lmp

How did YOU start virtual flying? And I extend this question to everyone in this thread, especially those who think we should steer beginners towards Yaks and Albatrosses. I didn't start it by studying a long and dry manual for a frankly not very exciting trainer. I started in a low fidelity (at least by today's standards) simulator of the F/A-18, and all the pew pew stirred my curiosity and motivated me to learn more. I was an excitable teen (yes, that was a long time ago :lol:) and if someone had told me to read a few hundred pages of system diagrams, gauge descriptions and SOPs, I would have most certainly given up. And that's the big risk in introducing a beginner into DCS or flight sims in general. Not them crashing, learning inefficiently or even picking up some bad habits. The main risk is them getting bored and frustrated and quitting. So tell beginners to get something cool and exciting! Dogfights, blowing stuff up, acrobatics etc. are exciting. Checklists, traffic patterns, point to point navigation isn't... OK, it is to us nerds, but not to a newbie wanting to play out their Top Gun fantasy ;). Starting out with FC3 and in the future MAC will be perfect for most beginners. The "Soviet pilot of the 1980s" roleplaying game is really our own fantasy rather than what most beginners want.

The Yak is much easier to take off and land, but won't help you overcome your taildragger problems. It's a fun, easy to fly plane if you just want to fly something with a prop, but it'll make a poor stepping stone to the fighters. Stick with the Mustang. Keep the Dora hangared, don't even think about the Spitfire and Bf-109 before you get at least the Mustang down. With their narrow landing gear they're even harder not to tip over. Maybe video a few of your attempts (with the controls widget displayed) and post it in the Mustang subforum? I'm sure the resident experts can give you a few pointers.

In the Yak-52 the gyrocompass in MK mode will not indicate correct heading if you're not wings level. In the Mi-8 and L-39, which use the same set as far as I'm aware, this is not the case. The readings are always stable and accurate regardless of roll angle. Are the older modules doing it right, or is the Yak implementation correct? Or maybe, despite the identical name, there are some significant differences between the GMK-1A on the Yak and the GMK-1A on the L-39 and Mi-8?

Well, you can see a VHF radio control panel in the bottom right of the front instrument panel. So I imagine you could theoretically talk someone onto a target.

Thanks for all your input, guys! @Sirius Imagine this. If the sphere of the AI is stabilized to the ground and you enter a climb - so you're looking up - which half of the sphere you will see more of? The bottom part. And that's exactly what's happening in the Yak-52's AI. In a Western AI you want to see the top side of the sphere in a climb, so if you pull up 45 degrees the sphere needs to rotate 90 degrees relative to the real horizon.

I'm sure you can get used to and even prefer it over the other designs. Contrary to a lot of people I prefer the style used in the L-39 over the Western AIs. What I find strange is Russian cadets being exposed to two different designs throughout their training. Sounds like a recipe for spacial disorientation.

Or let us set it in the special settings page. Preferably by aircraft.

That's because you're flying for a Russian speaking country (Russia, Ukraine etc.).

Doesn't seem like this is the case to me. The Yak is a 1970s aircraft, so a contemporary of the Albatros (which would be the next aircraft the student learns), MiG-21 and newer Soviet combat aircraft. The L-39 AI looks like this: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/5fe/Screen_180712_160404.png White "sky" on top, dark "ground" on the bottom. When you pull the nose over the horizon, the "sky" portion fills the AI. The MiG-21bis, Su-27, Mi-8, MiG-29, Su-25 etc. all have a similar arrangement, despite being from different manufacturers: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/281/Screen_140720_054805.png_Thumbnail0.jpg https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/ab1/Screen_141023_104547.jpg_Thumbnail0.jpg https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/73a/Screen_170824_125901.jpg https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/2c3/FC3_SCR_41.jpg https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/e00/FC3_SCR_35.jpg The MiG-15bis is different indeed, but there's no sky/ground background at all, the plane symbol moves against a statick horizon line. In some of the early WIP shots we did indeed see an AI similar/identical to the one in the Yak: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/79c/Screen_141220_000359.png_Thumbnail0.jpg So clearly this design isn't unique to the Yak, but it isn't exactly standard either. I find it very odd from an ergonomics and even safety point of view. Even the "inverted" roll indication (compared to Western AIs) that we see in most Soviet aircraft has gotten people killed. This is far more difficult to adjust to and easier to misread.

I only did this mission once and I diverted to Beslan (successfully), so I don't know if it'll be enough, but here are some ideas: - Have altitude to spare before the vibrations start. - Are you getting the amber or the red light (I forgot which one it was in the mission)? If it's the amber/caution light, you're not required to turn off the engine, just monitor it.

Why are the colors of the attitude indicator "upside down"? It seems to be a very confusing design feature, especially considering this is a trainer.

I can't tell you which throttle will be ideal but I can tell you one to avoid - Thrustmaster's TWCS. It sticks badly, is too light and the sliding design makes it difficult to judge where you are on the axis. I had a Saitek Throttle Quadrant before and it was significantly better but it died eventually and at least when I was replacing it Saitek had some quality issues, so I went with the TWCS instead.

But it is the same thing. They didn't postpone the F-4 because they don't think it's worth the investment but because they want to focus on other projects. Putting the F-4 into active development means taking some of that focus away, possibly postponing one of the other modules instead. So in essence, it is deciding which module should come first.

Aren't the targets in that mission static objects? If so, that might be why the wingman doesn't see them as targets.

To be honest, none of those aircraft are bad choices. Looking at what both ED/BST and the third parties are brewing, I'm so glad we're out of the "everybody is making trainers" era ;).

If it was possible to put the set in the back (or anywhere really, without removing the gunsight) I'd consider buying it after the L-39 gets its cockpit lighting issues resolved.

Sure, the Ka-50 has that problem, so does the Mirage with its INS lights, others are just unreadable without turning on the backlights on a sunny summer day. I mentioned the Mi-8 because it's the one which made me kill the game today but pretty much every aircraft I fly except for the Hornet simply looks worse than in the old engine.

As of now pretty much everything other than the Hornet has some sort of cockpit lighting issues. Some are more, some are less severe. Earlier today I loaded up the Mi-8, looked around and turned the game off. It's just that bad compared to 1.5. We know there are plans to redo the cockpits eventually, but 2.5 has been released for a while now - can we have some sort of ETA for these badly needed fixes?

When was it offered as a one time purchase for all modules? I bought it on day one and it was clearly labelled as being exclusively for the Mi-8 with no details given if or how it would be ported to other modules.

The early MiG-29 and Su-27 variants that we have in the game never carried any PGMs. There's no way to realistically "add PGM capability" to either of these jets without building entirely new versions of them with entirely new avionics and systems (think Su-25 vs Su-25T level differences at least). There's much more to it than just "integrating" a new weapon system. Looking at how ED approaches this project (in a minimum-effort way) this is not going to happen. The alternative is what.. to add a fictional HUD mode? "Pretend" there's a laser designator somewhere on the jet (where?) or that the IPV can display the imagery from the Kh-29T? That's the sort of sci-fi approach that'll get those jets banned from MP servers. The Ka-50 in our configuration existed. How much service it saw is irrelevant, it is a recreation of an existing, documented aircraft. AGM-122 was in active service, it is simply no longer used (stocks have been depleted). Again - existing, documented. We have fictional loadouts in other planes (MiG-21 for example), which I refuse to use, but that doesn't justify making things even worse. I know people who barely tolerate FC3 planes now because there's no alternative. Those people will not include MAC versions of aircraft which have full fidelity versions in their games. I want a red fast attack jet (preferably in full fidelity) as much the next guy, but not like this.

So far the changes in the FC3 birds were focused on making them more realistic rather than less (HUD repeater in the MiG, etc.) and I hope it stays that way. Putting fictional weapons on them for "balance" will only split the study/survey module communities further apart.

One of the FC3 aircraft - perhaps the F-15, or if money isn't a problem, have him get the whole bunch. Comparatively the L-39 is underpowered, departs easily and violently at high AoA, has no HUD and you can't blow stuff up in it as easily. IMHO it's an aircraft that rewards good flying and punishes sloppiness - I can see it being very frustrating for a beginner for that reason.

Is this a new DCS module or a standalone product?

I tried your mission and got the same result. At 7000ft I needed 71% to keep 250kts into the wind, 81% to keep 250kts with the wind and 76% to keep 250kts perpendicular to the wind. I tried each direction twice. I can definitely see that there is a problem here.

You can change the country of a plane on an airfield (you just did that! ;)) but if you want to talk to ATC you also need to change the coalition of the airfield to match that of the plane. Unselect the plane, click on the airfield and set it's coalition in airfield configuration form.