howie87

1) B 2) A 3) C 4) A

Don't forget the Mirage 2000C has relaxed static stability, leading edge slats, canards, fly-by-wire controls, HOTAS, look down radar etc. It would annihilate the MiG-21 if both aircraft were flown by competent pilots.

Baron, you old dog! How the devil are you? I dug up this old thread with lots of input from Olgerd who actually wrote the code for the ILS in DCS. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=115053&page=6

Erm, yes it does. The flight director uses information from the the glideslope and localizer singals but it also needs to know the intended course to generate correct steering commands. Try playing around with the course dial on final approach. You'll find it does indeed have an affect.

Expect just the graphics engine to be updated in 1.5 and you won't be disappointed. That way anything else that makes it into the release (module updates, sound API, ATC, new clouds/weather/effects etc.) will just be a bonus.

The BATA symbology (little round circles that flash up where the bullets are predicted to impact) is 5 mills in diameter so 80% of the rounds fired should fall inside a circle approximately the same size.

Less dispersion in the second pass (with the mod enabled). The GAU-8 should have an accuracy of 5mil as explained by Noodle here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1948435&postcount=10 The dispersion in DCS as modelled currently is too great but adjusting Da0 = 0.0017 to Da0 = 0.0008 makes this pretty much correct.

Any hope of this fix making it into an official DCS build?

Hi guys... Been a while since I commented on here but my original point was that the difference between the flight models of an iron bomb and that same bomb with a JDAM kit are completely enormous at the moment in DCS. I appreciate the points about Max range being achieved by dropping from faster aircraft and I don't really have an issue with that. The terminal velocity however is important as it heavily influences the time to impact and I don't believe the current differences in flight time we're seeing between JDAM bombs and iron bombs are in any way realistic. In my opinion, simply increasing the terminal velocity of JDAMs would be a satisfactory solution and the best option short of rewriting the entire flight model.

Yup... A-10C for me. I'm really holding out for the F/A-18C though, like almost everyone else. DCS absolutely needs a modern, multirole aircraft with PFM/ASM.

I kind of prefer the Huey just because the cockpit seems more logical from a western perspective. Also, when dual cockpit functionality finally lands you'll be lonely in the shark!

I can see how access to an F-16 might be an issue here in the UK but for what it's worth I think the BMS crowd would love a Viper in DCS... They could jump right in and provide support to various aircraft types that would be player controlled, be it CAP, Escort or SEAD. When the F/A-18C and Typhoon come out as well, there would be more options for combined operations - not to mention the imoroved sound and graphics engines. I understand why VEAO don't want to tackle it, but I wish ED or another third party with better access would. If done well, I can't see it being anything other than a massive success.

The latest update on the Metal2Mesh website has this to say: "Right now on the DCS version Razbam is having the AFM in progress with state of the art technics to add virtual copy of the real work aircraft" A little proof reading goes a long way gents...

To be honest, the CMS auto and semi auto modes in the A-10 are useless and semi useless respectively. The threat priority coding is kinda broken. If a radar threat is bugging you and a manpad launches at you, it puts out chaff. I always end up using manual mode.

I'll be more than happy to jump in a P-51 and have a go at spanking some transitioning pilots :D

Is the F-16C any more classified than the F/A-18C? I would have thought either of them would have more declassified material available for them than for the Typhoon!

Meh... I already own everything. *sits patiently awaiting new content*

I hope the new cloud settings in EDGE allow more of a gradient to be set. For example, at the moment if the clouds are set to 8 in the mission editor, they cover about 30% of the sky. When you set them to 9 they cover 100%! It seems that they are rendered differently and just go to 'blanket mode'. I'd also like to be able to set cloud cover in Oktas from the mission editor.

The real smart guys fly the A-10C ;)

That's yet to be seen...

Lol, because they're the kings of keeping us in the loop... VEAO and Leatherneck could teach the rest of the 3rd parties AND ED a lesson or two about keeping in touch with the community.

http://www.leatherneck-sim.com/team/

It would depend hugely upon the aircraft, systems fidelity and art quality. For something like the MiG-21 though, I reckon you'd be looking at $200,000 minimum. In terms of man hours, think how many Rudel has put in to counting rivets alone! You're looking at paying 4-5 guys wages for ~2 years.

I agree. The MiG-21 looks to be shaping up to be not only one of the most detailed aircraft for DCS but one of the most detailed aircraft for ANY flight sim EVER. Really impressed with the standard of work that has been put into this project.

Thank's for the update Vyrtuoz. I recently purchased the professional version so I'm glad to see that Tacview isn't dead! It's a great piece of software.