Vitormouraa

Ok, the Auto rudder option is unchecked, but are you sure that the bar is all the way to the left?

Yes, you can copy other units from a mission and then paste it into another mission. But that takes a lot of time if the mission has too many units. By default, you can't, but you can use a Mod called Coalition Mod by Grimes and Uboats (Not sure if it's working in the latest patch). Here's the thread link: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3499899#post3499899

It's not supposed to, F-15 has a bigger antenna, which makes a big difference when searching a target.

Good stuff! Looks dangerous. lol

It CAN, but the only weapon you can mount on the BRU-42 is the AGM-141 TALD.

If ED is on the majority side, I must ask myself; What's the focus of DCS? the Money to development costs ratio of FC3 is a lot better than any other full fidelity module in DCS, but I am pretty sure if you ask the community which one would you like the most, the majority of the community would say Full fidelity, wouldn't they? That's my impression.

I thought DCS was confused on full fidelity modules. I'm sorry if I had the wrong impression then. Anyway, always good to see the other side of the story. I didn't think about that.

I understand what you say, what Buzzles said above too. But personally, I don't have a problem with FC4, but the idea of having a space within DCS for "newbies" (not the offensive way). We already have that, it's the FC3. I once was a noob, 4-5 years ago when I started playing DCS. I enjoyed so much the steep curves that DCS requires. Learning new things and taking the challenges. Maybe this is not the case for everyone that starts playing DCS for the first time, but I don't think it was the point either, this isn't easy, it's not supposed to be. :) I'll just shut myself up, I don't understand it, I don't think I will :D

Agreed. FC4 would make sense, but this idea of reducing the complexity of an existing module and then charging for it is just nonsense. Let's not forget that we already have a Game Mode in DCS, which simplifies the Flight Model a bit, as well as the key commands. Not only that, but we have a ton of content on youtube about DCS modules, the manuals, Chuck's guides and everything. If this isn't simplified enough, what else do you want? AI playing the game for you?

Will the aircraft rip its wings off at 11G? No, I think it depends on how long you stay in that margin. Would you fly that aircraft again without an inspection? I don't think so, that wouldn't be safe.

God I love that screenshot!

I have a huge respect for DCS and ED, but all these years playing and following DCS and its community, this has to be the worst decision ever made (that I've seen). A throwback, that's what it is to me. I first got into DCS because it was offering something no other game/sim could offer, a true full fidelity module of an aircraft I love, the A-10. But seeing this kind of stuff in 2018 is very disappointing. Please Nick Grey, let's not go that way. That's not what we need/want.

Yep, sensor of interest just like the A-10C.

What makes you think/doubt it will not be flyable on NTTR? All planes are, and all of them will be.

Startup procedures are highly dependent on the squadron doctrine. Have spoken to many F/A-18 pilots (all of them were ED SMEs), who flew from A and C models, Lot 5 to 20, they all say the startup produces vary a lot from squadron to squadron. Especially between U.S Navy and USMC. The best example I can give you is how a U.S Navy pilot explained to me how they startup the Hornet on the boat. Most of the time they would use the APU to startup the first engine, and then they would use the crossbleed in order to prevent wear out of the APU. Then some time ago when I was talking to a USMC pilot, I said (thinking I was 100% correct) that they always start up the engines using APU and crossbleed once the first engine is started, and he said that's wrong and they are 100% dependent on the APU. But he also said that this varies with the squadron. The books procedures also don't represent what they do in the cockpit either. It doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but that's not exactly how to do it. Another example (although it's not as important as the other one) is how they use the AoA indicator in Units or Degrees. He said it's arbitrary, sometimes it's degrees and sometimes it's in units. Depends on the squadron. So I believe this need to be looked individually. I'm not exactly quoting Amy, but just wanted to share this with you guys.

What do you want to know about the TF34?

Damn! the ships are YUGE!

Yeah EOS triggers the Laser warning system, range finder that is. Tanks also have range finder. If you hear the warning, get the **** out as soon as possible! :D

Seriously? I was going to make that one... guess I wasn't fast enough :(

M-2000 vapors! SF_Farrago's screenshot.

Please run \DCS_updater.exe install PERSIANGULF_terrain after the download is complete.

:megalol: :megalol: :megalol: :megalol: :megalol: :megalol: :megalol:

Yo-Yo, please! I would love to see him talking about the challenges of a module development. It's been a few years since I watched the interview with Yo-Yo, and I always wanted to see him talking a bit more!

The fact that the HUD is sometimes blurred out doesn't mean the HUD symbologies are classified, but the information presented in it is. For example, sometimes you see planes doing gun runs, and normally some of the information on the HUD is blurred out. I spoke to a Navy pilot and he said they don't want to show how they do the gun runs. Pitch attitude, Mach number, and others.

I gotta find more stuff to post here. It's been kinda silent. I thought we would have more discussions about the topic.