 737 of course, but he makes all kinds of stuff. He could perhaps make a A-10 if the interest is large enough, or the price is high enough I do think that the interest in an A-10 CDU/FMC vs B737 and A-32X is about a million to one or something.

Nice videos Except fisheye lenses

I didn't say it was, and it's a very odd presumption anyway. DOSAAF was the Soviet counterpart if you like, of private GA in the west. It was however focused on aerosport in a typical Soviet style manner. That is gliding and aerobatics. Obviously training is a large part of such an organization, but the point remains. There's no good reason to have the aerobatic performance of the Yak-52 as an ab initio trainer. The only reason for this performance is to: Train people in aerobatics, all the way to advanced class, and Use the aircraft in competition aerobatics. What I said was that DOSAAF obviously had a word or two in the design process/design parameters of the Yak-52. Today, most of the Yak-52s are on private hands. This is not due to the virtues of the Yak-52 as a trainer, but due to: The looks The sound The performance as an aerobatic aircraft In the west it's used pretty much in the same way that it was used in DOSAAF, a sport aerobatic aircraft (which also includes lots of training, it's a two seat aircraft after all). It's also an excellent military trainer of course, but in such use, only a fraction of the aerobatic performance is needed, if any. Candidates only needs to learn the basic of flying as well as checking their aptitudes of flying, then go straight to jet trainers. For civilian ab initio to commercial pilot training, none of the aerobatic performance is needed. The Yak-52 is a cool aircraft in its own right, and that's the main purpose people get it also in DCS. It certainly could be used as a trainer, but why? In DCS you can push ESC and start over using any aircraft. Then again, it's a sim, a game. If you want to use the Yak-52 to become proficient in most things related to "seat of the pants" flying, like aerobatics, nothing is stopping you. I'm sure the skills will be very transferable to an F-16 for instance. This doesn't mean you cannot do the same thing, and much more, starting with the F-16. I mean, cool down, relax, have fun The Yak-52 is as cool as it gets, and it's fun to fly, which is all that matters.

As vise men have said. To pick a course to your destination, you first have to know where you are This also means that if you know where you are at any given time (as you do with TACAN), then the accuracy of your initial course isn't all that important. You check and adjust as you go. The main issue isn't accuracy but work load. With the offset function and autopilot of the F1, the work load is almost removed entirely. With GNSS/INS (and autopilot) in more modern fighters it's gone completely. In VFR conditions, this isn't a such a big issue when the pilot has studied the map, but in IMC it's a completely different ball game. Today, we have to wonder how they managed without modern navigation technology. The point is, many didn't. Accidents happened all the time. Pilot errors? sure, but the main issue was saturation of work load. It's super cool that in DCS we can simulate this That figure 12-13 and the explanations really should be included in every module manual for an aircraft with TACAN.

Interesting, but that's good old VFR with a little help from Jester in the back with his INS

It's also a matter of what a "fix" really is. If it's given as lat-long coordinates as in the ME, then good luck translating that to bearing and distance vs a TACAN station without a map or some "black box magic" In modern jets lat/long coordinates makes sense, because this is what modern not ancient avionics understand. Nevertheless lat/long is simply too abstract, cryptic and error prone also for everyday civilian use. IFR waypoints are used instead. Even for VFR (which is completely "random" flying), the best way to report your position to ATC when asked, is distance and bearing (in S, SW, W etc) relative a IFR waypoint.

Indeed, TACAN is about intercepting radials and following those radials. There are tons of Youtube videos about all of this. It's mostly VOR/DME I would think (MSFS and X-Plane and real flying), but VOR/DME is functionally identical to a TACAN. A TACAN is also a "VOR"/DME, only the VOR is a bit more accurate, but the DME part is the exact same thing. It doesn't really matters what flight sim you use as long as the technology is represented correct. Different aircraft may have different ways of visualizing, but the principles are still the same. I haven't flown the F-4 much (yet), but it seems to be a good IFR platform. Another important point is that TACAN/VOR is no substitute for GPS and INS or even DME/DME. It's an archaic form of navigation used before GPS/INS. Today it's RNAV. RNAV is short for random navigation, meaning you can set waypoints at "random" and fly between them, preferably on autopilot. "Random" points is what comes out from the ME, and that is really only good for RNAV or VFR. You can in principle do the same with TACAN, but not without transforming points to radials and distances to TACAN stations. The Mirage F1 has a function where you can set a random point out from a TACAN station. You set the radial and distance from the station, and the needle points to that point instead of the TACAN station. With a switch you can switch between that virtual point and the station. You can do the same thing manually, but it requires substantially more brain cells, and preferably a paper map. TACAN will pinpoint your position. The problem boils down to the fact that this information has to be transferred to a map. Paper maps were used for this, an essential part. To do it "properly" you really need a stack of paper maps. A second screen with maps will also do of course. Lots of usable maps on the net. You have to plan differently using TACAN/VOR than what is possible or "default" with the ME. DCS isn't the best sim for this, but with some manual adaption and tweaks it works OK.

I agree with others about DCS and IFR. X-Plane is IMO the best choice of sim for (learning) IFR, hands down. Having said that, DCS isn't far behind, it's more that it's inconsistent and contains idiosyncrasies regarding this. You will use lots of time sorting out those things instead of learning IFR. Then, it's a fact that IFR and autopilot fits together like hand and glove. No one in their right mind would today fly "hard" IFR (in the soup) without an autopilot. Learning how to use the autopilot is essential. Nevertheless, the basic skill is hand flying without external references. This means zero external references, like in a thick cloud. The main instrument is the AI, Attitude Indicator (artificial horizon), with other instruments as secondary. Traditionally this is the "six pack". AI, ASI, alt, turn coordinator, VSI and heading indicator. Today it's typically a Garmin G1000 glass panel or similar. It contains all of that in the main screen, but with a different layout. The principles are the same though, AI is the principal instrument. Then it's just a matter of training until you can fly, turn, climb etc. at will using only those instruments. This can be done in almost all planes in DCS. Then you can start navigating, flying ILS's and so on. I don't know what the best plane for practicing is. In a sim you can just hit esc and start over. I like the Mirage F1 CE. It has it all regarding avionics and it has a good autopilot. But it's also fast of course, things happens fast. Perhaps a good practice is the F-5E shooting some TACAN approaches. TACAN is perhaps the most intuitive navigational instrument there is (same as VOR/DME), and you learn to use the HSI, setting vectors looking at distances, in combination with the AI. It's all hand flying, but it's also rather simple because there's only one instrument, TACAN/HSI. The F-5 is nice to fly as well. When you can fly the F-5 with TACAN, then everything else is simple. It's more a matter of learning the instruments/navigational aids than actually learning something new in flying the plane. The F-5 is in many ways as simple as it gets because you don't have to think about anything else but TACAN, but also as hard as it gets due to lack of autopilot, LOC, glideslope, GPS and INS.

It would be nice to have the choice of using actual "aviation units" instead of just metric and imperial (even though the imperial isn't completely imperial in DCS). I'm thinking about ME and F10. So what is "aviation units" ? By aviation units I mean the actual de facto standard that is in use internationally, and also in NATO. This requires a bit of explanation. ICAO has since ages ago defined to use the metric system in aviation, SI units. The problem is that nobody cares, and more and more countries are in fact starting to use the de facto "aviation standard". This includes countries who previously have used imperial and countries who previously have used metric. What this means is that: Speed - knots Altitude - feet Distance - nautical miles Flight level - feet (thousand, standard atmosphere) Rate of climb - feet/minute Temperature - degrees C Atmospheric pressure - hPa (AKA mbar) Wind speed - knots Visibility - meter and so on Metric and imperial, as exist in F10 and ME aren't used anymore, anywhere. There are some variations from place to place. Some countries use imperial for a few units, other countries use metric for a few units and so on. Some are specific for a certain part of aviation also. For most of it, this list is pretty much the standard today though.

Of course it would look kind of strange. But a map without (enough) airbases is useless regardless of looks. I just think it's kind of odd focusing on individual private houses and tiny roads when the basic aviation infrastructure that enable good online playing is severely lacking. It's like building an aircraft focusing on the stitching in the headrest instead of installing an engine and a prop, making the aircraft operational. It's getting better and better, but certainly not with lightspeed

I have to wonder why it takes so long. It's almost a year since it was released. I also wonder about the focus. DCS is a flight sim, a combat flight sim. What's important is airbases, airports, heliports and navaids. I mean, houses and stuff is nice to have, but it's not strictly necessary to make the map functional. The airport density is important. It has to be above a certain minimum, or the map simply will not be used, at least not online. Still, my favorite map though

It doesn't really work like that. I learned basic aerobatics in a C-152A (A for Aerobat) many years ago. I think the C-152 is perhaps the "mother of all" civilian trainers, at least it "think" it is, many disagree though. The Yak-52 is many steps up on the ladder. It is capable of -5g and has inverted oil and fuel system. There's no good reason a trainer, military or civilian, should be capable of negative 5g and have an inverted system. Negative g maneuvers are not part of any training syllabus, not even for basic aerobatics, Primary, or the next class in the ladder, Sportsman. Real negative g maneuvers doesn't even play a part before the higher classes. In the west, a requirement for flying any aerobatics is the airframe must withstand -3 g, but that is purely for safety purposes. -3g is not enough to do a negative loop for instance, or a negative pull up. There are several steps up the ladder in aerobatics, from Primary, which can be done in a C-152A to unlimited. Unlimited is obviously governed by the competition alone, thus the performance and maneuverability of those aircraft are insane. A C-152 can do primary class only. A Yak-52 can in principle do unlimited, but it will be hopelessly outclasses. Even in the Advanced class, the step down from unlimited, the aircraft are perfectly flyable by anyone with descent experience in flying. An unlimited class aircraft, to be able to compete at the top, the controls are so light, and thus the maneuverability so quick, that it takes several tens of hours simply to get used to the aircraft and fly it properly, even for seasoned Advanced pilots (having flown competition aerobatics for years already). But, except for insanely light controls, there aren't any mentionable difference between Advanced and Unlimited. The only reason for those light controls is to win competitions, not to do aerobatics. I think you discredit DOSAAF. DOSAAF was an "institution" in the USSR, and the Yak-52 wouldn't even be half of what it is today without DOSAAF pulling the design strings so to speak.

We have to ask the designers I guess From what I know, it started with the UT-2, several thousand built. During WW II there was a whole bunch of fighters, but after the war the Yak-18 came. A much more advanced UT-2 more or less, although a complete re-design. The Yak-18 were built in many different variants (not to be mixed with the Yak-18T which is a four seat aircraft, yet aerobatic. Taking the whole family for an aerobatic Sunday afternoon ). The latest variants were the Yak-18PM and PS, which were single seat aerobatic planes. From this came the Yak-50, in turn a complete re-design of the Yak-18PM/PS. It was a huge success and won many world championships. The Yak-52 is sort of a mix between the Yak-50 and a modernized Yak-18. It was designed as a military trainer and as a sport aircraft for DOSAAF, the Soviet flying club where all the Soviet aerobatic champions came from. The well known champion Svetlana Kapanina learned aerobatics in a Yak-52 at DOSAAF. Soon moved on to unlimited with the Su-26/29/31. Again, we have to ask the designers. Still, the actual use has been as an aerobatic sport aircraft, aerobatic training and competitions, from the start. Today, most of them are used this way. There are more Yak-52s in the west than in the former east block countries. Many also consider it a Warbird due to the usage as a military trainer, like the slightly similar looking US trainer, T-6. I think very few people consider the T-6 to be a sport aerobatic trainer however, and it was never used as such originally.

I don't know of any transaction of Yak-52s today that aren't private. There are hundreds of them on private hands now. You seem to be of the opinion that the Yak-52 is only a trainer. That's not entirely correct. The Yak-52 is a 2 seat version of the earlier Yak-50. The Yak-50 is a single seat aerobatic aircraft. The Yak-52 was designed as a trainer and aerobatic aircraft in the Soviet era. Back then it was just as much a sport aircraft for Soviet competition aerobatic pilots as it was a trainer for the military. Clearly, in the west (or simply privately) it has no use as a military trainer, but is put to good use as an aerobatic aircraft. That's what it was designed for after all, a sport 2 seat aerobatic aircraft/aerobatic trainer. DCS isn't reality, so all this is pretty moot in all sorts of ways My point is simply that the Yak-52 is perhaps the best sport aerobatic aircraft ever made, anywhere. It got it all, the looks, the power and maneuverability, and least but not last, the sound. Not to mention the name, it's a Yak. It's also readily available, and doesn't even cost much in comparison to other much less capable aircraft. This is also why many people find it interesting in DCS, and the DCS version of it is a very good one. The trainer aspects of that aircraft is more or less irrelevant, other than perhaps the historical aspects. It certainly could be used as a trainer in the correct sense of the word in DCS. But why? You can just press esc and start over again

He he. Well, not a single person today purchases a real Yak-52 for the purpose of learning how to fly They are all purchased to fly aerobatics and for general fooling around in. In that sense the DCS Yak-52 and the real Yak-52 fill the exact same purposes Which is also ironic of course.

I just copy-pasted the commands .\DCS_updater.exe cleanup and then .\DCS_updater.exe repair from here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/repair/ The cleanup found a whole bunch of files it didn't want. But, it's OK now it seems, after downloading close to 250 GB

Downloaded 2.9.13.6818 yesterday. It took forever with several connection errors. Managed to take a look at the Afghanistan map and just verify all was OK before going to bed. This evening Windows wouldn't start, and I chose the repair function. Then all was OK again. A few hours ago I launched DCS, but it wouldn't even open the launcher before an error popped up saying I needed to repair. Did this command line clean and repair, and all looked OK again - after downloading 87 GB of data. But, when the Launcher opened it said there was an update. I initially thought it probably was just a small patch on the newest update. But then I saw it wanted to update 151 GB of data. Looking at the log files, the clean+repair had repaired (installed rather) the older version, version 2.9.12.5336.1. So now I'm downloading/installing version 2.9.13.6818 again. I would have thought a much better way would be to repair the newest version ? Anyway 35 minutes left

What is that supposed to mean? What's cool with DCS is we have a relatively large variety of aircraft to chose from. I think people purchasing the Yak-52 does not do it because they "need" a trainer of any kind, but simply because they like the Yak-52, and perhaps have flown one for real. The DCS version is also a very good simulation of the plane. If by playability you mean dogfighting or dropping bombs (like you would do in a digital combat simulator), then you are right

Slightly related thing. I can't for the life of me find a way to map HSI course/heading with buttons (I usually use rotary buttons for this)

It's not something you will experience unless you want to make a flightplan for the GPS using the data file as described above.