Leviathan

Quick question: When I have the DVD version of A-10C and I want it to connect with DCS world, what do I have to do? Okay I found it out myself.

Hi, ich plane mir FC3 zu kaufen, aber dafür brauch man ja eine Vorgängerversion als Grundlage. Würde dieses Produkt: http://www.amazon.de/The-Fighter-Collection-Lock-Platinum/dp/B003TPXXJI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367602953&sr=8-1&keywords=flaming+cliffs ausreichend und kompatibel sein, damit ich FC3 damit installieren kann? Danke für eure Hilfe!

ED can't screw up so much that their version is worse than BMS.

My opinion: If it needs to be an multi-role aircraft, I'd prefer the F/A-18 over the F-16, becasue the F/A-18 has better avionics layout, better cockpit ergonomy and has the better looking airframe. Still I'd love a pure Fighter/Intercepter (F-15C), becuase all ED and 3rd party producers haver focused on yet is ground attack. Everything they make that is located in our time (well except FC3) is ground attack (Black Shark is ground attack, Warthog is ground attack, huey is ground attack). For me it's time for some dogfighting and high speed interception. Yes I'm aware what advantages a multirole fighter has compared to a pure fighter and it's ok if they produce a multirole jet, still I hope for a F-15. I find this to be an interesting article about F/A-18 and F-16 comparison btw: http://www.friendlyflusi.at/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=16508

Does the lead always taxi left, both before take-off and landing or does he taxi on the right after landing?

Two questions: - What causes bouncing/hopping when landing on the runway? Any tips on how to work on avoiding this? - How do I have to interpret the big white taxi way center line on air bases like Kobuleti or Batumi, do I have to taxi on the center line or are those lanes to taxi on one side like on a street? If the latter is correct, do I have to taxi on the left side or the right side? Thank you

Cannot belive my d/l is already complete. I had calculated that it would take about 26 hours to load it, but it only took about 8 hours! :D

okay thanks for the fast replies

And what kind of pw and username do i need to use the download mirrors??

But when I abort autoupdater and resume it later, will it start from the beginning?

Agreed!

hmm, okay Now it's at 3 KB/S, that's going to be a long trip :D

Is it normal that I get only between 8 and 12 KB/s for the autoupdater download? Or should I abort and restart? (And no, I'm not using ISDN and I have no other background downloads)

Agree. Netcode and thus player interactions in the same vehicle in Arma2 is far from perfect. I remember one occasion where I was the gunner in an Apache or Viper and on my screen it looked like the chopper was making a looping and crashing right into the ground, although after some stuttering I could see that we had been on a horizontal flight plan all the time, and still were flying without having crashed. Lag like this e.g. between Pilot and Gunner happens often in Arma2 (The good thing is that Arma is still playable with lag most of the time).

+1 for removing the zoom-out on mission starts

I imagine something like a coop mode w/ a two seated aircraft (F-15E perhaps?), one playing the pilot, one the RIO/WSO.

Wonder if those are HEI bullets.

Well, most important, a) it isn't a russian aircraft (commonsense as this is the western aircraft wishlist) b) it has full A2A capability to complement the A-10 which is absolutely limited to ground attack and such c) i agree, it should be an aircraft where enough data is available and not a highly classified next generation fighter Seems like there are many interesting fighters planned by third party developers, but somehow i get the feeling that none of them (F/A-18, Eurofighter, F-15E) will overcome WIP status within this century :( (maybe I'm too pessimistic/unpatient) A DCS F-16 would also be a nice option and could overhaul all this (makeshift?!) BMS stuff... but maybe ED should rahther develop his own aircraft

Yeah that would be fine. Generally I would even be satisfied with a multi-purpose fighter jet (F-16 or F/A-18, you name it) as long as it has noteworthy A2A capabilities and is not limited to shoot at ground targets and helis. Just something with the quality of the A-10C module but with air combat ability. @howie87 to me it's not just something to fill a gap in a mp session or for mission builders, it's simply that I find it more interesting and satisfying to engage in air combat (like fighters do) than simply dropping tenthousands of lbs of ordnance on tanks. It's personal preference that I like playing a CAP/anti-air pilot more than a CAS pilot. And flying the FC3 F-15 is not as interesting as flying the A-10, with all its complexity and realism, right now. And that is what I mean with a market gap, some players like A-A more than dropping ordnance on infantry like the A-10 does and ED could really provide this opportunity if they'd close that gap.

ED, make a fighter please! Personally I wish ED would make a mainly A-A focused, modern fighter-aircraft, like the F-15C or Eurofighter, because the DCS series is really lacking BVR- and dogfighting-capable modern era aircraft (DCS only has the A-10C as modern era Aircraft, which is definetely no fighter). I think this is a huge market gap, because DCS focuses too much on ground attack and CAS (Ka-50, A-10, Su-25T) and too little on aerial combat (A2A, dogfighting, BFM and all this "fun" stuff). The only options are the Mustang, which is nice, but not a modern era, present-day, aircraft, or the FC3 fighters (like the F-15), who come not even close to the A-10C in terms of detailedness, realism and complexity. Another option would be BMS Falcon, but that game has not that high grade of quality that the DCS A-10C has, when compared with each other (especially graphics-wise and concidering the GUI). My suggestion would be something like taking the F-15C from FC3 and making it as detailled as the A-10C (at least give it a clickable, fully operable 3D cockpit, including avionics). Or if that would interfere with FC3 sale, make a new game/module, based on another A-A-capable fighter jet (F-22, JSF or even F-16, F/A-18, or an European model). Personally I find a (dog-)fighter much more interesting than a UH-1 (just my opinion) - of course both, an UH-1 or such and a fighter would be great (though my priority is obviously the fighter) :P I hope ED will listen and develop a more A-A based module in the future (IMHO the current emphasis lies too much on ground attack).

Why would I increase thrust? Because when I'm approaching with let's say 180 KIAS and I apply full flaps, gear down, 40% speedbrake and 3° nose pitched down towards touch-down point, this configuration burns through speed so fast that i often drop below 120 KIAS and nearly stall. Though probably simply bad airmanship on my part due to lack of experiece i guess - but I'll keep on trying :)

So if I end up increasing the throttle steadily for the last hundred feet (when applying full flaps and 40% speedbrake) before the runway that's a normal process?

Nealius, I find that an interesting point you mentioned with the speedbrakes. They foil my landing slope, because of the fast reduction of speed, bringing me near a stall. Only thing to counter that is then to increase throttle, but that defeats the purpose of speedbrakes if you then have to increase thrust, doesn't it :D

Thanks, however I'm not that much of a noob with landings in DCS (I hope). I can land safely and on the middle stripe of the Runway. It's just that this rule does confuse me/is new to me. For instance, I would have never thought about landing like the person in this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6Wt46kOm0, although I have to admit that it looks quite nifty. Is this the way it's done in real life VFR landings?

Why is it that you should use your throttle for altitude and your stick for speed? Seems like making an easy thing a bit more complicated for a noob like me :huh: