Flying Penguin

To practice slowing down for landing try this exercise at height: - Line up with a runway flying a constant speed of 80 knots or so - Adjust the collective until your vertical speed is zero, check your VSI - Raise the nose to start slowing down - Keep in line with the runway at all times, you will need regular control inputs to achieve this - Watch your VSI and adjust your collective to keep your vertical speed as near to zero as you can - As you slow down to below 20 knots, lower the nose to pick up speed and go round to try again Once you get the hang of that, you can try it whilst maintaining a descent of about 500 fpm, and then try it closer to the ground. It's just a question of practice.

If you just start a mission using either the KA-50 or A-10C it should try activate them and it will ask you for a key. Cheers, Jamie

But with the same developer behind each, and with a developer as small as this, it is a legitimate concern to ask whether, if they are bringing their B game to FSX, they can bring their A game to DCS? It is probably the same people on both projects.... I don't know the truth of the matter but it's a legitimate concern.

Well no, clearly if new or substantially updated aircraft are released with features up and above those promised to FC3 users (whether in the original features list or by the ED team on the forums), clearly they should not be free (e.g. DCS MiG 29 or SU-35 - Flaming Cliffs), but if we are just talking about chopping up FC3 aircraft and parcelling them up so as not to infringe any UBI IP so they can be released on Steam, then I can understand why a lot of people are a little perplexed as to what is so difficult about enabling interoperability. FC3 will never be on Steam, that's fine, there are good and logical reasons that is the case. However the only reasons advanced as to why it's impossible to grant access to modules are duplicate keys (other developers have operated key surrender programs), it would cause unspecified legal problems with sidestepping the UBI contract (if that was the case, it would likely be just as much an issue having new users without Lock On as giving access to FC3 users who have already paid the UBI tax), or unsupported assertions that it's "just never gonna happen". I suspect that impossible is being used as shorthand for "it's just too much effort to bother with, we'd rather take the good will hit", which is ok, ED have made great strides by transferring what they have, but they could at least be honest that it's just too administratively difficult rather than assert that it's impossible and that the community are fools for even asking. Personally, I'm ambivalent about the whole thing, it would be nice but I'm happy to be outside Steam for now, though you only have to look at the FC3 announcement thread to see the depth of feeling some people had/have about being "nickel and dimed" by the various FC versions, so I can understand why some people are less than understanding.

Are you using Chrome? If so, use IE. Worked for me....

Here, on Beczl's site if you feel really keen :) Page 58 onwards.

Or, if desperate, take a leaf out of the SU25's book and fly low over what you think is the target area until you hear the clunk clunk of rounds making holes in wings.... More fun that way. Real men don't need no stinking JTAC! :P

Nope. Wait until sunrise ;) Alternatively, fit an SAB-100 illuminating flare bomb and drop it over the target. Ok these reference the T version, but the principle is the same. QSTryf5N1eE stNxs3vN2p8

It did have access to the KH-58 and KH-25MP waaaaay back in early LOMAC, but they were removed by the time of LOMAC 1.1 as the real aircraft doesn't have that ability.

I know you've already aid you'll buy it, but just to say you won't be disappointed, it is a great little bomb truck, beautifully modelled and definitely puts the biggest smile on my face when you get it right. It forces you to really go old school and there are few things more exciting than going caveman, in at low level, countermeasures popping off the back, emptying all your rockets into a convoy in a hail of fiery death before egressing in the weeds, rounds buzzing all around... :D I'm not sure I'd want to take one into a modern combat environment in real life, but it's definitely my favourite plane in DCSW :thumbsup:

Don't forget the Dora railway guns: Same gun, but actually used rather than vaporware :)

You forgot camp 4, happy to fly whatever as long as it's accurate to the N'th degree.... :)

Well he's still more likely to get help in the end than if he just ranted and swore...

As someone who speaks zero Italian, I thought it was a beautiful turn of phrase which got your point across perfectly, irrespective of language :D

I'll reply in full later, can't really reply on my phone, but it looks like the Italian forum just heard the news: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=111853 " combattimenti ad armi pari... Ma vaff...." Needs no translation :D

Well you could always raise a support ticket and get it sorted out. Or even give us enough information to make a sensible suggestion in here. Or you can continue to have a temper tantrum and rage against DRM, nothing will change and you can turn your back on DCS and hope your parents don't notice the charge on their card.... :doh:

Post #223 in this thread I believe they were originally referring to a DCS level, not an FC3 level, in fact I don't recall seeing any mention of an FC3 level module. I'm sure that if there was an FC3 module announced as in plan we wouldn't be having all this wailing, gnashing of teeth and the whole "life is meaningless now..." act ;)

No, I really don't want an SU 25A at full fidelity, seriously just don't do it.... Possible downsides include: Not seeing daylight for weeks on end Deteriorating personal hygiene Lack of sleep Divorce Not getting visiting rights to see your kids Eventual starvation when no one is there to bring supplies Early death So please ED, for the sake of my kids, my marriage and my health, please don't do a full fidelity SU 25A....... :pilotfly:

And there's that double edged sword of allowing 3rd party modules....

That accuracy is a spectrum is not in doubt, but seriously, the base numbers in any pamphlet, no matter how accurate in themselves, are only a tiny part of the story of making an accurate flight model, otherwise it would be a case of inserting a few publicaly available numbers into your ACME flight model generator. At best, we could take an SU27 model and modify it a bit, but we'd still be left with a caricature of an SU 35. Any fool with the right knowledge can make a model which obeys the laws of physics enough to fool a casual observer, but it takes real skill (and access) to create a model which captures all the nuances which make an aircraft type unique. I have the same problem with the 35/SM as I have with the latest American über-jets, if so much has to be made up/assumed, why would I bother putting the effort in to learn them? I'm not massive A10 nut, but the opportunity to learn the REAL operations makes it worth the effort, and frankly, if it's not going to provide that insight, I'd rather play them balanced for fun, at which point I might as well play Ace Combat... But, with all these things, that's my view and your mileage may vary. :thumbup: Cheers, Jamie

+1 If you are going to just make stuff up, I can't see any point in doing anything more complex than a Flaming Cliffs level fighter. The attraction of full fidelity is that it's as close to what happens real life as you can get in desktop form, not 'we think this might happen but we can't really tell'. Much as I would love a full fidelity Flanker, if you are going to just make stuff up from a pamphlet, why not just go whole hog and give it 50 missiles and call it 'SU 35 - Ace Combat Edition'? Personally I'm hoping for an accurate S... Cheers Jamie

And it's quite depressing to think that the feedback was sufficient to make Beczel feel the need to close the original thread :( :thumbdown:

Because they Re waiting for an AFM and (possibly) 3D cockpit upgrade. Once that is done there is, I believe, no IP left in them that is subject to the UBI contract and they are free to release individual modules.

Only problem there is that all the launches in the third video are against a white/grey background and at least one goes straight into cloud. The plume looks quite defined and I'm sure that if you put a green background on it (as it would be seen from the air), it would be much clearer, at least until the motor burned out... Having not seen any videos of those launches from an elevated vantage a point, it's impossible to say whether Falcon or DCS get it nearer to the truth. Cheers, Jamie

Is that the ED office centre left? ;)