gavagai

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.:)

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.

Nope. This is different. That bug you describe is when you are parked on the ground. This bug is stuttering in the air. I have it too in 2.0.5. I just re-entered my starforce key for 1.5 and I wonder if it somehow screwed up 2.0. I only deactivated for 1.5 and never bothered for 2.0. Done. No difference. Please let me know what information could help.

So no one posted a track and nothing happened. If you play this game you have surely encountered what is being described. I didn't realize that this was a bug, but now that I consider it, I do remember that gloc was not so quick in the past.

Which Camel variant? And do you mean the Fokker Dr.I or Fokker D.VII? I love WW1 aviation, but if DCS WW1 started with the Camel and Dr.I it would be tragic.

I rarely fly the FC3 planes, so maybe my opinion is uninformed, or maybe it is unbiased (you decide).;) What I see is a fatal misjudgment of energy states. The slower F-15 firing guns and then launching a 120C (???) is defensive. Instead of flying straight at the F-15, the faster Su-27 needs a bit of lateral or vertical displacement to turn his superior energy state into an angles advantage. Instead, the Su-27 made his greater airspeed a disadvantage because of the larger turning circle (as pointed out above). Fly to a point behind the bandit, not at him, and certainly not in front of him.

That must have been fantastic. British ales are always a good choice.

Link? The largest 4k monitor I see on their website is 32". All I can say is that if it's a choice between a 27" or 32" monitor, and a 40" or 50" TV, go bigger. It's kind of ridiculous for work related stuff. I tried to show my wife that I can easily fit 4 documents or spreadsheets on the desktop. She wasn't fooled of course.:D For DCS I'm mostly at 60fps on the Nevada map. Flying through the strip is epic, but frames drop to 45-50ish if I turn to look sideways. Like others, I don't worry about running all the highest settings. High resolution is the eye candy I enjoy most.

There are air-to-air missiles that are designed to lock onto an ECM emitter, but, so far as I know, none of our air-to-air missiles work that way.