Aginor

Impressive!

Mk-82 bombs are not big, I think you will need several of them to sink a ship unless you are really really lucky. Especially if you hit the deck. Big ships will even need several Mk-84 or similar stuff. Those are warships, they can take some fire. I would probably start with the smallest ones, for a co-op mission the Corvette may be a nice target. In real life you might try dropping the bombs just a bit next to the ship, as close as possible (at least I read somewhere that was a tactic in WW2 for bombers to sink ships). In DCSW (or any other sim I know) that won't work though.

To be honest I completely ignored any weapons capabilities the C version has. For me it is a basic trainer like the C-101EB, and when I want to do anything more than basic flight and navigation training I go to the ZA version anyway. :)

I remember the funny light blue DM 58 handgrenades we used during my own military training. So yeah, when you see a military weapon of any kind and it is either blue or has blue stripes on it, it is for training. That doesn't mean it isn't dangerous, but compared to the real thing it is mostly harmless. :)

I would like to come back to the topic (A-6 Intruder): Does anyone know whether the KA-6 tanker Intruders had a different cockpit? So basically the question is: Was that a normal A-6 that could still be used for bombing, or was it modified? EDIT: Found it myself. They were modified. So probably we won't get that so easily from Razbam. (not that I would be too interested in flying a tanker, but for some it would be fun I guess)

It is true that for its time the B-17 was pretty accurate. Measured by today's standards it was still poor. IIRC a bomb that exploded less than 300m away from the target still counted as "hit" back then. And yes, under perfect conditions a B-17 or any other bomber during that time could actually achieve that. There were still LOADS of bombs dropped into nowhere. We still find them here in Germany 70 years later.

Interesting. Thanks for posting!

Yes. I actually don't know if they can change it during flight, I am not an expert for tankers. If it isn't possible they just have several tankers flying around in the area I guess.

Yeah, it looks kinda funny. The hose is about 1-2 meters long and connected to the end of the boom.

Welcome to the forums! :)

Maybe they just use USAF tankers. Those have a huge range so they can provide tanking for Navy planes as well, don't they?

Yep, only Super Hornets. Fun fact IIRC: Every tanker the navy uses carries less fuel than the one before: KA-3 > KA-6 > S-3 > F/A-18E

I don't think AI can't handle the AFM properly at the moment, and I am not sure how hard that would be to code and how it would affect game performance. I guess it wouldn't be easy. But yes, of course that would be cool, the AI having to cope with all the stuff a player does, like proper stalls, overheating and so on. But Maybe with a few tweaks a good SFM might be enough for the AI. That leaves us with the problem that the AI apparently doesn't know what tactics to use, I even think it only knows ONE dogfight tactic. And that one only works because of the rather unrealistic flight model. AI would be much worse without it. So yeah, the problem is complex.

Sorry, I can't reproduce that. I just tried both the instant action mission "free flight" and an own mission (starting from runway) EDIT: Now also tried a cold start. Works. In all cases I climbed to 35,000ft and stayed there for a while. Please provide steps to reproduce.

I wonder... Maybe if somebody is really great in doing textures it might be possible to make them look better, even with the old not very detailed 3Dmodels. But then the question is whether it would be worth if if ED updates the models a bit later. If we only knew what ED is working on...

Sounds good! :)

Same for many others, some look really bad.

DCSW doesn't even model the capabilities of the S-300 or the Patriot to their full extent, so a S-400 would be a waste of time IMO.

Thanks for the small update, Aviodev! :)

Thanks!

Thanks for the update, it looks pretty nice! How is the flight model and system model progressing?

I respectfully disagree with you here, Slazi. In my opinion DCSW is a flight sim first, so the AI of the planes is by far the most important one, followed by the AI of units that interact with planes, like ATC and SAM systems. And it was already acknowledged that ED has to improve AI and the flight model it uses. Still the OP also stated he has some problems himself, not only the AI. I think there might be something wrong with his supercharger. Leveling off at 17,000 happens if that one is not working.

I don't think so. I guess it is Polchop's decision.

I just tried it. NTTR mission editor standard mission, took off from Groom Lake with 40% fuel, full gun ammo. Version: 2.0.1.50747 (the current one) I am not the best Mustang pilot, in fact I am far from that. I haven't flown it in months. I eyeballed 160-180 mph as best climb speed, not sure if that was a good idea. I also let the charger on auto, which probably cost me a bit, and I didn't let the temperature reach the red markings. I climbed to 25,000ft in 23 min. 35,000ft in 30 min. So the average was over 1000ft/min. I did not notice anything special near 17,000ft, except that shortly before the supercharger kicks in (don't remember the altitude) you have to firewall the throttle to get a decent climb. That being said: I never reached the rate of climb that is listed in several sources, those 1500 - 2000 ft/min, regardless of the DCS version. Dunno why. Perhaps my pilot skill. :D I hope this is helpful. EDIT: I wanted to add a track, but it only shows me taking off, immediately slamming into the ground.... EDIT2: I tried again (this time I timewarped a bit to be honest :D) Same mission, but with 100% fuel, and I risked a bit more, temperature-wise. I climbed to 25,000ft in 20 minutes. The supercharger kicked in at around 16,000ft.

I can try in a few hours.