PL_Harpoon

I did some tests myself and now I too believe it's bugged. I think I also was able to find the root of the problem - airspeed at drop. In the mission there are several containers and a Hornet full of Mk82s. 0 wind. 2 Drops, both at 9000 ft: 1st drop at 440 Kts - miss (by a lot) 2nd drop at 300 Kts - direct hit The only two variables in these drops were airspeed and attack direction (but since there was no wind attack direction didn't matter). The track is attached below. Hornet AUTO bomb test.trk

Do you have various winds at different altitude or strong gusts? These are all thing the targeting computer cannot take into account.

I can fly the Ka-50 and the Mi-8 with the English cockpit. As well as the Mig-15 and Mig-21 (even if it's not ED). That's why I said it's been the standard in DCS. On the other hand, If you mean using English cockpit for English manual, then I'm 100% behind you.

It's been the standard for every other Russian module so I don't see why they shouldn't do it here.

Yeah, I hope the AI won't be just a fancy autopilot. Talking AI like Jester would be a major step in the right direction.

I may have been doing something wrong but in my experience from Ka-50 and Huey even a fixed cannon was more accurate than rockets.

Here's a good guide on how to talk on the radio on MP.

Close. With TPR it's about 25. The good thing is, it doesn't move no matter what floor it stands on.

@zepher I'm in a similar situation (working from home, same desk for flying/working) and I've recently upgraded to a new setup so I think I might help you here. Obviously it all depends on how much money you're willing to spend. I went with this setup: THROTTLE To be completely honest I chose Warthog over WinWing because: a) WinWing Throttle was out of stock at that time b) delivery time of Warthog was much faster anyway c) I've heard good things about Thrustmaster customer service while WinWing is a wild guess in that regard IMHO After a few months of usage the only downside of TM throttle was the ministick (it's the same little "nipple" as on some laptop keyboards) but DeltaSim have an excellent mod for it. It's easy to install and works great. You have to wait for it to be shipped but I highly recommend it anyway. STICK For me it was a match between Virpil and TM, because they have interchangeable grips. Virpil is apparently a better one (more smooth, no "stiction"), but they rarely have them in stock, so you need to wait for them to be ready for shipment. That's why I went for TM base. It's still way better than any cheaper joystick. As for the grip, it depends what aircraft you're most interested in. If it's F-16/A-10, go for the Warthog grip, if it's Hornet/Harrier or the future F-15E, go for the Hornet. One thing to add is that while the Hornet stick has technically the same amount of buttons as the Warthog, the latter has more Hats, so I think it would be easier to use the Warthog stick for the Hornet than the Hornet stick for the A-10. I went for the Hornet because that's what I fly the most. I also strongly recommend buying the extension. I went for the 15cm one. Bought a "cheap" one from AliExpress but there are some more trustworthy (but slightly more expensive) alternatives, like Sahaj. MOUNTS If you have the space I recommend WheelStandPro. The good thing is that you can mount your HOTAS on it and just move the whole thing out of the way when you don't need it. It's also very robust and adjustable. The downsides are: a) it's heavy b) as I've said before you need some space to put it away I can send some pictures later if you're interested. RUDDER As for the rudder I went with TPR as it's one of the best out there. It's expensive, but if you're planning on flying helicopters I think it pays off. If not IMHO you could go for a cheaper one like the TM T.Flight pedals or Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals (I've had the second one for around 8 years and was fairly happy with them). One more thing: technically, WheelStandPro doesn't support TPR pedals, however mine came with drilled holes that fit perfectly, so I didn't have to do anything to make it work. Hope that helps. Cheers

Yeah, I hope so too. A good solution for them would be to just swap the blade models for an animated transparent disc that does not cast any shadows.

Is it actually a screen? I always thought it's just a simple glass to put your map/mission plan behind.

Sorry, can you explain what "basic angle" means? Is it AOA?

I think Harrier has one, but i don't remember the Hornet having such a thing.

I agree 100%. I use ICLS to help me line up on final but once I'm within 1nm I ignore it completely. I often got waved off when I tried to follow it to the deck.

I always had the feeling that the hornet has the tendency to drop the nose just before touchdown. Try anticipating it and be ready to pull the stick up just as you're about to touch the deck.

Congratulations! The best way to deal with wake turbulence is to avoid it. Keep below the engines and you'll be fine. As for losing contact with the basket I like to push it about a 1m forward.

There are key bindings that let you adjust your camera position. Can't remember them now but if you look around in the options you'll find them. There's also a combination to save your current position. I think it's called "save camera angles".

I'd second those who say stick to the original planes you've bought. - If those planes are the reason you came to DCS the training will be much more enjoyable - You'll get familiar with the planes you're actually gonna fly later I'd also suggest creating your own training program. I like to start with airfield patterns. They're great for getting familiar with the plane and the cockpit, maintain airspeed/altitude and even basics of navigation (TACAN, setting course, etc). To learn navigation the best way is to just create a mission with a simple route (waypoint navigation). Then create a new one but without setting up waypoints in the editor. You can use it to practice navigation without waypoints (using beacons, setting up your own waypoints or just dead reckoning). To use weapon systems I'd start with A-G and use the combination of YT videos and tutorial missions. Then move to A-A - for modern jets I'd start with understanding how radar works (most if not all modern jets use mainly pulse doppler radar). Then just watch a lot of YT videos (I'd suggest Growling Sidewinder videos and ). Then I'd move to bad weather and more complex tasks (such as AAR or carrier ops). These can be a bit frustrating so doing them at the end means you can still do other stuff in the meantime. Also, here you can find a great set of manuals, not only about aircraft but also how to use DCS in general: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/Hoggit_DCS_World_Wiki#Technique_Guides_.26_Resources

Show us a track or even a video of one of your attempts (with controls overlay). This is the best way as the most critical mistakes are usually those you don't recognize.

@Pikey You bring up a lot of valid points. However... As a user you shouldn't really care why things are the way they are or what's the software history. If a new user downloads DCS and gets immediately confused they'd most likely uninstall and don't look back. Not because of the complexity of the simulation, but because of the unfriendliness of the software itself or lack of available training materials. Imagine you're learning to drive. Would you rather go to a driving school that gives you all the materials, provides you with an instructor and guides you through the process or one where they give you your car's manual and say you can find everything else on the internet? Also, just because this is all known by ED doesn't mean there's no point in discussing it. We can all agree that DCS is constantly improving, also in making it more accessible to new users but why should we stop coming out with our own ideas how to do it? As a software developer I'd love to receive so much feedback, even if it is repetitive (which also means something). Lastly, I think you seem to mistake accessibility with simplification. No one in this thread is asking for DCS to be simplified. I suggest you read HomeFry's post to better understand what we're asking for. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4427658&postcount=217

Could be true, but they'd still be much more accessible then keeping them hidden inside multiple folders.

I'm not asking for the removal of manuals. In fact if you read my posts you'll find that I'm actually advocating for them. I'm also not asking for dumbed down options. Again, you either didn't read or misunderstood my posts. How is any of that dumbing down the options?

True. This is much better if you want to learn flying. I was just making a point that (at least in a sim) it can be achieved with a combat jet. After all, I've been flying sims for around 20 years and haven't touched civilian planes until just a few years ago. Which doesn't mean they couldn't. Anyway, I think we can safely drop this topic as I think DCS has a chance to become a great platform to learn flying and you think otherwise. It just becomes a matter of different opinions. I get your point, and I agree that having to die multiple times just so you can finally "get it" will only lead to frustration. Actually I said that for the more advanced things DCS should at least point you to the relevant information. You wouldn't need to try missile evasion 400x times before you figure out what to do. All you had to do is to go to a "manual" section in the game, find "missile evasion" and read/watch the videos on it. As to why I think it's difficult to convey some topics in an interactive form let's take the F-pole as an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FVhCYrTFY. You could turn the first 2 minutes of that video into a tutorial mission. That would still leave you clueless as to what actually happened without the next 10 minutes of explanation. That's good to know. After all, as long as we're moving in the right direction we should keep going. And TBH, I thing ED are. Just look at Wag's great tutorial videos. If only there was a way to reach them directly from the game. That'd be another small step in the right direction. Turning them into training missions would be another etc. Ok. I still don't fully agree as sometimes you just need to take in a lot of information and I'd rather take it in written form where it can also be quickly accessed. After all, even when you have an instructor IRL you still need to soak up a lot of information from a manual. I do agree with you, however, that whenever something can be taught interactively, it should (or "it'd be great if it were").

You keep missing the point. No normal modern game requires you to spend this much time in the options menu before you can play. Doesn't matter if it's PC or console. In today's time it is expected of game developers to design their games in that way. That's also why manuals are an obsolete thing nowadays.