Jerkzilla

Yeeees!! Grind it up and shoot it into my veins at mach 2.83!

I think this is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement.

There, fixed.

I'm still bummed out about the Mavs, they would have made this a proper little multirole.

I genuinely thought this thread was about the Mig-21 surprisingly having a storage compartment.

Yeah, obviously, everyone would buy a EC Tiger. I'm sure Polychop know this as well, so I don't think it's a matter of choice. But that Mi-2! There's probably nothing classified and it has that 60s Eastern Block goofiness about it. Money down the instant it's for sale! Even if I'd get ripped to shreds trying to kill anything other than HMMWVs and trucks with MCLOS Malyutkas.

Yes, PLEASE.

I remember you! You came onto the Project Reality mod forums a million years ago with that Ka50 model and maybe some renders of Chernobyl. That beta video of it in Battlefield 2 was pretty awesome, considering there was nothing remotely similar in the game at the time, with the single seat and side cannon and all. Really hope to see more of your work.

No one knows what will happen after the DCS Singularity, when everything will be merged into one installer. Some think that we will ascend to a higher level of simming, others think the End Times will follow, only time will tell.

I feel like one can make the same point about the A-10 and Ka-50. I mean, ground forces never really react to your actions. It's like there's a list of stuff you have to do: find and kill AA, use remaining missiles/bombs on tanks, gun everything else, go home. It gets a bit more interesting when you use unguided munitions only, but even then, you're fighting a completely static and predictable enemy. I think CA was supposed to alleviate this, in multiplayer anyway, but it doesn't seem to be doing it's job yet. I've actually been flying the P-51 much more than the Hog and Shark the past year or two mainly for this reason.

Thank for the guide! I will try this soon, the springs on my M5 broke years ago anyway and I replaced them with rubber bands. I also don't like the way the stick acts near the center, you can feel the moment it stops pushing against one side of the spring and switches to the other.

Nice resource there! What's the deal with the ships rear area? It looks like it went from one configuration in the 86 picture to a different one in the 89 pic, then back to the 86 configuration (more or less) in the 1990 pic? I'm referring specifically to the hole in hull's stern and the port side balcony things.

They'd be way more appealing with highly detailed terrain that actually warrants the small diameter rotor. They just look too agile to fly Georgia's mostly undetailed landscape. Haven't played Nevada yet so I can't say if DCS is there yet, or if it's even close. Also, more detailed modeling of infantry would help drastically, especially since the AH-6 AFAIK has mostly light weapons.

That's literally what I did minutes later after I posted :lol:

I still don't get how that thing is supposed to look. I mena, Saab has this to say about it: And I'm like, where on earth does it project the image? Is it projected inside the tube, so you're looking into the aperture there? If so, you're still seeing it as if it's just a tiny screen but with the added benefit mentioned my Saab, that it's more comfortable to look at? It's just kind of underwhelming if it's just an image in a tube when it has "virtual" in the name... EDIT: Nevermind, I think I get it.

Yes but which version? Sub choice: M) 1. Mig-25 P 2. Mig-25 PD 3. Mig-25 RB 4. Mig-25 RBS 5. Mig-25 BM

That's a very strange stance to take on the issue of dice rolling battles outside the bubble. AI battles either fully simulated or not are just calculations based on arbitrary characteristics and limitations anyway. You can account for various modifiers such as terrain like traditional wargames and basically tackle the issue backwards from the required result. Thus, you can decide that a T-72A has "x" chances to K-kill an Abrams in neutral conditions based on old fashion research, and then pile on contextual modifiers that account for unit training level, terrain, time of day and supporting units, such as recon, whose values are also determined based on old fashion research. The beauty of it is that if you do a decent job with the math, which presumably is easier than doing super capable AI, the result you get invariably is statistically consistent with your research.

Turn Facebook Datalink on? :)

Happy to hear that, and thanks for checking in! :thumbup:

Cobra! If you're still alive, give us a sign... in the form of a progress update! I kid. The silence is a bit worrying though, and not in the "I need my toy now!" sense. Hope everything is going ok, whether business or health.

This is of probably no help, but what you probably shouldn't do with it is attack newer Russian tanks equipped with ATGMs. Speaking from experience in the KA-50, they shoot back at pretty decent range. You might have to fire at the HOTs maximum range and even then, they'll probably still reach you. Even worse, dodging is going to be super hard while you have a missile of your own in the air. I'll totally try though.

I completely agree. There's so many objectionable things with that shortsighted attitude, it almost gets my blood boiling, more so now because the OP didn't even complain about the actual fidelity, just the sim's method of teaching it. Overall though, I think DCS is much easier to get into versus other sims out there. The controls are, IMO, the most intuitive to set up of any flight sim. Tuning options for every axis and a built in modifier system (unlike Falcon, for instance) do wonders, not to mention that each aircraft has its own control setup which we can now access during singleplayer missions. And interactive tutorials are the single best thing since sliced bread. Seriously. They are miles better than any youtube video could ever be, they keep it short and actually build a sort of muscle memory at the same time. Every module needs them, especially the free ones. ED could do more too, with not a lot of effort. The OP's short beginner campaigns with very basic threat environments are a good idea, potentially reused for aircraft of the same role. It's the missing link between the tutorials and actual campaigns/multiplayer. Last thing anyone should expect of new players if for them to build their own missions, when they barely understand their aircraft's capabilities and the threat even less. Also maybe provide an outline in game of what they should actually start learning first, like the Quick Start guide but not buried miles deep in DCS' folder structure. While we're at it, the manual should be more easily accessible in game through maybe a briefing like screen in the "Esc" menu. Still, I'm happy with where the sim is at now, but there is just so much potential.

So what's performance like? Is it noticeably more resource intensive than the Caucasus? I put off buying it as my rig is way less than stellar (and below stated minimum), nvidida 550 2GB graphics card with an Athlon Phenom 2 and 8 Gigs of RAM. Upgrade is not coming anytime soon unfortunately but the Black Sea map is running ok by my standards. Not expecting good news, but figured I'd ask anyway. Have fun!

This may be a sim, and by extension, the emphasis falls on authentically representing both the workings and appearance of things, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't extend to correct historical use, or authentic geopolitical environment, especially in optional DLC. Fictional countries for fictional conflicts are fine. Side note: Immersing ourselves in realities we normally can't experience is something we do with the aid of many works of fiction.

Nickname: Jerkzilla; Your profile at ED forum: http://forums.eagle.ru/member.php?u=99922 Chosen plane type: MiG-15bis Country of residence: Romania Time: GMT+2 Language of communication: English Confirmation of familiarization with regulations of the tournament and the obligation to comply with them: Familiarized with regulations of this tournament, oblige myself to comply with them.