Bananabrai

A UK one would be nice.

Your options already suggest a position there. I corrected that question for you: Is DCSW a simulation or a sandbox You guessed right, it's both. A sandbox other players also can play, players that praise their Air Forces jets and not USAF and ANG. I know, some people couln't care less. I guess that's a societey problem. Me, myself and I... DCS:W - Digitaly simulating combat, worldwide, thats also somewhere else than US territory then... It's the checkbox that should become a thing. Well it was discussed to death, but as a customer I have to say, if there is more need to talk about you maybe should listen to the guys who buy your products. A clear position is fine but listening to suggestions by your community would give us obviosly a better feeling.

Nice, gives a good impression. I never quite realized that the maps are actually not that far apart. I mean I knew it, but now that you visualized it, it's lookling to be less than I imagined

11-250 also states that during big operations and night time it is preferable to use 03 for T/O and 21 for LNDG... IF WEATHER IS NOT DICTATING OTHERWISE. Which is essentially the issue + AI not careing at all what the rest does. IRL i can totaly understand why they are doing this, but in DCS it would be better to deconflict with the AI at least by having a standart direction, at least if the wind is above 5 knots. We can not always assume everybody in MP should treat Nellis like a carrier, only launch and recovery operations at a time.

I am really looking foward to this bird! Looks just great.

That's the way I see it. The discussion will go on for years now, we know that already (like the one HB should do the F-14D^^) I can understand both sides to be honest. When there was the debate to remove HARM shooting capability on 4/6 I brought up the example with the Tornado fuel pylons. The shoulder pylons need replumbing to be able to carry fuel tanks, like if you want to fly with 4 fuel tanks or Bosnia-Config. It's doable and the GAF does it, they also could decide to not do it and then a DCS Tornado would have no 4 tanks, or even better, just fly around 4 tanks if the real refernce model is a fuel plumbed one. I am getting the idea of having a US conform version, it's great for the guys who want to fly exactly that. And where do you stop, should we then get a Harpoon because turkish F-16C Block 50 had that. I honestly don't know, I just have my opinion. But I think a lot more customers could be pleased if the simulation is still as good or as right as possible, but without omitting the term 'sandbox' so other countries can simulate their combat also digitaly (hence: digital combat simulator: world) In my eyes it would be solvable if there would be more tick boxes in the ME where you can set LASER codes, radio channels etc., say for example a tickbox "Frankenviper". And in that ED can experiment with what info they have and the Mission builder and Host can allow for that or not. I just don't know if ED are such guys. HB seems to be more like that (see adding NVG for the Viggen, having a general F-14A/B thats LANTIRN capable and rearmable,... Maybe they are more a kind of hardliners, which is great for the hardliner faction and a bummer for the sandbox guys...

Hi Joyv, Ich kann mich den Antworten meiner Vorredner nur anschließen, ich ergänze einfach noch ein bischen. Plattformen, Flugzeuge, Jets, nenn es wie du willst. Plattform klingt sehr professionell, das ist gut 1) Du kannst selber direkt einen Server kostenlos hosten, über dein laufendes Spiel. Dazu gibt es bestimmt einige videos, hier mal ein recht einfaches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG3x0WrLVWw In deinem Router muss wie oben erwähnt dann eine Portweiterleitung aktieviert werden, wie für andere Spiele auch. Sollte dein Spiel oder PC mal abschmieren, ist der Server für deine Freunde natürlich auch weg. Dann einfach neu starten und die Mission geht von vorne los. 2) Ob es public server ohne Regeln gibt weiß nicht, normal stehen bei den meisten servern die Regeln immer in der Beschreibung unten links mit dabei, wenn du den server nur mit einem klick markierst. Dann kannst du auch sehen welche Flugzeuge verfügbar sind und so, einfach mal durch klicken. Auf eurem eigenen Server macht ihr eure eigenen Regeln, und das nur per Absprache, da ist nichts hardcoded, also team-kill, unsinn machen usw. geht alles wenn du selbst Host bist. Dafür brauchst du allerdings eine eigene Mission, also als Datei. Entweder schaust du mal im Downloadbereich auf der DCS homepage, da gibt es haufenweise Missionen, oder du baust selbst was im mission editor, dazu wirst du aber am Anfang erstmal Erfahrungen sammeln müssen. Tutorials zum Mission Editor (hier oft nur ME genannt) findest du auch auf youtube. 3) Kann ich leider nicht. 4) Wie oben beschrieben. Zu deinem Flugzeug, ich würde auch sagen entscheide es einfach nach dem Gefallen. Ein Flugzeug muss man gerne fliegen wollen, sonst machts kein Spaß. Die westlichen und östlichen Muster haben grundsätzlich verschiedene Mentalitäten, wie zum Beispiel die angezeigten Einheiten in den Cokpits, die Art und weise der Darstellung auf dem HUD und den Displays, die Bedienung, usw. Schau dir am besten zu allen Mustern erstmal ein paar Videos oder kurze Tutorials an, damit du dich mit der Bedienung auch identifizieren kannst. Es hilft ja nichts wenn du die Karre optisch geil findest, aber dir die Bedienung nicht zusagt. Es sei gesagt das dieser Punkt sich mit den Jahren (wenn du dabei bleibst) relativiert, da ich zB. Lust bekomme Neues zu lernen. (Wobei ich kaum russische Maschinen habe) Schreib einfach wenns weitere Fragen gibt.

It's not that the info is not available to germany. The PIRATE was as much a german developed technology as the rest of the bird. The GAF just did not buy it (which really is a pitty, but germany also buy an attack helo without a gun...) I can just say as an example, we are testing the PIRATE as well, as much as the other stuff. The spanish guys have it as well, and the german developer is working closely together with the spanish.

Mercy. Das Bild hatte ich schon gefunden und so erschloss sich mir das mit dem H, aber ich hab dann wohl genau im flaschen Moment aufgehört zu recherchieren.

Hoffentlich braucht meine kurze Frage auch nur ne kurze Antwort: Weiß jemand wie das eigentlich mit den US/NATO 'designations' für gegnerische airfields und andere strategische Punkte ist? Also zum Beispiel im 1. Irak-Krieg gab es ja H-1, H-2 und H-3 airfield. Nun hab ich gesehen das eine der bases in Syrien T-4 heißt. Gibts dazu ne komplette map, oder ist das Verschlusssache?

Hi together, Our squadron uses the C-101CC for pilot training and we are wondering if an update for the fuel consumtion model or something related is scheduled? I am asking because we are planning to fly a set of tests with different loadouts etc. to get a good idea and put that into a chart in the end, to calculate the fuel for our training missions. If there will be another update however, we will of course postpone this, as otherwise we would do the whole thing twice. So this question goes to AvioDev directly. If you could already offer some data to reduce our test set, that would be cool as well. I don't know if you are allowed to give any data on that. Our first tests will most propably as follows: - ISA condition, Marianas Map (for lower Alt testing) - air start with 70% internal fuel, a jet every 1.000 ft from 1.000 up to FL150) - clean jets (maybe later with stores for some of the altitudes) - put a power setting (N1) and note the N2, let it settle for 30 seconds - note velocity at start, reset "used fuel" and stopwatch for 6minutes - note end of test velocity and used fuel

I heared that the Hind will serve as "technology carrier" for new infantry mechanics in relation to vehicles. That's supposedly also why the cargo bay is yet not accessable. I hope it's true, maybe Huey and Hippo get this in the end and we can do propper SAR, troop transport and maybe even internal cargo transport at some point. I think it's also on this huge semi-whatever-official roadmap of ED. Not sure though

Hatte es schon fast wieder vergessen Mal schauen was die Bahn zu 18:00 sagt^^ Man sehe sich in genanntem Etablisment die Herren.

What is HFS again? Just know HSG, LTG, HTG,... Edit: Sorry, was confused, knew it before.

I was wondering the same thing. My example orginiated from the Tornado, which has true fly-by-wire. Maybe I did write in a way that it could be missunderstood, sorry for that. The OP "asks" for let's say an easter-egg to control the canard flaps. My proposal was then, that this maybe could be done via the radar stick, at least that's how I would do it. What I did not know is that the control system is completly incapable of such control. Thanks for the clarification. Apart from that, the example was not made for flying the Viggen with the radar stick. It makes no sense, there is a control stick for that. In the Tornado backseat there was however no control stick. My example still shows that manufactures and/or operators do not build all aircraft up to the same standart and do test things out, even if you have a set of changed aircraft then. These were still real aircraft that actually worked, multiple ones, of different squandrons, for period of time, in normal GAF service.

Would also enjoy a good quaility west german skin. I don't know though where the Hinds would have been sationed, if we adopted them. And if they would have gotten the same coulours as the Bo-105. Wonder how that would look like.

It all depends on the warhead size what you call "JDAM accuarte", #MOAB Jokes aside, I don't know the accuracy of the HTS, I just know the ones of the Tornado ELS (& digital ELS) Even if you fly right towards the emitter, the ranging gets pretty good eventually, jaw dropping good if you have an angle. Also depends on the emitter of course, SA-6 is different from SA-8 etc. Easily accurate enough I perosnally would use an AGM-154A for that, debatable wether a GBU-31 would do the job. Apart from that, if it is still emitting, in my eyes it is not feasable to drop a GBU-31 on it, as it porbably is still protected or is a threat itself and the release conditions for a GBU-31 are pretty foreseeable. So JSOW accuracy would be fine for me, even a 100m+ accuary would give us whole new ELINT capabilites, and a new mission set for the Viper, including it beeing light years more accuarte than the Viggen ELINT.

In the Tornado there was a small phase of updates in the early 90s, where the WSO could use the radar stick to fly the aircraft. It was just a "beta-test", and was removed eventually, because it made no sense, there is no throttles, no gear lever, no flap or wing pivot or rudder control in the back. But it was tested anyway, so I could think of this being a test in the swedish airforce as well. As an engineer I would a say it could have been done via the radar stick, if that was a real thing. Air Forces do this stuff, and the companys that manufacture the aircraft as well. Sometimes DCS guys are more strict than real life.

Ja... die F-104... Rakete mit Stummel-Flügeln triffts ganz gut. Mein Vater hat 5 Mitflüge in ner TF-104G, die sind wohl immer die selbe Route/Trainingsmission geflogen, da quasi kein NAV system^^ (das war 1986/87) Die finde ich eigentlich absolut nutzlos, als JaBo eon absoluter Fehlkauf, Jäger ist sie auch kein guter, aber wohl das einzige Flugzeug mit dem man richtig geil VERTICAL cloud surfing machen kann. Schön an überentwickelten Cumulanten (so kurz vor Gewitter-CB) senkrecht hoch und runter, dafür ist sie GEIL. Man sollte nur bei glaub ~FL180 schon anfangen den dive abzufangen...

Hast du die Fighter Pilot podcast Folge dazu gehört? Einfach nur mega, alles andere als eine langweilige Geschichte... In DCS würde sie aus einem grund wohl gut passen: F-117 war mehr oder minder der einzige Fighter der wirklich regelmäßig als "lone wolf" operiert hat. Auf den public MP Servern in DCS machen das ja bestimmt 75%, was bei allen derzeitigen Flugzeugen einfach falsch ausschaut. Mit der Nighthawk würde es dann passen, wobei ich damit dann nur Nachts fliegen würde, sonst schaut es auch falsch aus^^

Photo reconnaisance is awesome and is also my personal most awaited thing in DCS. I normaly am really picky about the aircraft I fly and for what reason/task and I am not that much of a Gina fan, but a Recce Gina I would take any day, like an RF-5A or lets hope the TARPS also becomes a thing for the Tomcat at some point. For me it opens many more scenarios which do not rely on fance modern TGPs, but having different aircraft for different roles and really have a conflict buidling up with all the perparation beforehand and not having everything on the HSD already... BARCAP, scouting, ELINT + RECCE flights, and then the SEAD+DEAD packages, decoys, OCA,... I am dreaming already. A scoring sheet would not be so impartant for me, but to see a recce system integrated into DCS in the end. I guess with such a new feature, we have to remember where we shoot the photos and have them in a windows screenshot folder at the beginning. But ultimaley it would be nice if we can overlay them in combatflite or even a new DCS mission planner (which should not be the same as the mission editor, as the builder knows where he puts the enemy) and plan the next flights.

For reference: I have a WarBRD base with a 5cm extension and Wharthog stick, have that mounted between my legs 15% curvature is a good value for me personally, I set the same with every aircraft on roll and pitch. I don't have a dead zone on the stick but 3 sounds still ok, depending on your setup. If you have no extension, you could try more curvature, but remember that the change in the higher regimes is more violent then. What others may already mentioned: - wiggle your toes, sometomes the shoulders maybe, just don't get cramped - constantly adjust power, but not too violent, my throttles are never still during AAR. little adjustments can also help, if countered directly afterwards - focus on the tanker, not the drogue - Don't induce the oscillation but counter it by remembering what happens when you input something. Getting an up-down osciallation is easy, but countering it is not. There is a trick though, the oscillation is in the same frequency as your input wiggling input before, so if you double the frequency for one time and counter the oscillation really fast but not violent, you will get rid of it. - Generally, you normaly always have to counter an input directly after making by ~90%, because the system takes time to adjust for the change and if it has too much time (still only seconds) it drifts in a direction where you do not want it. So say you are 10 meters / 30 feet behind the tanker and you want to close, give 5-10% more thrust (move throttles by this, not the aircraft value), but immediately take away 3-8% again to counter for the excess speed and thrust you have now, and so on, the throttle always moves.

Wie gut ist das im Vergleich zu unserer DCS Hornet? Weiß man da was? Der radar dish ist ja kleiner, wobei das nichts heißen muss...

If it's only my digital eyes I don't care^^ Do it like a welder with no protection... Aim, steady, steeeeeeeaaaaaaadyyyy, close eyes and squeeze that trigger...

Jesus, it's getting so vivid, I have to answer Viper vs Hornet with: TOMCAT ALL THE WAY!!!