Extranajero

I feel like the Ka-50 does mostly what it wants, with the pilot being mainly around to advise the autopilot. I'm not sure I'll ever be comfortable with it

Ask her ( or him ) what they think of the Gazelle flight model after you have both fondled an apple together. That's a great chat up line and guarantees a date :)

How about you have your own workshop - 1) Am I boring ? 2) Am I obsessed ? 3) Should I stop talking like an expert on matters I don't understand ? 4) How can I - moving forward - best shut up and go away ? I'd pay to attend that :D

I think you are absolutely right to be suspicious of Barundus input. After all, he only flies the real Kiowa. I'd much rather listen to someone like you, who watches videos on the internet and builds joysticks badly.

It's ridiculous that ED behave in this way - but they are obviously making their decisions according to which modules they sell a lot of - and which sections of the online community are the screechiest.

It is a general issue, I noticed it last night with the Mirage and the F-16

Why don't you show us on the teddy bear where that nasty rude Gazelle hurt you ? :megalol:

Great, I'll be able to see myself crashing into that invisible hole on the Tarawa and also see what I can't hit with the messed up attack system :D:D:D Nope, I've had enough of the Harrier, and Razbams attitude.

Really ? you can't fly it at night - and it's a night attack variant. I flew the Harrier as my main aircraft for a long time, until 2.5.6 came along with the improved lighting. Side effect of the improved lighting was that every aircraft then needed the cockpit lighting and displays changed. Some modules had this done almost right away, some took a while longer. Razbam however have done nothing - for months - to address what is a huge bug. The Harrier is a naval aircraft. Except that while taxi-ing it on the Tarawa there is a better than 50/50 chance it will fall into an invisible hole and break the aircraft. So there's another huge bug. The Harrier is also a ground attack aircraft. It is currently pretty poor at delivering dumb bombs with any accuracy and the gun is unreliable. I'd call that another game breaking bug. All this nitpicking about font sizes on the MFD displays is burying the fact that the Harrier is fundamentally broken as a combat aircraft. Over the last few updates it has actually gone backwards in completeness. But I no longer have a dog in this race. Razbam will be getting nothing from me in the future because they have proven they do not care about providing finished modules. I'd ask for a refund, if clicking accept to the EULA hadn't taken that right away from me. Fool me once...

Probably quite a low percentage of virtual pilots manage to get past the frustration stage. It's a very dangerous job, being an AI tanker :D What annoyed me at the start was that the difficulty of refuelling is compounded by DCS issues related to how you interact with the tanker crew. It's a good job that " return pre contact " isn't a phrase you hear anywhere else, if someone said it to me in real life I'd probably punch them in the mouth before I could stop myself :D The general standard of flying in MP seems pretty variable. I see a lot of people who can't land a plane and a few who even have problems taking off. As long as they don't impact my enjoyment I don't care though. Maybe they just like blowing stuff up ? that's fine by me. DCS is a sandbox, do what you want with it.

Depends. Manual start if it's quicker, autostart otherwise. I'll always go through a manual start a couple of times first with a fresh module for familiarity with systems. To me DCS is a combat flight simulator, not a cockpit switch position simulator, but if people want to do manual starts then that's great as well. I'm surprised none of the usual suspects have turned up to demand that the autostart function is removed, because of Realism :D

There's another benefit in DCS, objects can appear and disappear according to the zoom level. Really obvious stuff like vapour trails - which can be missing at zoom level 'X' can suddenly appear when you go to zoom level 'Y' It's not always intuitive. I can see very distant aircraft better sometimes when zoomed out completely, then as I zoom in they disappear.

Take a look at Simshaker, I couldn't fly without that now. It does more than stall buffet and is customisable. Can't praise it enough. Some real jets have been given pre stall feedback to assist pilots - the Hawk trainers have a couple of aluminium strips fixed to the wing leading edges ( nicknamed Toblerone because thats what they look like ) to add some buffet warning. So it's not just sim pilots who need extra feedback...

Can we go back to the idea of sorting this disagreement out with a duel please ? Meet over No Mans Land in your planes for a thrilling aerial battle, one knight of the air jousting bravely against the other ? :D

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is worth arguing about, given that the DCS D9 is underperforming with or without MW50 and it certainly doesn't belong in June 1944 I thought I was the only person daft enough to fly the Dora regularly in MP anyway.

It's possible that the Dora has a lower top speed due to secrecy considerations - you can see clearly that is a classified document ( Staatsgeheimnis ) :D

It definitely wasn't set up correctly then, the Brunner DCS plugin accepts airspeed information and provides control loading according to whatever force curves the user has got programmed. With the warbirds I can feel the elevator start to bite on the takeoff run and lose their effectiveness when the aircraft stalls - which is a lot more realistic than a prepackaged buffet effect. I specifically DON'T want to be feeling buffeting, guns firing or anything else that is a canned gaming effect transmitted through the stick. I've got a Buttkicker and Simshaker for that sort of feedback. The Brunner is expensive but I thought about the time and effort I'd need to put into keeping an out of production consumer grade FFB stick running and decided that the Brunner was the way to go. I'm blown away with how good it is, but I have spent a lot of time setting the control loading software up. When I'm feeling brave I'm going to get a quote for the Brunner pedals too...

You can't use 4K or VR if you want realistic spotting capability, that's the main thing you need to know before you go down a rabbit hole with settings. If you do have either of the above then your best friend is a custom dot label file. I've been doing experiments with two other WW-2 sims ( that I can't mention thanks to forum rules ) and found that - to me at least - DCS with the correctly tweaked dot labels is pretty much as good as it gets in terms of striking a balance between having oversized aircraft silhouettes and realism.

I'd like a Spit Mk XIV myself.

I don't think it's a big secret, I think that the ED devs are using very simple methods to model something that is very, very complex. To give a false impression of depth to the end user. But that is a valid technique in game software engineering, it started with the original 8 bit Elite, where an entire universe was crammed into 64k of memory. And it saves computing power for other things, like frame rates... There has to be a trade off between what is important and what isn't so important.

The world doesn't revolve around 'fairness' in PvP multiplayer, even though it seems you'd like it to. Where I come from we have a saying that goes " It's a case of the tail wagging the dog "

The specific implementations are closely guarded, sure - but the principles and techniques of electronic warfare are very well understood and documented in any amount of open source literature. You can buy academic textbooks on the subject. There are no reasons of secrecy ( as in unavailability of information ) why ECM techniques of the 50's 60's and 70's can't be simulated. The current DCS level is roughly late WW-2 in sophistication.

I've managed to reach an understanding with it after weeks of practice. I can even deal with the AI sometimes, although you have to fly in an extremely specific manner. It's definitely 20mph too slow, I checked in Tacview.

Yep, I know - it's not the plane, it's me. The Luftwaffe aircraft make you lazy when it comes to power settings, revs and heat management. I just went with the P-51

Out of the two I'd go with the P-51, I spent a load of time with the Spitfire already in another sim. The TF 51 flies nicely, but the engine seems a bit easy to mismanage.