statrekmike

Why add a slider when there are already controls in the cockpit that can control brightness of the various displays? Why not just make those functional instead?

Speaking for myself? Yes. I mean, not all the time but I would at least like the option to fly a authentic feeling mission for the DCS module I buy. That is the key point here. Thus far, ED and third parties have smartly kept to aircraft that operate on a scale that works for the maps that we have and will have in the future. While it is possible for players to fly very abbreviated missions with the modules we have, it is also possible for a certain subset of players to create and fly authentically scaled missions quite comfortably. If ED or a third party were to suddenly start doing large strategic scale aircraft, it would not be possible to create realistic/authentic feeling missions for them AT ALL. I am sure that some would still have fun with them regardless but I suspect that ED wants all the modules to have at least the potential for a mostly realistic/authentic mission in the framework provided.

There are more than likely two (probably controversial) issues that really need to be considered. 1.) The B-17 was strategic bomber and a big part of its design (and thus flying experience) was based around range, high altitude performance, and everything that goes with that. While I know this is something that some will balk at, DCS maps are simply not large enough to really support a B-17 taking off, flying to the target, and landing without the experience feeling rather abbreviated to say the least. 2.) Multi-crew is still kinda coming into its own for DCS and the B-17 would really, really require good, stable, fully functional multi-crew on a level that would at least be difficult to develop. If you were to suggest something smaller like the A-20, Blenheim, or the like, I think they would be a good fit for DCS's obvious emphasis on tactical (rather than strategic) scale aircraft operations. Likewise, the fewer seats and positions, the easier it would be to make.

Just follow the procedure to bring the gear up or down and observe the indicator on the cockpit. I am not sure what else to tell you.

Going from tricycle landing gear jets and even prop planes (like the Yak) to tail-draggers is difficult. You really do need to kinda change how you think about ground handling and you REALLY need to pay attention to how much throttle you are applying and how fast you let the plane get on the ground. Just taxiing is a process you will have to practice. It is hard at first but if you take things REALLY slow, have a VERY light hand on the throttle, and understand how the differential braking or even tail-wheel steering works (depending on the aircraft) FULLY, you should be able to get the plane from parked to the runway. Take-off is another difficult thing. You need to pay attention to the steps as they are outlined in the manual and like taxiing, you need to have a good handle on throttle control and not apply throttle too slow or too fast. You need to be smooth and deliberate as you add power but you don't want to take too long about it. Again. This is something you will need to deliberately practice and accept that there will be more than a few burning airplane wrecks on the side of the runway as a result of your efforts. Some other helpful hints. 1.) When you go to take off, ONLY use as much flaps as you REALLY need. In a relatively clean configuration, most WWII aircraft in DCS don't really need flaps for take off and having your flaps out too much can make it harder to take off without stalling and winging over into the ground. If you are carrying a heavy load, only add a bit of flaps. If you are clean, don't bother at all. 2.) Every WWII aircraft in DCS has some form of trim and there is a specific way you should set that trim to make your life easier on take-off. This is especially the case with the P-51 and Spitfire where rudder trim is really, really important. 3.) Precise and careful rudder and differential braking will be required during the take-off roll. It takes practice and a willingness to really learn how to properly do it but once it "clicks" in your head, you will find take-offs pretty straightforward. Like taxiing, less input is better. Be careful about how much rudder and brake you are applying and don't let the aircraft get ahead of you. Practicing is going to be a important factor in getting this stuff right but what's more important is practicing good habits and actually learning the correct process (and not just some vague one you might find on youtube that may actually make things harder for you). It is frustrating at first but given time and a bit of elbow grease, it is something you can certainly get pretty good at.

You are speaking of the F-5 in general and in that sense, you are absolutely correct that it was (and probably still is) used as a front-line combat aircraft in some nations. That being said, I am not talking about the airframe in general, I am talking about the very specific version that is modeled in DCS. The version we have is the DACT version through and through and its capabilities reflect that.

The book 'Black Aces High' really digs into the air to ground operations of Tomcats in Kosovo. It is a pretty solid book and does get into quite a bit of detail about how well the Tomcat performed in that role.

You can be a bit rougher but it is like any other aircraft in the sense that you do need to be aware of stall speeds and such. If the MiG-21 is giving you trouble in that regard, it might be a sign that you should work on developing a lighter hand on the stick since that will help you in not only the MiG but also every other module (including the F-5). The radar is a interesting thing. Like the MiG-21 an the MiG-19, the radar isn't really meant to search for targets at all and is more of a fire control radar for your guns once you are in range to attack. You would not really use your own radar to find targets anyway as other external radar assets are going to be guiding you to the target anyway (like AWACS or some form of GCI). The F-5 module is great as long as you understand what you are actually getting. The version we have is essentially more of a air combat trainer (it is specifically modeled after a DACT aircraft) and as such, it isn't really intended for front line combat scenarios. You can "get by" in such scenarios but you will inevitably see why the versions of the F-5 that got exported and used as front line combat aircraft were modified over time to be more combat capable with better radar, more avionics, and more reasonable weapon selections.

Do you really think the USAF would use a F-16 in combat that can't use most of its air to ground weapons, a good chunk of its navigation system, and many other missing systems?

We can all get into loud arguments about this but at the end of the day, it is ED that holds the final say and perhaps we should MAYBE consider that they may have their own reasons to not include such weapons. Perhaps it does simply come down to only using weapons that are available on a very, very specific airframe during a very specific timeframe but maybe it goes beyond that. Maybe ED was simply not able to get the minimum amount of documentation that they require to feel comfortable implementing such a thing. Perhaps they were told that such weapons would be a no go for them as part of their relationship with Boeing and the like. It is easy for us to say "it would be easy! Why don't they just do it already!" but there may be more to it than simply ED not giving you what you want for the fun of it.

A simple "photo mode" with perhaps a filter applied is probably the most useful and least difficult to develop. It would probably not be useful for the kind of scenarios that are often favored on public servers but it would be a fantastic tool for smaller private groups who want to do campaigns that involve taking pictures in one flight that would be used for briefings in the next mission.

Oh please. If it was a "pre-order con", they wouldn't have so clearly laid out their intentions and what issues they are dealing with right now and in the near future.

The major issue is that the A-4 modders are kinda done with it. They have openly stated that it is what it is (barring major bug fixes I suppose) and if there is to be a A-4 module officially, it won't come from them and won't be built on the groundwork they started. The A-4 mod was built to just be a mod with all the limits that entails. If ED were to try to make it into a proper module, they would pretty much have to start from scratch. To be blunt, there really isn't going to be a scenario where the A-4 mod (as it is now) is worth buying as a module and nor is there going to be a scenario where ED or another third party is able to turn that mod into a proper module without starting from the very beginning. The sad part is that the A-4 mod's popularity has already influenced one developer (RAZBAM) to not want to tackle a proper module version. Hopefully another third party sees the obvious A-4 sized gap that still remains in DCS World and makes a proper one.

I seriously doubt that ED doesn't want to fix this issue. It is far, far more likely that they simply haven't had a chance to fix the issue yet or have not yet tested a fix fully enough to put it in a release build.

If one were to look back in both Reddit's various A-4 mod related threads and even some of the threads on this forum, they would probably see more than a few posts by the mod's developers saying that it was never intended to be a module and would require extensive amounts of work to even bring it to the level of a officially released module. They are not willing to do that work and without the SDK, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to do that work anyway even if they wanted to. This is something that gets brought up quite a bit and to be honest, the answer isn't really going to change. If a third party were to make a A-4 from scratch with the intention of making it a module, that would be a different story but until that time comes, the mod (as it is) will have to do for those that are not willing to wait for such a official project to manifest.

While it might end up sounding dismissive, a lot of this sounds like a practice issue more than anything else. It is true that it is probably harder to do in a sim (as Lemoine pointed out) but that is mostly because we can't really feel what the airplane is doing. There is simply no force-feedback system that can adequately give us the necessary effect. When I started the process of learning to refuel the F-16, it was exceptionally difficult (even after getting quite comfortable with refueling in the Hornet, Tomcat, and Harrier). The throttle in particular was very tricky to deal with and it was genuinely VERY frustrating. In the end, I really just needed to do what I did when I first learned to refuel in the Hornet. I put in a bit of practice each day until eventually it just starts to all "click" into place. As far as setting actual curves on the throttle. I really wouldn't do that. It will make for inconsistent throttle response which will only make things harder for you in other areas. It is better to have no curve on the throttle and just put the practice in until you get the feel for it. Keep in mind, I also use a Warthog and while it was super frustrating to practice early on, it got better. Just keep at it and it will eventually work out.

Out of all the options you listed, the F-14 is easily the most complete. It still has a few missing bits here and there but nothing so huge that it results in a massive functionality gap that restrict the kind of missions one can use it in. Both the F/A-18C and the F-16 are quite firmly in early access. The Hornet is certainly further along in some ways but it is still missing quite a bit. Likewise, the F-16 is very limited right now and while both are fun to mess around with, running serious missions with them (where you make the mission specifically to highlight how those aircraft might be used) will reveal functionality gaps and that is worth keeping in mind. ED has steadily been adding bits and pieces to the Hornet and Viper since they released so they will eventually get done but it is up to you if you are down to wait for that.

As has already been said above, you really will want to operate with ground control intercept stations. In DCS, they operate pretty much the same way that AWACS operate but they are on the ground as opposed to in the air. It helps to place a few where they might be most useful, set them to use frequencies the MiG-15 can actually dial in, and make sure you note the frequencies so you can refer to them when needed. The MiG-15 is a great example of a aircraft that really needs to be used in its proper context and by that, I mean that one should look at how it was used in real life and how it fit into the airpower ecosystem of its time. No aircraft operates in a vacuum so if you want the best experience possible, try to construct missions that take into account some of the support assets that a aircraft will work with.

That really is the price one must pay when using these aircraft outside their realistic context. There are always going to be situations where your big public server dynamic missions and even your dogfight servers become a bit awkward with certain aircraft because of this.

Without having any way to know the details of their relationship, I hesitate to make any assumptions in that regard.

The JESTER AI does work well overall (at least in the air to air context for the time being). The big thing is that you really need to understand how much or how little you should micromanage it depending on the situation. For most air to air situations, I have found that you almost have to just set a range and leave it at that. As is the case in both real life and with a human RIO, once you are inside 20 nautical miles, you really need hand control of radar locking to the pilot since that is too close for even a human RIO to properly manage. Even in single player, as long as you understand how JESTER works and the real-life limits of the systems it interacts with, you are generally going to be fine. The big issue right now with JESTER is air to ground. If you want to do any LANTIRN based precision bombing, JESTER is not capable of that yet so obviously you would need a human RIO to do those kinds of missions.

At the end of the day, you really need to choose that one that excites you the most PERSONALLY. When you ask a DCS forum what you should get, you are going to get answers based on what others personally like and while that can be useful information, it doesn't really tell you what YOU will like. You really need to follow your own gut on this one. While I will not tell you what to get, I will (hopefully) provide a bit of context for each aircraft that might help you better understand what each aircraft does. Starting with the F-14, it is important to consider its two-seat nature. Unlike the Hornet where you are controlling all aspects yourself, you are mostly going to be focused on pilot-centric duties while the RIO/JESTER AI handles the radar, navigation, air to ground weapons prep, LANTIRN pod operation (JESTER cannot do this quite yet but will be able to do it soon), countermeasures, and datalink. As the pilot, you do have some control over the radar in close-up dogfighting and you do control all air to air weapons but the RIO pretty much handles everything else. The JESTER AI is capable of doing a lot of this (especially if you take the time to understand the real limits of the systems and how JESTER interacts with them) but since you will not have direct control, it can take some getting used to. Beyond that, the F-14 is a capable fighter (I would even say it could qualify as a air superiority fighter in a way) even against more modern foes. It has a powerful radar that makes up with raw power what it lacks in sophistication. It also has the potent AIM-54 that (while not the super-weapon it is sometimes made out to be) will reward players who deploy it smartly. In ground attack, things get a bit more complicated. When equipped with laser guided bombs and a LANTIRN pod, the F-14 is a potent precision strike fighter. This is how the Tomcat spent much of its later life for a reason. It is very good at delivering laser guided bombs precisely. Beyond that, its air to ground utility starts to break down a bit in comparison to more modern multi-role platforms like the Hornet or Viper. There is a reason that the Navy didn't use the Tomcat as a general purpose bomber. It was only with the introduction of the LANTIRN to the airframe in the 90's did it really get considered a bombing platform. You can certainly drop unguided bombs (and a lot of them) but it does feel like a bit of a waste of a Tomcat to do so. With this in mind, I am not sure it is right to say that it is a "multi-role" in the most technical sense. It can be a great fighter and a solid precision bomber but it can't do both in the same sortie without running into some serious compromises (loadout-wise). When you fly it, you will certainly pick up on its focus on air to air. The air to ground aspects are kind of pasted on top and while it works fine, you do feel some awkwardness when you turn it into a bomber. It isn't really set up to provide you with ground situational awareness like it does with air to air. Keep in mind, before some decide to jump on me for saying the F-14 isn't a true multi-role in the most technical sense, wait until the Hornet and Viper are complete and I think you will see what I mean. When you have full ground radar, targeting pod, and navigation functionality, you will see where the term "multi-role" really comes into play and that it means more than just being able to strap a targeting pod and some bombs on a dedicated air to air fighter. The A-10C is a very, very different aircraft with a wildly different set of core roles (though there is some interesting overlap). The most important thing to understand is that the A-10C is not a strike aircraft. It gets awkwardly used as one in DCS sometimes but a strike mission as a concept is something you don't do with a slow, low altitude focused aircraft that can't really operate in contested airspace (via enemy fighters or radar based SAM systems). The A-10C's core roles are going to be based around operations in low-intensity air space (well away from enemy air power and well behind any major SEAD/DEAD operations). If you think of the air combat theater as a series of lines, the fighters, SEAD/DEAD, and EW aircraft are going to be working the line that is furthest ahead while the A-10C will be well behind working above ground troops and the like. With that in mind, the A-10C really comes into its own when used in CAS, COIN, CSAR, AFAC, and battlefield air interdiction roles. The whole point of the A-10C upgrade was to make it better specifically at those roles and allow the pilot to have a lot more situational awareness of what is happening on the ground. Unlike the F-14, F/A-18, or F-16, you will not be climbing to 30,000 feet, flying deep into enemy airspace, and dropping LGB's or JDAMs. You will instead be shooting at vehicles, troops, and other front-line assets while coordinating with a JTAC on the ground or a AFAC in the air. Heck, you might even be the AFAC while you direct your friends to targets. About as close as you will get to more traditional bombing is battlefield air interdiction. This is where you attack enemy logistics, command, and supply assets right behind enemy lines as a way to disrupt them. You are still not deep enough behind the lines to encounter enemy air assets but it will feel somewhat like a "strike mission" in a basic sense. On a DCS module level, both are complete enough to be considered "mission ready" in the sense that you can do a realistic/authentic mission without hitting any serious functionality gaps. In terms of module completeness, you can't go wrong with either the Tomcat or the Warthog. In the end, you really need to just kinda think about what kind of missions you want to do and go from there. The A-10C really does one specific set of missions really well (with no real capability outside of that) while the F-14 can handle most air to air and precision strike rather well. If you want to do any air to air, the F-14 might be a good choice. If you don't want to ever do air to air, the A-10C is a logical choice.

As of right now, it is possible in the mission editor to enable various system failures as long as the plane in question is set to "player". This is fine for single player missions and while it does rely on a individual module's specific implementation of system failures, it works rather well. Sadly, this option is simply not present for "client" aircraft in a multiplayer mission. Now, to be clear, I understand the thought behind this. Obviously such a feature would not be useful for larger public server scenarios and the like but since that system needs to be manually enabled by the mission maker, it is easy to not use such a feature if the server's usual visitors would not like it. All that said. There are mission makers and even smaller private groups that would really enjoy having the ability to enable random failures for "client" aircraft. It would make a great training tool or even act as a way to spice up co-op missions. You could even argue that having such a system justifies doing proper start-ups that include system tests and the like. Again, I know that this kind of thing would not be of any use for big public servers but since it would essentially be the same as the "player" set aircraft option, it would be something that a mission maker would have to specifically set out to enable and thus would only become a factor on servers that desire it. Please. This would be a great way to give smaller groups more mission creation options without having to create a whole new thing. The system already exists for aircraft set to "player", why not allow it as a option for aircraft set to "client" as well?

To be honest (and I don't want to sound like a bummer here), your system is going to have a very, very tough time dealing with DCS. The system requirements listed are (as always is the case with games) rather optimistic and perhaps lean towards technical rather than practical accuracy. The CPU you might be alright (though probably with lowered settings) but your graphics card is going to be a MASSIVE issue as it is currently well below the minimum requirements. RAM will also be a issue. Even if you do bump it up to 16 gigs, it will probably not do much to offset your older CPU. The next big issue is your hard drive. DCS really should be installed on a SSD these days and due to the size of a DCS install, it can (potentially) be difficult to even install a small (256 gig) SSD for DCS unless that is the only thing on the drive (or very nearly the only thing). There is a larger potential issue at work here. Since you are dealing with a pre-built retail system that is not exactly young anymore, it is quite likely that your power supply would not be up to the task if you were to try to upgrade. Likewise, the rather small case would leave you very little room to add potentially larger parts. I guess what I am saying here is that it might be a good idea to wait. Don't put any money into your current system and instead focus on the one you will be getting six months from now. Also keep in mind that you will want to look at peripherals like a HOTAS, head tracking, and (potentially) rudder pedals. You obviously don't need to get the most expensive stuff but keep in mind that it should at least be part of your budget.

Bomb mode won't really make it "easy" overall, it will just make the process more manageable as there will be fewer variables to deal with. You will still need to be able to maintain very fine control over the stick and throttle. In regards to trim, it is important to understand that there is never any one specific amount of trim you should apply. The idea is to trim the aircraft in such a way that you don't need to exert a lot of stick pressure to keep it stable. If you notice the nose wants to climb, add a TOUCH of trim to ease that up a bit. If the nose wants to go down, add a TOUCH of trim to deal with that. It is all about very, very fine amounts of trim. It is all about subtle, careful inputs. You really should be thinking in single "clicks" of the trim hat switch at a time. When it comes to autopilot, you really, really should not use that. Some will say that it works great but it will only make the process harder in a couple of key ways. 1.) Some mission makers are not always going to give you a stable set of tanker speeds. Using auto-throttle in these cases will only make things harder and more frustrating. 2.) Using autopilot to stabilize the plane during refueling may work for a bit but when that tanker turns, the autopilot isn't going to turn with it. Doing it manually will allow you to keep up with any maneuvers the tanker makes without losing connection. Overall, make sure that you learn how to do it properly before you start messing around with autopilot during refueling. It isn't easy and it does get frustrating at times but I promise that with a meaningful amount of effort and practice, it WILL suddenly "click" and you will feel so great. Don't try to shortcut around that process because any shortcut taken will inevitably make things harder for you down the line. The biggest thing that I have found when it comes to refueling is getting to the point where you don't need to know how fast the tanker is going to keep a good formation with it. If you find yourself asking "how fast is the tanker going?" while constantly overshooting or falling behind, you need to take a step back and work on using your eyes to judge closure rates. This can be tricky and will demand a lot of you at first but it is a key part of the process. It is not unlike formation flying with another Tomcat on your wing. If you have to constantly "speed check" with your buddy because you keep falling behind or pushing too far ahead, you need to work on actually paying attention less to the airspeed indicators and paying more attention to how your wingman's aircraft looks in relation to you. Another thing. As I said before, it is all about small, subtle inputs on both the stick and throttle. There is NEVER going to be a magic place where you don't need to touch the stick or throttle. You will ALWAYS be applying inputs to keep in position. It can be stressful, muscle tensing work but being able to know just how much input to apply is absolutely key. If you are heavy-handed on the stick or throttle, you will need to practice until that is no longer the case. I have always felt that refueling is kinda the "final boss" of learning to fly in DCS. Before you start doing serious refueling attempts or even put some measure of effort into good formation flying, it is likely that many will feel pretty good about their flying when they are dogfighting or flying to and from a bombing target. Even dogfighting isn't exactly demanding in terms of precision. This is why a lot of other wise good DCS players will find refueling so frustrating. it REQUIRES a level of precision that bombing, dogfighting, and normal cruising just don't. There is no magic bullet solution that you will find in a few minutes of youtube tutorials. The only way to really get to the point where you can refuel is to practice, practice, and more practice. It will be frustrating. You will fail a lot. Still, it will eventually click if you put serious effort into it. I promise that when it does click, you will feel a great sense of accomplishment.