lmp

I think subs aren't a good fit for DCS at the moment. None of the current modules can interact with subs in any meaningful way. A whole new layer of simulation and a range of new modules (very complex, specialized and niche aircraft) would need to be built before we would see any kind of benefit. On the other hand, expanding current ASuW gameplay is already happening. We're getting new carrier aircraft and all the associated assets (ships, naval focused maps, anti ship missile launchers...).

I was referring to this post:

It's a question of what you're familiar with. I find both AI styles about equally easy to use - if anything I lean towards the Russian style, but that's just me - and I prefer the Russian way of displaying the radar picture on the HUD. Looking down at the scope is disorienting to me. I understand the MiG-23 is in general a less capable fighter than contemporary Western designs and certainly less capable than newer Western planes, but I fail to see how it's worse in IMC and especially in icing conditions. What am I missing?

Polish Army uses the Mi-24D and V.

What in particular makes Western fighters less affected by IMC and near zero temperatures?

Check your controls. Maybe you have something bound to the elevator or elevator trim that shouldn't be? On my end neither version of the L-39 does anything weird on take off.

If you put the edited missions in C:\Users\<User>\Saved Games\DCS\Missions they will survive updates. Not sure about those in the game files. I'm guessing they won't, but I haven't tried.

Unless you want to fly for a country which doesn't operate the ZA. Like for example Georgia and Russia - the only two L-39 operators we have on any of the DCS maps. There are good reasons to fly the C with the gunsight on - and with the gunsight off. The existence of the ZA is irrelevant to this, hence my previous comment. You don't have to do that. You can edit the instant action or single missions, or create new ones and use them from the instant action or single mission menus without going into the ME (after the initial edit). That would make sense to me.

On the armament (gunsight?) panel, shouldn't the manual position of the release switch be labelled ручн rather than ручк?

We're talking about the C model, not the ZA model. The new system is more flexible. As I said, you can change the instant action missions if you want the gusight off - or prepare a new set of them to have a choice. It takes no more than a few minutes. Having the toggle gunsight in the options rather than in the mission editor makes no more sense to me than putting the livery selection or payload in there. It's a mission specific setting, don't make it global.

I would recommend the Yak to someone with no experience in flight sims at all. It is very easy to fly, my 9 year old landed it on her first try. But since you played LOMAC, you should be fine with the free Su-25T and then just get whatever you find most interesting. The L-39, both Korean jets, the F-5E are good first full fidelity modules. The systems aren't too overwhelming. The helos and ww2 planes are tricky to fly and the modern jets have complex systems requiring a lot of learning.

For example, that I can't have two prepared missions, one for acrobatics and another for combat and not worry about remembering to switch the gunsight on and off.

Isn't it moved into the back cockpit when you have the gunsight on? Also you can modify the instant action missions to turn off the gunsight if you want. Having the gunsight toggle in the Special menu comes with its own drawbacks, I prefer it the way it is now.

I believe now you do it not in the Special menu but in the Mission Editor.

The F-5E cockpit needs attention to make it compatible with the new lighting system at the very least.

I don't believe the Iranians had AAR capability?

The manual recommends pulling the throttle into stop or using the stop engine button, in both cases before you turn off the battery and engine cb.

Quick question about the power switch. The label above reads "подавит помех" or "interference suppression". What is that about?

What makes you think so?

The Hornet already gave me my teen fighter fix. I need more MiGs in my life.

Also wasn't the thing only fitted to F-4Ds? Anyway, to even think about implementing something like the Combat Tree would require a massive overhaul of the IFF logic in game, along with the needed AI improvements and changes to each and every individual module that has any sort of IFF transponder or interrogator. Given how touchy this subject is and how much work would be required, I don't see it happening.

No, because I never tried to turn off all the circuit breakers without turning off the engine first. I shut down the aircraft by the book a few times yesterday and it worked fine. Turning off all the electrics shouldn't kill the engine. All the engines I know are designed to work in case of total electric failure. Furthermore, the Stop Engine button may not work without the Battery and Engine CBs.

Quick Google search suggests the RSIU-4V works in the 100 - 150MHz frequency range, so nothing crazy like the MiG-15.

Enforcing "realistic" FOV may hurt some players - what's realistic on a single screen will not be realistic on a projector for example and some people use those. So I'm not in favor of restrictive hard limits, but user defined limits and more options for FOV changing (speed, instant, presets etc.) would all be good changes.

No, the laryngophone switch has nothing to do with it.