VincentLaw

Hmm... I guess the F/A-18C should be done in about 5 days then? Looking forward to it. : ) Seriously though, DCS is a massively complex project with a budget and consumer base much smaller than anything EA makes. I'm not sure where you got your 40% negative from because the Steam score is currently 81% positive. I've never had any serious crashes with DCS, but I encourage you to report any bugs you find. I figure the 1.5 update later this month will include a good chunk of bug fixes. Hopefully your crashes will be resolved in one of the upcoming patches.

This part I agree with, except when I pressed the purchase button I was really just in it for the map. I thought it would be super cool to fly around Vegas in my Ka-50, but at the time I wasn't very interested in the A-10C. (That plane was definitely worth $60 though.) I also don't care about not getting the campaigns though, as I mainly use DCS for free flight. I am happy to finally get the map, and in honor of the Ka-50, I will use it for my very first flight around Vegas, as I originally intended. I actually prepurchased and downloaded right after they removed that version of the map from DCS, so I have not been able to play on any version of the NTTR yet. Not even a (comparatively) bad version.

I will give +1 internet cookie and +1 forum rep to the first person to successfully fly between the bottom of the road and the top (highest point) of the arch and post a video or track of it.

As I said in a previous post: 2000C (RDM): Single seat with black nose, with nose pitot 2000C (RDI): Single seat with gray nose, with nose pitot 2000-5 (RDY): Single seat with gray nose, without nose pitot The easiest difference to spot is the 2000-5 does not have a pitot tube on the the nose. The pitot looks like a needle. I circled it in this picture:

All of the cockpit images shown in that movie are -5s, however many of the actual planes filmed are Cs. 5-NZ itself was part of EC-1/5 Vendée, which flew the Mirage 2000C RDI. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escadron_de_chasse_1/5_Vend%C3%A9e

I agree. We should increase the scope of DCS to attract more third party developers and a wider audience to help guarantee the future success of the series. DCS: Infantry sounds cool. Now imagine DCS: Infantry being dropped onto DCS: Train by DCS: Huey.

As far as you are concerned it shouldn't make a difference. An EFM is what ED calls it when a 3rd party makes their own AFM. (I am oversimplifying a bit. An EFM can technically be made simple like an SFM or advanced like a PFM. It basically gives the developer the ability to do anything they want with the flight model.)

Thanks for the testing screenshots. If you are looking for some additional capabilities for the DCS version, I found photos of French Mirage 2000C RDI with double ejector racks on the centerline and inboard wing pylons. You can tell they are 2000C RDI (S4/S5) by the gray painted nose with pitot probe. RDM versions had a black nose and RDY versions don't have the nose pitot. Training bomb rack: Intertechnique 231-300 used by 2000C S5-2C (nose pitot faintly visible). I know some of my stuff was more controversial in the past, but these ones are verifiably RDI material.

I have yet to see the RWR operational. (also, a multiple ejector rack would be nice :))

Be aware that manual is for the RDM version of the Mirage 2000C, and RAZBAM is making the RDI, so the instructions related to radar will be different from what we get.

This may be more of a general DCS question, but I have DCS installed in English, and I'm wondering if it will be possible to install the French cockpit version of the Mirage? I have an easier time reading French than Cyrillic, so I think it might be fun to try out the more authentic experience with this one.

They are probably talking about the Leatherneck context. ED has released 3 prop AFMs. Leatherneck has released none. I doubt they waited until they released the MiG-21 to start work on other projects.

Pretty sure they are referring to the piston engines!

Note that it is referring to "flight" faster than Mach 1, not "flow" faster than Mach 1. As soon as the F-15C breaks past Mach 1, it is supersonic.

There was an interview where someone asked Cobra if the next module was the Tomcat, and he responded with the duck test. Duck happens to be one of the nicknames for the Viggen. I think it is more of a coincidence than a hint, but the Viggen does have a ground radar which was also hinted at. Considering that three of the team members are Swedes, it is certainly plausible.

Maybe the aircraft models will be included as AI in 1.5.

Here you are wrong. the Mach number is measured relative to the aircraft, so if the world was flat with uniform freestream flow, the flow infinitely far in front of a supersonic plane would be supersonic. The Apollo capsules generated bow shock waves. Bow shocks result in subsonic flow behind the shock wave and around the front of the vehicle. Right. Catch phrases like "supercruise" and "gen 5" have more marketing than engineering significance.

It is already possible to turn labels on/off for everyone in the mission editor (under mission options). There is no advanced control of label settings though.

Ah, you are right. I didn't actually check to make sure the brakes were working after I refilled them the first time, but I just verified it. It looks like you found a bug. Just tested again, and this bug ONLY occurs if you drain the CO2 completely. It does refill properly if it is only partially drained.

I've never actually run out before, but I just tested it and the brakes are refilled during rearming.

It's down for me too. I speculate that the next Leatherneck module will be my next purchase.

This is the valid point. ED owns DCS, so they can do or not do whatever they want. I can't argue with that. I personally spend more time doing free flight in DCS than combat missions, and I think the significant effort that has gone into TacPack and associated mods proves your other statement false. Many people other than me would like the wall between "combat" and "flight simulator" to be broken down. I would strongly enjoy a civil aviation component for DCS. You are right. DCS is not just XPlane, P3D, or FSX. It is more than that.

Sorry, but I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. You should not have to press any keys on your keyboard to raise your collective. To configure your joystick you want to look at the control settings under "Axis Commands", not under "INS Collective Stick".

Okay, I made a picture guide. As you move the throttle on your joystick (the collective in-game), you should see this little red dot sliding along the diagonal line. I circled the dot. As you max out your throttle, it should approach the end of the line. if it stops somewhere in the middle like right here, then you have a problem. you can fix that problem by moving the Saturation X slider. You want to move that slider until the red dot hits the edge of the graph like this. A Saturation X of 70 will probably work for you. Slide your throttle from maximum to minimum and make sure the red dot can travel all the way to the top and bottom of the diagonal line.