GC1993

Oh... I didn't think you could do that lol

Sorry to ask - could someone explain what "padlocking" means please?

His wind was ridiculous agreed, however you can fire the gun on the ground by turning ground safety off (right at the back of the left panel under a red cover, then master arm on & gun safe off and you're away. I've used it to reverse a few times when I've over cooked a corner on the taxiway.... :lol:

Right shift and H to activate night vision goggles - assuming that's what you mean :)

You're correct - I was simply asking if ED could implement them with the AFM release, just like the little extra features they added with the A10A AFM release.

Hi all I am about to order a completely new PC to FINALLY play DCS at an enjoyable level (current PC is about 10 years old, but has done well bless him) I wish to spend around £800-£850 (about $1250 for my American readers), and am using a UK site called Arbico which has been recommended to my by friends as it lets you custom build your PC from a base template set of specs which you can then customise to your needs, and they build it for you - and they are VERY reasonably priced. I'm AVERAGE in terms of my PC components knowledge, but I know there's a lot of experts on here that can give me valuable advice on exactly what I should be including in my PC within my budget. It's common DCS knowledge that frames are a problem, so I wan't a fairly decent CPU, but to be honest anything up to the 3.5-3.7GHz level will do me just fine, with maybe the option to over-clock to 4.0 if it's really necessary (I doubt it will be). I'd also like a moderately impressive GPU so my game looks good. I'm not looking at anything towards the GTX 690 spectrum or anything because it's much too expensive, but I'd like a fairly DECENT one. Everything else such as RAM (I only really want 8GB), cooling, power supply etc I'm fine to choose by myself, it's just I've read horror stories on here of people who have built a computer specifically for DCS, but they run it poorly because they didn't do enough research and DCS's strange core management (everything on 1 core, sound on the other) ended up compromising the setup. My budget is £800 because I will also be buying a TM Warthog and Saitek Pro Pedals at the same time (not the combat ones, don't see what the extra cost justifies), and well I'm not made of money. As I say, ANY advice one what I should be focusing on & buying to suit DCS, whether I should be prioritising GPU over CPU etc is very much appreciated. FYI I'll be running Windows 8 64bit on it. Thanks guys :)

P.S Anyone from ED able to comment on this or advise if it's planned for the future?

My point exactly a few posts pack, they need to decide what they want from ED more, their beloved modern flanker in semi DCS detail, or an older S modeled to DCS quality.

I think there's just limited data available for the avionics, as they're one of the most substantial differences between the S and the SM. Someone earlier suggested they couldn't obtain enough MFD data either, which is understandable. Remember, ED know that the Flanker is among the most popular fixed wing fighters for development, and they also know that those fans would largely prefer fideltity and authenticity than 30% guessing and assumptions. On that note I think they'd rather develop the S which they can model very accurately (I should hope if it's going to be a seperate DCS title), than attempt the more modern SM and leave lots of the real-life abilities, switches, functions, avioncs etc out because there simply wasn't the available data to recreate it.

Yeah I appreciate the shock diamond look, but as you say there's no volume to it. Tbh I'd be happier with the current SU-27 AB texture on the eagle instead of the one being used now!

+1 on that, I'd actually take GBU-38s over GBU-12s if I can - if the targets are spread out enough I can engage them both in one pass because they're fire and forget. I rarely bomb moving targets - usually mav them from far away which spreads out the convoy and sets me up for a double drop :D Most missions I fly the stationary targets can be destroyed from one hit with the smaller warhead anyway - only if I'm hitting a HUGE structure or looking to shack several ground units at once will I carry a GBU-31 or GBU-10.

I know it might be too late to ask for features with the F-15 AFM, but worth a shot. I was really glad to see how you implemented some other little things with the A10A AFM, such as adding the APU sound to the startup. If possible, it would be heaven if you could add a few tiny things to the F-15C to keep us going until a possible DCS:F-15 well into the future! First request is to change the startup sound to include that famous JFS noise before the engines spool up like IRL (see below) Secondly, any chance of the engine sound being tweaked just a tad? It's almost spot on (I watch the F-15s at RAF Lakenheath all the time), it just needs a little tweak to get it perfect. Lastly, (I don't think I'm alone on this one), could the afterburner texture have a rework? The current one looks a bit like the rings on a gas cooking hob (no offence), could it be reworked to look more authentic? It would also be awesome to have it how it is IRL where in bright daytime all you can see of the AB is the orange glow itself, wheras at nightime it almost looks like the Saturn 5 rocket, could this be implemented into the AFM (currently the afterburners have the ring trail showing even in bright midday conditions). These are probably ridiculous requests and I'm probably overstepping the mark hugely - just a big F-15 fan due to living 5 minutes drive from RAF Lakenheath :D

I was initially sceptical due to how classified this thing is and if they would be able to properly model it, but then my natural human hunger for power took over and made me realise MY GOSH I will feel like God flying that thing around at 40,000 feet, imagine how nervous other planes will be online knowing a stealth F-22 is out there somewhere locking them up! :thumbup:

Yeah I appreciate they can OCCASIONALLY perform well, and in fact maybe even 25% of the time, mine end up helping. I just don't get why they do stupid things, such as my "excellent" wingman flying right into the launch radius of the SA-8, and doing a pretty half-arsed job of trying to evade the missile (flies in a slight climbing turn whilst popping flares (radar guided missile - nice one wingman :S). You'd think even the lowest setting of AI wouldn't be stupid enough to do things like that because it wouldn't be realistic, a pilot with that kind of situational strategy IRL wouldn't keep his wings for long.

I did some tests after the fix and it all worked fine for me... :noexpression: I can't offer any explanation for the 58's missing, but if the 25's exploded in mid air en-route to the SAM it usually means their target has since been destroyed and they'll automatically self-destruct. I could be wrong though (probably am) :thumbup:

Does anybody actually know what specifically determines an AI player to be "average", "excellent" etc? All my singleplayer missions that I've created have my wingman set to "excellent", and the guy is frankly about as useful as a tennis raquet with no strings. For example, there is about 20 or so infantry on the ground - I've armed him with some M-151 rockets, I set a SPI where they are just to make it extra easy for him. I order him to engage infantry at my SPI with rockets, he says "affirm", and simply flies over them a few times missing his lineup before bugging out and saying "two, rejoin". OR, we're flying near to an SA-8 on our 3 o'clock, but out of launch range, I ask him to engage some armour on OUR 9 0'CLOCK, he says "copy" and breaks off RIGHT to make a nice long clockwise turn well into the launch range of the OSA, get's shot at, can't defend against a missile for s***, and boom I've lost my wingman. What is it that makes an AI excellent over average? Is there a known bug that I'm unaware of where the skill setting is redundant and they are all useless?

That's my bad I typed it wrong, the H has the desert environment advantage, sorry

On the topic of mavs gentleman, can someone advise why the D variant is heavily preferred over the H in game? I use the D primarily because everyone else seems to, but reading up on it the internet says the only difference is an enhanced ability in desert environments or something. Could someone explain the advantages of the D, or if the D isn't the best light variant (I'll use the K for ships and things), which one is? Thanks

Not sure if you've sorted your issue yet or what but... I was confused also when I first got my T.Flight years ago with the same issue - and had the throttle centred on that mid point when i calibrated it...so it thought that the mid-lock point it has was 0% power. Next time you calibrate, move the throttle all the way aft before you start, then move it all the way forward past the midpoint and then back again when it prompts you to.

Yeah, + also I read that initally the F-16 stick was completely motionless, but they made it move a bit because the pilots just couln't work with it. I do like the idea of having the TM WH already mapped out, AND the lift detent for engine off/afterburner, AND a nice 2 stage trigger for PAC1 - PAC2 stabilisation. And honestly, I'm looking to buy this stick very soon; we don't even have a release date for F/A-18C yet, so I feel I should by the WH and make the most out of A10C, then just make a smooth transition (with hopefull little re-mapping) to the F/A-18C :)

I'm back to square one after worrying about a few issues. Does the X-65F have a two-stage trigger? Is it true that the throttle is ridiculously stiff out the box so that moving it ends up shifting the whole unit due to lack of rubber grip feet? I was leaning at the X-65 but I can get the TM WH off Ebuyer for £242.... so with a £100 pair of saitek pro pedals it makes it the same investment as an X-65F off of Amazon...

Well I'm an active A10C player - and like I said I'd like a setup that lets me map ALL my HOTAS commands to my devices, rather than having to press, for example, K for 2 seconds in place of DMS long. I will probably get the X-65F, because I'm interested to see how it would work with the F/A-18C setup, though it can't be that different to the A10C's setup surely... I like the idea of that front panel as well, & am thinking about mapping Master Arm and Laser etc to it

Cheers for the replies guys. I forgot to clarify in my original post - I don't have pedals. My current stick is called a Thrustmaster T.Flight HOTAS or something like that. It's pretty basic, has a few HOTAS buttons but only one multi-directional switch (which I use for slewing, and trimming when I apply a modifier key), but it had a nice rocker switch on the back of the throttle which allowed fairly smooth rudder control. Those of you who have an X-65F are saying it's a beautiful stick and aren't having problems with it (except for finding the force-sensitive input weird), and so that's probably the direction I'm leaning, as I don't want to dish out an extra £150 for some pedals when the X-65F has a twist function. Who knows, maybe TM is secretly developing an F-18 stick for the new DCS title......

Hi guys, After recently securing myself a summer placement job in my uni break, I can now afford to treat myself to a nice stick. Originally, the X-52 pro caught my eye, because it was mid-range in the price, and had enough HOTAS switches to designate my DMS, TMS, Coolie switch etc etc. However, I'm not sure I like how it looks, and have heard some people have issues with it re-centering itself or something due to the connector cable being fragile. (I've also heard of software issues, but let's leave it here). Ultimately, I wish to treat myself to the high end, and naturally I have 2 contenders... : The Thrustmaster Warthog, or the Saitek X-65F. They are both around the same price on amazon (£320 to £350 ish), and both have the HOTAS functionality and quality I'm looking for. Naturally, with DCS A10C existing, I hear of many more people with the TM Hog and I've heard nothing but praise for it's quality and functionality. I've heard less about the X-65F, and the reviews on YouTube don't give away much. In my eyes (and don't hate on me for this), the A10C is on it's way out what with DCS soon (we hope) to release their F/A-18C. I am looking at these sticks in terms of a long-term investment, and to be honest I actually prefer how the X-65F looks in reference to mapping it to an F-18 setup. YES, the fact that it's force sensitive and doesn't move puts me off slightly, but those who have reviewed it say you get used to it quickly and actually end up preferring it due to way more input control. Does anybody have an X-65F that can recommend me for/against it? Does/has anybody owned both sticks that can give me an informed view of which to purchase? Remember, I'm looking for long-term quality, authenticity, extensive HOTAS mapping, and one with decent software so I'm not messing about for half the time re-calibrating it like other sticks I've heard about (cough* Logitech G940 *cough). ANY advice/opinions/feedback is very much appreciated. Thanks, George