Aginor

Great!

Oh, that reminds me: Will there be a version without the targeting system? For just flying around the Gazelle looks even better without the blocky thing on the roof. :D

That would blow my mind! I would expect it to work like they Huey for now, but who knows? :)

The HOF is a bit weird, the footprints differ from those in real life. There are several good video tutorials on those CBUs, IIRC this is one of the good ones: [ame] [/ame]

You can use both. When lasing manually I recommend using "latch on" so you don't have to hold the key. When auto-lasing keep in mind that lasing for too long or too short may cause you to miss, so you have to adjust for altitude. EDIT: I like dropping them from 15,000ft, with 10-15 seconds laser time. That way several planes (or even one plane) could - theoretically at least - drop multiple bombs on multiple targets simulataneously without a bomb following the wrong laser. Yes, it is possible. It basically works like when you are dropping the bomb. Your buddy has to tell you he is inbound, and when he drops the bombs you start your laser (manually), and you lase until impact. It works with other planes, too (or at least it should). It means your plane is broadcasting your SPI over the data link, so other planes in your group can see where your SPI is. Very useful when flying online and you found a target for your wingman to attack. For GPS-Guided bombs: yes. For Laser guided bombs: Whoever is lasing has to do that until impact. So yes if you are not the one lasing, no if you are the one lasing. Modern tanks are tough. And maybe (ongoing discussion) the Gau-8 is too weak in DCSW. But you can destroy tanks. Try hitting them from not too far away and from above or behind. Front armor is very tough to crack. Try dropping from a steep angle and at a rather high speed. Also practice of course. :)

Yep, I agree. That's the most important thing.

Ooh, I'd like to know that, too. Helicopter flying is so much cooler with FFB. In jets I don't care that much, but in helis.... :)

Thanks for sharing.

If you have a waypoint near the targets you can slave the SPI to the WP to start there. You can also use the TAD if you got Bullseye coordinates or something like that. I usually place a markpoint at the Bullseye coordinates and use it as the WP to slave the TGP to, then start looking from there. Once you have an SPI somewhere near the target you can search with the TGP and slave the Mav to it, basically you are doing it right already. The HUD is a nice option as well if you can already see the targets. In fact you probably don't need your TGP at all then. Just center the Mav, fly towards the target, and put the Mav's seeker cross over the target. You can then ground stabilize the Mav, lock and fire.

Looks good. :)

But I feel it in my bad knee already! :D

Ok, I tried yet again, this time a ramp start (actually I had to look up the checklist because I forgot how to start :D ), and again it worked flawlessly. setup: - empty mission with only one P-51 in it - 100% fuel, full gun ammo - Groom Lake - ramp start according to check list - no warmup, just takeoff - accelerate to 200mph IAS - keep throttle and RPM in the green - climb in big circles, VVI showing 1000 fpm climb - keep needles in the green - supercharger automatically activates at around 16,000ft - stop flying circles at around 20,000 ft. to have more lift - climb and climb and climb I could reach 30,000ft in about 30 minutes. I timewarped while flying so it only took me seven minutes of real time, of course that ruined my climb rate a bit. Unfortunately my video didn't save properly, I guess I have to get another recording software. Oh, and: Can anybody confirm that? I haven't tested it yet. EDIT: CONFIRMED! I just repeated the above test, with one change: mixture in "Emergency Rich" (all the time). I could not climb above ~16,500ft. Zimmerdylan, please try again and report back!

I agree that for the finer things in a flight model the general public - even if it is the community here - may not be perfect, but the work on the M-2000C AFM shows that a few guys with some performance charts and a bit of practice can find lots of stuff in a flight model, at least up to the point where they can post it and ask "is this normal and supposed to happen?" so the real experts (pilots and programmers) can look into it. :)

Can you post the mission you used? Perhaps we can then reproduce it. I am completely baffled by this, since I have tested it and it works perfectly. I don't doubt it is a bug, but we have to find what causes it to help ED fix it. All I can say that it does not happen here (no mods of any kind, just the most recent 2.0 alpha version, a simple mission with only one plane starting from Groom Lake, tested both ramp start and runway start). Especially since the altitude you are describing is almost exactly the one where my supercharger kicks in.

That hourly operating cost would be pretty low. IIRC the cost for an hour of A-10 flying is around $12k, I would expect the Frogfoot to be in that region, probably a bit lower, like $6-8k per hour at least.

I think that's exactly what Pikey had in mind. Forward air strips (often just a more or less flat field or meadow) where frequently used during WWII. So if DCSW is to have proper WWII maps we need those.

I wonder: Couldn't someone just copy the code of a carrier, make it placeable on land instead of water, and get rid of everything but the flight deck and make the deck longer and broader. Then give it a "block" of earth underneath it, to make it flat ground (like a FARP). You would spawn it like a normal unit, which would solve some problems I guess. I know I know, it probably isn't that simple but I don't know why.

There's always room for improvements but IMO what we have in DCSW right now is a step in the right direction. I'd say it is a bit overdone, especially for ground objects, but it "feels" better.

Being used to them from FC2 I missed them in DCSW when they were removed, but actually they are pretty bad compared to the newer ones (CBU-87 and CBU-97) so I don't really mind now. For a Vietnam era scenario we would need them though.

Ok, let me just ask bluntly: Is there any way the community can help you getting the AFM released, such as an extended testing? Your colleagues at Razbam for example have released an unfinished AFM for the M2000C and got tons of feedback that helped them to get it working much better in a pretty short time. Maybe that could be an option for you as well? Just make an "AFM testing" subforum and release the EFM in the alpha or beta branch. Then the AFM programmer can focus on that forum for feedback, and a moderator can delete all the not helpful posts there to keep it clean for him. In addition to that I'd say it is better to have a bad AFM than none at all, because that will affect so much functionality that you can't do with an SFM. So please think about it and tell us, there are supportive people in the community that would be glad to help you and provide constructive feedback. :)

Welcome! There are lots of nice online playing guys here, you'll surely find some in your time zone. :)

Sounds good :)

Yeah, there has been that case of stuff with bad LODs that were transparent when viewed from a certain angle. It could really happen. In fact it happens right now with bridges I think. Saw it in another thread yesterday.

Absolutely right! It is amazingly easy to drive a car "in formation", even at pretty high speeds, yet I failed to do so in pretty much every racing sim I ever tried. :D The same applies here of course. This aspect is actually easier in real life than in a simulator. Although I think seeing in 3D is even more imporant than the feeling for acceleration. Your "butt sense" can be VERY misleading when flying (in driving it is pretty good though). In fact it can be so misleading that instructors advice you not to judge anything by it, but use your instruments. There is a cool video on youtube that explains some of the funny stuff you can feel while flying, it could be this one or a similar one (can't look right now): [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yHszBWQIsc[/ame]

I think the more important info here is the weight, not those few horse power give or take.