Hadwell

hit him with two 60Ms :D

the closer the target is, the more it matters if he's manoeuvring or not, since he's more likely to fly out of the radars FOV... the scan freqency of the radar is bad, and it misses the target every once in a while, it can take multiple scans to pick up a target just once... no matter if it gets much harder when they've fixed missiles, right now, as things currently are, there is no "easy mode" when it comes to flying the mig-21 vs fc3 planes, and that's why I fly it. do you think the aim-120 would be nearly as popular if there was a more "easy mode" missile than it? don't believe me? put your words into some form of action... take a 21 up on 104th and get some kills without dying... and if you say "I don't need to, because I'm right" or something with that meaning, you're just proving me right, or at the very least proving yourself ignorant and stubborn. and don't take it too personally... these are just internet airplanes, and in the long run, just a fun way to waste time and spend money.

the a10 requires a lot more reading and a lot more flying in slow lazy circles playing with a targeting pod and GPS than actually fighting... the MIG requires reflexes, balls, and agressive crazy high speed, often nearly subterrainian altitude manuvering, and is not really meant for killing ground stuff. You might like the a10 better if... BRRRRt...... And the mig21 if you want basically the most rewarding feeling you can get in dcs... At least in my opinion... check my YouTube to see how I fly it. The first time I'd even seen a picture of a mig21s cockpit, or had any interest in it at all, was after I tried it in dcs for the first time, except for stupid trainer planes, I buy all things dcs just as a matter of course, now the mig 21 is basically the reason I play dcs.

TpWHpmp8fTM

the mouse doesn't have correct depth, but you can fiddle around with it and use mouse click anyway, but the real reason 3d headsets won't be really practical is the pixel density, it's way less than even 1080p on a 27" screen outside of a headset, because the screen is so close to your face. for example, if you made a 19" screen in 3D on your computer and viewed it through the DK2 it would only have maybe a 120x200 resolution if you viewed it from about a in-game/engine foot away, and the further away from the virtual screen you get, the lower the resolution gets from there. what we'd need, in order to get the same pixel density of a normal 2D monitor outside of a headset, is something more like dual 5k displays, though twice that would be better, because, as i said, the more distance you get from something, the less resolution it is, unlike real life where the resolution stays the same, the thing just looks smaller. so then, even when we do get high enough resolution displays... how do you build a PC to run a game at over 100 fps with dual 5k or even higher resolution displays? right now, VR is pretty much a novelty thing, we have enough CPU power to give some convincing demonstrations, but until PC hardware can run a 3d headset with enough resolution to make a (current) 2D monitors pixel density look bad while the thing is on your face, it's impractical. current 3D headset apps have graphics akin to playstation 2 and early playstation 3 era games, they mostly use the unity engine and low resolution textures.... so basically the problem is "can't see shit", not so much an input problem for DCS... well at least for me, since i have an x-55 and can pretty well do anything without taking my hands off the stick and throttle. until a virtual 27" display is at least 1440p from 4 virtual feet away (not happening any time soon), VR headsets are not as good as my 2D monitor.

watch the 1440p version regardless of resolution... the downsampled ones look really bad at night. 9% fuel left... that last kill nearly ran me too short to get home. GCI makes things much easier. VVCFZlOv8P4

yeah GCI works VVCFZlOv8P4

visually identifying things in dcs is really hard, it uses a really awkward LOD system that makes it pretty well impossible to see a planes paint colour, never mind any kind of markings on it, from anywhere further than a couple hundred meters away... there aren't many situations in real life that two american planes would fight each other, so all you need to do is see the outline of a plane and you know if it's a friendly or not... with multi-player in dcs, you have a whole bunch of random people out there, who all left the airfield at random times and went in random directions, and every side uses the same planes. you need to look at the markings on a plane to tell friend from foe without a dependable IFF system that works with no input from the player... not practical... solutions: keep IFF that's already in the game, it's dependable, and just works, even though its not realistic, or somehow create an LOD system that lets people visually ID planes by their markings, without needing to basically ram into them, and that wouldn't just be unrealistic, it would look unrealistic, because the main reasons we'd need that are low pixel density, small screen sizes, and no peripheral vision...

The only issues I have are assholes who will USe the excuse of not knowing how to use the iff systems to just shoot anyone down, and the asses who will cry wolf when they set their codes to the enemies, so they look friendly to their enemy for an easy kill, or just fail to turn on or properly set their iff and end up getting teamkilled, and ruining the guys score...

Sure its kinda interesting as any kind of historical documentation is, but it doesn't help with flying the mig21 in dcs... I was just being practical.

These charts.... Just don't go over 30 degrees aoa, and you won't stall... Speed and altitude aren't things you can depend on getting to decide, so either you will, or won't survive a turn fight with someone... as long as you never go past 30ish aoa you turn, you stand a chance, stalling out constantly, you will lose... Anything else is too unpredictable to expect and its difficult to increase or decrease your speed and altitude on the fly when you're trying to shake someone and they're on you good, and if you're on them, then its their choice for speed and altitude Pretty well anything you will fight multiplayer in dcs makes the mig21 look like it has the turn radius of a b29 So all you really need to remember is 30 aoa, and avoid turn fights.

Well... to me, a good HOTAS is one that'd have enough analog axises to fly a P-51 with trim and ram air/heat controls, and enough buttons to fly the a-10c or mig-21 without the need for a keyboard or some external software such as target, that doesn't have any jitter on anything, and has some tiny bit of durability, there isn't one. the main reason why, is that flight sims and games that require a joystick aren't that popular, they are niche, and joysticks, except the ones you can buy now, would generally last forever... TL DR market saturation means they make cheap sticks, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable.

If you're taking off with RATO pods and you find your engine is shutting down on takeoff, right when the pods run out of fuel there's a little puff of dust that appears in front of your plane, wait for it to pass your nose, then pull back on the stick... not sure if this is a bug or what...

Trying something different this time... 74JIArSiYLI

I just bought a Seagate desktop 4TB drive. before, I was using a 500gb and a 1TB disk drive, and only had the 240gb ssd. One or both of the disk drives was slowing my system down, and it just wasn't enough space to record DCS videos, I got rid of them all together when I got my 4TB drive. I wanted a lower RPM drive, figure it'll last longer, for me, a 4TB drive is for storage, storage means it needs to last, though i've still got 118mb/s out of it, and for a disk drive, that's decent. I have an OCZ Agility 3 240gb, Samsung 850 pro 500gb , and the seagate desktop 4TB drive in my computer now, and it runs great.

why would you fire a IR missile first? the radar guided missiles are the only really all aspect missiles the mig has, wouldn't it be better to fire a radar guided missile first? I thought the whole point of them is that you didn't need to be behind, with a IR lock, in order to fire, so as you're approaching your enemy, not yet behind him with an IR lock, you fire a SARH, and if it misses, then you go behind and go for an IR lock. just doesn't make sense at all to go through the expense of making a radar guided missile if you're just going to use it like an IR missile... (yes I know what flares are) and firing multiple missiles does increase the chances for a hit, if you switch to 1-2 and hold the trigger down, it fires both, the 2nd maybe 2 seconds after the first, that 2 seconds can make all the difference, assuming you're firing both from within params to begin with. I know the Vietnamese used to just fire missiles going full speed from the side or nearly head-on, then bug out, because they didn't want to lose any of their migs in dogfights.

a i5 6600 and a 6600k are totally different processors, the 6600 non-k is 3.3ghz, 3.9ghz in turbo and will never go faster than 3.9, the 6600k on the other hand can go right up to 4.5~ ghz. non-ks are locked and can't overclock past their turbo speed, that's why they are so much cheaper. Ks are unlocked and you can clock them as much as you can cool them and/or as much as your mobo and ram can handle.

I think you'd fire 1 and 4 since the inside two were more set up for the r55 and r13 and the outer two were more for the sarh varients. How I do it online, I fire an r3r on the merge and then as soon as I get tone I fire an IR missile, I would assume firing two of the same type of missile ups the chance for a hit a lot, and that would be why there are 1-2, 3-4 selectors

Unless something drastically changes, pretty much, yeah, 4k isn't all that right now, till something much more powerful than a 980ti comes at a decent price, and a top end i5 or medium end i7 K model cpu should last a few years at least.

in FSX you don't need to worry as much about the flight model being accurate, don't need to model radar and weapon systems accurately, basically anyone who can make or find a good 3d model and texture of a plane can make one for FSX... DCS's planes need to meet a standard of quality in order to make it an official aircraft, though anyone can make a mod for dcs and put their own plane in just like FSX... think about it this way, if ED just let anyone make an aircraft for it, like they do in FSX, then we'd have a repeat of the CFS2 days, where people had F4Fs that'd give the space shuttle climbing with its boosters at 80,000 feet a run for its money.... ED decides if there's enough accurate info, and if a plane/developer meets their standards, then accepts the 3rd party developer FSX has no QA at all in any way.

I have a DK2 and i know for a fact the cv1 isn't so much better(it is better though)... maybe in a few years, whatever they come up with then. PC tech needs to catch up to display tech.

Do i deserve someone making me a skin? It would be interesting, I wouldnt know what colour scheme, and I wouldn't get to enjoy it much, since its hard to see from inside the pit, but I guess anyone who got wvr would know. Need some way of switching skins online instead of just in the mission editor.

gYZnOtiTpgA