Faith

Bunyap has some of the best game play and tutorial videos around. New content never dissapoints and is extremely well done. Everyone should check some out when they get a chance, his channel should be much more popular than it is at the moment.

I would just go outside if I wanted ultra-realism. The screenshots look great to me. Maybe they will have graphics options for people that feel the same way you do.

Blooze haven't you been saying in other posts that you are only looking for "experienced" flyers? I am also looking for some people.

You are correct! I was too lazy to look up his name. His recent article was very enlightening.

vstol, I'm not sure about the your HUD issue. Increasing the FoV for the default snap view might help that. If your changes are not making any difference, check that you are editing the correct file. There are 2 lua files that have effectively the same settings, defaultsnapviews and snapviews. Depending on your in game setting for user snap views, only one file will change your actual in game view. You will still have to change your default zoom level in game with the "/" and "*" keys when you drop into the cockpit the first time. Maybe someone with multi monitor experience can give some advice.

I don't know if your multi monitor setup is directly causing this issue or if you just need to adjust your settings. A decent post on how to change the camera views (including default), fov, and other things is in http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1823685#post1823685

So without considering the post date of that original quote, the average MRR of aircraft across the services is roughly 75%. So technically if you have 200 planes, only 150 will be able to successfully complete a mission at any time. Honestly they should just retire the B-2 and save all the A-10's and other fighters being retired. It is a fairly useless aircraft right now (definitely when LRSB comes around) and costs a ridiculous amount of money to operate for its operational capabilities (each aircraft only able to fly once per week as a maintenance requirement). So if there was a full scale war, the B-2 fleet could only fly roughly <10 missions per week (MRR of 45% roughly for 2013).

Cobra, can't wait for the new info and eventual release. The screens on the new website look great and I'm personally very happy to see a launch campaign included.

Even if the Vietnamese and Russian fighters were dated they achieved very high kill ratios on US aircraft due to poor air to air skills from US airmen. So depending on the exact type of US aircraft modeled, the "dated" aircraft would probably still have an advantage. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPGUN On a side note, Vietnam was a terrible war and I'm not sure some DCS owners would want it modeled due to personal experiences. So that is a vote for no from me. A better option might be a fictional conflict derived from a similar landscape (I assume you just want jungles/mountain/rice paddies with period aircraft) with a chosen set of vintage aircraft, instead of a realistic setting.

I believe the "if you are going to play on my court, I sshould [sic] have the option to set the rules" is called a server password. :lol: But seriously, some people don't have rudder pedals or good options for controlling the rudder (see TM Warthog without pedals). Depending on how long it would take to implement, server side rules for auto rudder would probably not be worth it to anyone except those that think they will lose to someone that has it on in dogfights. I assume this is a rather small percentage. With EDGE, Nevada, and all the other projects going on right now they might be better priorities. So the argument is you believe auto rudder is giving some people an advantage over manual pilots? It seems like the people that would join your server with auto rudder on would not join a server that specifically disallowed it. I'm not sure it would convince someone to change their play style specifically to join your own WWII combat server.

I never implied he was building a weapon, just saying it could be considered by authorities as one. Did I say building a "rocket powered controllable tube is any more threatening than building a jet powered RC plane"? I don't remember that. I'm assuming you are specifically implying both would be weaponized in some form. Otherwise the use of hobby jet RC planes and rockets are governed by various laws and organizations anyways. Also RC jet engines are not generally carried in hobby RC stores (due to high price and low volume sales) so I highly doubt you have a local retail store that sells them as you imply. But your analogy really doesn't work and I'm not sure why you are arguing with my previous post. Putting explosives on a "jet powered RC plane" would be illegal anyways.

The first question on is it possible: Yes it is very possible to create a guided rocket with commercially available components if you understand the hardware, software, and physics involved. The second question on if you can do it: It is essentially illegal to make a guided rocket in the USA. While you can do it, if the right people found out you could get in a lot of trouble. You are creating what would be considered a weapon.

Eddie you are my hero.

Skunk Works made several "invisible" airplanes in the 70's I believe. They could not figure out how to make the cockpit "invisible" also.

There is no point arguing this unless you show the exact equations you are using to come to these conclusions and for the specific cases where your assumptions are valid. Aerodynamics and Flight Control are very complicated subjects and do not lend them selves well to generalities as anyone who has studied them in depth can attest. I think you missed what I was specifically referring to - a specific coordinated turning maneuver case.