gavagai

Just don't set the AI 109s to the higher skill levels. Otherwise they are indeed god-like.

Huh? Be more polite, please. It was a sincere question.

Wait, really? Backers get to try it out first? I haven't been such a good forum jockey lately and I don't know what the heck is going on.:doh:

Awesome. Just got mine too. That little $40 wager I placed in 2013 has been a great investment. For now I'm keeping my head down on work and I don't bother thinking about Normandy. It would just be torture. I'll peak back here again at the end of May.

This just seems like a rehash of a Myers-Briggs or Keirsey temperament test.

That sounds like a deep stall to me. In the F-16 you can't AB your way out of it, either. You have to disengage the FBW AoA safety and rock the plane out of it. That said, my suspicion is that something is awry with the M2000 induced drag at medium AoA, as Cptn Smiley already hinted.

Very neat to recognize so much of that landscape in DCS. Thank you for the pics. Is it me or is the DCS NTTR terrain not dark enough?

Good news. Thank you.:)

I haven't done a lot of flying lately. This evening I sneaked in a few quick action flights. I actually I had to turn backward to check if the air-brake was extended. It's a very noticeable change in the FM. If it is by the numbers then I guess it is what it is. The energy bleed off in a turn with full afterburner is disconcerting, I have to admit...

Buy it. I agree with the recommendation to fly it at altitude where the 530's have better range. You will be at a BVR disadvantage against the Su-27 and F-15, but the chance to fly a clickable-pit fighter makes up for it. Razbam gets an A+ for communication. They are very active on the forum and always let you know what is going on. That in itself says a lot for the Mirage 2000C. I'm undecided on some of the other 3rd party developers, but I would never worry about Razbam.

Check your joystick calibration from the windows control panel. After 10 years my rudder pedals don't center exactly, and I have to hold them a little off center when I calibrate in order to have them center correctly.

The F/A-18 is most definitely a fighter. It will be the most dangerous fighter in DCS when it is introduced. I'm glad it is making people nervous about the F-15. If we ever get a DCS F-15C then maybe the Eagle will be top-dog again. Avoid being within range of it. That is how you defeat it.

So far as I know the Mig-29 has AFM. It's the PFM you want.;)

The best pilot in DCS flying a Sopwith Camel vs a noob with 10 hours of practice in the F-15C. I want to see it.:)

If I could replace every FC3 module with an equivalent DCS module I would do it in a heartbeat, and I think most of the FC3 defenders would, too. There is no denying the sim would be better for it, and the number who couldn't learn the equivalent DCS module would be very small. After all, if some are arguing that is actually very quick and easy to get the full fidelity modules up in the air, then there is no reason to protect users from the small additional challenge. The argument goes both ways, doesn't it.... In the meantime we have the FC3 modules and they are OK, but they do not hold my interest for more than a few flights a year. I wouldn't fly this sim if FC3 level is all we had on the menu.

When I was coming of age in the '90s my friends and I flew flight sims from all of the eras, anything from WW1 to the modern stuff. To this day I still enjoy every era and find something interesting about each one. WW1 is in-your-face air combat. Unlike several others in this thread, in my mind the slower the planes go the faster the pace of combat. The turn rates are much faster than what you get in any other era, and the density of aircraft in a dogfight is very high. WW2 allows me to express my inner Boom-n-Zoom pilot and the art of the one-pass kill. The pace of combat has slowed a lot compared to WW1, but there is more reward for patience and planning. Warbird evolution is amazing, too, where time showed that the best fighters were becoming heavier and faster, trading turn-rate for firepower and the ability to engage and disengage at will. Now, what I like about 3rd and 4th generation aircraft is the speed and the avionics. Speed speaks for itself I guess. Learning the avionics is a hurdle, but once you learn one it becomes easier to learn the others. You're repeating the same processes, just in a different way. But I like that when I see someone in an A-10C or Mirage 2000C I know that he's put in the time to learn how the real thing works. The hardest thing to adapt to is the missiles, of course. The idea that someone can shoot you down without seeing you can seem counter to the spirit of combat. This is where the avionics become important, and a good 4th gen pilot is checking his RWR and radar at least as often as he scanning visually. It's a technology war, after all. The whole idea is to give a mediocre pilot a good chance to shoot down a better pilot by equipping him with the means to make the kill before his target is even a threat!

Thanks deadlyfishes. No, it said we had to complete ground objectives.

Enemy ground vehicles end up *inside* buildings in the strip after they move to avoid attack. I get the idea that flying in the strip is cool, but it just doesn't work. Also, there is not enough air-to-air action. The radio menu told me that we had to complete the ground objectives before we could spawn more air combat mission, but see the above.

This is an interesting link: https://books.google.com/books?id=Hy6020COY1sC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=Mig-21+%22roll+rate%22&source=bl&ots=mv0xZMTAy5&sig=obiAzXdsPmyLSDJ2AgGTeAbNxvE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHq-776p_TAhUJ2SYKHZl4DMYQ6AEIWDAM#v=onepage&q=Mig-21%20%22roll%20rate%22&f=false Inertia coupling seems to have been a real danger. It is a phenomenon that necessarily implies the ability to achieve a high roll rate and to achieve it quickly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia_coupling

Sounds fine to me. Now show me the research that describes aircraft disappearing at 1nmi while the pilot is watching them through the forward hemisphere of his canopy.:)

Bump? Do we need to post this in the additional bug tracking forum?

The one thing missing from this thread is evidence. Opining that there should be more roll inertia is not going to change someone's mind. I haven't seen a single diagram, data set, or detailed physics-based argument in this thread.

How do you know this?

That one at 0:43 is pretty darn close to the Mig-21 as it is now. The FM might require some fine tuning, but the new roll is what a missile with wings is supposed to do.

A mission designer can limit the availability of the 72" P-51, just like he can limit availability of MW50 for the 109K-4. I've never seen a public mission that did so.