Vedexent

Very much like this :) Love to see this as a flyable livery for the F-5E when she comes out.

Rickberry, It's a small community - and there are many many good people out here that put a lot of effort into creating player resources. Sadly, it's a small community - not everything gets covered or built My advice would be to familiarize yourself with the mission editor. You have very clear ideas - and to my mind, very good and systemic ideas - of what you want to practice, and how you want to train. I think it unlikely that you'll find such missions; I don't think it's that hard for your to build such missions. May I suggest that you look into that possibility? In the end, you'd have something that suits you exactly (as you built it), and you might even publish those same missions in User Files - you might not have someone to provide those kind of missions to you, but you might be able to provide them to the next trainee.

Really really nice! Thanks for your work.

If you were super rich, you'd just be buying and flying warbirds :D That's probably not possible with the F-20 though; it is possible for some variants of the F-5 (or at least one).

According to that website on the Brazilian upgrades, the nosecone is larger to accompany the larger radar antenna.

[ame] [/ame]

What variant are we seeing in that clip? Refueling boom, HUD, MFDs - don't think any of that's stock F-5E :) I'm guessing from this page, that these are F-5EMs or F-5FMs? Pretty sweet looking :D

That. Is. Awesome! :D

Billy Bishop airport in Toronto harbor takes both small general aviation aircraft like C-172s and larger prop passenger aircraft like the Dash-8s. Because the airport is on an island, you can actually see the wake turbulence vortex spreading out on the water behind the larger planes - and you do not want to get caught in that. I never did when I was a student pilot in that neck of the woods (as opposed to a student pilot with training on hold in Alberta), but I could see that I did not want to, either! That said, DCS strives to be a realism based simulator - so I'd actually much prefer that they model wake turbulence. More realism please! :D However, I suspect that accurately modeled wake turbulence would be a very nasty change for the virtual aerobatic squadrons.

Dammit! Now I want to fly a Vought V-173...

I might be mistaken, but I in no way recall there being any significant talk about the Hawk being multi-user, or a promise that you could train other people in it. I'm not sure I'd use a multi-seat aircraft to train a new DCS player, either: a Twitch (like? esque?) stream and TS3 would work just as well, and allow you to use any aircraft. The Hawk is also a aerobatic team aircraft - and I suspect that many people bought it for that aspect, totally independently of its use a a trainer aircraft, although - since I can't run around and poll any significant number of the people who bough the Hawk - I can't make that assumption, either.

Fly them ;) Some of us just love aircraft - regardless of their use. I'm happy learning the systems and flight idiosyncrasies of almost any aircraft. I get enjoyment from learning to use NDB navigation in the Sabre and learning to chuck nukes over the horizon with 'em :) Combat aircraft typically have more things you can do with them, and more aspects to learn (you know, all the actual combat) - and learning to do "all the things" with a combat aircraft, and learning to do them well, is more of a challenge. For people who take this approach, a civilian aircraft is just a bit more skimpy on "things to learn", but it's still totally viable. This is not to say that this approach is inherently "better" than any other approach to aircraft. However you approach aircraft, and derive enjoyment from flight simming, works for you, and is every bit as "valid". I'm just saying that learning to fly civilian aircraft in DCS would totally work for some of us. I agree 100% with you that the maps need to be larger, and more varied, to really make non-combat aircraft more viable, however. --- And if the aircraft is Polychop? I'm likely to give it a try based on the quality of the Gazelle so far.

Not for another "two weeks". :D

It's not "hard" - no question that ED/Belsimtek could do it - but it's a question of "Return on Investment" (ROI). Investment here being developer time/effort. "Does the time and modelling efforts required to simulate one specific effect for one particular mission role, for one particular aircraft - or alternatively to add the support in the main system that would allow Belsimtek to do it - justify pulling developers off the DCS 2.0 development/debug project?" I'm guessing - especially given the lack of actual nuclear explosion modelling for the MiG-21 - that their answer is likely "no". But I guess we'll see when it comes out.

+1 here - I just bought the Gazelle, and it gave me the option to use up to $15 of my bonus balance.

Good point - the SM upgrade program is supposed to eventually apply to more aircraft than 80, by itself, but: a) It's still ongoing and hasn't reached its target yet, and b) It applies to the Russian aircraft only. There's many more "first generation" Su-25s flying than upgrade variants. --- As for the OP - I'd recommend getting both, if you think you might be interested in both. The Su-25A is a very satisfying plane to learn (in my opinion), and it's only $10 (much less if you wait for a sale, I've seen it for $2.99 during a sale).

They're both great. It all boils down to the type of flying that appeals to you. The Su-25A is more "seat of the pants" flying, the Su-25T is more akin to a "systems management" plane. The Su-25A is/was an actual combat aircraft, used in multiple conflicts over 30 years (with many upgrades), including - most recently - the Russian involvement in Syria. Of course, the Su-25A hasn't been used for all that time - but upgrade versions of it have. The 25T was an experimental retrofit, which was ultimately cancelled in 2000, in favor for the Su-25SM program. Su-25A is much more visceral, and you have to keep track of her and anticipate what she's going to do: "fly ahead of her". She's also a lot more manual with her weapon systems - which I personally prefer, but "your mileage may vary". As far as roles, she can't do night missions, or SEAD, but she can kill ground units like few other platforms (apart from the A-10C) in DCS can - if you know how to load her. Su-25T has capabilities just oozing out of her: better auto-pilot, Skval targeting system (with night capability), SEAD capabilities (although some would argue this is "poetic license" on behalf of ED), and she can kill armor for days with Vikhrs - but she's more something you "ride along in" than "wear". Ultimately, they're both good - it's just a question of what matches what you like.

You need not move to a physical modelling system. There are 3rd party add ons (for another flight sim made by a company that probably wrote your operating system ...) which imports historical (or even real time) real-world meteorological data. Don't bother trying to simulate weather; just replay it. I'm sure there are other technical issues - and perhaps licensing issues for meteorological record access - with this approach, however.

Never said I wasn't guilty too! :D

I think it's a general Internet thing

Annnd ... there will be delays. Not saying anything against Belsimtek. Just that there are always delays. For all dev teams.

I believe that if you ask that of any development team - with the exception of ED - the answer is "no". AFAIK, ED hasn't released the multiplayer dev code "into the wild" yet.

OK, Vincent, I respect that you're arguing rationally and calmly. So I'm asking seriously - not rhetorically - how do you think this should be handled? I can't see any problem with Starways asking to be compensated for their work. As much as I love and support open source and communities coming together to create common content (including the many generous members of the DCS community), I never view this a right. And Starways is basing their ground maps of satellite imagery - which last time I checked, ain't free for commercial use, even from Google Maps. Companies which orbit satellites to produce commercial imagery expect to be paid. I can't expect Starways to purchase that access for me. Unless you're arguing for free access to their work - how do you propose they be compensated? Show me a Kickstarter- or better yet a Patreon page - as an alternative, and I'll happily kick in some $$ every time Starways publishes an upgrade, or a DLC. Heck, I "pay" for "free" content on a handful of YouTube channels because I want to encourage/enable those creators to keep making content for me. But when it comes down to the Starways DLC, this is the pricing model they've chosen. I don't see the "if you don't like the price, don't buy it" as hostile - just a reality of the market. If it's really an unreasonable price, maybe someone will see a business opportunity here to make a competing, less expensive, higher quality, texture upgrade, and "scoop" the Starways "market share". That's also a reality of the market. But, back to the original intent - How do you think this should be handled?

Nope - no one is saying you have to pay for textures and ground models. ED provides one for free (with the free core of their game, I might add). You want an high quality optional upgrade? Then yeah, apparently that will set you back $15. Don't like the price tag? Don't buy - and you still have a set of models and textures, so you don't lose anything. I suggest you check out FSX where setting up a region of ORB-X scenery can easily set you back HUNDREDS of dollars if you want to upgrade the stock mesh with a much more high-density mesh, upgrade to photo-realistic textures, and start slotting in high quality realistic reproductions of specific civil airports, etc. And then you can start in on the highly realistic weather engines (which can actually map real life, real time, meteorological conditions into the sim), and you're down another rabbit hole for $100s I''m not sure this DLC is something I'll get, myself - but I'm not going to demand the author provide their time and work to me for free.

So far it looks really good - comparable to other high-end replacement texture/mesh packages you can get for "that other flight simulator" - like ORB-X's stuff.