pyromaniac4002

There is, but it's done by modifying your default.lua script for your aircraft controls so if you're like me, that's no fun at all. In some places on the forums, people have made custom bindings for us Warthog users (like an awesome one for the MiG-21 that I use to make use of all my 2 and 3 position switches). Whether you find one or make it yourself, every single DCS update will screw it up and require you to re-do it. Also if they ever significantly change the keybindings (like how they added the HDD HUD repeater in the -27 and -29) for an aircraft, you'll have to modify the new .lua file in a similar manner or wait for an updated one to show up on the forums. Otherwise, you won't be able to bind whatever new function they've added. Overall though, it is WAAAAY nicer than trying to futz around with that godawful T.A.R.G.E.T. software. Good luck, hope it all works out well!

Mine's still running strong after several years, so at the least I don't think the build quality is any worse than anything the competition has to offer. If it were me, I think I would be more inclined to wait and see what they have coming out to replace it. Buying used, you can never really be sure what kind of condition you're going to get it in. If you do manage to get a good one, I'm sure you won't regret it. I've never dealt with the customer support and I don't doubt the horror stories on here, but it seems to me you'd have to be quite unlucky to actually have something break. Chances are you'll be just fine for a long time to come.

Yeah it's a bug introduced by yesterday's patch. The external fuel tanks don't have any fuel in them either, so leave them back at base and stay off the burners.

Yeah, it's not wind, it's one of the new bugs. I was telling the other guy why the rudders deflect on the ground. That's because of wind.

Well they didn't work on ANY of that. Between this and the last patch, there were no noticeable changes to the F-15 other than what they screwed up, and with the last patch they did manage to update the APU sound without incident. If they had actually done something to improve the F-15 and circumstantially screwed these things up, that'd be one thing. But it seems apparent that they didn't touch the F-15 itself and whatever else they were working on in DCS screwed it up. Also, nobody said "don't update the F-15 ever because you'll make it unplayable with minor bugs." So yeah, you can go back to your corner with your tin foil hat because that's not an issue. The really stupid thing is that this was in Open Beta, I saw people reporting it so I assume they knew about it, and they still pushed it to release without fixing it first. You can forgive me for expressing my dismay. And FYI: the rudders are moving because CAS is responding to wind. It has no practical effect.

Hell of an update. Broke external fuel tanks' ability to carry fuel and somehow the right wingtip gained about 2,000 lbs. And the F-15 didn't even need to be touched.

They can establish a track on the aircraft long before it gets to the Syrian border. The IDF does the same thing. Even radio chatter is monitored to track aircraft before they get off the ground.

Depends on how close you are. If you're chasing a guy trying to burn his way out of danger, AIM-7 could be better, but if you're close enough or you're in a turning fight you'll want the smaller, more maneuverable missile.

I'm sure they'll get around to it. As much as anyone might want to represent the Flanker as an all-powerful king of the airborne world, they can still recognize the fact that no fighter jet can pull more than twice the G limit of a missile designed to shoot it down and remain in one piece. Besides that, it's a relatively easy fix.

Lucky you! The checkered orange "TEXTURE MISSING" suit was the height of fashion in 1940s America. My P-51 pilot is very jealous of your P-51 pilot. :P If all else fails, I'd just remove the pilot entirely. It just gets in the way, whatever clothes he's wearing.

Come on, don't you guys know anything? It's just another instance of sabotage by the slave laborers that put it together. Hats off to ED for the extra degree of simulation accuracy!

No, it's supposed to be available for DCS release version. The module is in beta, but that doesn't mean you need to be running the beta of DCS to install it. That's how it's always been and that's how it should be this time. Nowhere did they say "we're releasing it December 3rd, but only for those of you with a DCS beta install."

What is the "Mk. 2 Eyeball?" An eye with LASIK surgery? Old flares were much better and more true to their real-life counterparts. Why mess with them at all? And why would it have anything to do with EDGE? We're not in EDGE so why would they drag this new flare out and put it in the old graphics engine? Doesn't make any sense.

There's something about that inertial starter that I really, really like. It's less convenient than the existing Mustang or Dora, but somehow it's still better. Can't wait for Wednesday.

That's right. The same thing pops up magically in the MiG-21 when you flip the gun camera switch.

The Flanker just doesn't do Mach 3.3. Forget making it disintegrate from heat, it shouldn't be getting anywhere near that speed to begin with regardless of loadout.

They're making something with two engines. Your F-11 here only has one.

Add 4 password change requests to the list from my end.

Regardless of beta or release status, almost all of the modules have their fair share of bugs. Because of the constant updating and upgrading, things that once worked perfectly are liable to be broken in any given update. Beta has more to do with certain things not being implemented yet, like the Fw-190 not having rockets right now. Bottom line, if you like the aircraft and would enjoy flying it, buy it. If you wait until the "release version" you're just getting the same thing you would have gotten if you got it in beta, except you haven't gone through the hours of learning and trial and error to do something like land the MiG-21 without flipping it and skidding down the runway in a ball of fire.

As long as Nazis are still around vandalizing synagogues with them, that's the only popular culture that will ever be associated with it. There's just something about taking up a symbol and killing millions of people under it that really kind of diminishes whatever else it could stand for. I'd advise that you not start putting swastika bumper stickers or apparel on any time soon. You know, unless you want to be seen as a Nazi. And in that case I'd need to replace many words in here with expletives.

Yeah he didn't actually say anything about hidden agendas. Nobody needs to. It's obvious you were hoping for something like the following: Except most of your argument is crap and people are trying to tell you why. I'm not particularly passionate about the F-35, the F-22 is my one true aircraft love. I like the F-35, I think it's pretty cool, and I'm anxious to see what it can really do. I'm involved in this discussion because I'm sick of people who have no idea what they're talking about getting all riled up and jumping on the "F the F-35" bandwagon because you just don't know. There are only a very few select people right now who can actually tell you what an F-35 is good for (Pierre Sprey is not one of them), and they're not telling us a whole lot about it yet.

THAT IS WRONG. CAS is not some mystical force that returns your half-winged F-15 to aerodynamic oneness with the universe! Why do you think they have switches to override electronic flight aids for when a pilot needs to recover from a spin?! If you could spend at least 5 minutes on the same subject, you might actually get somewhere. It doesn't matter that it "produces lift more efficiently" (which you really have no basis for saying that, it's far more complicated than you'll ever acknowledge, but I'll just let you have it) the F-15 has other things like two fricken huge F100 engines. Who cares that the F-16 could have less drag in a certain scenario when the F-15 will simply power through it? In much the same way, it doesn't matter that the F-35 has higher wing loading because it's obvious that it makes an unknown but substantial portion of its lift from its fuselage. And you can't just say "but it's less efficient than blended-wing-body!" You have no idea what the actual values of lift, drag, etc. are in different flight regimes and you're even further from being able to quantify those point values into a unified idea of performance and make a comparison to another aircraft. Thanks for reminding us what the Boeing corporation has to say on the matter. If their X-32 had won the JSF program, you'd be linking us to a video singing its praises from the mountaintops. That should illustrate to you how much that video is really worth in this discussion. And Pierre Sprey.. Always great to hear how terrible modern aircraft design is from the guy who didn't design the ones he was actually involved in. Awh, you got me.. And that's evidenced by the many references to Lockheed Martin press releases and videos of their test pilots I've linked you to already in this discussion. Oh, crap. I guess I forgot the links to the press releases and test pilot videos. The US Air Force, numb nuts. "The ones that fly it." I'm not the one bringing Boeing or Pierre Sprey in to the mix, so if you want to start down this path I'm feeling pretty confident.

There's certainly no harm in trying, I like any video related to an F-16 or F-22 and this has both of them, but there's no reference point to compare each of them to one another. We have no way of determining their speed, altitude, or loadout and we have no way of knowing how much of the performance envelope they're showing us. The video is fine, using it in the context of "proof" in this thread's discussion is the joke.

lol, stop telling people they're deliberately avoiding coming to this conclusion you want them to have. And if you want to convince anyone, it might help if you stopped jumping around from one thing to another. Now that I've gone back further in the conversation before where I saw it, I see a lot more of this inconsistent argument. You explicitly said the F-15 being able to fly on one wing was due to CAS and that's what I was replying to. #1: That's completely false, see my earlier post as to why. #2: It has nothing to do with what you've now chosen as your main point. Flight characteristics are a cumulative effect. You can't just point to "blended wing body" and say it's automatically best. It doesn't matter that the F-15 has more drag on its body (hardly a shocker, the thing is like 3 or 4 times the size of an F-16), taken as a whole the design is more effective. An F-16 would certainly never be able to fly, much less land, after losing a similar degree of its flight surfaces. I don't know what your original point was as it relates to the F-35, but approaching it from the same aspect of "it doesn't have LERX, but so-and-so does" isn't giving you a valid qualitative comparison. You just don't know how it fits together. They say it flies better than the F-16 and we might take their word for it. They're the ones that fly the damn thing.

lol I thought you were serious up until the mustache scratch and I realized, "Oh.. Sarcasm. hah." Well played. That video is a joke.