=Mac=

I have never hurried ED or complained (much) about things. However, I do suggest that ED post an emergency number (at least here in Canada) for those family members who will discover their pilot-loved-one frozen in his (or her) seat while flying DCS 2.0. I, for one, plan to fly until I die of starvation when it does come to my computer. Please, ED; don't hurry. Do it right. Then bask in the glory that you all are the BEST in the world.

If I recall correctly (from the early 1970's!) The F-4J had what we called a command select valve which (normally?) was selected to "BOTH". If the RIO punched out, both would be ejected within fractions of a second from each other. If the command select valve was not set to "BOTH" and the RIO ejected, the pilot remained as in this photo. I do not recall what the normal position was. I do remember it was in the upper left side of the (front) of the RIO's instrument panel. Keep in mind that my naval aviation days were forty years ago!

I'm still waiting for the Sopwith Camel. Oh, wait; that was a British fighter, eh? Well, bloody hell.

King was an FAA certificated private pilot and learned to fly in 1963. In the winter of 1949, King played at a dance hall in Twist, Arkansas. In order to heat the hall, a barrel half-filled with kerosene was lit, a fairly common practice at the time. During a performance, two men began to fight, knocking over the burning barrel and sending burning fuel across the floor. The hall burst into flames, and the building was evacuated. Once outside, King realized that he had left his guitar inside so he went back into the burning building to retrieve his beloved $30 Gibson guitar. Two men died in the fire, and King learned the next day that they had been fighting over a woman named Lucille. King subsequently named that first guitar Lucille, as well as every guitar he has owned since, as a reminder never again to do something as stupid as run into a burning building or fight over women. Now we can really sing the blues, eh? RIP, Riley.

Aw... that's so cute! Is it house-trained yet?

Awesome fight. Never give up! One question: Why Fox two twice with no tone? Will the sidewinder lock on maddogged?

The video is beyond words. The editing is awesome. The choreography must have taken hours to fly. I sat mesmerized for 8 minutes just marveling at the work. Sure wish we could get the Rafale in full! Yeah, I was wondering about the spin recovery.

NavAir Training The primary mission of TRAWING FIVE (TW-5) is to administer and coordinate the flight training of Student Military Aviators (SMAs) and to provide liaison between the Wing’s training squadrons and the Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA). The TW-5 staff implements the CNATRA approved flight and academic syllabus, oversees the flight instructor standardization training program, coordinates intra-squadron student loads and assignments, controls Marine Corps instructor strength and assignment within the Wing, and monitors aircraft maintenance activities. TW-5 is located 5 miles north of Milton, Florida on board Naval Air Station Whiting Field. The Wing is comprised of three primary fixed-wing and three advanced helicopter squadrons and trains aviators from the Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and allied nations. TW-5 is responsible for an estimated 43 percent of the Chief of Naval Air Training Command's total flight time and over 11 percent of Navy and Marine Corps' flight time world-wide. Over 1,200 personnel complete their essential flight training here annually. We pride ourselves on producing the finest Naval Aviators in the world. Naval Flight Training: It is a school unlike any other. Flight training is filled with constant challenges and is designed to test an individual's stamina, knowledge and the ability to adapt to a very dynamic flying environment. Every aspect of the flight training program has a purpose based on an understanding of what the flying environment may hold. The military aviator must know and master all the elements that will or could be encountered while airborne. Mastery of the flying environment requires constant commitment and self-discipline. For the military aviator, mastering oneself is the all-important first step when acquiring the skill of flight and remains the constant requirement of an individual throughout a career in aviation. Commitment, combined with self-discipline, is an outlook required both in the training process and beyond. The flight school is about a dream, a vision of flight, and a desire to wear the coveted Wings of Gold. After completing aviation indoctrination at Naval Aviation Schools Command in Pensacola, the next step is Primary Flight Training located at NAS Whiting Field. Primary Flight Training: When a SMA checks into TW-5 for Primary training they will be assigned to one of three training squadrons; the Doer birds of VT-2, VT-3 Red Knights or the Shooters of VT-6. Primary flight instruction is intense and provides a combination of actual and simulated flight experience to SMAs. With the exception of certain solo flights, all actual flights of the T-6B Texan II are conducted under the experienced eye of an instructor pilot, a designated military aviator. The ground training you will receive will provide the basic foundation of knowledge upon which all simulators and aircraft instruction is based. The integrated syllabus consists of cockpit procedure trainers and various flight support courses including; local course rules, aircrew coordination, emergency procedures, safety procedures, ejection seat procedures, preflight inspection, safe for solo, day/night contact, aerobatics, basic/radio instruments, and formation flight. Many of these courses and simulator events will be taught either by current military aviators or even retired aviators with thousands of hours of flight experience under their belts. The first stage of flight training is called familiarization and this stage consists of multiple flights both in the aircraft and simulator in which the SMA learns to conduct a proper pre-flight inspection of the aircraft, learn ground/taxi procedures, learn how to safely take off and most importantly land, practice basic air work and even includes dynamic maneuvers such as a spin and stall recoveries. After a SMA’s first solo flight, an SMA will be introduced to Precision aerobatics and Formation flying. These flying events are confidence builders and are considered to be the most rewarding events flown during their Primary training. These flights further familiarize the SMA with the aircraft while continuing to refine their flying abilities. All SMAs will attend an Instrument Ground School that prepares the student to learn the basics of radio instruments. During this stage of the flight training, SMA’s are instructed airways navigation and instrument landing approaches. It is during this stage that SMA’s acquire the fundamental knowledge that will make them “all weather” pilots. Finally at the end of the instrument stage, SMA’s will also have an opportunity to go on the road with an instructor during their Cross Country event where an SMA is exposed to different airports, airspace and sometimes new scenery. Both Instrument and Visual Navigation flights are conducted all across the country. Pipeline Selection: After completing Primary training, the SMA will be selected for follow on Advanced training either in the Strike (jet), Mari-Time (multi-engine) or Rotary (helicopter) pipelines. Pipeline selection is based on three factors: the needs of the service, SMA’s flight and academic performance and the SMA’s preference. Students selected for the Advanced Rotary (helicopter) pipeline will remain at NAS Whiting Field for advanced training and upon graduation will receive their coveted Wings of Gold at NAS Whiting Field. Advanced Helicopter Training: Students selected for the helicopter pipeline will receive their ground school training and flight instruction in the TH-57B/C “Sea Ranger” while attached to one of three Advanced Rotary squadrons; the HT-8 Eight Ballers, HT-18 Vigilant Eagles or the Hellions of HT-28. During Advanced Rotary ground school, Aircraft systems, helicopter aerodynamics, and instrument navigation training will be conducted. Additional flight support training is conducted in the Helicopter Cockpit Procedures Trainer where basic procedures and emergencies are conducted. After mastering such skills such as hovering and auto-rotation, the SMA advances to the fully instrumented TH-57C to refine their instrument flying and navigation skills. The full-motion/visual helicopter flight simulator is also used in this stage. Finally, the SMA reaches the helicopter tactics stage where they learn the fundamentals of formation flying, low-level navigation, search and rescue, and night vision goggle (NVG) flight training. The long hours of study and preparation will finally pay off when the former student military aviator becomes a Naval Aviator and receives their coveted Wings of Gold. The newly minted Naval Aviator will then report to their assigned fleet replacement squadron and ultimately to a fleet squadron as a combat ready helicopter pilot. http://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw5/mission.asp

I'll check into that. If the flight fidelity of the Mi-8 is anything like the Huey's, I'll love it. (No, I don't mean the flight dynamics: I know it's heavier and flies a bit different. I know that. That is what is drawing me to it.) THanks for the pointer, TonyZ!

:book: Keep it up, guys. It's a great trainer. I'm glad I've got it in my hanger!

Whirlybirds When it first hit my gaming computer, way back when?, the Huey was a bitch to take off and land. But, then, I was warned that that would be the case. So, I fought and fought and eventually flew the silly contraption. I left it for several months with just a bit of skill, enough to approach a windy oil rig platform but hardly anywhere near the ability to land on such a frustrating location. About a month ago, bored with a long weekend, I got into the Huey and, after just a moment or two of flying after lift off, I swore I'd quit my job, divorce my wife, stock up on a year's supply of frozen pizza, and NEVER fly anything other than the Huey. I thought I was hot sh?t because the Huey was such an easy thing to fly and, as I felt, I was good at flying it. Then I met Atorque on the VA server who promptly showed me that I was still an idiot. I watched him, tried to emulate him while he flew. I practiced offline, as well. I'm not sure if I can even come close to comparing myself with his flying skills, but I assure you: I can land and take off on anything except an airborne Mig-29 being chased by a hungry F-15. (Maybe I could land on one given enough practice which I am willing to do, but I don't think I could stay on it for very long.) I second msalama's request to BST and ask that some more fine tuning and bells & whistles be considered. But, by golly, don't touch the flight dynamics!!!! The only thing I can think of to request is that a Hospital building be located in each major city and appropriately painted with a nice red + on top but, that certainly is not a requirement. (Just one of those bells & whistles things, you know.) There is nothing in DCS that comes close to supplying a copious amount of flying joy than the Huey. Well, the F-86 comes in very close. The only problem I have with Russian helo's is that, well, they're Russian and I, unfortunately, speak only Canadian. If Belsimtek would consider creating the Jolly Green Giant or even the the CH-47 Chinook, I'd kiss their collective boots! Anyway, one BIG YEAH! for the Huey. And, yeah, it's Canadian, too! Thanks BST!

From my sig (below), you can see that I have two GFX cards in SLI. My CPU is overclocked and very stable. Yet, in many cases such as online at Sochi with lots of activity, my FPS gets down into the low 20s and, occasionally, in the low single digits. Away from the hustle and bustle, my FPS goes up to the high 60s or more. From what I can tell, much of the work that needs doing does not involve graphics rendering but code processing such as trajectories, object collisions, and the like. From what I have heard about nVidia's CUDA, my graphics cards can do wonders to help out the seriously overworked CPU cores. And, from what I have heard, DCS currently operates on just a single core. Am I to understand that 2.0 will still be using one core? Is there any way I can improve my Sochi FPS without lowering my features such as water and heat blur? If DCS is currently giving me 20 FPS around a busy Sochi, what FPS can I expect out of 2.0 around the same busy Sochi?

One of the most impressive things flying ever to be seen by me is a finger four flying overhead, wings swept, air cracking as they passed. Unfortunately, I got out in July of 1974, having been with VF-74 at Oceana and on the Forrestal (for carrier quals). Of course, I lived just outside Oceana and could see the Tomcats come and go. Sure was nice seeing them! Thanks for the pictures, guys!

GG is right. I use the grey (index) button on the right side for changing weapons, the red one (as GG suggested) for launching missiles, and stage 2 on the trigger for the guns. Stage one is just not used. A long time ago, in FC1, I used the first stage for brakes (keyboard W) because stage 2 would not fire the guns if on the ground. Today, I have rudder pedals with toe brakes. The left thumb 4-way, I use for lock and unlock targets (up and down), TWS toggle (right) and PRF change (left toggles between Hi, Med, and interleave). Top 4-way is for trim. Bottom 4-way is for radar slew left and right. Pinky switch is for radar on and off. Flipper paddle is for TrackIr lock and unlock. Hope this helps.

The service ceiling for the Su-27 is 19,000 m (62,523 ft) The service ceiling is the maximum usable altitude of an aircraft. Specifically, it is the density altitude at which flying in a clean configuration, at the best rate of climb airspeed for that altitude and with all engines operating and producing maximum continuous power, will produce a given rate of climb (a typical value might be 100 feet per minute climb or 30 metres per minute, or on the order of 500 feet per minute climb for jet aircraft). Margin to stall at service ceiling is 1.5 g. However, the absolute ceiling is the highest altitude at which an aircraft can sustain level flight, which means the altitude at which the thrust of the engines at full power is equal to the total drag at minimum drag speed. In other words, it is the altitude where maximum thrust available equals minimum thrust required, so the altitude where the maximum sustained (with no decreasing airspeed) rate of climb is zero. The highest current world absolute general aviation altitude record achieved by a manned Airbreathing jet engine propelled aircraft is 37,650 metres (123,520 ft) set by Alexandr Fedotov, in a Mikoyan Gurevitch E-266M (MiG-25M), on 31 August 1977 . He did it at Podmoskovnoye, USSR in a zoom climb. The aircraft was actually a MiG-25RB re-engined with the powerful R15BF2-300. It had earlier been part of the program to improve the aircraft's top speed that resulted in the MiG-25M prototype. I have no doubt that an Su-27 flown in DCS World can make an altitude record of well over 105,000 feet. However, I do not believe an actual, real life Su-27 can make it that high. Still, though, doing it in DCS is a cool thing to do! Now, what about the Huey? :)

Very nice.

That entire movie had some hellatious music tracks. Damn, now I gotta get out my mp3 file and play it until the wife yells at me to stop! But, yeah, Nevyn. Cool lyrics.

Thanks for your work, Rock. Thanks for the servers, too!

I drive on the highway like that sometimes. Cops sure like to follow along and watch when I do it.

I'm going to figure out just how to do that! That would be so cool! (Weekends only, of course!)

Okay. Thank you for your comments.

So, you're telling me that the -1 refutes BOTH references I gave? Could you scan and post the image that says that the F-15C, when loaded with 50% fuel and nothing else, cannot accelerate vertically? So far as I know, from what F-15 pilots have told me face to face, the aircraft CAN accelerate vertically. (I grew up a U.S. Air Force brat.) I've tried, from standing still on the runway, to accelerate without afterburner and with afterburner. The best I could do in DCS was maintain the climbing speed (as per Tacview). If I don't do things exactly right, are you saying an 11,000 lbs. thrust over total weight isn't enough to cause the plane to accelerate vertically? If your book is telling us that all the other references and actual F-15 pilots are wrong and the current DCS flight model is based on that copy of the -1, perhaps that copy of the -1 is wrong and everyone else is right. Besides, I am really not all that concerned with flight dynamics of DCS's version of the F-15. I would love it to be more realistic, but my primary concern... and so are many people who fly regularly on the servers with F-15's available, is the weaponry does not conform to what is blatantly realistic. From what I have read several years ago in an obscure post from some tester or developer, the weaponry was (then) denatured a bit. In fact, I believe they said that it was corrected yet I felt that they made them worse. That's just my unprofessional opinion as a purchaser of DCS software. If you don't like what the customers are saying.... (and, it's not just me.)

From Wikipedia, not from me. Yes, I did read Wikipedia. In case you have not: The F-15's maneuverability is derived from low wing loading (weight to wing area ratio) with a high thrust-to-weight ratio enabling the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed. The F-15 can climb to 30,000 ft (10,000 m) in around 60 seconds. The thrust output of the dual engines is greater than the aircraft's weight, thus giving it the ability to accelerate in a vertical climb. Maybe I should repeat part of that quote: "giving it the ability to accelerate in a vertical climb." Can you do that in a DCS F-15C? I mean, better than 1 nautical mile per hour per second or two? WithOUT afterburner. Okay, WITH afterburner? Here is another reference that you all might find interesting. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-design.htm ...wing loadings as low as 55 pounds per square foot and static thrust-to-weight-ratios of as much as 1.35 might be expected. I stand on both websites' points versus what DCS F-15 can't do. As for air combat flying, no. I know very little. I'm not really interested in investing my time learning tactics based on a denatured game module. I would invest lots of time in an accurate portrayal of the F-15. I know when something is wrong with a simulation. My previous post pointed out a couple for you and my two references, above, justifies my complaint.

Please don't get me wrong. I am certainly not "bashing" the "game". I am bashing your understanding of it. I want a combat flight simulator not a game. I would love a 20 gazillion dollar military flight sim (available to the U.S. military) in my living room. It may take me a couple more paychecks, but until I can buy one, I will treasure DCS and everything that goes with it (including your posts expressing your views:) ). The F-15 flies like a dream to me but I cannot complain about any flight characteristics because I know only the sim version, not real life. Please compare what we have now with DCS to this: http://fshistory.simflight.com/fsh/ So, for all intents and purposes, I am totally in love with DCS. But, from the things I've read, the things I have seen, from the things that are written in recent history, the DCS F-15C (as a realistically simulated air superiority fighter) is still a game, not a simulator. It's a darn GOOD game, and the best combat flight simulator available to the public. But I will point out shortcomings as I get to them in order to suggest corrections that I think are needed. An example: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle) we know the dry thrust of each engine is 14590 lbs. We know, too, with afterburner, the thrust goes up to 23770 lbs for each engine. Load up an F-15C with 50% fuel (6729 lbs) at Sochi, take off without AB, immediately go vertical and then go full AB. TacView told me my true airspeed was inching up to 154 knots. What about NO afterburner? According to Wikipedia, full afterburner with 6729 lbs of fuel still should deliver 11,891 lbs of thrust OVER the weight of the aircraft, fuel, and pilot. That does not happen in DCS. And that's JUST the engine performance. It needs corrections. The F-15C radar needs corrections. The A2A missiles need corrections. Communications need corrections. But I still love it.... as I complain. :book:

I wasn't complaining about firing at 10 nmi, but the burn through was at 10 nmi. Lowest pk in HOJ makes sense. But the shot I made, I was at Angels 40 and the Tu-95 (yup, the 95 this time! :) was at Angels 24, head on aspect, no maneuvering. Sidewinder warheads being small. Okay. That makes sense. But when I flew against 5 bombers (Tu-95's) that were coming straight at me, I watched the radar screen. Just at 40 nmi the radar was clean until, blip, all five lit up with strobes. I don't think the F-15's radar is that weak. And (IronHand), in the tail chase, I was in medium PRF. Keep in mind that, because I made the mission, I knew exactly the range, speed, aspect, and angels of the bombers. My elevation was correct, my PRF was correct, I was in BVR mode (2) with them at Angels 24 and me at Angels 40. I guess the number one reason I was "miffed" was because, in MP, I took off fully loaded against bandits that knew I was coming. We both had AWACS. I got no call of a bandit so I bored ahead into the mountains for points north in the flatlands, eyes glued to the radar, interleaved, scanning low to high, close to far away, hoping I could make a contact where AWACs could not. No contacts at all. Boom. I'm dead. The Red opponent told me he was already in the weeds, IN the mountains and watched me on his DataLink, then watched me marking towards and high above him. He fired an ET. That was the boom. Still made me angry, though, even though I've seen ET tactics before.