Vedexent

So ... does that mean the 159th will be incorporating her in your operations? :)

Maybe what's needed is a more coordinated community effort? Sure - I'd love the professionals to do it, but there are some people making professional grade tutorial videos out there (check out Bunyap Sims) Perhaps some organization, editorial oversight, wrapping-it-all-up-under-one-easy-to-find-wrapper action, is what's needed.

In this business, I'm pretty sure that the market is too small to support the number of developers on the project that would give us the development rate that we'd like and the price point we'd like. That said - I would love a manual and a fully fleshed out Mi-8 ( ... and a MiG-21 ... and a Hawk ... and definitely an L-39 ...).

Thank you very much.

I've been trying to run a general practice mission for the F-86F, with ground target range, and lots of MiG-15s on triggers for people to practice with. The problem is that the MiG-15s home in on the AWACs flight if they're not engaged, and adding a squadron of F-16s as escort does not help; the MiGs are shooting down both the AWACs and the F-16s, and appear tough enough to eat a couple of sidewinders without going down. Is there a way - even with external scripting libraries - to fix this? Can the AWACs be made invisible to enemy MiGs? Can the AWACs be made indestructible (although I guess enemy MiGs would just flock around the AWACs unit trying endlessly to shoot it down - still not a great option)? Can the AWACs function be made available without an actual associated unit?

I have to say I just discovered your videos, and they're remarkably well done. Good job, and thank you for creating them.

Does anyone know of a A2G rocketry chart, or way of calculating release times? I'm thinking something along the lines of: Given Speed Dive angle A4 Mil offset. The correct altitude for rocket release. For example: Given a speed of 300 knots, diving at 30 deg angle, with a Mill offset of 17, release rockets at 1200 feet (just pulling a number out of the air here). If one started at a much higher altitude (3000 feet?) well back from the target, one could angle the dive rate steeper and shallower until the target is "in line" when one is at the required dive angle, then wait until the requite altitude is reached, and then release. Does such a thing exist? Does such an approach make sense?

This would explain my problems sorting out the Morse codes. I was hearing the kobuleti beacon, but a lot of extraneous garbage. This is really frustrating.

When watching an AI MiG-15 landing, it appears that there's no texture for the top surface of the landing flaps. A very minor issue.

That would be a very cool mission profile, once the MiG-21 comes out :)

Don't think this has way-points, you have to navigate by NDBs (non-directional beacons). There's a video explaining how to use it, on the first page.

You know that exists already, right? It's called YouTube's comment section :D

In theory, the Virtual Patriots are working on an L-39 mod/module. There's a forum thread here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=92197 There hasn't been any update in awhile, and Tango is now working on the AvioDev C-101 Aviojet project - so I'm not holding my breath on seeing this anytime soon, or maybe at all (yes, I know developers work on multiple projects at once). Which is sad, for me - as I'd really really like to try this plane. It is - after all - the only one of these it's even theoretically possible for us to be able to afford to buy IRL :D (If you have $USD 300K - 1M to spare ... and can afford $400/hour operational costs).

OP: Your preferences are not universal preferences. DCS doesn't cater to only your preferences. That doesn't mean they're "doing [it] wrong". That's life. Deal.

I'm a big fan of the Su-25 as an aircraft - it's a lot of fun if you like the "I'll do it my own damn self" approach. It's kind of like preferring a manual stick shift transmission to an automatic transmission. The non-clickable cockpit is - in my opinion - good enough. But if DCS every publishes a fully clickable DCS World: Su-25SM, I'll buy 3, just as a thank you :D

Also looks like the USA is hugging the top 3 bracket for origin of outbound attacks as well.

I haven't seen this idea outside of the 1982 Clint Eastwood movie Firefox ... "You must think in Russian".

I'm curious: What do people typically use Tacview for. What version would you recommend (and I'm assuming your answer to #1 would influence answer #2). I'd like to get a version of this for "training" purposes: practice a Basic Fighter Maneuver / Air Combat Maneuver / Acrobatic Maneuver - by myself or with (a) partner(s) - and then play it back to analyze how well it was performed, and how it could be improved. I'd like to use it in a similar manner for group missions; sort of a "post game analysis". Given that - is there any value that people have seen in going for the Professional over the Home edition? As an aside - even if the Free edition would work "well enough", I'd still like to support the software author's efforts, so that's not an option here.

Hey, I have money earmarked for DCS: Spitball - so long as it has AFM and a click-able cockpit ....

I would (will!) - because I want to learn the aircraft - and how to wring as much performance out of it; make it roll over, play dead, sit up, beg, etc. However - I agree with the assumption in your statement that the MiG-15 would make the Sabre 1,000x more useable in game scenarios, and it's really a needed "other side of the coin".

Replay doesn't record positions and states of everything. It records commands fed into each of the units. It literally is re-playing, using the recorded inputs, and feeding them back into units in a different play-through of the game. If there are rounding errors, or calculation differences, or just plain different versions between recording system and playing systems, you can get radically divergent results. If you want an actual recording, then I suggest you record your video signal and/or invest in Tacview. For ED to change the playback system, they would have to literally build it from scratch.

Well - I for one prefer the A to the T. It's faster and it's more maneuverable. Ts are basically the same platform with all that extra weight. It gives them better weapons control and targeting, but it comes with a price in flight performance. I've flown mixed Su-25 / Su-25T missions, and the Su-25s were always having to slow down, hold back, etc. to let the Ts keep up with the formation. That said, in the mixed formation, the Su-24T were much better at taking out SAM units so the Su-25s could flatten armor units. And - let's not discount the ability to use Vikhrs. Don't get me wrong - I like the Su-25T; they're just different aircraft for different mission profiles. I personally like being able to do it for my own damn self and not use the avionics/autopilot as a crutch. It's the reason I'm looking forward to the Mig-21bis and the F-86F Sabre. I would, however, love to see a DCS Su-25SM which I think would be a wonderful blend of original airframe performance with modernized targeting and weapon control.

Gaming and simulations are a good way to go. Online computer games are great, but don't discount the table top strategic games like those produced by Avalon Hill in the peak of table top strategy gaming, either. Learn what works, learn the why it works, jot down questions, study those questions. Study tactics. Narrow your focus: Pick a period, pick a war - concentrate on that. In wars like WWII, maybe even narrow to a specific theater. Study historical battles, study military history, read memoirs of famous commanders ( Achtung – Panzer! by Guderian is still sitting on my "to read" pile), or non famous soldiers who wrote memoirs, etc. If you can find and read actual operational manuals and documents (probably only possible for 19th and early 20th century periods), then seize that opportunity. With WWII and cold war era, you might even be able to find actual training films online; they'll be somewhat propaganda laden, but it's something. From the other side, study the individual units, learn what was effective about "tank X", what were its weak spots, how was it employed, what was its role in an integrated force. Do this for all units in the war/theater of your choice. --------- Probably the fastest, and most comprehensive way is to enroll in a military, and demonstrate you have the ability and desire to be a font line officer - but I'm guessing that's a bit more involved than you'd like :D

You know - people are allowed to not like the state of projects, or products. That doesn't make them idiots. I say that as someone who owns both the Mi-8 and the Huey, and plans on buying the F-86F day 1, and the Cobra if/when it comes out. I like DCS. I like Belsimtek products. I have a considerable amount of time and money tied up in software and hardware for this game - and I don't regret it one whit. But, as much as I like it, and as much time as I sink into it, you'd be a fool if you don't recognize that the DCS platform has some issues, that Belsimtek products come out of beta sloowly, you'd be fanatic if you wouldn't even allow dissenting opinions to be voiced, and you'd be pretty immature if your immediate reaction was that anyone who didn't agree with you was automatically wrong. Lets try not to be those things, hmm?

I would love to see an F-5 - especially as I could throw a Canadian livery on it and call it a CF-5 :) It's not quite the same, but close enough as I'm likely to get.