AG-51_Razor

Boy! If I didn't know better, I'd be inclined to think that this particular FAA Corsair was attached to VF-51 aboard the CVL-30 San Jacinto Thanks for the one stop shopping of videos

AH Men!! Being able to pass gas to my squaddies would be epic, whether it's from a KC-130, an A-6 Intruder or an A-7 Corsair. It's just one more bit of reality we will be able to simmulate in the world of DCS!

Part of this issue would take care of itself if ED would, as they said they would so long ago, just make the clouds as hard to see through for the AI as they are for us humans.

You are correct Gunfreak but keep in mind that, just because there are one or more flying airframes of the plane you wish to see in DCS, that doesn't mean that the data necessary or required to replicate it in a simmulation is readily available. There is a tremendous amount of work involved with instrumenting a plane with the necessary sensors required to record the data you need to come up with a flight model for a simmulation. It's not only very difficult to do, it really fargging expensive in terms of equipment rental/purchase, engineering services, computer time and possibly most of all, flight time. I worked for a company that investigated the possibility of developing a simmulator for a helicopter we were operating and the flight time alone was going to be around 250 hours!! I have no idea what a warbird costs to operate beyond the cost of gas at around 100+ gallons per hour but for the helicopter we were trying to get a simmulator built for, the direct operating cost per hour was around $5000.00 so you can see how it can get pretty damn expensive pretty quick to attempt to grab the data you need for a decent EFM or PFM or whatever they call it in order to come up with a flight model that half the population of DCS will scream bloody murder about because it doesn't agree with their own assumptions of what it should, or shouldn't be able to do. It's a hard nut to crack.

I'd be willing to bet on the A-4 coming to DCS as a FF module. Fingers crossed!!

I absolutely couldn't agree more with this thread!! The Korean peninsula is a most versatile map. It was fought over during WWII, then the Korean War and now, it is the possible location of the next big conflict. This would be a mission builder's dream come true!!

I believe that ED should allow the Mission Builder to decide what velocity and direction the wind is blowing for every level that is available to make changes to. The surface wind does not mathmatically determine the wind at any level above by some formula. It's actually the other way around but there are so many variables that even today meteoroligists are hard pressed to give an accurate forecast of what the winds/weather will be just a couple of hours from now! Let the Mission Builder decide.

Those are planes from VF-17, the original Jolly Rogers. I believe that #29 was assigned to Ira Kepford.

I couldn't find a logical thread to place this in so my apologies if I missed it somewhere along the way. I want to say thanks to the developers for toning down the light bloom from the tankers' navigation lights during nighttime tanking operations while using NVGs. I just noticed this yesterday and confirmed it tonight during a squad MP mission. Not having ever done anything like AAR, much less during the night with NVG's on, I can't say one way or the other how realistic is was before or is now but I can say that this new version makes the NVG's much more valuable (useful) and I have to say Thank you for that!! Please keep up the great work y'all are doing on the core of the simulation. It is noticed and very much appreciated.

I withdraw my complaint sir.

I would not consider the Samuel Chase, the Liberty Ship in the WWII Assets Pack, a deep draft vessel but I have found that it has a fairly narrow corridor between France and England through which it can be placed without getting an error message saying that the water is too shallow and is not able to be placed in the Dunkerque harbor.

I got a big kick out of it! Thanks ED, for keeping your sense of humor during these dark times. It is apprciated!

Thanks Razor!! I don't understand why that skin didn't show up in my search. Anyway, that is exactly whay I was looking for.

I just got through searching those user files and found just one of a VERY fictional Zero skin. Not at all close to a Ki-61 skin. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3315579/

It is a beautiful airplane! It would be a first day buy for me

I would not rely on any published Real Life statistics on any on the planes in DCS to compare how they will match up in this sim. I would say that the only true measure of how they would stack up against one another would be to fly them in the game side by side and see how they match up. The RL stats were influenced by such factors as fuel load, ammunition loaded, instrument calibration, etc, etc, etc.

Well, I'm glad we finally got that sorted out!

I too would much prefer to have an A-6 in the game however that airframe is quite a ways off in the future and is not going to be an ED module. The S-3B, on the other hand, is already in the game as a tanker, currently undergoing a significant graphics overhaul and is in the hands of ED. It is for those reasons that I chose the S-3 to pick on. It just seems to me that if something as significant as making a player flown airframe capable of passing gas to another player flown plane, the S-3 might be the one that ED could do it with most easily (in the least amount of time). The weapons systems you mention, HARPOON, SLAM-ER, Maverick and LANTRIN are also already in the game so I don't see the disadvantage there. And as for the ASW role, the Viking was pretty much out of that business for the last 10-15 years of it's service life. It's just a pipe dream anyway. It probably won't happen in my lifetime.

For Pete's sake man, read the whole post!!

I'm pretty sure that this has been requested before but recently, with the announcement of the C-130 Herc coming to DCS and the mentioning of the POSSIBILITY of developing a human flown version of the KC-130, it occurs to me that a full fidelity version of the S-3 Viking would be hugely popular. I say this for several reasons, not the least of which is that it would be another carrier capable plane, which I think is a big deal. Being able to provide fuel to your squad mates during an online mission is another very appealing factor. And for those that would poo poo an ASW platform in a sim that doesn't really have any submarine warfare to begin with, I'd just say that the Viking was an extremely versatile aircraft capable of several missions besides ASW, such as the anti ship role, air to ground role as well as the AAR role. And did I mention that it has a tail hook?? I really hope that this is at least being considered.

Heck! I'd gladly take a Jeep carrier with the Corsair!!

Very curious as to why you believe this.

Just curious about what, if anything, has been done about the catapult "hooking in" positions on the deck for the various cats. The last time I flew off the Forrestal in my Hornet, there seemed to be a considerable difference in where you needed to be in order to get the cat to accept you after pressing the U key. Not at all a deal breaker by any means, she's still a beautiful piece of work!

I've got to say, the announcement of the Skyraider was the best news I've seen on this forum in quite some time. Although I am not nearly as jazzed about the prospect of a possible map of Vietnam, it would definitely be a first day buy for me. The only map that I am really pinning away for is one of the Korean peninsula. With the Corsair due shortly (LOL!!) along with a straight deck Essex class carrier, the AD will fit in just perfectly........well maybe a little more perfectly if the Corsair were a -4 or -4B but hey, I can exercise my imagination a little now and then. And though I am well aware of the possibilities of missions built around that Vietnam map and the HB Forrestal along with some A-4's, A-1's, F-4's and maybe even some A-6's and A-7's, I'm not holding my breath. As a matter of fact, all those other jets (with the exception of the Scooter) will probably be released before the AD so I'm definitely packing a bottle of O2 around with me for the next year or so!! In any case, it was nice to see and I can't wait to start throwing money at somebody!!

Captain Bob, I believe that it's you that needs to get his facts straight. The AD/A-1 had dive brakes on the sides as well as one on the belly and as for which ones served in Korea and which ones served in Vietnam, the later model AD's that the Navy put in storage after Korea were picked up by the Air Force and were the same airplane. They just got renamed courtesy of Sec Def R McNamara. Some of the versions had the dive brakes removed because of their changed mission such as ASW or AEW or Night Interdiction. It went from the AD-1 to the AD-7 with many changes in systems and equipment over time. This is from Wikipedia: AD-6 (A-1H) Single-seat attack aircraft with three dive brakes, centerline station stressed for 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) of ordnance, 30 in (760 mm) in diameter, combination 14 in (360 mm) and 30 in (760 mm) bomb ejector and low/high altitude bomb director; 713 built I doubt very seriously if you could distinguish an AD-4 that flew in Korea from an AD-6/A-1H that flew in Vietnam.