Scrim

Speaking of that, would it be force feedback? If it does I'd certainly be more willing to buy it, would be nice to get a replica stick and a the ability to feel when I was pushing the plane too far.

Made sure the fuel tank selector is at a full tank before reaching this conclusion? Played DCS Dog fight night Friday, +20 players and no one said anything about something like that AFAIK.

Does the "there's only one RAF plane, and though that was very clear from the start, I'll wait until after the Kickstarter is over and everyone's pledged a tonne of money to start nagging about it and demand a substantial change to the entire project to please me" thread count? It's about on the same wavelength for sure.

Both of you, shut it, please? It's bad enough with "my country's being discriminated", I don't think anyone wants to add "my country did more than your country". Besides, it's all just a fight about what our grandfathers did +60 years ago. They aren't fighting about who did the most, so I don't see a reason for you to.

Tonnes of bombs doesn't make any sense in regards to what planes should be included. For one, it's not a bomber sim, and second, even if it was, that wouldn't have made a difference. If it's going to be "fair", the devs would have to make up some sort of system valuing the war efforts of each country, and just go ahead and make one plane from each country, after weighing the amount of planes made of that type vs. the impact that they had, and a few other factors. It'd all end up becoming a very un-romantic and cold process, the outcome of which almost no one would be happy with.

Agreed, thus we need a C-47 before anything else! Put as many Merlin engines as can possibly fit in the cargo compartment, and dang, we got a sexy plane. Yes, the Commonwealth did much. The Russians had to do most of the fighting in Europe, and how many of their planes do we get? That's right. It's a plane sim featuring planes that are popular with a large crowd of people, not a memorial to the nations involved in the war in which the respect payed is measured in the amount of planes from certain countries.

Well, I don't know what the speed would mean, but I suppose it's all about gravity and counter-reactions and such advanced things. It is after all a rocket engine that's ignited just before the rocket actually let's go of the hardpoint on the wing.

Just off the top of my head I can say that planes like the P-51 and the Spitfire were not commonly used for CAS due to being more sensitive than more dedicated planes like the Hawker Typhoon and the P-47, so most gun camera footage of rockets being fired are from such planes, that are sturdier and less prone to experiencing much recoil. If the P-51 recoil is accurate though I can't say.

02:10. Oh, that was you I was landing my first confirmed .50 hits on, I knew I'd have to eat that up. Still can't understand how my plane survived all the .50 rounds you put into me in return for that burst, got away with non functioning weapons, leaking left fuel tank and a bunch of holes all over despite over 2 dozen hits minimum. Got interrupted connection a few times, felt like I couldn't see a thing, but it was awesome.

Can't they just solve the problem by placing invisible buildings in the forests that are tailored in size to match them?

But is the function of it necessary to portray it in DCS? Doesn't knowing the effect of it (some audio notice I'd assume) be sufficient?

The rockets are just above, on top. IIRC you just right click once on the switch and it goes to rockets (which you then have to turn on on the black rocket panel).

Well, just in case you didn't know, the fix you linked me to last week-ish or so still seems to do the trick.

I don't know if the IFF system on the Huey is classified (seems a bit odd for something so old), but that shouldn't stop it being modeled. I mean, it's pretty common knowledge how it works (set frequency, etc., beep will be picked up by those with correct settings, right?), and there's hardly any need to go down to basics and explain exactly how everything on it works beyond just how to operate it.

I think the drop tanks are always filled actually, because whenever I use them I'm unable to take very much fuel, due to the added weight of the fuel in the drop tanks.

Speaking of cold temperatures, is it actually possible to start the engine during, well, Stalingrad grade cold? Just tried it at -50, and the starter keeps burning out. I know -50 is much, but I recall trying at -20 and getting largely the same result, so what should I keep in mind when starting in cold temperatures?

Think the single rocket thing's been covered somewhere else, and according to someone that was accomplished by tricking the weapons systems by doing something with different electrical wiring to the two rocket pods. Unless they'd done some other fix to the systems, I think they just had to flick the weapons selector switch to fire the miniguns and rockets quickly after each other.

Well, personally to compensate for the lack of sights or binoculars with a mils system or similar, I simply turn on labels briefly to get the range. Other than that I've noticed that keeping the helo level helps, and that you simply aren't dealing with something that was a very accurate system IRL; If you want hits without spending at least 10 rockets per target, you got to go very close and low.

Huh, that'd suck. Jay: Have you used the range and height table on the rocket sight and zeroed it? In my experience, it's rather accurate considering it's really an area weapon as opposed to pin point accuracy.

The armament selector second from the bottom, where you select wether to use Miniguns (marked at the bottom as 7.62) or rockets (middle as 2.75, one on each side) also features a number 40 at the top, which can't be selected. Is that for some WIP weapon, or does it stand for something else?

Being attached to the bomb positions, they're jettisoned exactly like bombs (but without the need to arm them first ;))

Aside from everything else, you do realise why downing every Iranian jet sent up to intercept drones that fly over Iranian airspace would have the capability to cause something resembling a multitude of diplomatic disasters? ;)

Yes, surveillance is always important. Before, during and after the fight. I don't understand what's so hard to comprehend. Just the simple fact that the drones can go places where manned planes can't should be enough. You can send a drone in over Iran without taking any large risks. You can't send a manned plane in without taking risks. You can however send up/divert a manned plane to escort the drone once it's reached international airspace. What we're talking about here in terms of time is this: A drone that has been up for potentially almost two days non-stop, and an F22 that was scrambled/diverted from its original course for no more than maybe an hour to ensure that no accidents occured to the drone. And since drones have been used against Iraq in both wars, and has been used a lot against Iran, reality would say that you're wrong; They do work against countries with air forces.

It makes a lot of sense. I mean, for starters, it's very unlikely the F22 had been escorting the drone since it took off. The drone just might have "mistakenly" been looking at things in Iran, where it'd be awfully embarrassing if any manned aircraft got intercepted/shot down/crashed. Then there's the time it might've been up. Having the ability to remotely control a plane means that you can fly it in shifts, allowing it to be airborne much longer than a manned plane could. It's also cheaper to send up a drone for surveillance than it is to send an F22, fuel and maintenance wise. The same goes for the AWACS, plus a few more things. For starters an AWACS isn't really made for surveillance, it's made for coordinating things. It was most likely coordinating much more than just the drone as well, and yet again, the whole "manned thing crashing in Iran vs. drone crashing in Iran" applies here too. Sending the AWACS into Iran would not only mean that you're sending in something manned that is easier to spot and has a lot less time on station, and isn't even built for the job, it also means that it's gonna be rather restricted when it comes to doing it's real job, coordinating things. The list goes on and on for why all of this makes sense, but I don't want to sit around for pretty much an hour at least writing it all up.

I agree with everything but this (OK, I think I agree with things like net code, it sounds good, but I just don't understand what it's about). If you ask me, I don't really care about the maps. I mean, it's not Arma, around 99% of the time is spent up in the air, and then the map just becomes something to look at/do dare devil low flights around. DCS being a flight simulator, I'd rather have more planes at the expense of maps than the other way around. And I don't really care about balance either. It's a simulation, and since the Me262 was contemporary, why not? I don't want to get into some "which fighter was the best" discussion, but one of them has to be superior to the others. Maybe not as much, but still. If you make a mission and want to balance it, it's as simple as not including the 262 (though off the record, if scratching the Me 262 would mean we get a P-38 or a Mosquito, I'll change my mind and say bugger off to the Me 262 in a heart beat ;))