pyromaniac4002

^+1

I don't know if any difference in descent slope is needed or whatever, but just be ready when the shaking develops and you start to pitch nose down to give it a good handful of rearward cyclic. Once you get out of the weird "not sure if I'm hovering or if I'm flying forward" stage it'll smooth out again.

Don't know if this has already been addressed but I didn't have time to go through 7 pages to check right now... The throttle is called "corrector" or something like that in the Axis Assign page. It's right next to collective.

In case this isn't happening while falling 2,000 fpm, it could be the transition out of translational lift, and in that case you just have to be on top of it with your cyclic control. You don't have enough forward momentum to keep air flowing cleanly through the nose down pitch of your rotor and you need to pull back on the cyclic. It's a pretty big difference in cyclic position, so I can imagine that would be surprising and make you think something was wrong.

Like c0ff said, you're working with a control stick mounted directly at the joint. In the real thing, there's a couple feet worth of extension, which means you move the stick a lot more to affect the same position change in the controls. That means you get more fine-tuning ability, and that's why you're out of control in what sounds like every aircraft you get your hands on. Don't mess with your pitch or roll curves, and if you want to add some curvature to your yaw axis, I'd keep it to a minimum. Whenever you add curvature you lose out on fine control-ability outside the immediate range around center, so in those P-51D spinning out of control while trying to turn situations, it's even harder for you to get to the limit of your pitch (the point where screen shaking sets in) without going over and rolling the plane.

Got it yesterday. I love it. It's slow, finicky, and has happily sent me plummeting to a fiery grave more times in the last 12 hours than I care to recall, but I love the Huey. There's nothing like the sound of that 2-bladed propeller cutting through the air over your head, and I find that I'm really liking the gunship setup. Made me appreciate the hell out of the Ka-50 though. I'll never be able to fly it again without thinking how lucky I am to have coaxial rotors or 4 channels of autopilot to keep me flying without feeling like I'm balancing on the tip of a needle.

I think it's hard to grasp when you would actually experience it because you figure if a helicopter were unable to maintain altitude with full power, it wouldn't have gotten off the ground in the first place, but when you think about specific conditions it makes more sense. If you flew a fully loaded Huey from the beach in Iraq up to the mountains in Afghanistan, you might experience SWP because of the difference in air density. Namely, you were able to lift X amount of weight at sea level safely, but at altitude you exceed the ability of your engine to churn out enough downforce to keep in the air. Like VRS you address it the same way, by increasing your forward momentum, and that will give you lift much in the same way that a regular airplane wing will, and that lift will supplement what you can get with power alone. It seems to me like VRS is something you have to keep an eye on at all times, while SWP will only really occur when you're pushing the limits either weight-wise or altitude-wise.

Well the gunship Hueys will obviously be killing things on the ground. Anyone that takes a transport Huey though can pretend they're transporting VIPs or the President or something and dart in and out of mountains and scream things like "Hold on, sir! We're going down!" when a Flanker inevitably sniffs you out and shoots you down. I know that's what I'll be doing.

I would think they were talking about an AI version. I could've sworn I saw something a long time ago about ED not doing the F-15E themselves because they don't want to get in to trying to model a two-seater aircraft. I can't imagine if that was the case they'd just jump into the world of bomber aircraft, as awesome as it would be. If this is for real though, here's hoping for DCS: B-1B, B-52H, and B-2 in the future. :pilotfly:

:lol: Very well done! Thank you for some much needed laughter.

Kaiza pretty much nailed everything there is to know about IFF, but as far as identifying whether another chopper/etc. is friend or foe, you just gotta get in close enough for a look at the paint job or see that he's in the process of attacking you. There's really no getting around it. Asking AWACS could help, but half of the online games don't have one and sometimes it seems a little finicky to me, so I'd just be prepared to be self-sufficient.

Well if anything you've made it perfectly clear that you're a thoroughly unpleasant person. Given your propensity for entitlement and enmity, I'd say your best shot is to do what you did with your gaming setup: throw money at it. Buy a server, buy some people to play with you, buy your own forum to set up archives as you see fit, and have a nice life. On behalf of myself and many other normal, more pleasant people here, I'd like to offer you a nice tall glass of STFU, free of charge. Now I'm off to go play on a server restricted to in-cockpit view and not piss and moan about it later to an uninvolved third party. :pilotfly:

In the case of an EMP, you might find that reading the MFCDs on our A-10s or F-35s or what have you in a region wouldn't be the foremost of many peoples' concerns because we'd be in a nuclear war. At that point we'd move down the line from JDAMs to the Minutemen and Tridents and B-2s, so the military situation at large doesn't really give a damn whether or not a collection of pilots can see their exact position or use their targeting pods (that is if their aircraft were still functioning enough to fly). Many military aircraft are shielded against EMP, but no one can really tell you for sure how well you could expect something as sophisticated and transistor-reliant as an F-35 to hold up. But the bottom line is if you're in an EMP environment in this day and age, you've got bigger fish to fry. And the fact that your MFCDs are a hot target for failure in DCS: A-10C really doesn't have anything to do with reality. It's a really more of a situation of the game saying "You took damage up towards the front of the aircraft, eh? Hmm... Well the MFCDs are at the front, so we'll say you lost one of them." It would be pretty hilarious if the MFCDs in real-life A-10s were as finicky as ours.

So if I'm reading this correctly I should be loading my F-15 with AIM-7Ms now? That pretty much says all you need to know about how much the missiles have been messed up if it's more advantageous to carry Sparrows instead of AMRAAMs. Seems to me like I would leave out the missile FM changes from the patch if it screws them up this badly. I'm looking forward to the day where there's enough quality control in these patches that we don't have to cripple an aspect of the gameplay just for the sake of including some incremental improvements.

You're missing the point of the F-35 program entirely. It's an F-16/AV-8B replacement for the 5th gen world. It's not something that was ever meant to completely dominate in a particular area, much less in every aspect like you seem to berate it for. It's multirole for the era of stealth aircraft. The F-16 is far and away the most flexible and widely-employed (which is itself a significant measure of success) aircraft flown by Western society today and the last few decades, and when you look at the plane itself, it was never an exceptional dogfighter on par with an F-15, nor was it as capable a bombing platform as even an F-111 (assuming it would have been given similar avionics upgrades over the years as the F-16 has). They're aiming for the mark that the F-16 hit, and considering the unequivocal success it had throughout its service life, it's certainly not a bad goal to pursue. The F-35 is absolutely a capable fighter, it's just not particularly exceptional in any one regard. I think you're really excessively discounting the advantages of employing low-observable aircraft. Sure, you can't fit a HARM in the weapons bay. Why the hell would you want to if you could drop a vastly more cost-effective SDB on the same target to achieve the same lethality and even less of the risk? (SEAD with HARMs outside of a SAM's range is great, but if you can see the aircraft coming, you can still do something about it, like perhaps send up a couple of your own fighters.) Anyways, if you want to launch a stand-off weapon, there's certainly no disadvantage incurred by launching it from an F-35 rather than a Rafael M. A standoff weapon is something employed in spite of the abilities of the dropping aircraft; the only benefit you could actually have is how many of them you can fit on the plane and how far that plane can carry them before needing aerial refueling. They're used when the aircraft itself is incapable of effectively attacking the target. Obviously, if you're looking for future expandability, you want a plane that can fulfill more of its missions with less reliance on specialized weaponry instead of something like the Rafael M which will need those munitions to do the same job from day one. Bottom line, stealth technology is clearly going to be part of the future of air combat. It's still very cost-prohibitive and annoying with all the development issues at this point in time, so it might seem much more desirable to ditch a few F-35s in favor of some F/A-18E/Fs or Typhoons which will more than hold their own in today's skies. Ultimately though, the growing pains come with the territory of developing a new generation of combat aircraft. Our long-term defense interests are better served by investing in the F-35 and other projects like it rather than copping out for a few 4.5-gen replacements in the meantime. Obviously, we can't bankrupt ourselves building the F-35, but your pessimism for the development process and downplaying of its abilities (you act as if the stealth aspect was just a cool little party piece) is really doing a disservice to what I'm sure will prove to be a very successful aircraft in due time.

If you're flying fast enough and you pull hard enough on the flight controls though you might just break the wing so quickly that you don't get any noticeable buffeting or shaking. I don't know how fast the keyboard will actuate the stick, but it's just best to bear in mind when you're going fast (primarily when you're in a dive) that you should keep your movements on the calmer side.

None of the FC3 aircraft are able to carry the AGM-84, but I'm not familiar with the Russian flyables and the Kh-31A. Anyways, I'm quite sure a synthetic aperture radar mode is totally unnecessary to launch either of those weapons. It would be a much simpler radar mode like "SEA" in the F-16 (the water-friendly version of GM). If and when they do add a dedicated anti-ship missile (hopefully with the upcoming DCS Fighter), I'm sure the launching aircraft will be suitably equipped in avionics as well.

Great video, looks like so much fun.. My enthusiasm for picking my copy up once I recoup some of the expenditure of buying Halo 4 (because I couldn't take the wait anymore) has been very much restored. F-15 cockpit is simply a work of art. I feel bad for all the Ruskie bird pilots that they don't get 6DOF and a (currently) flawless exterior model, but I'm all about DAT EEGLE so I am going to enjoy the hell out of this.

Some very good points, gentlemen. At the end of the day for me, I'm sure I will eventually end up buying FC3. I like the work these guys do, $40 isn't super difficult to come by and we all know we've spent the same amount on far less deserving products at one time or another, and I really could use something to pass the time until DCS Fighter comes out. The 6DOF Eagle in DCS World is something I'm really going to enjoy, even if it's only SFM and simplified avionics. Been waiting a long time for something to grief (in the most sportsmanlike terms, of course) some Red Team pilots with in DCSW.

None of the aircraft in FC3 have actual AFM. It was always supposed to be SFM with less ridiculous landings. And if the wheels aren't even turning, yeah it shows they're still in a very much unfinished state, but this was kinda marketed as one of the major points of the update over FC2. Absent anything official about whether or not they have actually included it in this release, you have to think that even a beta would still implement one of the basic tenets of an upgrade like this in some form. Like they could implement it in an imperfect form and the touched-up version comes in the final release. Also, the original release date was September; we're not far from mid-November. Why with an extra 5 weeks of development does the landing feel identical to the landing any of us experienced for the last 2 years? I haven't seen it firsthand, because in waiting all this time I ended up putting that $40 towards getting a copy of Halo 4 (which, if anyone was wondering about it, is awesome) and now I have to wait before picking up FC3. I'm sure eventually all of this stuff will get worked out, like it always has been, but it's still a little disappointing. Bottom line though, there's clearly more than enough reason for some people to be upset here. Don't give them such a hard time.

Weird. It does the exact same thing for me in Chrome, but works like a charm when I dig out Firefox from the start menu.

Personally haven't seen anything speaking to that point, but if I'm wrong, somebody please correct me. With P-51D they told us things like War Emergency Power or the engine heat model were not initially implemented, so I'm sure if they left it out for whatever reason they would mention it. Maybe they're just lagging behind a little bit.

Just thought to check up on this, and I'm still sitting at 2 activations on all of my modules. Any help would be appreciated.

lol, that's still a long way off yet. Cool to see a Helix land on a proper aircraft carrier though, I'm sure they enjoyed having all of that deck space to work with.

I don't see what the problem is. Clearly the submunition detected an alien T-80U on the surface of Mars and fired on it. I'd say it's working better than anyone could have expected! :detective: