lmp

Consider how minimalistic the autopilot is in (at least early model) F-16s, despite the aircraft having a state-of-the-art FLCS for it's time. I don't find it that unusual that the F-5E doesn't have one at all.

Keyboard layouts aren't very consistent between modules. To a certain degree it's unavoidable, because the systems in different modules are very different, but for example the gear up and gear down key combinations are not the same in the MiG-15bis and MiG-21bis (the MiG-15bis at least lets you toggle the gear lever up/down with G). It could have been done better IMHO. I'm not sure about simplified versions, I try to not use them. WW2 planes have rudder and take-off assists. The MiG-15bis has this "AI helper" feature, which shows you the next step you need to perform to get the aircraft started: Again, I'm not sure how well it works cause I never tested it extensively.

If you like Soviet planes, consider the MiG-15bis. It's a much simpler aircraft than the MiG-21bis and at the same time a "proper" DCS module (not taking anyway away from the FC3 planes). Like you I just don't have the time to properly learn the more complex machines. The MiG-15bis took me about an evening or two to learn (and there wasn't even an English manual when I got it) and there isn't that much to forget, so getting back to it after some time isn't hard.

I don't think curves will help with collective control much. When it comes to cyclic and pedals, having finer control near the neutral position and coarser towards the edges makes sense, especially in combination with trim. But with the collective, you will not necessarily want the most precise control in any specific part of the axis range. The amount of collective you will need to hover or land will vary greatly with altitude, weight, etc. and you have no way to trim it out.

I like this idea a lot.

Glad I could help. As I said I made the same mistake, but in our defence the instrument has no units written on it.

Yes it does.

Given your vast real life experience, I'm almost sure this won't be the case, but I'll ask anyway. You're not by any chance reading the vvi as 100ft/min instead of m/s? I made that mistake at first (though I'm not a helicopter pilot, all I ever flew was a paraglider ). I'm asking cause you mentioned 300ft/min, and the Mi-8 in the game will happily manage that, but at 3m/s on the other hand, which is roughly 600ft/min, your margin for error is getting indeed rather slim.

Really? They don't look 2D to me. The front dash looks wider and flatter than the Russian aircraft I'm more used to, but that's the design of the aircraft, not a fault with the 3D model...

I concur. Especially APCs and infantry should be way less accurate. It's not right that grunts with AKs can consistently hit me when I'm passing them a few hundred meters away at 200kph.

It seems to be the case, but I would appreciate an official confirmation from ED/BST, since it wasn't featured in any of the changelogs (or I'm just blind...).

I noticed a change in the behavior of the attitude indicator in 1.5. In 1.2.x, after you performed some aggressive maneuvers, you had to recalibrate the device because the indications were completely off. In 1.5 after several lengthy dogfights with maneuvers in the horizontal and vertical, my attitude indicator had an error within maybe 2 degrees. This change seems to be intentional, but I wanted to confirm that? :)

I'm disappointed with your screenshot, Cibit - why is the fan not turning?! ;)

Does this mean we're out of beta? :music_whistling: Seriously though, great news. Such a small thing but I think most of us felt the Mi-8 was incomplete without it ;).

I'd greatly appreciate any extra content for the Mi-8. I liked the original campaign very much.

I'm no F-5 aficionado and I might be totally wrong here, but I think the F-5E had no RWR at all? Certainly the one currently in the game doesn't have one and wikipedia, flawed as it may be, seems to suggest that as well.

My favourite general purpose weapon is the S-25. S-24s do the job as well, but I like the added range. The exact number of them and whether I take drop tanks depends on the mission details. If the job demands it, I'll bring different weapons of course, but the heavy rockets give me plenty of flexibility in typical situations.

I haven't checked how it currently works in the MiG-29 cockpit, but in the Su-25 the "Airfield 1" light on the navigation panel lights up when you have the departure airfield selected, "Airfield 2" when you have the arrival airport selected and "Airfield 3" when you've selected any other airfield. As you cycle through waypoints, the corresponding "Waypoint" lights turn on. I think this is a good system in most situations, I much prefer it to adding fake indicators in the cockpit, so I'll use it as the base for my proposal. The two problems that this current implementation has is identifying waypoints beyond the 5 or 6 available and identifying airfields that are not in your flight plan. My solution to problem #1 is... to use less waypoints. That's a limitation real Su-25 (and MiG-29) pilots have to cope with. It's realistic to leave it as it is. A way to solve problem #2 would be to have the radio/ARK/RSBN also "tune" to the airfield channels. This way you would look on the radio channel selector, look up the corresponding number in a chart in the manual and know which airfield you are navigating to that way.

Most L-39Cs were not brought to the US and demilitarized and thus they do have a gunsight. If the devs want to add a private import version, then great. But I would be quite upset (and very surprised) if they removed the proper C version in the process. The aircraft is historically significant not for being a toy of rich Westerners, but for being the primary combat trainer aircraft of several dozen different airforces.

C is not "the civilian version".

Thanks, this is going to be very useful :).

I am proficient with the MiG-15, this is the aircraft I fly the most ATM. I am proficient with the Su-25, but that's an ASM aircraft so does that even count? I was proficient with the MiG-21, Mi-8, Ka-50, Bf-109, Huey, Mustang, Sabre and the Russian FC3 fighters, and I could re-learn them quickly if I wanted to. I never properly learned the American FC3 planes or the T-toad. I've given up trying to learn the Fw-190 deathtrap. The A-10C has a stick with too many buttons. I don't have the two trainers.

Also, there are switches on the transmitter panel to lock the transmitter and antenna knobs. When you lock them, setting the receiver frequency does not change the transmitter/antenna frequency. Since in real life you would probably do that anyway to prevent aircraft vibrations or your elbow ;) from moving the knobs accidentally, you can get a realistic experience that way.

@Krupi Sure, but my point wasn't that there is enough Russian aircraft, but rather that those that are there will do fine in MP against most of the new Western aircraft.

If being competitive on the modern battlefield is all you care about, then yes, it's not "good" in that sense. But there are plenty of people here who consider playing out historic scenarios just as if not more fun than dogfighting in 4/5 generation fighters. Or just like to be the underdog. Or find the outmoded, clunky avionics of the 50-70s fun... As for the new Western aircraft upsetting the balance of MP (or rather free-for-all team deathmatch games - anyone doing realistic scenarios is hardly affected by it)... as much as I would love more Eastern tech in the game, I don't think any of the new Western planes save for the Eurofighter will be such a big problem. They match the current Russian fighters quite nicely, both in terms of role and capability. MiG-21bis : F-5E MiG-29A : Mirage-2000C MiG-29C : F/A-18C Su-33 : F-14A/B