PL_Harpoon

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.

There you go. In every normal game, even more complex ones (with lots of controls), you can just install it, fire it up and start playing. Not the case with DCS.

That's the biggest concern for me. "Would it pay off to spend so much time creating all those training material?" It's a really difficult question to answer because as you've said, all we have is anecdotal evidence and no real data. Anyway, I believe it would and frankly, as a user, not a developer, it's not my problem to solve cause it's not my decision to make. All I (or all of us, really) can do is to say what I think.

I'm not sure. There are many people who learned to fly with Falcon 4.0 or other sims from that era. That's because those sims included (either in the manual, training videos or missions) materials for those without any prior knowledge. Just look at this sim from 1997: I don't know where you've got that number from but doesn't matter, even it it were true, have you thought about why people choose other sims to learn flying instead of DCS? Also, why would ED develop a training jet if they weren't interested in teaching new players how to fly? All we need now is to make it available to everyone with detailed training missions (and a manual) and DCS could become a go-to place for people interested in learning virtual flying. As for the arguments that we already have a TF-51 - I think it's a great plane but IMHO it could be too difficult for new players where L-39 or F5 are much more forgiving and easier to learn. Because when it comes to tactics, for example, there are no golden rules, where if you obey them you'll be fine and if you don't you're screwed. I think it's much better to give users access to the most relevant information and let them apply this knowledge in the actual missions. A "virtual instructor" could be helpful here, but creating such a system would eat up all the resources ED has and it's not even sure it would be good enough to not be more of a nuisance then help. In my opinion if we're to suggest improvements to ED, that they can actually implement, we should stick with the ones that are feasible. Well, it is "basic" stuff for a combat pilot and this is a combat sim after all. Agreed. If you understand the concepts it is quite easy to apply it to any aircraft. That is when I don't agree. There's a lot of information in the manuals that you don't need in an interactive form, for ex. how does the hydraulic system work or what does the ASYM LIMITER does in the F-14. Obviously, theoretically you could do that in a tutorial mission but it just wouldn't be feasible. The idea itself is not that bad. How to implement it without spending months on development is another thing. I think a small text explaining the function of a specific switch would be a step in the right direction (not to mention that it would save you a lot of time from going back and forth between the game and a manual).

No, it's not. In what other game you spend the first 20 minutes in the options menu? That'd drive anyone away. Again, no. Neither of the two has any tutorials on the principles of flight for example. Also, it's not even in the manuals. There's absolutely no way you can learn to fly the aircraft in DCS without using external materials. I'm proposing a simple solution to make the learning experience easier. If you can't say why it wouldn't there's no point for you in saying anything. If you're trying to say that there's no need for improvements then 1st. You've already said that. Multiple times. 2nd. The fact that other people are specifically saying they have problems getting into DCS is the proof you're wrong. That's also a good idea. If you combine the two you'd have controls already set up from the start if you just want to start flying and a list of the most important bindings in a separate tab if you want to change them. Another good solution would be to have those 10-20 controls explained in simple 1-2 sentence descriptions so you know why they're important. I'm still standing by the necessity for a printable layout cause returning to options every time you forgot what button X does is a chore. That's why it's point no. 2, not 1 :) And there's lots of benefits of doing it. I know that I wouldn't even touch DCS if I didn't learn to fly in other sims and I'm sure there's plenty of other people who go (and stay) elsewhere because of that. By "more advanced" I meant things like tactics missile evasion techniques, advanced BVR, proper comms etc. Things that are by definition too dynamic to teach through a training mission. Things that apply to every aircraft, like turn radius vs turn rate, energy management, AOA, the turn rate vs speed etc. should be (IMHO) part of training missions mentioned in pt. 2. Also, one more thing. Let's make it pt. 4. The manuals should be available from the game menu. I'm not saying that the game should have a built-in pdf reader (although that would be awesome) but even simple links to those files would be a huge step up.

Ok, if this thread is to be of any help we need to backtrack a bit (20 pages or so perhaps :P ). From what I've read here there are three main problems with DCS. 1. The sim itself (as a program) is difficult to understand. 2. The sim does not teach new players how to fly the aircraft. 3. The sim does not teach enough advanced techniques. Now, no. 1 could be the result of the complexity of the program itself or a bad UX (user experience) design. Probably a bit of both. The most commonly stated problem is control bindings. How could this be improved? Hard to say but in my opinion the best solution would be if every aircraft had default bindings for every major joystick/hotas system available with a layout in a printable form (like a PDF file). That way, you could just start the game and immediately jump into the cockpit. Then, when you're already hooked up, you can still change/adjust the controls however you like. no. 2 is a bit more tricky. In my opinion the best thing for DCS would be to make one of the trainers (probably L-39 as it's a ED module) a free module with a fully comprehensive tutorial missions and manual focused purely on teaching the player to fly. Only further tutorials should include systems like navigation, weapons or even manual startup. Another thing is that every aircraft needs to have every implemented system explained in an interactive tutorial - see Razbam's Harrier totorials - in my opinion they should be held as a gold standard for every other module in DCS. no. 3 is in my opinion the most difficult to address. The good thing is that most players seeking that information are already beyond points 1 and 2 and generally should be willing to spend more time reading/watching videos. On the other hand I agree that there's simply too much information (and it's too complex) to include it in some form of interactive training. Also I agree that it would be too much work for ED to write/record all that stuff by themselves. However, they should be able to at least gather the most important information available in video form and create a page within the game containing links to those videos. The good thing about this community is that we are willing to help others and I'm sure that creators of those videos would be delighted if their work could be included in the game. At least these would be a step in the right direction.