addman

You can turn the gain all the way down which will remove almost all of the noise and it will still pick up bogeys. At least that's what I've read from other users but I find the IRST pretty useless, especially if a bandit is already hot on you. I guess it's primarily designed to take down, slow, hot and lumbering bombers.

Sounds like a never ending rabbit hole IMO. But yeah, having a toggle between "perfect condition SPO" and "worn out/de-synched 1990's Yugoslav SPO" would probably satisfy most people.

What is your graphics card and how much VRAM does it have? Nothing hits harder on FPS than lack of VRAM imo. It also depends on the module of course, the MiG-29 for example uses A LOT of VRAM even when you have medium resolution cockpit activated.

Problem with high altitude in DCS is the very very visible contrails which you can see from far away. IMO, contrails are the best air-to-air RWR currently modeled in the game. You are like a shining beacon up there, easy to ambush because you also get vector information from the contrails. Taking the MiG-29 to high altitude sounds like a suicide-trap.

It's all about design philosophy. The Russian jets are supposed to be easy to learn and they are designed to do a few specific things which helps streamlining the designs. If it was a tool, it would be a flathead screwdriver. Western/US designs are like swiss army knives in comparison. Much more multipurpose oriented and therefore requires stuff like an MFC/MFD (which I thouroghly hate) because of the inherent granularity of it's multipurpose design. Both designs makes sense for their own respective use-purposes. I prefer Russian designs for their simplicity, however we do have to contend with the technological limitations inherent to those designs.

Also, don't forget that the F-16A was a lighter and even nimbler fighter than the subsequent F-16C which was heavier. I listened to an Aircrew interview with a former Viper pilot who flew both A and later C-variants and he pointed out several times that the A was a better WVR dogfighter than the C. But yes, heaters only.

Just like to add my voice too for an AB detent settings, it was one of the first things I noticed on day ONE of the Fulcrum release. Very annoying and I can't believe this isn't standard on ANY new jet release at this point.

Yes, it's really coarse, at least when using digital input. If the input was finer then you might, at least, get near a somewhat trimmed out level flight. But if that's the way the real trimmer works then I guess that's fine. I'm also with the "as long as it is a close to the real thing"-camp.

Ok, so the aircraft is supposed to bank to the left after successful AFCS test and take-off?

So you are saying that it IS in neutral position after AFCS test even though the trim neutral lamps aren't lit?

I'm seeing the same issue here after C&D start-up. I run the AFCS test with no problems except that I have to trim aileron and elevator after it's done. But even though these axis are indicated as neutral, after take-off it banks a bit to the left. Have no idea why this is happening but I just use the trimmer reset button as suggested above. But I don't get why I'm having this issue as well.

Probably depends which modules you have installed. Like updates for maps are usually pretty big so if a bunch of large maps are getting big updates, like in this patch, then yeah, it's gonna be a few gigs of data if you have those installed.

I think I can answer that: Not today.

"Two weeks, be sure" (tm Oleg Maddox)