RuskyV

Cant wait to get my hands on this module!

I think vr could definitely benifit from having a longer zoom, I do like the picture in picture idea. But I could do without the slow zoom that it has now in place of an instant zoom.

Can't wait for it to finally release, I keep teasing myself watching YouTube videos of the pre release version and general harrier shenanigans. I'm hoping for the end of November!

This might not get you much milage on the the subject of the gau8 Vs T-72s but i would consider the direction you attack a target from where permissible. Try to plan and hit any medium or heavy armour from the rear as this is the area most vulnerable and although im not 100% sure if they account for armour thickness in DCS its always good practice to try and achieve this form of approach. Something else to just bear in mind as a side note is that the different types of ammo fired by the gau8 have slightly different ballistic properties and you need to make sure that you take that into account when you are pulling the trigger. Again i hope this helps some.

Here are a few playlist links to youtube videos that always help me if im stuck or cant remember a particular thing. Ralfi's Idiot Guide to DCS My Own list with a mix of tutorials from Bunyap, JetlinerX &Kmbtkrl https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlhW3lXB2jcm2D91ZSR2yAFp00li_9V7G Dont forget to like their videos if you find them useful :) Hope this helps.

I think most here have already summed up quite nicely the considerations that you would need to think about when using different tactics and weapons, there is no need for me to repeat what has already been said. My piece of advice to you would be to study the different enemy air defences you might encounter. Understanding the RWR and what it means will ultimately have a bearing on how you decide to approach a given target and the options available to you with your weapons loadout. Knowing the enemy's capabilities and the stand off range of different SAM sites and AAA will give you vital information you can use to decide what weapon to employ. There are some great documents out there on SAM threats and their capabilities. Have a look on the main ED website under the user files for the A10c and have a little read up, maybe put some units down in the mission editor and fly them and see what they can do first hand. Have Fun!

Hi all, Any news on whether this mod is now working with the latest DCS update? it was an excellent tool that i miss quite a bit.

can you guys read all the instruments clearly enough? there was a recent price drop with the rift and i was thinking of pulling the trigger on it but i've never actually used one before and i hear such a mixed bag on quality and the effectiveness in some games. Dont mean to hijack the thread..

you can't fly the manual mate!, seriously though it is as good as people are making out so go support EDs hard work and make a purchase :-)

Here you go mate, check this out http://www.derekspearedesigns.com/dsd-flight---flt1flt2.html

Hi there, Try going into your nvidia control panel and checking under the " Adjust desktop colour settings" and look for an option slider called "Hue" make sure that is set to +0`deg

LOL!

spotted this myself and was going to post about it too. I first noticed it while i was using a spanish skin that was a desert colour, Popped right out at me :huh: glad its been noticed.

looking closer at the two images I can see the glare shield is also a bit too short compared to the real f18 cockpit

well my personal opinion is that if I'm paying for a DCS module then I want it to be as acurate as possible and I don't think criticism at this early stage is really a bad thing when there is ample time to get it right

Join the reds and fly their planes then? Seems a bit strange to have a NATO fighter amongst the russian jets just to fly unless they add a Su27 to the blues side, but that's just a crazy.

thread has descended chaos

I can do that after a good curry.... Didn't have much of a roof left though.

You guys really do have a nice edge over the competition here as you already have these great 3d models in fsx, I wish you luck with your plans. In the meantime i'll put some spare change away for the big day :)

With all the mentions of other planes to wet our appetite does well to distract us from unfinished work. Unfortunately i don't think i'll be paying for any of them until i get what i have already paid and invested in. A passing statement in general about how i feel regarding modules in DCS rather than singling out.

it's a shame because I had high hopes for this aircraft, modules are not cheep so quality is a must to justify the cost. at the moment I have a few modules that I feel are a little half baked. considering the costs we lay out on the premise that we will receive the full working experience eventually is a little disappointing when there is no news on when it might be completed. Betas should be a continued and steady progress of updates and when we pay to help test and work towards a final product we should have at some point an idea of what level its currently at. I'm a big fan of your work but its getting hard to justify the money...

Its not how far or fast "we" can make it go but rather the performance of the missile itself, It's hard not to have varying conditions when firing something from a moving platform, but you need to have a figure in mind (Airspeed) to work with when doing a test just to figure out missile performance. As long as you keep your airspeed the same for however many test you want to do then you can build up a picture of what the missile is doing. The goal is to find out whether the missile under or over performs and i think the collective mind says the 530D is not doing all it should be doing:)

Thats pretty much how i read it.. I think there needs to be a whole new missile developed based on its own data as it's clear that data use from other missiles to get close to the performance is the wrong way to going about. In a previous post i mentioned that i didn't mind if the missile data was based of something else and made to perform close to its real life counterpart. I can see that this approach is simply not going to work and that we need a new missile developed. I can understand why they (ED) have done it this way given the time constraints but it can't be left as a long term solution. Developers creating future aircraft from other nations need to have a missile that functions independently from anything else we have so that it can compliment the hard work 3rd party developers put into bringing us new aircraft and their respective systems modeling.

It think this whole forum topic just proves how hard of a time ED has when they come to providing a missile that performs correctly at all altitudes to suit everyones expectations, but in all fairness you will never get a truly accurate measurement by the numbers when there are still many environmental variables that need to be taken into account ie altitude temperature and speed of the launch vehicle ect ect. I do believe in supplying data that can generally point out where there might be issues though, and even though the tests i did were at 15kft (chosen just get some rough middle ground figures for altitude) to just see if there was a trend with the other test that have already been carried out. I think we're all on the same page but are splitting hairs over the figures, trying to get real life statistics into the missile behaviour is obviously very tedious and long winded. but im not so worried what the actual programed figures are for any given missile as long as they get close to what the expected performance is when i pull the virtual trigger. If they need to make changes to the internal performance that's not correct to the real performance i don't particularly care when the missile in practice works as it should. if IASGATG's test mod works in practice i don't particularly care how his internal figures look compared to the wiki stats if it gets results. You cant round down mother nature to the nearest decimal point.

this seems to be more in the right ballpark, really informative stuff mate!