AndyJWest

As far as I'm concerned, if I have as many rotor blades at the end of the flight as I had when I started, that's dignity enough...

I gave it a go, with the Heatblur/IndiaFoxEcho F-14. Didn't have much luck though, and only managed to connect very briefly. I was having real problems with throttle control, which seemed off somehow - maybe just finger trouble, but I'll have to investigate further. Has anyone tried the stock Asobo F/A-18 with this?

I saw that, and will probably get around to trying it sometime. Not sure how useful it would be as a training aid though, given how different the flight modelling tends to be.

The 'break away' message seems to be triggered too easily, but you can just ignore it and still connect. As for tips, the Harrier is tricky in AAR, due to the location of the probe. As always ensure you are properly trimmed, and try to focus on the refueling aircraft rather than chasing the basket.

That's the GUI scaling bug: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/355700-flickering-and-partial-gui-menus/

You'll need a change of tyres and underwear after that...

Yup. turns out my first guess was correct. Suppose it makes sense, though it must have reduced the useful bomb load with that thing full. https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/lancaster/lancaster-iii-with-long-range-with-tank/#google_vignette

Arghh! My eyes! Seriously though, what the *@#$ is that? Some early experiment in conformal fuel tanks? A fairing for a concealed rearward-firing 16-inch gun? A predecessor to the dropping-lifeboats-from-B-29s concept, that was rejected because having to roll inverted to release the boat seemed an unnecessary complication? We need to be told...

A question on launcher functionality: What is the intended benefit of deselecting 'use in game' for a module if you don't intend to use it in a session? I assume that the intended purpose is to improve performance in some way, but how, exactly? Is it expected to (a) reduce RAM usage, (b) reduce loading time, or (c) reduce CPU/GPU load while running? And if so, by how much? Having options is good, but it would be nice to have some idea as to whether they are worth taking advantage of, and what we should be looking for when trying them out.

Why stop at a blowable Portaloo mod? We've already got firm video evidence that they have STOVL capabilities. We need a flyable one...

Take a look at Spitfire cockpits, where they can't even agree what to call something. 'Undercarriage' on the instrument panel placard. 'Chassis' on the control itself.

Anything a Chinook can do, a Merlin can do too...

You need more than that to correct for wind.

When you say 'easier in DCS AV-8B', what are you comparing it to? I can't see anything in publicly available official documents that suggest that thrust vectoring should be used for spin recovery.

Just a heads up. The AV8B paint kit seems no longer to be available for download from the Razbam website. No further comment....

Yup, definitely twitchy. On the plus side though, I managed to land it on the airfield I was aiming for at my first attempt.

Given just how common it is for people to buy DCS stuff they never get around to using, asking them to only pay for the stuff they actually do use instead looks like a highly effective way to lose money...

If all else fails, you can always resort to armchair test-pilot stuff. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a ballpark figure for the best glide speed for a given configuration by careful observation of airspeed to rate of sink ratios, and a little maths. And if you have AoA information available, use that instead of airspeed.

We can't pull 9G while sitting in an office chair in front of a monitor either...

RAF early access Lancaster release.

I think this fix for the suspension may still be relevant too, though it is cosmetic rather than functional:

Regardless of who is in the right or wrong here, this is clearly going to put a severe dent in the confidence of anyone contemplating making further purchases.

You'll need a rather big helicopter to airlift a CVN there...

Given that the nearest open sea is around 300 miles from the southern Afghanistan border, the map clearly isn't going to support carrier ops.