Vedexent

You could just make all your grey icons colored ....

Very nicely done! I really appreciate that you're setting up all the systems, and use the ATC correctly, rather that just setting up those system that you need to "get in the air and mess around" with :) You do things a bit differently than I've been doing, but upon reflection, where we differ I think you're right. Excellent work :)

Very cool :) Camera mod, or did you just move the "seat" all the way to the right and manually place the camera angle (with no head tracking) for a track replay? In any case - I like it :)

Yes please! I'd suggest posting this to the User Files as well. And if you wanted to make other Canadian liveries for other aircraft ... I would not complain! (also wouldn't mind if you didn't - I know it's a lot of work).

+1 on this! I've always wanted to fly an CF-5/116 :)

s By HOTAS, I mean player HOTAS - not modeled aircraft HOTAS. While it's not completely accurate to do so, I've got most functions in the Su-25 (for example) mapped to a button, or toggle, on my Saitek X55 HOTAS - even if in real life, they're toggles on the front control panel (e.g. flaps settings). A little practice with this kind of setup, and the controls become second nature. I don't need to use the keyboard or look at the HOTAS, I know where to "feel" for that control to perform that function. Given that setup, I wouldn't need to see any of my computer peripherals to fly the Su-25. More complex DSC level aircraft (e.g. MiG-21) you could map most of what you need to HOTAS controls. Other - seldom used - controls you could manipulate via mouse in the clickable-cockpit. True you have to reach for the mouse (or a large trackpad), but that should pretty much stay in the same spot, so you don't need to see it, either. For added realism and/or convenience, pull in voice commands (Voice Attack and VAICOM). In any case, you can get away with not seeing any of your computer peripherals in the Rift. Provided you can read the gauges, which - as per the OP - zoom would really help with.

Thanks - I appreciate it :) Looks like the last two are even available as Kindle eBooks on Amazon.

Well, yes - lack of HOTAS would probably be a big problem with the Rift.

I almost never use the keyboard in flight. The joystick buttons become second nature as you learn them. And - for DCS level modules - anything not mapped to the HOTAS can be clicked in-cockpit via mouse. FC3 aircraft are simpler; you can pretty much map whatever you need for flight operations onto a HOTAS. In a pinch, you can something like VoiceAttack as well. I have programmed macros for most ATC requests. In fact, for AI squadron commands, using VAICOM is probably far superior to trying to navigate the F-key radio menu. In short, it can be done.

So, after a pretty long hiatus, I'm possibly looking at getting back into squadron flying (the squadron I was in are a great group of guys, but there just wasn't enough momentum to keep things going I guess). So ... ideally, I'd like to find a squadron which: Concentrates on MilSim realism (human ATC/AWACS, realistic mission planning, multiple elements in the mission - CAP,SEAD,CAS, adherence to realistic military protocols in mission, etc.). Has a pretty regular flight schedule, where there's usually enough player committed to make each "flight night" viable. Has room for a ground-pounder; my primary love is A2G flying. Has room for multiple aircraft types (I see several squadrons like I'm describing which concentrate on a single air-frame - like the A-10C) Has a role for Russian aircraft. I'd also like to be able to use TACVIEW on the MP server, as I'm a big believer in "post game analysis" and figuring out what I need to practice for next time. These are all "wish list", and I'm willing to be somewhat flexible - but the closer I could get to this, the happier I'd be. I'm also willing to do the work to make some of those aspects (e.g. human ATC/AWACS) if there's squad interest but so far no one willing to put in the time/effort to make it happen. Any suggestions?

Are you adjusting your barometric altimeter to the airfield elevation as part of your startup ( RSHIFT + - / RSHIFT + = )?

It might be interesting if we could dig up any published combat kill claims (how many claimed F-5 / MiG-21 kills by the other have there been - if any) or real pilot anecdotes. Facts trump speculation - otherwise we're kinda stuck on the "why my Dad is better then your Dad" plane of argument :P Personally, I want to master both of these birds (I love the Soviet era planes for some reason, and Canada built a version of the F-5).

Do you have some references you could link here? I'm not arguing, or trying to dispute you; you've just got me curious as to what the actual published capabilities of the 25T are.

This thread keeps getting re-incarnated in some form or other. However, yes - I'm a big fan of the Frogfoot, in any form, and would love a full version with Professional/External flight model (depending on who builds her), and advanced systems modelling. Perhaps a slightly different variant? Say, the Su-25SM (if it's not to recent to model)? That would leave the Su-25T alone as a "try before you buy" aircraft, and still give us Soviet era ground-pounders something new to play with :)

Wasn't there a mod for some Russian aircraft which supplied many of the standard Russian language voice messages in Russian accented English? I realize that probably won't work for custom voice messages in training missions (unless someone wants to do new voice acting specifically for those missions), but it's an interesting idea.

I'd like to see smoke rockets on this bird - it might make for a cool recon/marker mission, to use the L-39ZA to tag heavy targets for heavier A2G platforms like the Su-25 or Ka-50. Unfortunately ... I see no historical evidence for the L-39 being able to carry smoke rockets. I don't see a smoke sub-type for S-5 rockets analogous to the S-8TsM.

In 1.5.3 I have the global game-play settings configured for "hide control stick" and "use these options for all missions". L-39C hides the stick, in both pits. L-39ZA doesn't hide the stick in either pit. A minor bug, as you can work around it using snap views (it's a real pain with my TrackIR profile trying to "lean around" or "lean over" the stick).

It's also essentially untrue. The C-101EB trainer is as "complete" as many Belsimtek modules are. What has been languishing for a long time is the Light Attack variant - the C-101CC. The C-101EB is certainly flyable, and the actual plane is a pretty cool little design, if you like trainers. My understanding is that AvioDev has been mostly dealing with the 2.0 transition, and trying to roll the multi-seat capability into the C-101. AvioDev also claims they are progressing on the integration of the AFM into their plane here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159201&highlight=AFM As for the Hawk, I refer you to the February 2016 update from the developers: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161011 Despite complaints about the SFM, VAEO is planning on submitting their EFM to ED for testing next month. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether this will actually happen, or whether the testing will go well and be incorporated into the next major patch. So ... the reports of these projects being "dead in the water" with no significant progress in a year are greatly exaggerated. However - these modules are works in progress - with their progress going quite a bit slower than planned. You'll have to decide if you want to risk picking these up yet, or not. IMHO if you like exploring and learning aircraft they're well worth picking up. If your interest is primarily air combat and learning aircraft systems/performance/idiosyncrasies is only a means for getting good combat performance, then these (and trainers in general) are probably not your cup of tea. Both approaches are perfectly valid, but where you fall on that line will determine whether or not those aircraft are a good fit for you. That said: I agree that the biggest "bang for your buck" right now is probably the L-39C/ZA, given that you're getting PFM already "out of the box", can fly the L-39C as a trainer/aerobatic platform, and get rudimentary combat capabilities in the L-39C with more robust combat capabilities (more G tolerances for A2A missile release, for example) in the L-39ZA. I also think it's more "complete" than the Mirage right now (not surprising, it's a much simpler aircraft) - although I have to admit the Mirage looks damn fun in the videos I've seen.

Agreed. I love both of these air frames, and getting light combat models of both would be great. The L-39ZA is out now - just waiting on the CC ... ;) All kidding aside, I realize that the CC will take the time that it takes.

Anything on this in the new versions? I can shut the flight stick OFF completely for all aircraft, all the time, in the main menu settings, but I'd like to be able to toggle it on and off in flight. The L-39 is especially a pain to try and read/manipulate the weapons panel, even with TrackIR. How about a mod?

Just because it's accurately called the "Window-maker" ... :)

+1 for instant buy. Don't think we'll actually be seeing this anytime soon, but I can hope :)

if you couldn't take off without permission, that seems to be it would be less realistic; they don't have those things clamped to the tarmac and only the ATC has the clamp release switch. I can sympathize with wanting more complete/accurate military simulation parameters. however. You can either rigorously stick the rules you've laid out yourself, when flying solo, and/or find a "hardcore" MilSim squadron/group that enforces that kind of behavior in their missions. Good luck with the latter, however - the group of people that are willing to rigorously adhere to actual military mission design / planning / protocol seems to be an infinitesimally small minority.

I don't think it's impossible to develop an accurate flight model in FSX, it's just that the nature of the type of modelling done in FSX makes it easy to create an inaccurate one. I believe that FSX uses "lookup tables" rather than directly simulated physics modelling (like X-Plane's blade element theory). If the table is really accurate and complete, then the model is accurate and complete, and the plane's behavior is accurate. Publish an inaccurate table, and the flight model can be ludicrously broken and unrealistic. Making an accurate and complete lookup table is hard, and requires a lot of calculation, research, and modelling. Some companies that produce for FSX/Prepar3D are very good at creating accurate modelling. Others ... not so much.

I've wanted to try a CF-5 / CF-116 for years - but I'll be content putting an appropriate livery on any version of the F-5 that comes along :)