VincentLaw

That is incorrect. a 50 m/s wind will not cause adverse effects on the structure or control of an aircraft. the aerodynamics of a plane are only concerned with the speed of the plane relative to the air. The plane doesn't care what that wind is doing relative to the ground, so a 50 m/s wind speed will only cause a 50 m/s deviation in the ground speed of an airplane. Judging from external landmarks it might appear like slip to the pilot, but it should not cause any slip relative to the wind, so no abnormal slip should appear on any cockpit instruments. I just checked the manual, and the ADI is in fact showing slip in this case. This is a bug. The EFM API passes in both the aircraft ground velocity and wind velocity from DCS. This bug should be resolved by using the aircraft velocity relative to the atmosphere as aircraft velocity in the aerodynamics. If you represent ground velocity by 'v' and wind velocity by 'w', then this is simply the vector equation v - w

Well, yes, in general I agree with that statement. In real life you have to pass strict entrance criteria, study and train rigorously, deal with g forces and restrictive harnesses, you can't pause and walk to the fridge, and if you die in real life, you die in real life... but that's largely a different topic.

This is really what it comes down to. The experience of the user is largely dependent on both their hardware and their real life visual acuity. I think variations in these things is causing most of the disagreements here.

How sure are you really? Maybe it depends upon your hardware. I expect quite the opposite. Since I don't have head tracking set up, looking around is very cumbersome. My view is locked straight forward most of the time, and I alternate between around 60 degrees and 30 degrees field of view. Both of these cases have lower resolution than my eyes in real life (significantly worse with the 60 degree case). Since I don't have multiple monitors, I have almost no effective peripheral vision. Since I don't have an Oculus Rift, I have no benefits from stereoscopic vision, so a dot on the canopy glass or on my monitor looks just like a plane in the the sky. In addition, many people report that flying is easier in real life than in the sim because of the seat-of-the-pants sensation that your computer can't give you. If you wanted real life to be more like DCS, you would need to sit in a freezer until you go completely numb, and then try to fly with one eye looking through a card board toilet paper tube. That would probably do it.

I fall into the no microphone category. My laptop has an integrated microphone, but it doesn't run DCS. I use headphones with no microphone on my desktop, so the only way I can really hear both the game use voice chat is if I have two computers open and two sessions of Teamspeak running. That's just a hassle. Yes, you might say I should buy a microphone, but I have other things on my wish list that I have not purchased yet, like a new joystick. last year I tried buying the cheapest microphone I could find and it made a continuous loud buzzing sound for everyone else, so that was just a waste of money.

My monitor is about 43.5 cm across. I sit approximately 75 cm away from the screen. This means that my horizontal field of view of the screen is approximately 32.3 degrees, which means I need to zoom the game view in to 32.3 degrees to have 1:1 realistic view (with the very glaring lack of peripheral vision). Most games have a fixed field of view around 70 to 90 degrees. Zoom is NOT unrealistic. this is why most simulators have zoom. what the correct zoom level is depends on the user's hardware and placement, and hardware can't be enforced by multiplayer servers. FURTHERMORE: My monitor has 1050 pixels in the horizontal direction. If you divide 32.3 by 1050 you get about 0.03 degrees per pixel. Just according to Wikipedia the angular resolution of the human eye is about 0.02 degrees. this means that my monitor has 50% WORSE angular resolution than reality so it is not realistic to turn model visibility off. Not to mention that the typical zoomed out view that we spend most of our time flying in has significantly worse angular resolution. Without model visibility turned on, DCS does not have sub-pixel rendering, so it will simply be impossible to see an airplane that you should be able to spot in real life unless you turn on model visibility. Bottom line is: model visibility settings and zoom are not unrealistic.

No. Bow Shocks are strong shocks combining normal and oblique. The front (center) of a bow shock is normal to the freestream flow and thus all flow immediately behind the center of any bow shock will be subsonic. If you move far enough away from the center of the bow shock you will find supersonic flow again.

Hopefully if servers are able to force the setting there will be an easy way to determine what they have it set to. I'd like to avoid servers that disallow it since I don't have a 4k monitor.

I tried without owning the module and it gave me a CTD. It may have also crashed the server. I think that is a bug related to selecting any unowned module in 1.5 multiplayer, not just the L-39.

I can confirm this issue is present in 1.5 beta. it ONLY occurs for non-SFM, non-AI-controlled aircraft. The ship must be moving to reproduce this bug. I have attached a short track that demonstrates the problem with the Huey, but it happens for any EFM/AFM/PFM aircraft. In this track the ship is traveling at 10 kts (5 m/s). SlideOnDeck.trk

Please do not state opinions as facts. Misinformation is no joke.

I already have a copy of NTTR, but I could use another. You can skip that if you want to give it to someone in need. (don't skip me on the other prizes though : )

I am kind of curious. Maybe the Abrams has a traction control system that prevents sliding during aggressive maneuvers at high speeds?

I'm still the opposite. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to buying a new GPU that can keep up with my CPU. Still hoping for performance gains either way. All I can do is wait and see.

Leatherneck announcements are usually pretty spectacular, so I think the wait will be worth it.

ED, Belsimtek, and third parties have released plenty of fictional liveries for various aircraft. These skins might be irrelevant to some users, but they would not be abnormal or substandard to DCS norms.

the United States in DCS has a basket (drogue) on the S-3 tanker which should work just fine with the Mirage 2000. Yes, the model is old and low poly, but it still works.

Maybe you should ask Dassault what they were thinking when they had the idea.

There is a lot between "an EFM that flies" and one that is ready for release. There could still be unfinished features, like weapons stores not causing drag, change in mass from fuel flow, or bugs in edge of the envelope conditions like high angle of attack. Even once the flight model coding is basically finished, it will require tweaking and testing to get it to perform as close to a Mirage 2000 flight envelope as possible. This might be exaggerating a little, but I don't think anyone wants to fight against an unfinished Mirage 2000 that can fly Mach 3. Bringing NTTR to DCS has been around 90% done for a couple years now, and it still isn't ready for release yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule

Those reports are not conflicting. The EFM is already flying, but in a pre-alpha state. That does not guarantee that it will be ready for release.

Right, even if your vehicle is traveling Mach 3 there will be regions of the flow that are subsonic, including stagnation points, behind strong shocks, within boundary layers, inside open weapons bays or open cargo bays, inside the engines, and maybe in the wake. Of course any flow that includes both a supersonic and subsonic region is considered transonic flow. The way you get around that is by drawing a control volume around the vehicle that excludes the subsonic regions, and then you are only looking at a supersonic flow. Generally speaking, you can say any aircraft with a free stream Mach greater than 1 is in supersonic flight. In that case, all freestream flow sufficiently far away from the vehicle in any direction will be supersonic. However, I found some literature that defines supersonic flight differently, so I dropped the argument. There is more than one definition for supersonic flight depending upon what sources you use. As a historical note, the first "manned supersonic flight" only reached Mach 1.06, so it was still in the transonic regime.

I am simply pointing out that France had the missiles, and they have the airplanes. I consider selecting not to use them together irrelevant if the option was there. They are simulating the aircraft, not French military doctrine. The only thing I don't know, as Azrayen pointed out, is whether the specific avionics of the S5 retained the needed capability from previous 2000C models. I doubt France is keen on sharing information that specific, and unfortunately I am already pushing the limits of my research capability without access to libraries with better collections on French equipment.

No, we don't need to move "forward" because your statement is wrong. The ARMAT is not an export only missile. It is used by France. From International Electronic Countermeasures Handbook, page 149: "The French used the ARMAT successfully in the 1991 Gulf War with Iraq, and the missile will remain in inventory for the foreseeable future."

So, I decided to go to the library today to see what I could find, and there are a large number of publications stating that the ARMAT can be used with the Mirage 2000. Two of these publications specifically mention the 2000C, while at least one other can be assumed by the context and date. There is absolutely no published contradiction to the possible compatibility of the RDI versions with the ARMAT. Being able to fire an ARMAT has nothing to do with the radar. Maybe a little out of context, but this is exactly the problem. We can't find specific details about the 2000C RDI and the ARMAT because France doesn't want us to know. There is more reason to believe it is capable than not, even if the AdA usually gives the SEAD mission to Jaguars and F1s. Here is my list of sources and contained quotes relating the Mirage 2000 to the ARMAT: Dassault Mirage: The Combat Log, Schiffer Military/Aviation History, 1996, p. 20. -- "Specification-Mirage 2000C [...] ARMAT anti-radiation missiles" "Variant Briefing: Dassault Mirage 2000", World Air Power Journal, vol. 37, Summer 1999 -- "An early weapon to be cleared was the MATRA ARMAT antiradiation missile, seen here carried by a 2000C-S1." Jane's Air-Launced Weapons, Issue 8, Jane's Information Group, 1989. -- "[ARMAT] has been cleared for carriage by Jaguar, Mirage F1, and Mirage 2000 aircraft." The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament, Salamander Books Limited, 1987, p. 97. -- "Armat has been in action from Mirage F1EQ Aircraft of the Iraqi air force, and is also in service with French Mirage 2000s." The European Missile Success Story, TTU-Certes, 2005, p. 126. -- "[ARMAT] weapons for Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000" International Electronic Countermeasures Handbook, Horizon House Publications, Inc., 2004, p. 149. -- "Usual load is two [ARMAT] missiles for a Mirage 2000" Les Missile Tactiques de 1945 à 1995, Paris: Centre des hautes études de l'armement, Département d'histoire de l'armement, 2004, p. 152. -- "160 missiles [ARMAT] furent produits pour équiper le Mirage F1 et le Mirage 2000" The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, Naval Institute Press, 1997. -- "ARMAT antiradar missiles carried by a French air force Mirage 2000" Here is another photo of an ARMAT loaded on a Mirage 2000C I found:

There are photos of the Mirage 2000C RDM carrying ARMATs. I don't have proof for or against the RDI versions, but if it can't carry the ARMAT then it is probably the only French version of the Mirage 2000 that can't. The ARMAT doesn't require a radar to use it, so the RDI itself is not a technical limitation in this regard. This document by RAND includes the ARMAT for the D, N, and -5 http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1235/MR1235.chap10.pdf