EngineerFalcon

Well, the MiG-21 was designed primarily as an interceptor - It didn't need a complex radar, since it relied on GCI/AWACS, and a basic gyro sight was enough. The Tomcat, as a Fleet Defender, needed a very powerful radar for its weapons, and was designed with a fighter role in mind. But in the end Russian avionics tend to be less fancy than American ones.

Bah, it's still better than Flight of the Intruder ;)

Haha, here's the forum subsection ! Can't wait for this beauty to hit the skies.

To be fair modern jets have a much higher rate of fire and bullet caliber than WW2 aircraft - With no HUD in a modern jet, you can hit your target a couple of times and he's toast, while in a prop aircraft you need to put more bullets on target, and with the lower RoF he can sometimes "slip under" the bullets even though your gunnery is correct. ...that's why I'm terrible at IL-2 :)

Oh you.

Raining (Tom)cats and (Bird) dogs here :)

True (Although they're more Attack aircraft than fighter-bombers, with the Aadvarak doubling as a medium bomber). Comparisons are fine, I was just troubled by the whole "copy of one another" and "better at one's role" thing, since they're neither copied nor have the same use.

Excuse me sir but you are completely wrong. First, the Su-24 is not an imitation of the F-111, just like the Tu-160 is not an imitation of the B-1. It's simply different designers finding the same solution to the same problems. Also, even comparing the two aircraft makes no sense. Despite a similar appearance they weren't intended for the same roles. The Su-24 wasn't meant to be very long ranged, as its Russian nickname implies - "Frontline Bomber". It was also intended to carry cruise missiles, as those are a very important element of the Russian strategy, and greatly increase the delivery range, while the Americans believe in precision bomb strikes. Saying the F-111 is better than the Su-24 is like saying the A-10 is better than the B-52 - Why compare them ?

I think this could just be rudder-flutter, happens with many aircraft at high speeds. Just avoid using your rudder above Mach 1 and you should be fine.

Su-24 would be awesome. I've been doing lots of research on this aircraft and it's just amazing. There's even a special version of the Beryoza with 360 coverage ! What other swing-wing aircraft have ground radar ? Tu-22M and Tu-160... But that's more of a dream right now :) Great news Leatherneck !

Well done. You receive one point for every time we thought EDGE was coming.

Pretty much... The manual itself (for F4 AF) tells you to use it "only if you have time to lose".

The EOS is an Electro-Optical system, meaning it cannot be detected by radar. It can only be used to fire ET and R-73 infrared missiles (don't know why you are talking about the ER). There are no launch warnings in any FC3 aircraft for IR missiles, so if you fire a Sidewinder at an Su-27 he won't know until he sees it. The EOS does NOT give any advantage at close range - You have Sidewinders. Use them. Also, before you scream "OMG SU-27 OP", have you ever tried using it ? The EOS is a very finicky device, and you're lucky if you can lock on to a distant target. The way I see it, F-15s have a very big advantage in BVR, namely the AIM-120, that has no equivalent in the Su-27's arsenal. In close combat the two aircraft are close to equivalent, with a slight advantage to the Su-27. Finally, how does this have anything to do with "balance" ? This is a simulation. If a feature is unrealistic, it will be removed no matter how useful it is to you. Ka-50 pilots have been requesting IR missiles since the dawn of this sim, and they haven't been put it because they are not realistic. Oh, and by the way : If you take a look in the MiG-21 forums, you'll see that some people are using it quite successfully in multiplayer. Does that mean it has a "huge advantage" and should be "balanced" ?

The funnel on the A-10C is a funnel, not a snake/snap line.

On your right horizontal panel, right next to your pilot's knee, there is a small 2x4 row of buttons. There should be a small yellow light in them when ECM off, blinking while warming up, and green while on. Keep in mind though, unlike in real life ECM in DCS is quite ineffective against SAMs. It works best as a way to buy time against distant fighters. Happy mud movin' !

I thought you wanted to take off every MiG.

Of course ! I never said I was against that :)

But all modern fighters in DCS are currently from Flaming Cliffs. Re-making the A-10C has nothing to do with bringing an existing plane to DCS fidelity. Multiple third-parties and ED themselves have actually expressed interest in doing so.

The devs of Jet Thunder seem very determined to finish developing themselves, even though many people have told them to move to DCS. It's been a long time but hey, how many years did IL-2 take to become what it is ? Maybe it'll turn out great. I think however that they'll probably accept to share some documentation on the aircraft.

I agree with Zaelu. Finding a team is very important for you to get these planes finished. The EFM process is long and you'll need at least someone to work with you on that. That said, I'm really looking forward to this project ! Very interesting aircraft were involved in this war. What aircraft do you plan to finish first ? Pucara will need multicrew implementation, so maybe the Etendard ? I don't think it has many complex systems, besides the radar.

Ah, the I-16. Always been amongst my favorites in IL-2. So maneuverable, and very tricky to fly right (The engine plays a big part in that). Looking forward to this project, that's a day-one buy for sure !

Just out of curiosity - Does anyone know if more modern Flankers are equipped with this kind of head-mounted display, similarly to the F-16's HMCS ? That's something I'd love to see.

My bad ! It's been a while since I watched this movie.

Hey, no need to get childish. Besides, the Flogger would make an interesting adversary for the Tomcat (Sweep wing, first Russian BVR and Look-down radar) and Leatherneck may have planned it at some point, saying that it shared most of the 21's systems.

Can't find my article on the U.S. Navy, but I still have one about the French Aéronavale - and they are actually linked concerning carrier ops. After six months of basic prop aircraft handling in France, pilots have thirteen months of naval training in the US with both props and their first jet (T-45C). "Carrier" landings are first done on an airstrip, painted like a deck and with approach mirrors. Then you finally have your qualification on an actual carrier. Afterwards, you "transform" - familiarise with your aircraft - on the ground before taking it out at sea. Edit : Damn... three minutes late.