primus_TR

As one of those folks who remain on AB from take off through almost the entire sortie in the Viper, I think it has great range when you're up high (+35k); I never run out of fuel before I go winchester. Up high you must AB anyway. Actually I'm a bit taken aback with how fuel efficient the DCS 16 is, especially compared to that other F16 sim. It's like the energizer bunny. I found the 29 to be not too different from the 16, fuel consumption wise. I think avoiding fighting on the deck and making it a rule to go up high could sway the opinion of many who think the 29 and the 16 have short range.

Personally, I didn't have any problem with the clarity of wording.

Having the option would be great. Of course for folks like me, who get shot and have to respawn every 12 seconds online, it could get a bit repetitive lol That true.

Cold starting is interesting until you master it. After that, it's a chore which adds little to the experience, especially when many folks have limited time for their hobby. 2c.

Agree completely. Online, the FC 29 is far more competitive and has higher survivability than the FF 29. With the F5E, the difference was negligible as it is a very simple aircraft. With the 29, the difference is significant. Nevertheless, today many folks were driving the Fulcrum on Contention SARH. Hopefully, more will join in.

Fact.

nullWell. If the SPO15 is not helping with avoiding blue missiles, one must find other ways lol

Manual page 112. So, this is the intended behavior, as modeled in DCS Fulcrum.

ED's manual characterizes it as a standard 'feature.'

Indeed

Kudos to ED for doing a great job with the Fulcrum. I love the module. Was totally worth the wait. That said, with the now realistic modeling of the SPO15, specifically no front quadrant reception when ownship radar is illuminating, Fulcrum's survivability will be zero to nil (which is also real-to-life by the way). Anyhow, unfortunately, ED did a great job of providing us with a truly realistic Fulcrum lol. I'll go practice more to git gut

Thank you all for input folks. Very helpful. I've decided to go with a 5070ti + Core Ultra 5 245KF + 64GB DDR5 6000. Hopefully it will get me what I want.

When I turn it on, it gives the same result: sometimes works, other times not. I'll record a track later today to better describe my issue. Am I the only one who has this problem with interrogating friendlies?

I can't seem to have a reliable positive response when I interrogate a friendly aircraft. On the the upfront panel, I have the IFF on (indicating XP), I bring the radar cursor over the track, SCS depress followed by SCS right. on the AZ/AL format, I can see that the interrogation is executed (vertical green lines appear around the track). Sometimes the friendly aircraft responds correctly, but sometimes it does not. The only way it seems to reliably perform a friend/foe interrogation is to STT the target. Only then I can get a reliable friend response. Hornet should be able to perform IFF interrogation without an STT (like in the F16, and even the F4E), so what am I doing wrong? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Edit: Here is a track file depicting the problem I'm having. F18 IFF issue.trk

I think, one way for server owners to make room for the FF 29 could be to allow EWR reports without AWACS/EWR datalink. Anyhow, we'll find out soon enuf (hopefully).

When there are multiple carriers, they all have the same name (Essex class carrier) on the comms menu, ordered by distance to the player. So, contacting the intended carrier in the group for reporting inbound is a bit problematic. This may be relevant to the problem you're describing.

No. If you've read the thread title, it should be obvious that the thread is about the issue of taxiing with diff breaking. Relevance of wind to taxiing and how it inaccurately aggravates the issue, as discussed at length above, is clear. Feel free to disagree, but unauthorized thread policing is not appreciated. Edit: For further clarity, crosswind is raised as a contributing factor to the problem, not as the sole cause of the issue. Just in case it is not crystal clear.

It is too strong against gen 3, but too weak against gen 4. It is a gen 3.5 oddball; and with no datalink, no ARH missiles, and a crazy amount of pilot workload compared to the FC3 version, I don't think it will be a fan favorite in online servers. Personally, I'll be flying it exclusively in SP, just for appreciation.

Yes, there is something wrong with the Corsair's ability to taxi, a problem which becomes more pronounced in the presence of wind; at risk of repeating the same point: when there is no wind, the aircraft is able at least to point its nose where the pilot directs it to (which entails use of excessive power and differential braking, which is unrealistic). Not sure what you are disagreeing with what I and many others have pointed out, but crosswind is relevant to the issue at hand, regardless of your point not being specifically about taxiing in crosswind.

I do (as there is no other option due to this bug) but that is irrelevant. The aircraft should be able to taxi in a crosswind. That's the whole point of this thread.

I keep oil radiator flaps a crack open and the cowl flaps as needed, depending on speed. Only time I get engine seizure is when I forget to check the two gauges, and let oil and/or cylinder head overheat. This is particularly important during landing where you have high power and low airspeed. So, make sure to scan those two gauges frequently and you'll be fine.

While taxiing under no wind conditions is obviously very problematic, it is still possible (by applying excessive power and wheel brake); but with a headwind, it is not at all possible to turn past 90 degrees, in either direction and regardless of the amount of power applied, which is due to the aircraft's exaggerated tendency to turn into the wind. This is particularly noticeable on a carrier deck. You just can't taxi back for taking off again after landing.

The issue with faulty wind vaning may be not so easy to solve, as it is directly related to the module's flight model, which may explain why this issue has not been receiving much attention from the devs. I remember how a very similar wind vaning problem with the MiG 19 was completely disregarded by the developer and never fixed. An aircraft that cannot properly taxi is basically unplayable. Shame.

Hello folks, Currently, I have a i5 10600K, RTX 3070 with 32 GB RAM, which gives me a solid 60FPS on my pancake setup. I was quite content with it until I have made the switch and I purchased a Quest 3 a few months back and I can see that my rig is not sufficient for VR; I can get about 40 FPS at VR graphic preset with 1.1 PD. So, I intend to get a new rig, and I am aiming for a safe 72 FPS to match my headset refresh rate, with DCS graphic settings at High and a PD of 1.5. I am not after getting a top-of-the-line rig; I just need something good enough to meet my 72FPS@High@PD1.5 goal. I've been an Intel/Nvidia fan always, and I wish to stick with the Intel/Nvidia pair. Cost is not a top concern. What do you you guys recommend?

That's what I thought also. In that case, it should not matter for Shrike where the tracking radar is directed at: me or some other target.