Hyperion35

Confirmed that this appears to have worked for me, although I made sure to back up my copy, as ot says very explicitly at the top of that file (if you open it), that editing it could damage your installation. But it did seem to force the installer to recognize that there was an update and to download it. I just fear that this is only because this file contains the data on the currently installed version, so it may be downloading 2.0 again

My autoupdate log shows srv4update.digitalcombatsimulator.com as of the last update on May 9. Still no update todah

Thanks, I tried to manually update to this version using the command line andIi get the message "Version 2.1.0.5677.215 is not available" so I don't know what might be going on

Midwest USA here, no update yet. Tried doing it manually via command line as well, no update. I do remember one time a few months ago, with a regular DCS update, I had to reboot the computer and run the updater again before it would recognize that there was an update CLI update can be done by going to C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World 2 Open Alpha\bin and then typing the command dcs_updater.exe update ETA: There is also a way to manually order the installer to update to a specific version, but you have to know the specific version number: dcs_updater.exe update 2.x.x.xxxxx@openalpha

Still not updating for me either, but this sometimes happens around release, for whatever reason not everyone is able to update simultaneously and it takes 10-15 minutes or so while some people can download and others can't. If I had to guess, ED has multiple servers and it probablt depends on which server your updater is pointed at.

Thanks, different forums do it differently, I thought I needed the full URL, should be working now

The Changelog has been posted in the Updates section, but no update yet (this is normal practice for updates, sometimes the update comes first, sometimes the changelog comes first)

Ummm, I'm not sure why there would be a need to reinvent the wheel here. The DCS Mission Editor already allows the ability to set coalitions in any manner that you would like. DCS only recognizes the coalitions as Red and Blue, you already have the option in the Mission Editor to assign whichever countries you wish to either coalition. Aircraft are also set to individual countries in the ME, and their country then determines which coalition they will be part of. This is why we already have many missions where Georgian Su-25 and Mi-8 squadrons fly on the Blue coalition alongside NATO aircraft, while Russian Su-25 and Mi-8 squadrons are assigned to the Red coalition. Additionally, a few people have reported that missions in the Normandy map will have a separate country code for Nazi Germany to distinguish it from postwar Germany, which would likely allow for more flexibility to distinguish WWII and early Cold War alliances. I am not sure that I understand what you are suggesting, but it sounds as though ehat you are looking for is already supported.

I doubt that it is the reason, the timing doesn't really match up. I waded through the raw sewage of Hoggit to find the thread that people are talking about, and Chuck only said that he was taking a vacation from Hoggit (which can only be a good thing. Given the median age of Hoggit posters, I suspect that it will only get worse as their schools let out for the summer), and that appears to have been 12 days ago. The guides only disappeared on the 22nd, I know for a fact that they were available in the days immediately prior to that because I was using them. I also seriously doubt that Hoggit represents the majority of DCS users. It's on Reddit, which means that it's likely mostly high school and college students and dropouts. Not exactly the demographic that will pay $50-60 for a module, or who would be likely to have the time and patience to learn how to use one. There are exceptions, of course, and those individuals are unlikely to be using Reddit either. I still think that the most likely cause is some sort of error. I know that Google Drive recently changed how they handle the upload of a file if there is already a file of the same name in your Drive, so perhaps something like that occurred, where Google wound up treating updated versions of his guides as new files?

It appears that almost all of Chuck's Guides have been either deleted or they may have had their permissions changed so that no one else can access them. It is not known at the moment whether this is intentional or (more likely in my opinion) due to some sort of error. There's a bit more info at the end of the main thread on Chuck's Guides, and someone has put up some slightly older versions of a few guides to download: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135765

Has anyone contacted Chuck about this issue? It's not just a matter of bad links: those of us who had added these documents to our Google Drive accounts (so that we would automatically get updated versions) no longer show them at all. It looks as though the documents have either been deleted, or perhaps there was some sort of error with document sharing permissions.

The Israeli Air Force demonstrated the vast difference in capabilities between the F-15 and MiG-21 fairly decisively in 1982 over the Bekaa valley. Leaving aside all of the advantages that the Israelis had in terms of AWACS and communications and radar, etc, and the Syrian reliance on GCI, one might still have expected a few Syrian MiGs to have engaged Israeli aircraft in one of those turning fights if the hypotheses in the analysis presented were correct. And since most of the Israeli victories over the Bekaa valley were made with AIM-9s rather than AIM-7s, in theory the Syrian MiGs should have been able to get into range for such tactics. But the actual real-world outcome was dramatically one-sided. Not a single Syrian MiG managed to get a kill on an Israeli aircraft. If there was any accuracy to this analysis, surely at least one Syrian pilot should have been able to use it to their advantage. Yes, there was obviously a massive disparity in training and ability of the pilots involved, and there were other technological and structural advantages aside from just having superior aircraft, but the supposed advantages of the MiG-21 from the analysis in the OP do not seem to have shown up in the Real World. The best that can be said about the MiG-21 is that it was able to score kills against F-4s over Vietnam when those F-4 pilots lacked cannon and were hampered by ROEs that required them to allow enemy aircraft to get very close before firing and used early versions of the AIM-7 that were so unreliable that many pilots derided them as being no better than drop tanks. The MiG-21 is fun and challenging to fly, but realistically its main advantages were its low cost, low maintenance, and durability. It was the perfect aircraft for the air forces of developing nations that lacked the capabilities and funds necessary to use more advanced aircraft. In many ways it was the Kalashnikov of fighter jets: simple, dependable, and cheap. That's not necessarily a bad thing, so long as one understands its limitations and strengths and uses them accordingly. ETA: Here's an analysis of the air combat over the Bekaa valley that explains this better than I could: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html

There is a part of me that agrees with this, and it would be very appropriate. However... Realistically, this would be a Very Bad Idea. When the Nevada map was released, there were issues with the downloader that resulted in 12+ hours of download time. This was unexpected, but it was understandable as this was also an alpha test of new technology of the downloader itself as well. From what has been explained, it sounds as though the Normandy map will be part of a larger update to the 2.0 installation, but even so it is entirely possible for issues to pop up that could delay the download and installation. It is also entirely possible for there to be some sort of showstopper bug that renders the map unusable or with only partial functionality in the initial release. It is also possible that the map is released without any problems at all and that it works perfectly. However, by releasing the map a week or two prior to the June 6th anniversary, ED will ensure that the map is up and running smoothly on the anniversary itself. Also, while I do not play multiplayer, I would assume that many people will want to engage in multiplayer events on June 6th. In order to do that, ED will need to release the map at least several days before so that people can set up multiplayer servers on the new map, and so that enough people will have downloaded and installed the new map so that they can participate.

Stay low enough that you can smell the pine sap on the trees, keep the throttle at the first or second stage afterburner, and when you reach Waypoint 4, the final turn before the target, wait a few seconds before you turn. There's a slight ridge in front of you, duck over that, hit the deck, and then turn to the waypoint 5 (or M1 if you set the CK37 properly before takeoff). This keeps a low ridge between your plane and the target (and the nearest shilka) for a short distance. The only downside is that it also means that you come in over slightly higher ground than the target, so you will be a bit high at the end of your attack run, just have to keep as low as you can. Just stay low and use the small hills, this mission is all about using the Viggen the way it was meant fo be flown: feeling your way through small creases in the terrain that would look flat to any other aircraft.

I don't usually fly multiplayer, so I can't give much help there, but in terms of single player missions, there should be a few that were included with the aircraft, in addition to the Instant Action missions, I would think. I don't have the Spitfire, so I can't confirm this personally, but most other modules do have missions included. Looking through the user created missions that have been uploaded to the DCS website, it looks like most of them are for the Nevada map (apparently to mimic the North Africa campaign in WWII, I believe), but there is at least one mission that has been uploaded for the Caucasus map: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2380303/ I'm sorry that there aren't more single player missions available, I suspect that this is because it is a relatively new module. However, there appear to be 20 or so missions that have been created and uploaded for the P-51D. As the aircraft are similar, it may be possible to download on of these missions, open up the mission editor, find the plane that is set to Player, and change it from the P-51D to the Spitfire. The P-51D missions can be found here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?PER_PAGE=20&arrFilter_pf%5Bfiletype%5D=1&arrFilter_pf%5Bgameversion%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Bfilelang%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Baircraft%5D=85&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&CREATED_BY=&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC&set_filter=Filter There are also 33 multiplayer missions for the P-51D, and it is possible that some of these missions might be playable as a single player mission. Similar to the single player mission, you would need to open up the multiplayer mission in the mission editor and change one (or more) of the planes that are set to Client to be a Spitfire instead of a P-51D. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?PER_PAGE=20&arrFilter_pf%5Bfiletype%5D=2&arrFilter_pf%5Bgameversion%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Bfilelang%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Baircraft%5D=85&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&CREATED_BY=&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC&set_filter=Filter And of course, after playing around with the mission editor to switch these missions from the P-51D to the Spitfire, this might also help you learn about the mission editor and how it can be used to edit or create new missions. It takes a little bit of practice, but once you get the hang of it, it should not be too difficult.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, do you already own the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) map? If you have not purchased the NTTR map, then you will not be able to use DCS World 2.0 and you will not be able to use the Red Flag campaigns.

In addition to flight characteristics, you could also look at it from the perspective of what tasks the A-10C will be doing, since that tends to be directly connected to how you will be flying the aircraft (and what tasks you might need to get used to doing while flying). To that extent, the Su-25T has enough similarities to help her get used to the idea of dividing attention between being heads-up to fly and heads-down to watch the feed from the TGP, for example. Another useful option might simply be to get the A-10A or the larger FC3 package and have her start with the A-10A's simpler avionics and flight modelling before transitioning to the A-10C. Now, if the idea is to give her a feel for the thrill of flight itself, rather than training with a specific aircraft, the MiG-21 might be an option. Virtually none of the procedures, techniques, or tactics will transfer over to the A-10C, but it has one of the most thrilling landing experiences of any plane I've flown in DCS. Additionally, the startup procedure is relatively simple AND easy to memorize (because of how the cockpit is laid out, with switches in rows), so a beginner can quickly learn to get it started and takeoff. The flip side of that is that the MiG-21 probably isn't a good beginner aircraft in general: it's too easy to stall or to cut off fuel feed with negative G, its layout and procedures are going to be very different from Western aircraft, and it requires specialized tactics to make the best use of its obsolete avionics. Its air-to-ground capabilities are also extremely primitive and (in my experience) frustrating to attempt to use, so it really wouldn't be a good aircraft for someone who enjoys ground attack missions.

One could just as easily argue that the current version of the F-15C should have the ability to fire the Python 4 with a DASH helmet since it had that capability in Israeli service in the mid-90s. But this is not the specific version of the F-15C modelled in DCS. Same with the air-to-ground capabilities, the F-15 has had these, and the ability to use conformal fuel tanks since the original F-15A variants, and the Israelis have used F-15 A/B/C/D variantd in this manner since the 1980s. But this is not the F-15C that is modelled in DCS. It's not just a matter of "timeline", it's a matter of which specific aircraft model is represented. In addition to all of this, within the FC3 package, I kinda like that the mix of specific models gives a nice mix of capabilities: the Russian jets have better heatseekers while the F-15 has better medium-range missiles, better radar, and better RWR. And within the Russian options, the MiG-29S has ARH BVR missiles, but it lacks the fuel, range, payload, and HDD found on the Su-27/33, etc. This isn't specifically about balance, but by choosing to model these specific variants of these aircraft, it gives pilots a the opportunity to do different things with different aircraft. Besides, I would think that it would be possible to modify the .lua files to allow the F-15C to fire R-73s with the helmet-mounted sight from the Su-27 if one really wanted to have this capability.

I think this is ultimately the important part. If air to ground missions are what you want, then the Viggen is one of the best modules available (and likely to be so for the foreseeable future). There's nothing else like a bombing run at Mach 0.8 and 150m AGL, and no other aircraft that's designed explicitly for that sort of mission. Excellent, I would definitely advise downloading the manual and Chuck's guide to a tablet or cell phone if you have one, so that you can use it as a literal kneeboard during flight. With Chuck's guide, if you have a Google Drive account, it might be useful to log into that account, and then go and click on the link to Chuck's guide and open it in your browser, and instead of downloading it, you should have the option in the upper right corner to "Add to Drive". If you do it this way, you will always have the most up to date version of Chuck's guide in your Google Drive (Google automatically syncs it with his updates). Because the Viggen is a new module, and it is receiving many updates, it is very likely that Chuck will be updating his guide as new features are added/altered. I'm thinking specifically of the upcoming plans to add FARP landing sites on highways and how they'll be integrated into the nav system, among other things that are likely to be added, that's why it's useful to know that whenever you open up the guide in Google Drive, you have the most recent version. I apologize if you already knew this, but it was something I did not know until recently, when I opened one of his guides from my Google Drive on my tablet, and found that it had automatically been updated.

Of those three aircraft, the MiG-21 is probably my favorite, but I'm not certain that it is the best one for a new pilot. A lot of the fun of the MiG-21 is that it is challenging to fly and it forces you to learn to do without many modern systems, and to make the most with the limited capabilities available. Also, its air-to-ground capabilities are very primitive, relying mostly on your eyeball as the primary form of guidance. Navigation in the MiG-21 is also a bit tricky for a new pilot, as it can only navigate by radio beacons. I haven't had much time with the Viggen, but as has been mentioned, it is definitely a ground attack craft, its radar is only for air-to-ground and air-to-ship targetting, and ground mapping, it features no air-to-air targeting abilities. It has some pretty good systems for ground targeting given its age, but it will still take time to learn, or course. Its primary goal is to do a single-pass strike at high speed, hitting its target and then racing away. Its navigation system is complex and can be altered in-flight if needed using the on-board computer, and you can create nav points, pop-up points, target points, and landing points, and it is capable of landing on improvised airstrips including highways. The Mirage-2000C may be the best option of those three for a beginner. It features a modern pulse-doppler radar for air target acquisition, as well as medium range semi-active radar-guided missiles and of course short-range heatseekers. It also features the most advanced radar warning receiver of these three aircraft, giving you better situational awareness of threats at a glance. Its ground attack capabilities are more limited than the Viggen, but it is still capable of delivering unguided bombs and rockets, and its on-board computer is capable of giving you CCRP and CCIP assistance to let you know when to release the weapons. It has an inertial navigation system and a navigation computer that can be programmed in-flight similar to the Viggen, and it will also take time to learn. One other suggestion that I would make is that the A-10C is a great aircraft for beginners. It features high-tech targetting systems, carries a lot of different weapons types, it has great tutorials, and because it flies slowly, you often have a little more time to set up your shot, make sure everything is ready before you fire. Its systems are fully modelled to the point that it could be used as an actual trainer if needed, and its one of the oldest and thus most mature modules, so they've had plenty of time to get everything right. This is definitely an aircraft that rewards someone who learns all of the systems to take full advantage of its capabilities, rather than just flying by the seat of your pants. That includes HOTAS usage, since the A-10C module is intended so that you map HOTAS buttons to your stick pr keyboard, rather than tying them to a specific function. Just like in the real A-10C, the functions of the various HOTAS keys will vary depending on which aircraft systems are selected, so you will literally be doing exactly the same set of steps that a real A-10C pilot would do to activate a weapon, search for and designate a target, and fire.

I'd love it if the author (or someone else with authorization/rights?) could repost this as well. In my case, I never had a chance to download it, I do remember about a year ago hearing about this mod but I've been unable to find it anywhere.

The Friday updates usually contain the latest information on upcoming developments, for example they have had information on the upcoming Normandy Map for the past few months now. This is why people have been repeatedly suggesting this as the best source of information. Delay is pretty much a constant with software development. There have been times in the past where I have added a certain extra time to my estimates on when a project (completely unrelated to DCS) will be completed, so as to plan for unexpected delays when (not if) they occurred. The more complex the project, the more potential points there will be for unexpected delays to occur. Often the difficulty is not so much in the coding itself but the implementation: much of development consists of testing each component, figuring out why it is not working, and then (trying to) fix it. Rinse and repeat. One thing that you might want to do is update your 1.5 installation to the Beta version (you can do this to the existing installation without having to re-install it, but I can't remember how). This way you will get any updates sooner, at the risk of also receiving a few bugs (although on the flip side, you may also receive bug fixes sooner).

I think that this is a fairly important point. I was just recently reading about NASA's attempts to build rockets for their next-generation space launch system, and in the process several engineers looked at existing F-1 engines from the Saturn V and found that there were a large number of edits and changes that were made to the engine during production that differed dramatically from what was designed "on-paper". Some of this was due to the production technology of the time, and some of it was due to the lack of precision in system modelling, which forced a number of changes when unexpected behavior was discovered. At that point in time, even cutting-edge programs were still hand-built. And that was in a well-funded American aerospace program. Compare to a Soviet aerospace program where you had to also consider lack of funds, less-advanced production technology, and (possibly the most important and overlooked factor) a major difference in political climate: The "on-paper" specs had to match whatever the Soviet Defense Ministry requested. If the actual behavior of the aircraft was different, this was viewed as a problem for the pilot. If an F-22 behaves differently than Lockheed promises, the pilots will make this known and Lockheed will face potential fines or even criminal penalties, or at the very least a very expensive company-funded fix for the fleet. Mikhoyan and Sukhoi were operating in a very different political environment. Even so, finding that equipment works differently than promised was something that many American pilots and soldiers have experienced as well ("The M-16 will be self-cleaning!"), so this is not solely a Soviet problem. But it is certainly worth considering that the "on-paper" specs for Soviet aircraft were produced in a very different political climate than most of us have ever experienced. And that this also occurred at a time when even cutting-edge aircraft were still hand-built machines with after-market "fixes" installed by engineers (or even crew chiefs) that were never put on paper. And as one final note: even with the most thorough testing, pilots will still find ways to demonstrate capabilities that aircraft designers never imagined. Consider that McDonnell-Douglass engineers were shocked when an Israeli pilot landed an F-15 after losing a wing, as they had not believed that this would be possible.

I've noticed this issue, along with a lack of the text when you hover the mouse over cockpit buttons, on other aircraft recently as well. I believe that the problem is not related to the aircraft itself, but to the mission files. When creating a mission, the mission creator has the ability not only to determine whether unlimited ammo is on or off by default in the mission, but also the ability to override the existing user settings to force this choice for this mission. It may be necessary to go into the Mission Editor, open up the mission that you wish to fly, and uncheck the box to the left of where it says "Unlimited Ammo". It would be useful, in the future, if mission creators did not deliberately check the left box to force users to have limited ammunition or to force tooltips off, especially when creating training missions where many people might wish to use these features for practice.

From page 2: