Brisse

Thanks. It makes sense. I haven't done any measurements but the feeling I get from some dogfight sessions in the M2000C is that it easily out-turns anything in the sim right now.

I'm probably fine with both options, but leaning slightly toward full realism instead of game balance. The aircraft you are trying to use as balance arguments are not full fidelity modules, so it's understandable that it's missing there.

Just to be clear, you mean the M-2000C, right? Not the F-15C?

I find that it works well with linear curves. I have to use logarithmic curves for most other aircraft in DCS. There are three sets of control laws I think. A-A, charges, and landing (active when gear down). It could be you have the switch set to charges all the time? It should be really agile once you put it in A-A mode. I really don't recognise your description of "slow heavy aircraft". What I'm seing on my end is probably the most agile fighter in the game. I can easily defeat anything (F-15, MiG-29, Su-27 etc.) in a guns only dogfight.

I think I read somewhere on the forums that M-2000C is missing from the core DCS:W which is a problem, but as soon as that is fixed, it should come up in the mission editor looking like an AI aircraft. Just select it, then go to the skill setting and choose "client".

Haha, funny :) A lot of people are hurt because they came in with the wrong expectations. I think those of us who followed the developers posts on the forums knew what we were getting. They have been honest about the state of the module. Sadly, I think they could have handled the release better from a marketing standpoint. What about all of those that didn't read the forums? What expectations did they have when paying up to 60$ for this module? Sure, the front page says "open beta", but I don't think that is quite enough information to be honest. Either they should have been more transparent about the state of the module to everyone (not just us who frequently visit forum), or they should have fleshed out the module more before letting it out in the open. I think Razbam will be taking this as a learning experience, in a similar fashion to what other third parties had to do after their first releases.

I have a few hours in the M-2000C since yesterday. I have been reading what the devs have been writing on the forums for months and they have been very honest about the state of the open beta release so I came in knowing what it was. With that said, a lot of other people have been really annoyed with the state of the module, most likely because they had the wrong expectations, thinking it was going to be as fleshed out as something like the MiG-21bis. It's really not. It's probably the least fleshed out module in DCS so far, but it's not that buggy. It's just incomplete. If you don't want to be part of the testing phase then I suggest you don't buy it yet. If you are prepared to support the developer and provide constructive feedback, while seeing the module take shape over the next few months, possibly many months, then go right ahead and buy it now. Flight model: It's using a EFM and it's a unique experience in DCS because of the unstable nature of the aircraft and fly-by-wire. If you have been flying Falcon BMS it will be very familiar to you. The flight model is promising and enjoyable in it's current state, but not finished. It shouldn't take that much tweaking until it is spot on though. Systems: This is where there is a lot of incomplete stuff. Many systems are not yet implemented such as INS navigation. Missions: There are several quick action type missions available both on Caucasus and Nevada map. Should keep you entertained for a few hours while learning the aircraft. No training missions yet, but I found that the aircraft is really easy to figure out on your own. I barely even needed the manual, but there is a manual available if you want to get into the details.

If I set autopilot to hold 30000ft, it will climb to 40000ft and hold. If I then change the setting from 30000ft to 31000ft, it will climb to 42000ft. Seems it adds a value of one to every setting. DCS:W Version 2.0.0.48763.61

The 2.0 currently available is an early test version. All aircraft are working but there might be issues with some that you don't have on 1.5.2. As of yet, Nevada is the only map that works with 2.0, and Nevada is payware. They will update the Caucasus map to work in 2.0 before it's final release and that will still be free just like in older versions. If you don't want Nevada, you will just have to wait. The only reason to buy Nevada right now is if you want to participate in the development by testing and providing feedback to the developers. Otherwise, it's better to just wait.

Wow. The confusion is real. Just save yourself some headaches and wait for the final release of 2.0. Your install will automatically update to 2.0 when it's ready and everything you already own will work in 2.0.

No, it's not a problem. PayPal automatically exchanges the money during payment.

It's in the manual. Chapter 13: Aircraft Procedures

Oh? It seems they got the 2.0 version out just now. :)

Uh? That's not true at all.

I think he deserves a few days off :) One way to easily see the problem is to yank the stick back and forth in the pitch axis while on the ground. Look at the control surfaces, and you will see them pretty much instantly teleporting to their end positions. That's not physically possible on a real aircraft.

It was written somewhere around here too but I think it got lost in all the noise from all the excitement. I do remember reading it here before facebook though.

I noticed the flight model seem to be lacking simulation of control surface actuators. What I mean is that the control surfaces immediately moves into position at infinity high speed. This could be a reason for some of the complaints I've seen such as "lack of roll inertia" and "on rails". I'm pretty sure other DCS modules simulate the limitations of control surface actuators. You can see when you come out of a fast roll how the FBW dampens the roll, but if the control surface actuators had some limitations of what they are able to do then that dampening would be less effective. Edit: Are you reading this Razbam, or do I have to make a bug report?

Haven't found out how the missiles and radar work yet, but I tried the instant action dogfight mission and killed the MiG-23, MiG-29 and Su-27 with guns on my first try without dying! Woho :)

This is because it's FBW. Anyone who's been flying the F-16 in Falcon4.0 BMS will feel very familiar with this flight model. For those only used to DCS, it might feel strange at first becouse we haven't had any aircraft like this in DCS until now. The aircraft is flown by a computer. The stick inputs only tells the computer where to fly. Look at the control surfaces when manoeuvring and you will see they aren't doing what you would expect them to do if the stick was coupled directly to the control surfaces the old fashioned way.

Yes, of course.

Trying to buy the module but the ED site seem to be under heavy stress and isn't responding. I guess that means there's a lot of interest in this module, which can only be a good thing really :) Edit: Managed to buy it now :)

Awesome Zeus! GMT1500 is actually earlier than I was expecting :)

Nice Viggen Christmas tree formation :) Happy holidays LN.

Thank you Polychop, and merry Christmas :)

I was using these graphs here: http://www.sweclockers.com/test/19925-geforce-gtx-960-fran-asus-gigabyte-och-msi/17#content You probably don't read Swedish, but it's a reliable site. The numbers on those graphs are relative performance in percent after calculating an average from several benchmarks and games. Results vary from game to game. In some, the Nvidia is stronger, and in others the AMD is stronger. First I figured the 380 (missing from the graphs) must be roughly the same as the 280X but after reading a review I realized it's a few percent slower actually. It's still slightly faster than a 960, but not quite 15% as I first said. More like 5-10% I guess. Sorry about that :)