Hyperion35

There's also the Swedish Air Force's firefighting methods: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22395/a-swedish-air-force-gripen-fighter-jet-just-literally-bombed-a-forest-fire

Do we know whether they use the existing variants of the AIM-9, though? If the missiles have a different name, it's entirely possible that they have put together their own set of variables and behavior. I remember when the F-5E3 was released, there was an initial bug (long since fixed) where the AIM-9P (or might have been AIM-9P5?) seeker head had an extremely narrow FOV, so that you had to point it directly at the target's engines to lock and then quickly uncage the seeker head to track. It was fixed relatively quickly, but I remember that the bug was specific to the F-5E3 at the time.

Several modules have HUD brightness settings, but it's likely to differ from module to module. For example, some modules even have specific day/night settings (I know for a fact that there is a specific day/night switch in the Harrier, for example, since it has to be set to night in order to display NAVFLIR imagery on the HUD). The MiG-21 definitely has brightness dials for both the background "netting" and the pipper. I don't know about the other modules, but I eould be shocked if they didn't have such a setting somewhere. If there's not an in-cockpit clickable/twistable setting (usually on the center console directly below the HUD), then Draconus's suggestion is probably the best idea. In terms of changing color, I would think that might need a separate mod of some sort, as I think I've seen downloadable user files to make HUDs look "more realistic" in various ways.

It's worth pointing out that the aircraft is in early access at the moment. This used to be a problem with other aircraft as well (the Su-27 comes to mind) before various fixes were implemented, and I'd expect the same to happen here. It's probably also worth pointing out that a lot of the G-limitations that are by the book right now are in the context of peacetime (or various low-level proxy wars) and a desired 20-30 year service life for the aircraft. Look at the contrast between USAF F-16s and the USN's F-16N aggressors, the latter have had a much shorter service life specifically because of how they were used. On the other hand, the airframe stress of a 9-G turn is much less than that of the stress of shrapnel from an R-73.

So I get to work all nice and early...and the urgent conference call has been cancelled due to someone breaking their foot. And unfortunately it is likely that I will have to stay late this evening due to big important matters that cost more than a new F/A-18 (the jet, not the module)...

Half-dressed, waiting on caffeine, still madly checking to see if I'll be able to start the updater right before I have to walk out the door

Have to be at work earlier than usual today, I was hoping to find that the F/A-18 would have the same release timing as the SoH map. Oh well, I'll just have to download it when I get home

I found a few news reports from the incident in 2012: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-drone/iranian-warplanes-fired-on-u-s-drone-over-gulf-pentagon-idUSBRE8A71C520121108 http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/08/first-on-cnn-iranian-jets-fire-on-u-s-drone/?hpt=hp_t1 The CNN story, in the video, shows stock photographs of an Iranian Su-25 as well. So it does sound as though Iran has at least some operational Su-25s and that they have launched them on combat sorties. (also, this sounds like a good idea for a quick mission for the Su-25 and/or Su-25T on the new map)

I could have sworn that there was a news story about an Iranian Su-25 attempting to shoot down a drone over the Persian Gulf a few years back. I remember that it was a Su-25 specifically because it seemed like such an unlikely aircraft to use for that purpose.

Where is country.lua found? I cannot find it anywhere in my DCS folder. There is a Scripts\Database\db_countries.lua but I am not sure if this is what you mean?

You can upload them to the User Files section here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/ There's also a sticky thread in the Missions sub-forum to post missions (.miz files) for the new Persian Gulf map as well: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209346

Except that there are several high-profile incidents of civilian airliners being shot down by fighter jets or SAMs. Just a few years ago there was that civilian airliner that was shot down by a Buk SAM over Crimea, for example, and there was the time back in the 80s when a Soviet Su-15 shot down KAL 007, and I think there was a Libyan or Algerian or Tunisian civilian airline flight to Cairo that got lost and accidentally crossed over into the Sinai Peninsula during the War of Attrition, and the Israeli Air Force mistook it for an Egyptian military transport and shot it down. I'm just saying that these things happen. I don't think that it would consume system resources if they were assets that had to be placed in a mission (unlike civilian car traffic), since it would be up to the mission designers whether to include them or not.

Civilians would be a seriously important addition. After all, that's one of the major limitations to air power in the real world, trying to avoid civilian casualties. It could be used to add extra challenges to missions, if you have to strike a target without harming nearby civilians. Suddenly the 30m CEP for a JDAM starts to look a lot more iffy when there are civilians in a nearby building. One potential problem might how they would fit within the existing factions system, though. Currently they would have to be either Red or Blue, and I'm not sure that either choice makes sense for the sorts of scenarios where civilians would be used.

I think the F-5 BFM campaign includes an ACMI on one of the wingtip pylons when you fly the missions. I have no idea whether the ACMI is actually set up to simulate anything, or whether it's just there as a prop to look cool, since the missions use live weapons and the DCS simulator itself is obviously capable of detecting whether you score a hit. But at the very least, I think that this means that you can attach an ACMI to the F-5, and possibly to other aircraft.

Does DCS vary the daylight hours based on the time of year? I'm thinking that maybe at the very least if you set a mission for the winter solstice (usually December 21st or 22nd), you'd at least have an early sunset, so you could have a two-hour mission start at 2:00pm and it might be finishing up at sunset. If we had a far Northern map, Alaska or Siberia or some such, that would probably make this easier.

If your concern is with in-game tutorial missions, then I would highly recommend the A-10C. It has a fully-voiced (with subtitles) tutorial with multiple separate tutorials covering various aspects of the aircraft. The tutorial does a great job of covering the basic issues of "why" thing are done a certain way as well. However, the A-10C really does require a good stick and throttle setup, since it's highly dependent on HOTAS and it binds buttons to the actual button on the real stick and throttle of the aircraft, rather than to a specific function. A Saitek X-52 would probably be the minimum requirement. The Mirage 2000C has good tutorials AND it has a campaign (included with the module) that does a good job of guiding you through the basics of how to apply those lessons. The Hawk is really not representative of DCS modules in general. I don't want to say anything bad about the developers of that module, so I'll just point out that they are no longer developing modules for DCS World.

Before we get carried away, does anyone know for certain that the required data even exists? Do we know whether there is independent data on the aircraft performance? I mean no respect to Northrop, but surely one can recognize why relying solely on Northrop's records might pose a few problems, and that's assuming that Northrop has all of the information that would be required to build the flight model. There's also the minor problem that very few people have flown the F-20, so how would one know whether the flight model was even correct?

I think that this would be highly unlikely. First, just because consoles have USB input does not mean that they will accept HOTAS setups, they'd need drivers and specialized software (and if TrackIR worked on consoles, I think someone would have taken advantage of it by now). Equally important is that these sorts of simulations are CPU heavy in addition to GPU requirements. Just because a console can handle the graphics says nothing about how well it handles the physics calculations. Users also cannot add more RAM to a console or upgrade the GPU or other components, which means that DCS development would actually be significantly limited later in the console's lifespan. But most importantly, flight simulation is a niche market. DCS isn't going to have the high-volume turnover to justify putting it on a sales shelf, as opposed to most console games. There are good market reasons why indie games (and one could argue that DCS is an "indie" game in the sense of being self-published) are primarily on PC. Would ED expect the sort of sales on console to justify the cost of porting it, much less just the licensing fees from Sony or Microsoft to do so? Could anyone guarantee, before they spend a ridiculous amount of money and development time and opportunity cost, that the simulator could even be made to work with the Sony or Microsoft SDKs? And that's before even getting to the issue of third-party developers. How many of them would go along with this? And so what happens when you have a fractured stable of aircraft on each console? You think the current issue of waiting for Steam releases is difficult, this would be orders of magnitude worse. The market simply isn't there. The money simply isn't there. And how many existing customers, realistically, would be cool with extending the already long dev cycle by another year per module to accomodate consoles? So now it's not just about not making enough money from consoles, but losing existing PC customers, which is extremely bad business. If you really want to attract console players to DCS, make more "Ace Combat" mission remakes in DCS and put them up on YouTube.

Best part is, you can literally use it for almost any era of combat in the 20th cdntury.. But in all seriousness yeah, it really would be ideal given how many of our modern jets are in the 1980s-1990s era technologies.

Even if the existing variant isn't exactly proper, it's perfectly possible to "downgrade" the loadout to match what would have been realistic at the time. If I remember correctly, the primary development behind the MiG-21bis variant was a slightly better radar and the ability to fire R-3R SARH missiles. So load out with 4 old-fashioned R-3S missiles, and it's not like Soviet radar "upgrades" were huge improvements given the state of Soviet technology. Sure, it's not perfect, but I remember someone pointing out that the variant of the P-51D that we have entered service well after the Normandy invasion, and yet plenty of people use it on the Normandy map.

Sure, but Sholtz asked about wanting aircraft specifically for air to ground combat. And when it comes to air to ground combat, the A-10C really is the most versatile. It can use a wide variety of guided and unguided munitions, including multiple different seeker head and warhead sizes for the AGM-65, multiple different types of warheads for unguided rockets, WCMD cluster munitions, laser and GPS guided bombs with the ability to buddy lase, and probably others that I'm forgetting. And it has a fully-functional DSMS to let pilots reprogram the various weapons profiles on the fly. The only things that it can't carry are ARM missiles and anti-ship missiles. It also has a very good targeting pod, the ability to carry a heavy payload, and long loiter time, which makes it great for just going out and hunting down every ground target around. Basically if it's on the ground and it is not buried in a hardened fallout shelter, the A-10C will find it and destroy it. So for air to ground combat, the A-10C is definitely the most versatile jet in DCS. The Viggen is another very good choice for ground attacks, and it is superior for anti-ship missions. But its ground attack profile is primarily intended for pre-planned strikes with specific routes to the target, flown fast and low. I love skimming above the treetops and I've even had to limit myself to never flying the Interdiction mission after a certain hour of the night because the adrenaline rush makes it hard to get to sleep. But the Viggen is a jet designed for a very specific set of ground strikes, and it is not very good for CAS specifically. The A-10C is designed for CAS but it is also able to carry out almost any ground strike except for SEAD (and even then, it's more than capable of hunting and destroying mobile vehicle-based AAA and SAMs). It's not a matter of which aircraft is better, just a question of what will be the most fun for Sholtz based on what he wrote about what he enjoys doing. The other aircraft worth mentioning is the F-5E, since it's a true multirole aircraft. The downside is that it doesn't have guided munitions or a TGP, just unguided bombs and rockets, and it doesn't even have CCIP or CCRP assistance. On the other hand, it's great for getting back to basics in terms of relying on radio navigation and being forced to get the proper speed and angle and releasing at the right altitude in a dive. But since Sholtz mentioned that he already has the P-51, he can already do old-school bombing runs.

Yeah, you will most likely need to reduce your aircraft fuel to around 50-60%, depending on your weapons loudout, in order to get your aircraft down to takeoff weight. You will still need to use the special afterburner boost, as previously mentioned, and it still takes a bit of skill to get the right AOA to balance between staying above the waves and gaining airspeed. Also, you may want to try adding more wind in the mission editor and make sure that the carrier is sailing directly into the wind. Apparently this has been an issue for Russian naval aviation in real life as well, especially when they've had to takeoff with ground ordnance over Syria. Between the carrier takeoff weight limits, and the unfortunate tendency for the Kuznetzov's arrestor cables to break during landing (thankfully not simulated in DCS), I believe that the Russian Navy has already moved all of their Su-33s from the Kuznetzov to airfields in Syria.

The A-10C is absolutely the best module for ground attack, especially CAS. It's also excellent for improvised attacks where you might go in without knowing exactly what you might face or where the enemy is located. It also features the ability to carry a truly massive payload on a mission, as well as carrying a wide variety of different weapons on a single mission. So for example if you just do one of the quick-fly missions, it starts up with a good "basic" payload consisting of: 1 rocket pod 2 Mavericks with IR seeker heads 2 Mavericks with EO seeker heads 2 GBU-38 GPS-guided JDAMs 2 GBU-12 Laser-guided bombs 2 AIM-9s And of course the 30mm cannon, as well as an ECM pod and a targeting pod. So you have a nice assortment of different weapons types to play with, and it can also carry "dumb" bombs in several weight classes (mk82, mk83, mk84) as well, so there's a weapon for almost any combination of targets and preferred standoff range, and the ability to carry it all at once. The DSMS even lets you set up separate profiles for your weapons load as well in the cockpit. Now, one cool but difficult aspect is that ED simulated the full HOTAS functionality and the control scheme is built around that. So instead of assigning a button to a specific function, you assign it to the specific button or switch that would be found on the real stick and throttle of the A-10 (hence the learning curve: you have to learn what each button does in various different contexts depending on which sensor is being used). But this also means that you will want a stick and throttle with a lot of buttons and switches. There's the TM Warthog, which the sim will recognize and map automatically, but it is expensive. I use a Saitek X-52 Pro, which will work with a bit of effort, but it really does wind up using every single button. If you're using a more basic throttle and stick, you may have some difficulty. The Viggen is the other good ground strike aircraft that I would recommend. It isn't as versatile, and it's intended for pre-planned strikes on known targets, and it carries fewer weapons and a smaller payload. The one thing that it does that the A-10C doesn't is SPEED. The ideal CCIP bombing run in the Viggen is done with snakeeyes at 50m AGL and 0.8-0.9 Mach. Any higher or any slower and it won't work. In the Viggen, you will be flying low enough to smell the pine needles and deer droppings, and fast enough to force you to react quickly to the terrain. You will be flying by the seat of your pants. On the downside, the Viggen cockpit is written entirely in Swedish, with various buttons and switches labelled Huvudfreyasdottirsbottom or whatever, so there's a different kind of learning curve. On a more serious note, though, it's a bit more limited in its weaponry and capabilities, although it does have ground mapping radar and radar-guided anti-ship missiles, which is unique to the Viggen (for now, at least). And it has Automatisk Fart Control, below and behind the seat....

Looks like this bug is still around, I'm getting the same problem repeatedly. The Chinooks seem to start up, but then they power back down. Also, I notice that they do not have a callsign, even though they should be Pontiac11 and Pontiac12

I do not know what you are talking about, and I suspect that you are very confused. This campaign is in the Caucasus Map, it will only work on DCS 1.5, which is the version that I am using. It will not work in DCS 2.2, it cannot work in 2.2, and it is simply impossible for you to have flown this mission in 2.2. Perhaps you mean the very old 1.2 version? If so, that's probably irrelevant, since I (and probably the vast majority of people) are using the current 1.5 version. And the problem that I am reporting occurred in DCS 1.5