statrekmike

For a good long time, I was kinda anxious about learning to refuel in DCS. I suppose it was probably because the online community surrounding DCS would often make a lot of fuss about how incredibly hard it is and how frustrating it can be. That rather negative, rather demoralizing view really stuck in without me really realizing it. For some years, I played DCS without even really trying it for myself to see what it was like. I just kinda took the internet's word on it and that word was discouraging to say the least. When the Hornet first came out, it was clear that I was going to need to learn if I was going to do realistic/authentic feeling missions in it. There was no avoiding refueling in that kind of jet (at least not without seriously compromising mission authenticity). The first try was a disaster. I really didn't know what to expect (beyond the theory behind it) and while I was able to occasionally connect, it was usually in spite of myself and never for long enough to matter. After that session frustrated me to a immense degree, I decided it would be better to simply step away and try again tomorrow. Maybe something would be different. The next day, I was surprised to find that it was a lot easier. It was still a challenge but I was able to do a full refuel after some effort. It wasn't perfect but it was a obvious step in the right direction. The day after that was even better. I continued my daily practice for some time and now I can refuel pretty reliably. I am still not perfect but I am okay enough to count on being able to refuel without a serious issue. Interestingly enough, I recently took a jab at refueling the F-16 and the cycle kinda repeated itself in a way. I could do the basket and probe thing pretty well but flying the lights was a whole different ballgame and required a sort of "back to square one" approach. The first attempt was a frustrating disaster but the next day was a lot better. I just need to keep that practice up and I will eventually get it pretty reliably. Additionally. I have found that it is a perishable skill. You do need to practice every now and again to make sure you still have it down. If you don't, things can get a bit frustrating when you come back to it. If anything. Learning to refuel highlighted a pretty serious issue in the larger online DCS community. Sometimes the narratives surrounding DCS's difficulty do more to discourage than we perhaps think.

Others have already stated the details but I figure I will put it in more generalized terms. In order to properly use the radios in the A-10C module, you will need to bind the individual positions of the mic switch. In order to do this, you will need to go into the controls menu and look for the category pull-down menu on the top left corner. It will be next to another pull-down menu where you can choose the different aircraft modules you want to bind controls for. On that category pull-down, select "HOTAS" and you will be presented with ONLY the HOTAS controls that can be potentially bound. Once there, you will be able to find the "mic switch" and will need to bind all of them to convenient controls (or at least make note of the keyboard binds and write them down if you can't bind them to anything). You do not use the "" key at all to use the radios in the A-10C. That is only for intercom on the ground or for aircraft modules with only one radio. It is useful to note that most modern NATO aircraft have multiple radios and all are treated in a similar fashion. For example, the Hornet has two radios that you need to individually select via different mic switch positions. Again. one who is flying the Hornet module would not use the "" key to control the radio and would only use the mic-switch controls.

It sounds like you are pulling too hard during the turn and need to learn to adjust how hard you are pulling to keep yourself in a good place AoA wise. My suggestion. Hop into a scenario that just lets you fly around without any enemy aircraft or anything. Start by making nice, subtle turns where you are carefully working the stick. Once you have that down and have a good feel for it, start pulling a bit harder and practice keeping the AoA at around 15 units. The plane WILL shake but with careful, thoughtful flying, you will eventually reach a point where you can see and "feel" when you are pulling too much and when you can pull a little more. This is a practice issue more than anything else. More practice produces better results.

As of right now, the F-14 module has the benefit of being largely complete and nearly fully capable in regards to systems, weapons, and features. For that reason alone, it is a good module to invest time into right now since you can pretty much learn it from beginning to end without any functionality gaps creating interruptions. Beyond that. The F-14 is a very polished, very high quality experience and there was clearly a lot of love put into the module overall. Now, you mention the F/A-18C and I think that it is important to offer some food for thought in "defense" (for lack of a better term) of it. When the Hornet module is completed, it will be a modern, very capable, and very versatile multi-role aircraft. It may have a (somewhat mild) fly by wire system and a lot of digital systems and that may turn off some with specific biases but that very same set of modern systems also makes it capable of missions that the F-14 is simply not configured to do on any level. If you want to explore a lot of mission types, it might be a good idea to not dismiss modern aircraft so easily. To be clear, I am perhaps advocating that one should really dig into the F-14 now but not turn it into a "Tomcat versus Hornet" thing and keep a open mind about getting the Hornet and exploring its multi-role nature at a later date (when it is complete. Modern multi-role aircraft like the Hornet, Viper, and even the JF-17 may not be analog and may have a lot of computer/digital based systems but that is why they are capable of doing the things they do. I can't help but feel that a bit too much emphasis is placed on how "real" something feels in DCS based on how analog or digital the real plane is. At the end of the day, each aircraft has something to offer and shouldn't be so arbitrarily dismissed.

I have no idea what is even going on in this thread anymore. I feel like I am in a fever dream.

Honestly, the best thing you can bring to a squadron as a new player is a genuine, sincere, and very eager desire to not only learn but to teach yourself. To be self sufficient and able to direct your own learning without someone always having to hold your hand. For example. If you want to join a squadron that uses the A-10C a lot, make sure that you are already hitting the books, reading the manual (and not just Chuck's guides), and putting in GENUINE effort to learn. If you can go into a squadron already armed with at least the basics, that means that they can get you in missions all the sooner and won't have to work so hard to get around what you don't know. I can't emphasize this enough. If you can read, you can learn a DCS aircraft. If you can put some amount of time into practice every so often, you can learn a DCS aircraft. You don't need someone to hold your hand. You don't need someone to tell you what to learn. It is all in the manual and whatever terms you don't understand from the manual, you can look up via google or the like. One last thing I want to emphasize. If you want to join a squadron, you need to understand that learning to become proficient in various aspects of DCS involves more than just having someone show you something once. A lot of folks who teach others DCS modules are doing so in the hopes that their initial lessons are a door that you walk through and continue on your own. If you get taught something or learn something from a manual or whatever, you need to practice it. You need to do it enough so that it sticks. If there is one thing that a squadron should not have to deal with, it is members who are constantly stuck on square one because they don't practice and don't continue learning on their own.

I already knew that Deka confirmed it (I watched the interview they did on youtube) but I question the images and word of someone who has already been scolded by Deka employees for speaking for them. Perhaps it is more that the post above gives a impression that they are actively working on it RIGHT NOW when they have not made any official indications as such. We know it is coming but not if work has started in that regard. If the above user is not speaking for Deka, the post becomes misleading since it indicates active development without confirmation.

Is this Deka's official stance? Were you not the one that was told to not speak for Deka officially? I don't ask to accuse or point a finger. I ask because I am genuinely not sure if you represent Deka or not.

Honestly, I am absolutely certain that moving from Windows 10 to Windows 7 will only make your issue worse. What's more, you may think that it is fine to use a OS that doesn't get security updates (or at least won't be getting them after next month) but you will probably change your tune when you realize just how important those updates are even if you don't immediately notice them. looking at your system, the harsh reality is that you simply don't have the horsepower required to run DCS effectively. There is no magic solution for this that doesn't involve buying a new video card and more RAM. I know that you said money is a issue but there really is no way to solve your issue otherwise. DCS needs a better video card and more RAM than you have currently. I can't say this enough. Do not go back to Windows 7 in hopes of getting better DCS performance. It won't work. You need more RAM and you need a better video card. That is the only thing that will improve your DCS situation.

You say that it would be trivial for a glass cockpit equipped module like the JF-17 but have you thought it through entirely? Having a option to change the units would not only effect how you as the player get information. It would also (no doubt) require additional work to make sure that all the weapons, sensors, and even the flight model don't get impacted by any connections there may be. It could be a simple job but it could just as easily be a rather tricky one that would require more development time than is really worthwhile at this stage (for such a minor option). As far as my examples, I think that perhaps I should have been more specific. It is indeed true that some aircraft in DCS (MiG's for example) use metric units and that would require some degree of conversation on end or the other when it comes to mixed flights (JF-17's operating with MiG-19's for example). That said, if you have a few random people who are flying JF-17's in a flight together online and one of them is using metric while the others left it default, then you have a potentially large communication disconnect that would require someone to do some conversions either way. As far as your points about reference manuals and how language selection would have a impact, I can't really agree. The manuals that come with the modules and Chuck's guides all use pictures of the controls themselves or at least a diagram showing the general location. From there, it is simply a matter of using tooltips (worst case scenario). For example, I use the english option for the Mirage but I have no trouble using the Mirage's manual or Chuck's guide even though they reference the French cockpit. Moreover. cockpit language options don't tend to change actual instrument or HUD displays. It only really tends to impact the text labels near the physical controls themselves and not much else. The last thing you bring up is how the JF-17 is widely viewed as a REDFOR aircraft. That is indeed the case but that doesn't make it a correct view on a technical level. Nor should it impact anything beyond what the mission designer chooses to do with the module. At the end of the day, we are debating over a very, very minor thing in the grand scheme of DCS issues. Deka could decide to add such a option and if that ends up being the case, I will be happy that you are happy. Still, such a option wouldn't really do much and could potentially take a lot of effort on Deka's part of implement. Nothing to do with DCS coding is simple or trivial so it really comes down to how objectively worthwhile and meaningful a option would be and I gotta be bluntly honest, I can't say that I can see where such a option would be objectively worthwhile on a wide enough scale to be meaningful. If anything, it would sit firmly in a niche desire category and if it happens, cool. If not, life goes on.

A lot of the examples you cited of unrealistic behavior in DCS are not provided with important, highly relevant context. When you talk about the damage model, FLIR realism, weapon behavior, and even the spotting issue, you are not talking about options that are provided to the player in order to increase or decrease the realism based on taste, you are talking about flaws in the sim that ED is actively looking to solve or is already in the process of solving via updates to vastly outdated elements. When DCS does provide realism changing options, it is usually to make things easier without clashing too hard with the underlying immersion effort. Changing the cockpit language for a module doesn't really do anything beyond changing some textures but changing how the plane displays information to you (units of measure for example) would require quite a bit more work and would not be trivial. What's more, it would also create a ripple effect of issues. For example. A manual, checklist, or even Chuck's guides would be more difficult to understand if you change your units of measure. Suddenly the player using the guides would have to do those conversions that you are looking to avoid anyway since all that material would be written for the native units of the aircraft and not your personal preference. Communication would be another issue. So you are tooling along in your JF-17 that you have set to display non-standard units of measure. Now everyone else has to do the conversions you are looking to avoid because any information to your wing-mates would be in a format they are not using themselves. Either way, someone will have to get needlessly inconvenienced in that situation. Again. Changing cockpit textures to a different language may be unrealistic but it doesn't really introduce these kinds of larger issues. What's more. These issues may not impact you SPECIFICALLY but if such a option were introduced to DCS modules across the board, it would be a issue for others and a constant one at that. The larger issue here is that when we remove issues that ED is actively fixing via updates or bug fixes from your list, we are left with things that don't really have a larger impact on others (be it other players online or even those creating/writing guides and manuals). There may be a option for invincibility, infinite ammo, or even the sound of the warning voice but those are either client side only (and have no larger impact on how information is communicated) or are things that can be turned on or off depending on who is making the mission and why. I don't begrudge you your desire for different units of measure because people do have the ability to choose their own vision of DCS's "realism" via options. That said, such a option would introduce difficulties that would be more inconvenient than simply dealing with reading the information displayed by default and going with that. Those inconveniences might not impact you as a specific individual but that doesn't make them less of a larger concern and any less important than your own desires. To be blunt. I fly a lot of different aircraft in a a handful of different sims and some of them are going to display information differently from others. Learning to adjust to that (which doesn't really require that you do conversions in your head more often than not) is kinda part of the deal and not such a big deal at that. I know that sounds dismissive and I am sorry for that but it is part of the hobby. Learning to adjust to different aircraft, their quirks, and their behaviors is part of the experience and how they display information factors into that.

Honestly, I don't really see the point in making it free for only one specific subset of players arbitrarily. There are a significant amount of multiplayer only players who would essentially be getting all the benefits that players who pay get without ever having any drawbacks. A good chunk of the online community ONLY plays on public servers and their experience would be subsidized by those who may not even play online (or at least not on public servers). That doesn't really seem right to me. Why should some pay while others fully benefit for free arbitrarily?

I see a lot of concerns about splitting the multiplayer community and to be honest, I don't really see it. I mean, I can see why it is brought up but when I really think about it, I can't really see how paid assets like the Carrier, WWII pack, or even the additional maps are ever really going to be a massive issue because there will always be a strong emphasis on the free, default content on public servers anyway. Think of it like this. When you look at most public servers, you will see a bias towards maps, modules, and content that is already built into DCS. Those public servers are going to want as many new, fresh players as possible and the only way that can work is to at least include the free aircraft and use the Caucasus map and default assets. Some servers might elect to use another popular map like the Persian Gulf but even then, they will try to include as much free content as possible in order to create as few barriers to entry for new players as possible. Now here is where things get tricky. The moment you build a mission for a specific aircraft (like the Hornet or Tomcat for example), you have created a server that splits the community. Heck, I would argue that the community is already "split" because DCS's content allows for private groups to set up servers with no free content included at all. With the release of every new module, the potential to "split the community" grows and since it is neither logical nor practical to expect modules for free, I am not sure where I should start considering split communities a problem. When the carrier module comes out, I strongly suspect that the servers that want to be inclusive will include both carrier versions and that will be fine enough. It is the same thing when those same servers include the free aircraft for new players or a whole assortment of aircraft to allow anyone to fly what they own or like. Alongside that, you will have servers that specialize for their own purposes and that is fine as well.

First off, I should offer a clear disclaimer so that I am not misunderstood. I totally understand that the F-16 module is not only early access but VERY early access. I also understand and absolutely believe that ED will continue to work on it and will complete its various systems and features as time goes on. I bought the F-16 module knowing not only that it is early access but also what early access means in a DCS World context. That being said, I do gotta say that there is a flaw in the whole "learn the systems as they come online" approach. This was something that was started (more or less) with the Hornet's release and while it sounds good on paper, it kinda falls apart in execution. When Matt Wagner talked about how one could learn the Hornet one system at a time when they came out, I think he had a slightly quicker development pace in mind. Unfortunately, the pace for major feature additions turned out to be fairly inconsistent and as a result, one could spend a afternoon learning the systems the Hornet had on release and end up waiting quite a long time before having anything new to learn. One could argue that "it gives you time to practice skills" but even that isn't so time consuming that it really softens the wait. The F-16 is in a similar place right now. If someone wants to, they could sit down and learn the module's current systems in a handful of hours. If all goes well, some more features will come out on Wednesday and even then, it won't take a month to learn those added systems/features and in all likelihood, we are looking at a month between the upcoming update and the one after it due to the holidays. After the Hornet, I learned that if one really wants to sink their teeth in and have a long term learning experience, it is better to simply put the aircraft in the virtual hangar and let it sit and develop while one works on learning the more complete modules in DCS right now. Again. this isn't so much a critique as it is a observation based on my specific way of approaching the learning of a module in DCS. The idea of learning a module as new features are added is good if the pace of feature additions can keep up but if it can't, it may be better to simply wait if you are looking for a deep learning experience where you really get to dig in and explore.

As already stated, this is not really anything that Deka Ironwork can do much about on their own. IR modeling has always been rather badly implemented in DCS. Fortunately, Eagle Dynamics is working on a new IR system for DCS that will correct the issue and be a lot more realistic.

In order to get long ranges out of combat jets, you REALLY need to think about how high you are flying and what your speed is. hanging out at 20,000 feet or less while cruising along at full mil power will only get you so far. Going up to 30,000 feet or more and setting your speed to 0.8 mach will get you a lot further.

There is a big difference between "inexpensive" and "cheap" when talking about things like the JF-17. It is absolutely a cheaper aircraft in terms of unit cost when compared to much, much more expensive aircraft like the later F-16 versions and the like but that doesn't really mean that it will automatically have reliability issues.

You can absolutely bind targeting pod zoom controls to buttons. If you go into the "sensors" category and look for "FOV Increase" and "FOV Decrease", those will control the TGP zoom level. That said, it is my understanding that you don't want to ALSO bind it to a axis as the axis will always take priority and will cancel out button presses. I have been using the above bindings and they work fine.

I have checked the fuel data page, the small EP screens, and even all around the cockpit but I can't seem to find a fuel flow indicator. Does the JF-17 include one? Is this a case where real life pilots used their own devices to determine fuel flow? Maybe I am missing something obvious here. Has anyone encountered a fuel flow indicator?

Since the MiG-19 requires manual activation of both mil power and afterburner (via entirely separate controls), it doesn't need any curve settings as they would serve no real function.

This is one of those things that might be really controversial to say but after years of reading various books and ESPECIALLY memoirs about various combat aircraft and pilots, I have found that usually pilots will develop a fondness (bias) towards a given aircraft and as such, are not quite as likely (on average) to say negative things. Likewise when it comes to specific roles/mission types where the pilots who write memoirs (or the writers who assemble the words of pilots) tend to show a clear bias towards whatever role they did the most. A good example of this is Dan Hampton's 'Viper Pilot' where he tends to downplay the roles of other aircraft/pilots in favor of his own. To bring this back to the original topic a bit. The F-5 is actually a great example of this. Among the pilots who flew F-5's or flew against F-5's in the very controlled environment of DACT, the F-5 tends to fit well in its element and makes a good showing of itself since it can actually work inside its strengths. The pilots who flew/flew against them tend to (on average but not absolutely always) talk up the plane quite a bit without always adding the full context that would let us (the readers or audience) know that they are probably not talking about actual front-line combat. As I said, there are exceptions, Keith "Okie" Nance is quite open about how vulnerable and how limited the F-5 would be (especially the versions he dealt with) in real combat against dedicated combat aircraft (ones that are not mostly used for training nowadays). One of the big difficulties when having this kind of discussion in the DCS context really comes down to the MASSIVE gulf between the more commonly seen missions (via youtube, the uploads section of the site, and on public servers) and the ones that tend to be focused more on realistic operations/usage. In the former, just about every aircraft that can carry weapons will probably have some time to shine. In the latter, certain aircraft are going to have a hard time unless the mission is built entirely around them and even then, (as is the case with something like the L-39) there may not be a good way to complete the mission without a very, very real risk that you will get filled full of machine gun rounds (fired by a armored vehicle or something) or MANPAD missiles. Some aircraft like the F-5 might fare a bit better because of their speed/climb but others (like the L-39) will not be quite fast enough to so easily escape ground fire during those horrifyingly vulnerable moments that you need to line up a shot properly and with as little risk as is possible.

Binding based on real-world HOTAS switch locations can work in some cases but in others, you end up with serious compromises due to the difference between one's HOTAS and the real plane's HOTAS.

At the risk of sounding dismissive when it is not intended, it is generally a good idea to get in the habit of setting up your own controls in DCS. It can seem a bit daunting and a bit tedious at first but after you do it a couple of times, you will find the process pretty painless and a lot faster and more efficient than waiting for someone else to come up with something and perhaps upload it somewhere so you can download it. As silly as it might sound, it is actually faster and easier to just set your own controls up. Here are some bits of advice that might help. 1.) When possible, do all your bindings IN the sim and not via some outside program. There are some specific cases where certain users will want to use outside programs for more specialized, more advanced functionality but on average, DCS's internal controls config is quite good and will cover everything you need. 2.) You will notice on the top left of the controls setup screen that there are two pull-down menu's. One lets you select a aircraft and the other lets you select a control category. When you bind stuff, try to avoid using the "All" category and instead focus on more specialized categories like "HOTAS" or "Axis controls". 3.) DCS's default bindings for any given module are seldom very good. There are some obvious exceptions (like how it defaults the controls for the A-10C if (and only if) you own a Warthog HOTAS) but on average, it is better to clear out the default controls set for your HOTAS and (if applicable) rudder pedals and start from scratch. This may seem excessive but it will save you A LOT of time in the long run. 4.) Most aircraft use similar controls so it is quite possible to develop a certain "binding style" where you put certain types of controls on certain buttons/switches on your HOTAS. This makes not only binding easier but also learning new aircraft modules. Hopefully this helps. I know this isn't exactly what you wanted but I think it will pay off for you in the long run to get in the habit of doing this kind of thing yourself. It is far, far faster and far, far more convenient to do it yourself rather than wait for someone else to do it and (maybe) upload their work.

There is already a bug report section for the JF-17.

On top of having a (rather essential) option for a three position T1 switch, I think it is also quite important to have (like other applicable modules) a means to bind the throttle stop/idle so that those with Warthog throttles can bring the throttle in and out of the stop position.