randomTOTEN

I suggest not getting too close to the vehicle, to prevent a trigger from being missed and the training to stop. I've had this happen before too, but it worked okay on my test right now.

Throttle Up and Throttle Down are key commands, they are not axis commands. If you see them, that means you are not looking at the axis screen. See here. https://youtu.be/nIXdazooP30?t=297

Post your mission. maybe something we can notice.

nah that's just how it works it works much better with very short, fine, corrections. large commands to move cause the errors you see

Search these forums for a mod. It simply comments out a line of code and is an incredibly easy fix.

??? Have you never played a DCS mission? Nearly every mission currently supports your scenario. Right now. In the briefing image. It's now possible to add images to the in-game kneeboard with this information. There is no need to have this on the F10 map. "Matter of weeks." uh yeah that's my point.

You perhaps vastly underestimate the complexity of the humble Sabre.

A very large portion of your wishlist can be met with some scratch paper, a pen, and a very cheap calculator from a local store (or your phone). With none of the wait on your part, or the development time needed. These are important "flight management" tools, and it sounds like you are reaching the level where you will use them.

My personal opinion is that "A models" would make fantastic candidates for SSM jets. While I like the current study level standard, I think there's plenty of benefits for the continuation of SSM. 1. They're hopefully easier to make, which means the production rate will be quicker. 2. They're easier to learn, which means hopefully less time needed to become proficient. 3. Hopefully they will allow for variants and aircraft that are not reasonable due to either insufficient ASM market demand, or lack of ASM standards documentation. (F-16A, F/A-18A) 4. They meet the needs of users that don't want study aircraft, but want a realistic high performance fighter jet. 5. They're fun! SSM= Simple Systems Model (a.k.a. Flaming Cliffs series/Su-25T a.k.a. no clickable cockpits). ASM = Advanced Systems Model (i.e. everything not SSM.)

I was flying multicrew in the UH-1H and the flying pilot was less experienced. We were using SRS to communicate. He didn't respond to cautions to stay below the cloud deck, and we entered the soup on an attack run. I would have been surprised at just how fast he lost control of the helicopter if I wasn't mentally prepared for it (and seen it before from various sources). The noises he made as everything suddenly became useless were entertaining for me, but no doubt a horrendous experience for him. It's sometimes difficult to have the respect for that situation, where something you see as benign is in a sense traumatic... and certainly fatal IRL. It was an excellent experience for both of us I think, and an amazing experience for Multicrew. Bring on the Hip!

Thanks for the 2nd track. Yeah it repeats when I view it too (and when I take control). Much better! (and you used Nevada.. very nice).

The KA-50 supports adding "Target Points - TP(x)" in the mission editor. It would have been nice for such a system to be available for the Hornet and Viper.

incorrect configurations isn't a feature.

I was wondering why it seemed everybody switched managers... thanks for the info. I'll keep that in mind if I ever have problems later.

JSGME still working just fine for me.

You're here because you wanted a realistic F-16C aircraft. That's the game. That's what you paid for. They can't. That's not how the game works. No. Again, that's not how the game works. Nobody had any problem with how the game worked (in this respect) until viper users decided to use this as a bargaining tool. It's not a bargaining tool. It's well established across all the modules.

No it wasn't. You were specifically told it was going to have 2 HARM. In the very first video. Nowhere where you told it would have 4. You complained. It only had 4 HARM because users like you complained and posted images of a flight test jet, some promotional paragraph on some random air base website written by nobody, and documents which list it as being approved to be hung on those stations. Okay, that's why you can hang it on those stations. The gaslighting and crying about liveries is embarrassing. The complaining continues.

120° Horizontal, 60° Vertical according to Wiki. So 72"x36" 6826x3413 wrap around. And that barely gets you over 20/20. And anybody that doesn't have this monitor has a broken simulation control interface (including VR users) because some VR people can't cope.

do your worst. Will you give me the credit for the kill, or ragequit first?

Every seasoned Hog driver has bagged a couple of those "swinging dicks." If you think they're easy pickings, just go and try it.

I also highly doubt that.

Seems the viper draws in it's own unique crowd. These people were outraged when the realistic limitations were first explained. Now they're outraged again that reality doesn't match their expectations. I own the viper. The chosen subject aircraft has been identified. We get the features it gets. We deal with the limitations it has. That's the strength of DCS. If there are deviations in the simulation, they are unfortunate and can hopefully be minimized. I'm glad to see this deviation corrected. I look forward to the next deviation being corrected if it can. The vocal crowd here doesn't have control of the narrative, and they do not represent all of the community. The argument over liveries and countries are just disappointing. How long have we had a RU A-10C?

You missed it. You also missed the update post specifically about it.

Why don't you post a short track so we can see what's going on?

Check the user files section, many are being maintained by the community.