lmp

Nice. The release alts from the manuals are indeed low and suicidal in a high threat scenario, but in a low threat environment, I find they get the bombs on target even if you don't exactly ace the maneuver. I wish they'd given us more options though.

Quoting Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb): Those numbers don't paint the whole picture of course but illustrate one thing quite clearly. Dumb bombs are inherently inaccurate and there's no way around it. Even if you know the target altitude down to the meter and you perform your attack perfectly, there's no way you can account for all the variables, such as wind (local direction and strength at all altitudes between you and the target, gusts) or local differences in air pressure (affecting your altimeter reading). That said, if you're looking for accuracy, you chose the worst possible delivery profile (except maybe toss bombing). If the terrain, weather and air defenses permit, bomb out of a dive. And don't expect every bomb to go through the commander's hatch of the tank you aimed it at.

I recently got back to the Mi-8 and it almost felt like starting all over again. You need to practice helicopter flying regularly to stay proficient. After a few hours I was again in control when it came to landings in flat terrain. But mountain flying is a different thing altogether... Which is actually a pretty good newbie advice - start somewhere flat and once you get that down, be prepared to spend yet more hours practicing mountain operations. The horizon line is an important reference and when it's behind a mountain, things get harder.

It seems to be a thing with both of Belsimtek's American fighters which makes me wonder, why doesn't the MiG-15bis have the same problem?

Really? Diversity is boring? :unsure: I would say it's the other way around, if all aircraft had similar nav systems, now THAT would be boring. Right now the A-10C with it's ILS, TACAN, mission computer etc. provides completely different navigational challenges than, say, the MiG-15bis with it's OSP-48 "instrument approach system". Sure, it won't do a fancy STAR, but back in the 50s if you were a MiG pilot, you were expected to perform IMC landings relying on NDBs, marker beacons and a radio altimeter.

If the radar antenna can only tilt 45 degrees upwards, and in your screenshot you're effectively demanding 52 degrees, it seems logical to me that the stabilization would not work under these conditions? It's of course always nice to hear from the developers whether this is working as intended or not :).

That's actually how it's supposed to be. One thing that might help you is to set your trim before take off to about 1/8th - 1/6th of the way back and right. Use the control indicator at first (CTRL + ENTER) to help you judge this. And then as you take off, trim often. Practice hover taxis, then introduce transitioning to and from cruise. Leave yourself lots of space, try to make your maneuvers as precise as possible. You can also experiment with the joystick curves. I have mine set to 17 on the X and Y axis and it helps me to be a lot more precise. Some people argue against using curves... I say, try and see what works for you. Regarding VR and stick extensions: Investing a ton of cash in hardware is all well and good, but I guarantee you can get good results with a $50 T.16000m joystick.

I would say every developer who's been on this forum for some time knows it's not a good idea to give people false ideas about release dates. I would also say "releasing today because of Tom's twins" is the joke rather than "releasing today"... But that is of course just my interpretation and certainly your approach of not assuming anything saves you from possible disappointment :). Yes, yes, we'll also make sure there'll be plenty of screenshots and videos of us having fun in the appropriate section of the forum, so you don't feel left out :lol:.

NeilWillis, have you actually read PilotMi8's post on the previous page?

Yes, you can do it like that and it's already a great feature (just like the SARPP output on the L-39). I just think it would be even better if you could easily export it outside. Not just for video montages but also for realistic debriefings.

Unfortunately you can't save them to disk (it would be super awesome if they added it somehow). On the current BST planes, you can turn the little window on or off all the time, or only on for replays.

It would make sense for at least the MiG-15bis and F-86F to get the new damage model as well. In the missile combat era it's perhaps a bit less important, since missiles tend to be more all or nothing than machine guns, but it wouldn't hurt either, especially for ground pounders. Also, will the new damage model also work for AI aircraft? I had an instance when I shot off both horizontal stabilizers of an AI Sabre and he was still turning with me as if nothing happened.

You used the balance argument and that's why I replied the way I did. I don't know why exactly the devs didn't do the version with the IFF (if it existed), but I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with balance and rather everything to do with the inability to simulate it faithfully. If that is the case, then I believe they made the right choice and we'll just have to balance it with proper mission design. Remember, you still have a much better RWR, and in combination with proper briefing and deconflicting of pilots on your team, it's not really such a big deal. On a bit of a side note, I wish DCS simulated IFF better in general (different modes, failures of equipment, incompatibilities of different systems etc.). That way people couldn't depend on it so much, would have to work around with and actually plan a little more ahead of time before taking off ;).

I'm 90% sure someone from the dev team confirmed it somewhere? Anyway, even if not, it would be a strange coincidence if they added it now and not used it on the F-5.

I believe BST are aiming for a faithful recreation of the real thing rather than a fantasy aircraft that won't upset the balance on your favorite air quake server.

I don't really use the score system, but I can see how it might open more possibilities for others - so that's a yes from me.

There's a very vocal group here on the forums that won't accept anything other than a "modern multirole fighter" as useful or fun. Sorry, but if you can't engage 16 targets at once, from BVR range, 90 degrees off boresight, with active fire and forget missiles, in supercruise, on autopilot... what's the point of even taking off? ;)

Really?! Wow, I was sure it worked the proper way... OTOH, I always just used the arrows, so I guess that's why I never noticed.

It's not really "reversed" in the mission editor. Wind direction is always described by where it's coming FROM rather than where it's going TO. It's standard terminology and not a ME kink.

I went with unguided S-25s for most missions and it worked fine for me.

It's not a bug. Your Mach number is directly proportional to TAS, not IAS. Thus, when describing any phenomenon related to approaching or crossing the speed of sound, you will most likely use either Mach number or TAS. It may seem inconvenient to you but that's what the physics of flight are. 400kph IAS at sea level means you're at Mach 0.33 (very much subsonic), but at 15000m it's Mach 0.87 (transonic). Your TAS goes from 400 kph at sea level to over 900 at 15000m. That's a very big difference!

I would love a late Yak-9 variant. It would fit both in the late WW2 context against the current German planes and in the early Korean War against the P-51 (though the North Korean flown Yaks didn't acquit themselves well).

If you have a replay or a Tacview recording of the flight, have another look at what the MiG is doing. If you don't, try to recreate the situation in another flight. If you can tell us that the MiG was doing a sustained n G turn at an altitude of x feet and with a speed of y IAS, we can discuss if this is correct or not. OTOH if all you can say is that, from your perspective in a tightly turning Su-27, the MiG-15's turn looked wrong - that's not enough to base an opinion on.

Just because you were pulling 9Gs doesn't mean the MiG was. If he was slower he would have been able to achieve the same turn rate with a lower G loading. Your example doesn't really show anything.

1) The MiG-21bis was considered an all weather interceptor by the USSR, USA and NATO could very well have classified it differently. 2) The difference that made the MiG-21F-13 a good weather interceptor and MiG-21PF and beyond all weather interceptors is the ability to use radar guided air to air missiles. With IR guided missiles you had no guarantee you were firing at the target you intercepted and identified with your fire control radar. 3) In the end these are all just labels useful for people who like to label things. What's really important is what each airplane has and hasn't, what it can and can't do...