DaveRindner

No smack on Cessna No sir, no smack talk in Cessna. Still the only aircraft known to have penetrated Soviet Layered Air Defense, and landed in Red Square. But I would not be inclined to purchase one for DCS.

I don't mean to bitch and moan, but I must let my thoughts out. Whats with all the training aircraft modules. C-101, L-39, Hawk. Whats next a Cessna? They are nice, as they are accurate, as trainers, their systems classification level is low. But this is a combat simulator, not a training simulator. As simulators become more accurate, the need for specific training aircraft will diminish. USAF is considering sending advanced air cadets directly into F-16D (two seat), for those heading to tactical aircraft. Getting rid of T series of aircraft. IMHO training aircraft modules are a questionable use of developer resources. Better put to use developing modules of actual combat systems. Mirage2000 is perfect example of what to develop. Thank you RAZBAM. As is F-18 C/D and Typhoon. However as much as we all love the Typhoon , it is a Bridge To Far, as many of its systems are classified and would have to be either deleted or non-realistic. F-16 Block50/52/60 C/D/I/E/F is a must develop. US ANG has updated all its Block 30 to Block 50 CCIP+. It is the standard around which other combat aircraft are judged, and around which most Western tactical air tactics are developed. Most missions are flown with this type.Whats trully classified are communication systems ,and radar, and of course some latest weapons. I'd say AIM-120 C5 and newer, and AIM-9X are too sensitive to develop realistically. JHMCS also out. Everything else is more or less in the open. AIM-9M-8-9 is extended range, all aspect with desent no escape zone. Perhaps Rafael Python-4. Large aircraft modules. C-130 SpectreII gunship is nice, but so many of its sensors are classified. However a USMC C-130 with tacked on AGM-114K is not to much. Two rotaries I would love to see. UH-60L/M and base NH-90.

all light 'bounces' off a target, except that part of visible and near visible, and IR, frequencies that are absorbed by material, being lased. Lasers spot using Pulse Repetition Frequency. Like a strobelight combined with Morse code. Each PRF has a number. That number is briefed during mission brief, and is unique to each lasing asset on the battlefield. So the guided weapon looks for bright spot (hit by laser) that has PRF that is assigned to launch platform. The laser spoter can be self-designated, off-board sensor(drone), or JTAC, or field improvised laser designator/spotter. This allows target discrimination and selection, and greatly reduces chance that weapon will lock to different spot (lased by another asset). Spot lasers operate mainly in IR and nearIR spectrum, and can even hop PRFs randomly to prevent target from knowing it is being lased. They are too weak to cause damage to equipment, but are a eye hazzard. This makes them portable with long lasting battery.

I got it working. I had to change my pwd, but everything works now. Nice to see Mig-29 getting a 3d pit. I would love a full on MIG-29C sim, with proffessional flight model, accurate systems and sensors modeling.

Right, but 1.5 refuses top log me in, stating incorrect user id and passworld. When clearly it is correct.

I am using correct id+pwd. Proper spelling, upper case on two letters, same as my id here, on DCS forum. But it is rejected inside 1.5 GUI. Per me earlier question how port codes. Do I need 1.5 version of modules? Do a new instalation into 1.5 Right now, aside from SU-25T and TP-51, all modules are greyed out. Non-functional.

OK, I have installed 1.5. Works great with my rig, HPZ 230 wkstation, I7-3770 3.4Ghz, 32 GB ram, PNY Nvidia Quadro 4000 2GB, Windows 7 pro 64, X-55 Rhino HOTAS. Is 1.5 openGL or DX11 like 1.2? As long as I don't use Bokeh, frame rate is 30+, 48 most of the time. I own MIG-21, FC3, KA-50 BS, A-10C, UH-1H for DCS 1.2X. I have the serial nums and codes from DCS E-Shop, all is well. Now how do those codes wok under 1.5. I would need to get 1.5 versions of the modules (where?). Also, in 1.5 account login DOES NOT work. The same name + passwd I use on this forum is rejected in 1.5 log-in. What to do?

Dont do it. X55 is my $200 mistake. I may just keep it , as hate to return merchandise, and see what I can do about it. But I doubt I will use to the degree where muscle memory develops, as it did for X52Pro. I planning on replacing it with Hog and pedals. The thing is I am doubtfull how Hog HOTAS will work for helo sims.

WOW! Did not intend this thread to be negative. That is my fault. Actually I am forcing myself to use X55. So far I developed wrist pain on the stick side. Puting stick on my lap is not a solution I can work with. It prevents keyboard interaction. Likewise puting stick on a side tray is more 'realistic', but geometry of my desk precludes that. I am a 'real world' visual effects artist (CGI for film + advertising), and my workstation is for my job. Flight sim is a side hobby. Does anyone here use SAITEK combat rudder pedals? Is it a receomended product. I found this interesting 'real world' sim defense contractor. What kewl is that their product show the actual HOTAS as implemented on specific aircraft. http://www.bugeyetech.com/#!primary-flight-controls/clng I really like throttle (collective) combo for MV-22. F-35 HOTAS is simpler then I though it would be. F/A-22 HOTAS is same as F-16 Block 50. How cool is that. THat makes F-16 a cost effective F-22 trainer. What got my attention is the generic COTAS design, that can be adjusted for functions of many (if not all) aircraft, without having to be shaped like HOTAS for that specific type. No Russian types, this is NATO aircraft only.

Good for you. I hate my X55. I hate it so much, matter of fact, I want to keep it, and ritually burn it , to cleanse SAITEK's engeeneering of foul spirits. I owned X52, then X52Pro, untill it worn out. I liked SAITEK's products. Though I'd replace it with X55. I was shocked with how utterly bad, poorly thought out, and badly designed , the product was. Everyone , on Web that is, has nearly same complaints. The hats on stick are unreachable when wrist is resting on stick during flight. The two small hats on throttle are too close together and interfere with each other. Accuracy diminishes towards deflection limits. The wrist rest needs to be at least 1" higher and adjustable. Its like SAITEK did not test the product. I cannot understand how something so terrible can be released.

I just got X-55 as replacement for my trusty X52Pro which has started to malfunction. X52pro buttons are not registering as pressed or producing multple signals. Anyhow back X55 X55 is a catastrophe and a disaster! Its a complete goatScrew from start to finish. Its simply a bad product. Badly designed and implemented. Especially on the stick side. The three hats on top of stick and top red button are unreachable when by thumb when flying, and precision controlling. They also interfere with one another. It difficult to use one hat (on stick) without brushing and activating other two. The system as a whole is a goatScrew of the 1st order. I do not understand, how this made past the testing stage. Buttons on stick. The wheel brake lever on stick is supposed to be pressure sensitive slider, not a button, which it is. To control wheelbrakes. DCS: A-10C, DCS: Mig-21, and DCS: KA-50, and DCS: F-15C all have pressure sensitive wheelbreak functions. Saitek disappoints with making wheelbreak lever as just another button. On X52Pro, on throttle, there is thumb slider, that worked relatively well as wheelbreak pressure. X55 omits this function with no equivalent. BAD SAITEK BAD VERY BAD. X55 Buttons in general, are too hard. You have to exert way too much pressure , and when they do press they do so with a loud pop and vibration that affects stick control. I foresee the buttons are first thing that would wear out and malfunction on X55. Flying DCS: UH-1H is way too difficult with this stick, especcially with precision, like when trying to hover. Much easier with X52Pro. Rudder twist. For some reason when X55 stick is back and to the left, rudder twist becomes harder and looses precision. Back and left with rudder is normal flight regime for UH-1H. X55Thorttle. Not as many problems but not good either. THere is no idle detente, and no afterburner gate as in X52. This is OK for its use as collective in KA-50 and UH-1H, but poor for AB jets. X52Pro had a very usefull hat on front of the throttle and a mouselike wheel. X55 deletes those and replaces them with two buttons and two way rocker switch. The throttle hat are moved to the side in X55 and there is an additional hat, which is nice. But does not make up for other issues. Split throttle. Nice idea. BAD BAD BAD execution. When locked there is jaring motion, and the left throttle handle lags a little. The friction is too tight, even when friction control wheel is loosened. Lets assume,for the moment that this is just adjustment, as my hand gets used to this. Assuming I don't burn the X55 in a fit of anger. The throttle slider button. which is great in X52Pro, is just a normal button that is slid, and registers only as single press when pushed forward. It is not a true slider, and there is no button function as it slides back. So assigning it as speed break extend/retreat is not possible. I am not sure what its most usefull as, right now I set it as idle detente switch for DCS:MIG-21 for engine start up. X52Pro wheel scroll, is replaced with scroll wheel on side of X55 throttle. Thats actually an OK feature. There is something wrong with either stick, throttle hardware or drivers. Becouse on any axis (stick or throttle) there is signal noise thats causing the axis to be jumpy. X52Pro has that problem, but only on throttle sliders (not throttle axis itself). On X55 all axis are jumpy. On stick side, when doing snap roll to the left, the control comes back to center by itself, even if stick is deflected to left. So conclusion. X55 is a miserable failure, a $190 dollar mistake, that needs to be recalled, and replaced with a properly tested product.

NH-90 NATO Frigate helicopter I like this one becouse I would love to see a naval/land based helicopter.

UH-60L, SH-60, S-70 export Blackhawk has so many versions, including an S-70 export version. More or less, only the sensors and client specific nav systems are classified. S-70 export/civ version is more or less UH-60L in non-US Army livery.

Nvidia Quadro4000 Nvidia Quadro4000 suppourting , well everything. DX11, OpenGL 2.0+, stereo.

WOW! Thank you all. Did not know this apps already existed. As a thank I share an acronym for military map reading. Military maps for USA and NATO are made by Geospatial Intelligence Agency, formerly Defense Mapping Agency. Every military has declination, either Easterly or Westerly. When converting shoot azimuth for your compass to map azimuth, and vice versa, when planning mission, or prepping tactical reports. It was taught to me and felow cadets in college, by then Cpt. Joe Rose , USA Inf. God bless him. MAGE Magnetic to Grid, Easterly Decliantion, Add map declination to compass azimuth to get map azimuth. Using that acronym you can reverse Grid To Magnetic, Easterly Declination, subtract declination from grid(map) azimuth to get compass heading azimuth. Now do that at 3 am in pitch dark freezing March in South Korea, after being awake for 60 hours, and carrying 60 lbs ruck, weapon, armor, secure radio with SINGARS attachment. Not fun. Made me wish I'd join the USAF.

DCS is fantastic and DCS: A-10C is amazing. I love the sim module. A-10 and MIG-21 are the most enjoyable of fixed wing sim modules in DCS. Still for its realism, it still does not train to some basic real world standards. If such a thing is possible on consumer flight sim. I served in US Army, so I don;t rightly know exact wording of readiness training and evaluation for tactical fighter squadrons. But it might go something like this. You are tasked with a close air suppourt mission, with 0545 TOT. Your mission start is at air field at coordinates (6 digit MGRS grid) and target in vicinity of (6 digit MGRS) grid. Required loadout is 4 X AGM54D, 2 X GBU-38, 30mm combat mix gun. Weather is standard day + 10 at both mission start and target. Runway length is 2000 meters at XXX elevation. No tanker. Divert is expeditionary air field 50 km from home field at grid (6 digit MGRS).Runway length is 1100 meters. AD threats at target are AAA (rdr, opt), SAM SA-8, no known MANPADS threat, no enemy air-air known. No JTAC Friendly gnd EPLRS available. ROE weapons free on pos id of hostile. -Calculate mission fuel load, and rejected takeoff point. -Calculate engine start and TO departure time. -Calculate loiter time for given loadout and fuel from previous question, for 15,000 feet alt. -Calculate reccomended loadout, fuel load change , and/or loiter altitude to extend loiter time by :15 minutes, :30 minutes. Define GO/NOGO/Divert decision points for minimum system failures at; TO, fence-in, at TGT, egress divert. Obviously a good number of DCS: A-10C users would scratch their heads on some of those questions. I have no idea how to do any of those tasks. SO it would be nice to have small app for Android or Windows that has calculators for that. Would be even nicer to have mission planner as part of mission editor. The above is example would be considered simple, as every modern combat aircraft system has its associated mission planning software, running on ground based computers.

Since a real dash-1 for F-15C is classified. I am curious if shutting down one engine, prior to final, is accepted procedure. I don't have split throttle, so one motor shutdown works in DCS. In RL, I don't know. RL F-15C pilot might make finals with one motor idiling, and second one at near full power, and aircraft all dirtied up.

IMHO. F-15C DCS: FC3 The idle thrust for F15C is too high. It is enough to push a fully fueled, and armed aircraft on ground, when wheelbreaks are off. it also makes landing more difficult as aircraft does not decelerate and provide enough drag for landing at 150 knots IAS. Even when fully dragged out with break out, flaps in landing, gear down, and throttle bottomed. On ground breaks have to be ridden to taxi the aircraft.

Of all the tasks in MIG21. Of noncombat related and flight safety. Landing is the most difficult. Of all the fixed wing aircraft in DCS, IMHO, MIG-21 is most difficult to land. But it is not THAT difficult. Provided grossweight is below landing grossweight, touchdown speed is around 300 kph IAS, landing flaps down, and VV (on variometer) is 2 m/s or less. Meet those parameters and aircraft lands safely. On long runways, break chute is not even needed. Nalchik runway is great to practice on. The 'flare' is really small, just enough to correct VV needle , to .5-2 m/s. If you land long, meaning near runway midpoint, pop the break chute, or perform a go around/missed approach. With 21, your approach IAS is 350 with landing flaps, reducing speed gradually to 300 for touchdown. Keep the rw threshhold just above the nose, gives you correct AOA, at 350 kph approach. I found that MIG21 made me a better lander on other fixed wing ac in DCS.

Question on APU and ejection seat. The startup procedure describes turning APU ON, but not off. Does APU automatically shut itself off, at some point? How is the ejection seat armed/disarmed? Its magically works by itself. What is the deal with nonfunctional switches on far back right panel? Are those fuses?

Has anyone successfully completed a loaded roll in DCS: F-15C. Thats the maneuver developed by F-18 community to counter cobra and tail slide of SU-27/30 and MIG-29S/SMT.

As long as it is accurate and adheres to F-4E NATOPS As long as it is accurate and adheres to F-4E NATOPS, for performance, and cockpit procedures. So a PFM and ASM with adherence to performance figures. http://www.checksix-fr.com/downloads/falcon4/Topolo/zip/Project-21/NATOPS_FLIGHT_MANUAL-F-4E-blk41.pdf

Verify, TACTICAL RELEASE, TO on. When it is OFF, bombs are released without fusing.

No big deal. All I had to do is install (re-install) with 1.2.15 download. Sinking tires was solved by fixing Line 83 in description.lua file. It would be nice to have a visible pilot in cockpit, and operatibility of those switches in back right side.

Actually having the break chute attached can be helpfull in those times when you land long and stop just just of runway threshhold. Keep the break chute attached, apply maximum wheel break, and maximum rudder, throttle up little shy of afterburner, and watch aircraft pivot about itself while remaining stationary.