Ultra

Ha! This is great. :lol:

You may know this already, but just a heads up. A plane I jumped into is offset under the hangar and when taxied forward you can't stop the tail from scraping the ceiling lights :D. It was still usable though.

I was flying the SU-27 in MP, and I landed at Nellis AFB. I botched the landing and broke my plane, so I repaired on the runway. After repair, my wingtip pieces had disappeared, and my navigation lights were floating in mid-air.

Thank you, how did I miss that! :doh:

Could possibly be one of Leatherneck's unannounced maps. It would make a good carrier map.... :music_whistling:

This may have been asked/answered already but... Would the devs be willing to mention what systems are more estimated (or not included) as opposed to modeled exactly as in reality? I'm just curious.

It's a balance. If you make the ground objects too low priority it can be a real immersion breaker for CA users, heli pilots, and even when you're just flying low. I don't think Nevada went too far with this, it looks awesome but besides Las Vegas, it's mostly just desert. So I think it's balanced well.

Thank you for the response, I'll check it out.

Thank you for the info, I don't feel so intimidated now. :D

I was wondering, since I haven't seen anything, if people are making Mirage 2000C squadrons in preparation for its release? I know there are groups that were set up years in advance for the F-18. Or maybe no one is making squads specifically for the Mirage, and are just going to add it to the list of aircraft they fly together? If there are any Mirage squads out there, I would be interested in joining a casual one.

It's going to be a challenge fighting the Mig-21 with its radar missiles using our two IR ones and gun. I'm not complaining though, it should be fun. Do you think some servers will limit ordinance to IR missiles only? Was the Mig-21 able to carry it's radar missiles yet during the time these two would have faced off?

I'll give my input. I've tried the X52, X55, CH (Stick only, not throttle), and the X65F. I'm decided I like the X55 the best. X52: I used this for long while. I liked it quite a bit, it is very very comfortable in my hand. That's probably the biggest of its pros for me. It has a good amount of buttons and I like the throttle and rotaries. The two stage trigger is a nice touch as well. Cons are that it feels more plastic than more expensive sticks, and it's a bit too lightweight. I eventually got pretty annoying 'stiction' that I couldn't remedy, I tried a bunch of lubricants that didn't help much. Also it looks a lot more 'game-y' than more expensive sticks. Overall I think it's a very nice hotas considering the price. CH Stick: I bought the stick only and tried it. I bought it used and it ended up having a broken hat switch so I sent it back. I'm actually glad it was faulty so I had a reason to return it. On the positive side, it felt very sturdy. It was stable with good weight and felt like it was built well. The downside: I found it very uncomfortable to use for me personally. I felt the stick had too much resistance to precise movements in general. Also it didn't fit my hand very well. I'm sure it's a good stick for some people, but not for me. X65F: A very quality Hotas. It feels very solid and well made. The throttle is very nice and smooth and the button placement is generally nice. It also looks very cool. But... I couldn't get used to the non-moving stick. It works well, but I just couldn't use it as effectively so I had to change, and it didn't help that it was sort of big for my hand. Also, why couldn't they have included the toggles from the cheaper X55 in the X65F throttle!! But I liked the general feel of this hotas. Finally X55: This is what I'm using now. I like it a lot. It feels pretty sturdy (not as much as the X65F, but good enough for me). The stick is smooth, probably not like a Warthog but I'm happy with it. I also LOVE the toggle switches on the throttle base, they're probably my favorite feature. Button placement is good and I think there are plenty enough. The only cons for me are that, like the X65F, it doesn't fit my hand perfect like the X52 did, but it doesn't bother me too much. Also, it could be heavier to make it a bit more stable but it's not too bad. Overall, it's my go to right now and the price didn't kill me. :D Hope you find this helpful. :)

Will losing the dragging chute in favor of the extra CM's be a big deal? Being a lighter plane I wouldn't think the landing roll would be too long, unless the brakes are weaker. Although maybe landing speeds will be high for delta wing, similar to the Mig-21?

Those will help.

Too bad. I'm trying to think of other advantages of small size... any come to mind?

Is the Mirage's RCS small due to its small size? If so, will we see tangible benefits of this versus other aircraft in DCS?

Confirmation of the EFM being available at Beta release and seeing the nice development pics over time convinced me to pre-order. :thumbup:

I don't need the key, but I just wanted to commend you for your effort. Actions like yours are what make this community so much more special and close knit than just another gaming forum. :thumbup:

Well, it's a very capable 4.5 gen multirole, carrier-based fighter so I can see why it's attractive. But keep in mind the poll may be skewed since the F/A-18E was previously announced as a module (then faded out), but this may have cause people to bandwagon on an already "confirmed" jet.

My guess is a Tunguska, I think it's the SA-15.

I wouldn't be opposed to that.

No this scaling is rediculous. If it's toned down a lot, it could work well and be realistic.

Yes, I understand the concept (even before you posted it 4 times ;)) I'm in favor of scaling vs zooming. I agree.

I've had this happen with the A-10 in 1.2 before. I think it may be a long standing bug that shows up sometimes but not always. EDIT: here's my old thread. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143806