whitehot

and what about adding the mercury lltv in the loadouts?

me too. I would add, ww2 planes in DCS too. but anyway..

I'm with King in this one - Never I would had liked to see WW2 in DCS

great job BST. The Sabre and the Fagot really are excellent, make me wish we had more korea war era stuff in dcs. Formerly I thought I'd only buy modern AC modules, but these two can't be absent from my lineup. Also, I like the way this studio is releasing modules: an american one and then its soviet counterpart. The huey and the eight.The sabre and the 15. so, looking forward to what's next.. If only I could express some preference, that would really be the Cobra and the Hind..

well, in fact it should have a MAWS (the inop switch on the upper left, center panel), at least, the switch is there !

I think there is a minor glitch in ark-5: - ARK-5 ON - Switch to TLG - A continuous audio tone is heard - Switch Ark-5 OFF - The tone is still heard with the radio OFF - Switching to TLF, tone goes OFF

ah, I'm all ok now. I get what you 're saying. I was looking at the upper valve handle, and seeing the label "zakr." I thought it was closed. I didn't realize that there is a small arrow under it that means that the valve gets closed if rotated in that direction. In regards to pressurization, I reckon then that simulation-wise there is no difference in setting the system to hot or cold, as long as it is moved from its initial position. Anyway, hope we get some full manuals soon, and that goes also for the F-86 and the Hip. One of the part I really like about DCS is the massive amount of documentation coming along the simulated technologies. I think it's something that honours the amount of work the devs put into simulating all the systems our AC are made of. The Hip especially, seems to me a very complex machines, with a myriad of devices to be fine tuned and nurtured, to make it work as intended. I'm really missing a real manual for it.

I'm talking about the DCS Black Shark. I understand that it was modeled after one of those helis you mentioned. Yet I think that in our simulator sometimes there should be some "flexibility" in regards to realism. If the real Ka-50 doesn't seem to have a future, at least in russian service, still has an important role in DCS, being the only real gunship we have. Also, I think that being DCS a combat sim, it should depict machines which are operational in their combat environment. Even if there is the need to compromise a little with realism (which is the first thing I'm looking for in DCS products), I wouldn't mind if OUR shark gets some vital combat system (that would be anyway realistically modeled after something real, and not "guessed" by the devs), that would give it a boost in both its capabilities and players fun. As I said, even if giving the shark a FLIR suite is too much of a "compromise", making it "Mercury-ready" wouldn't be that unfeasible.. but anyway, just my two cents.

I know it 's a question that may already have been asked but.. Will the Ka-50 ever get some care, in the form of a FLIR channel for its FCS? Being accepted for use by the Russian armed forces only as a special operations support helicopter (being the Mi-28N selected to replace the hinds in gunship regiments), seems impossible to me that it can't operate properly at night. I understand that the single seat version will not probably be employed in great numbers, and that the ka-52 alligator already comes out of factories with thermals. Also, seems that a night variant of the 50 has been developed (ka-50N). What about simply allowing the usage of the Mercury LLTV on one of the pilons? It is compatible with the Shkval optics suite, and I don't think it would be much of a difficulty, adapting it to the BS?

so basically I get that the "pilot oxygen supply valve" outputs fresh air to the pilots breather. IF the upper unlabeled valve is closed, the pilot gets air from the atmosphere. If opened he gets also the oxygen from the onboard supply. So I believe that if simmed properly, we should start opening the upper valve at altitudes above 10000 ft to compensate for the reduced oxygen in the atmosphere air. Correct me if I'm wrong.. And in regards to pressurization, where precisely does the mark have to point? in the yellow sector ?

I'm having trouble flying the 15 for anything more than a few minutes. My pilot seems to pass out for no apparent reason Sometimes I would just black out and be practically dead. Some other times the controls start to behave erratically and basically the AC becomes uncontrollable and plunges to the ground. Can somebody explain the process of cockpit pressurization, ventilation, and the pilot's oxygen system, I believe I'm missing something in those steps. The quick manual doesn't seem to be very detailed about those things thanks, don

an-2?

isn't the edge technology related only to the maps ? I think that the aircraft won't be affected, otherwise all the modules we already own would need to be updated?

you can't

MiG-29 Are the FC Fulcrums gonna get some love, like alll the other FC planes insofar? I find them a little neglected, and would really like to see them brought to the same detail level with the 25s, the 10a and so on.

I think that the system has an automatic tracking mode which would guide the missiles onto the target. Basically, something like the auto-track on the Shkval device found on KA-50 and SU-25t. In fact the Sa-19 sams which the Tunguska packs are SACLOS guided, but with an auto-tracking sensor they become what it's defined as pseudo-fire and forget. Something like that has been also developed for the Kornet anti-tank missiles in its EM version. Imho it isn't a very complex technological feature - mostly a matter of developing a dedicated software for the EO/IR tracking cameras. edit: noticed that the question was only about the DCS CA vehicle - I elaborated on the real vehicle so disregard

I'm willing to bet that the Razbam harriers are coming to DCS.

I play it @1200 and get more than 100 fps at times.

would love the starfighter. Nice matchup to the mig 21

I read about the issue around the web, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing. I have the msi 970 and works great. DCS is running as it should, while when I was packing a HD 6990 it was stutterfest (shittiest card I ever had). Guess that IF there's actually a bug, they'll fix it with updated drivers, keep in mind that Maxwell is a rather new architecture and could have its teething problems (and I may add, that after years with amd cards, having experienced their dedication to support their hardware with at least decent drivers, I'm rather cool about this) edit: see the enclosed gif, GPUZ reports my 970 memory as it should be

give us an aircraft that is documented enough to build a DCS level simulation. Don't like the idea of having typhoons with all their systems guessed and abstracted because they're classified. If the word around DCS has always been "realism", then even folks should adhere to it .. I don't want to be critical to anybody, but somebody should keep in mind that, the subjects who have access to the documentation of sensible devices like the radar, flir, weapons and ecm of ac like the F-22 or the EF-2000 aren't going to give those accesses to a company whose developers are mostly russians. I mean, they won't be giving them at all to nobody. So getting a Raptor in DCS would mean getting an arcade game to me. Give us a Mirage-2000 instead, or maybe a Tornado. Also Mirage-3/5 as enemies to the Mig-21. Harriers. Anything but keep it real.

I can assure you that DCS is totally on another level, as a flight sim. I am used to FSX and flought it for years. A friend of mine recently obtained p3d v2, and I must say that what really stands out in DCS (besides the fact it's a military sim, so you have weapons, sensors, tactics and so on), is the physical model. In DCS, you can really feel that your AC is subject to the forces involved in flight; something which FSX/P3D are really lacking, after you try out DCS. You also get the feeling that the flight model has a much "bigger resolution" - your AC responds to the slightest command you give it in a much more realistic way imho. Plus, if you are into choppers, DCS is something to which FSX can't even compare - You know it is a helicopter sim, and not an airplane sim adapted to helis. Add to that that every CS module is lilke adding a new flightsim, that you have to learn almost entirely. My suggestion is, give DCS a try, besides, the flightsim and some planes are free, and are enough to get a good feel of it

yes, it jammed into a chinese mig-17 who got back to his base i think Anyway, I see the missiles on the sabre a purely intercept loadout. I wouldn't get into a dogfight with those bricks under my wings - in a dogfight I prefer to have my wings clean, not even with pilons (although i don't know if they are taken in account in physics calculations, if empty). Given the fact that in a F-86, my advantage over the Mig-15 lies in my superior maneuverability, I would lose that advantage with those AAMs. In fact, imho they are way too ineffective against agile, maneuvering targets to outweigh the upsaid advantage. If we are talking bomber targets instead, I'd be willing to bring the AAMs all the times - The .50 cals on the sabre aren't exactly big caliber cannons, and even a old 1st gen sidewinder hitting a bomber in the right spot (ofc into or near an engine) would almost guarantee a kill. But again, just my 2 cents, some other folks probably can put the aams to use even in dogfights

gtx 970 msi. Since I plugged it, all the stutters, specially the "area munitions slideshow" are gone

I agree, sometimes one gotta wonder if some DCS users are actually playing ace combat or something. :doh: