Scrim

Someone recently made a mod that allows you to mount different sorts of rockets. Check with him about bombs. Would be practically the same as the Lebanese army did.

Try disabling and enabling it again in the Options menu. This method has worked at least once previously when the autopilot has stopped working after an update.

I believe it's external view to see ground vehicles, static weapons and infantry.

I think they're right, the inboard tanks do appear to work. First I took off with a heavy load, flew around at low-medium altitude until only 1000 pounds of fuel remained. This took ~16min. I landed, took on 2 inboard fuel tanks in addition to the same loadout. I took off, flew around in the same manner, and this time it took ~30min before I had reached 1000 pounds of fuel. From what I've gathered, the empty tank light is only for the outboard tanks, whereas the level of fuel in the inboard tanks are gauged by the fuel gauge. Edit: The issue though is that when you put on inboard fuel tanks, the gauge does not reflect the increased level of fuel carried. Thus it might seem like your plane isn't getting any fuel from the fuel tanks, when it actually does.

Put the other playable slots down as Client in the skill list.

Opened the mission in the editor, right?

Of course it's a terrible comparison, whatever you say ;)

So, had Belsimtek actually gone out and said they were making a full fidelity MiG-15 module? I saw some mention of it in this sub forum a few days ago, but couldn't find any mention of it on the BST website.

I don't know. If MiG-15 pilots ever actually got G-suits, of course. But if they didn't, I'd rather they aren't included for them. I mean, we don't even get upgrades for the A-10C that it 100% certainly has today because it's not the same suite, so it'd be a tad strange to have it for MiG-15s in that case. That being said though, the bis variant was the last made IIRC, and seeing how long it remained in service, it'd be strange if the pilots didn't get G-suits eventually.

Yeah, don't bring them. You get no fuel from them, so they just take fuel from you due to the drag they cause.

Yeah right, because saying "the CIA faked the pics of Russia shooting into Ukraine" isn't political?

I don't think it needs an original engine in the sense that a Spit doesn't need an engine from the war. If a engine can be built 100% according to the correct specs, why not?

What's the deal with everyone's obsession with distorting the stick input? All DCS modules go to a great length to replicate how it functions IRL. Why throw the challenge of learning to fly a brand new module out the window in favour of curves to make the flying as simple as possible?

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/270020/

I've tried that. Well, not blue or red dots, but the black ones. I like them, because they do a lot for realism, and since they are in contrast to the aluminum of the MiG-15s, they don't obscure them a lot either. But it's not perfect, as it doesn't help you see in what direction things are traveling. E.g. if you're inverted and see a MiG say 2000 feet below you, you'd see if he was executing a semi shallow climb, or flying straight. Even with the help of this mod, you don't see that, especially not with such small planes as Sabres and MiG-15s.

And yet again, this has absolutely nothing to do with either the Sabre or the MiG. This has to do with the fact that the AI has always been nothing short of an unparalleled wizard at energy control, makes no mistakes, and the fact that the visual range for the MK1 eyeball in DCS is that of a new born kitten. I could do the same thing with the F-15 against a MiG-29, and it would be absolutely the same. The only difference would be that A, the -29 is a lot bigger, so I'd spot it easier, and B, an F-15C vs a MiG-29 are pretty much just going to do BVR. That's why DCS has been getting away with an immaculate AI and planes nearly invisible at short to medium ranges. DCS won't be getting away with those things when the WW2 planes start coming out. At that stage a lot of people will most likely give up on DCS, or rather on the WW2 aspect of it.

See, the thing is I have to zoom in, because otherwise I can't see if that plane that is just a mile away is a Sabre or a MiG. How about you not try to turn everything I write into something you can insult me with?

I've not played another F-86 sim. Not that it matters, as what I very clearly wrote is that the issue isn't the module, but how DCS overall works. The issue is not the Sabre nor the MiG, the issue is that even at short ranges, it's impossible to determine if something is a Sabre or a MiG. It is not even possible to see planes at distances that IRL would have them very visible. This is exactly why DCS is a study sim. Because in the long run, few people find any enjoyment in playing even MP missions, where they at least don't have to coop with a ridiculous AI adversary. In most other sims, the learning part is the path to the fun, whereas in DCS, many find that the learning is the only fun. If DCS would attract more people in the long run, maybe the developers wouldn't be struggling to just make ends meat, but actually make a solid profit? Why is it that wishes to change this are almost always meat with such hostility?

Wow, they really don't seem to understand how smart scaling works. So their response was "zoom in", or what? That's a horrible concept, how am I supposed to see instruments, any of my surroundings, or quickly adjust the zoom level in the middle of a dogfight? Seriously, this will not work with WW2 planes. End of story. I doubt anyone will be tempted to jump over to DCS when they've finished the WW2 project if they can't even see their opponents. If the current system had actually been realistic, I'd have needed a telescope to see the planes at Waddington this year.

I don't know actually, but I get the feeling it shouldn't be necessary, as the radar isn't involved at all in the calculation from what I've gathered.

Well, got my first one in MiG Sweep, though I can't say I'm excited about it. In fact, I'm more excited over the time I took down a few A-10Cs with the Sabre. The only reason I got one was because of a lucky snapshot, not because of any skill involved. Sure, the added numbers gave a better chance, but A, the AI took down every other Sabre within minutes, B, it was just impossible to see if I was going after a Sabre or a MiG until it was too late to position myself for a shot, because apparently we don't need smart scaling in DCS :doh: And just in case someone decides I need to get slammed because all of those things is because I don't know what I'm doing: These are issues that I only encounter in DCS. In no other sim have I ever had these issues.

Stick to manual bombing for now. The other method involves the A4 sight computing a solution, but since electric caging doesn't work in the bomb mode, it's very much broken. You can get it working if you go after some very specific steps, but IMHO, it's just not worth it. Until the caging starts working, it's not worth bothering with the computed bombing modes, as they really don't add enough accuracy over manual bombing.

The only plane to be withdrawn from the USAF due to combat losses, those pilots sure had big balls. As far as these more slim, Cold War tactical bombers go, this is #2 on my list after the F-111.

Do enlighten me as to what it is that has taken precedence over all of these things for years. If e.g. EDGE prevents them from fixing problems that have been reported for ages, they really need to reconsider their priorities. And as I said, no other modern flight sim has let things slip like this. DCS is the sole flight sim I can think of that lets bugs, bad designs, etc. remain unfixed for years and accumulate in quantity with updates without doing anything about it. The KA-50 is probably the worst example. With HUD and Doppler radar not being repaired, and now certain weapons being broken, it's not far from being a module that is just for all intents and purposes broken. For a flight sim with as few modules as DCS, even just one module being this broken is a big issue. What's the special thing about DCS that means they don't have to fix the things that everyone else does in a matter of weeks mostly?

This isn't a new issue. It's been this way from day one, there's no excuse for it. Just like there's no excuse for how e.g. Doppler radars aren't repaired, how the KA-50's HUD isn't repaired, how planes just a few thousand feet away are invisible, how BMP-2s are more deadly to planes than Shilkas and Tunguskas, how infantry survives missiles and cannon shells just feet away because there's no fragmentation, etc. Pretty much any other modern flight sim lacks these issues, so why should we treat DCS differently, acting like it's something special that for a plethora of reasons doesn't need to repair broken features?