Vincent90

What am I doing wrong? I turn the radar on, select interleaved mode, keep the detection zone as large as possible and still I'm unable to see ANYTHING on radar until i'm within 10km of the target, well within visual range! Attempt 1 was a 4 ship formation of MiG-21's at 2000m and with attempt 2, pictured here, I'm not even able to spot a Tu-95 at 24000 feet! What am I missing here?

And why would you want the AIM-120 when you got the AIM-54? ;)

This thread has inspired me to do my own first flights of the F-15C. :) First flight: Analyzing the aircraft For my own first flight, I've had chosen to do a reconnaisance of the Crimean peninsula without weapons. I fitted 3 drop tanks, take-off and landing both from Anapa. As a Flanker boy I can concur that the acceleration and climb rate really surprised me, shocked me even. Wait, are my flaps in the right position? Where are the flap indicators?! What also surprised me was finding no mode to change Imperial units into SI units. The Imperial system is the big reason why I never fly American aircraft, but on such an advanced platform used by other countries as well, I would've expected an SI option. I reach the strait reaching to Kerch I have a hard time doing maximum thrust without going into afterburner. Afterburner fuel consumption scares the living daylights out of me. I also notice the amount of buttons and systems on the sides of the cockpit. Oh boy, someone make this a full fidelity module! :joystick: The center panel systems are obtuse and complicated. At this point, I get a feeling of information overkill. No matter for now, but I will need to check the manual to see what everything means for a later flight. This aircraft has automatic trimming as well?! WOW! At this point I reach the place where Sevastopol should be. Yup, they weren't lying, the Crimea really isn't in this game. Too bad. I decide to check the northern approach to the crimean penisula to see for myself if it really is as tight as the maps suggest. On the way I decide to do some altitude tests. On the ED forums, there was an argument about the ceiling of the F-15, with some great pictures out of a high-altitude F-15. Again, the rate of climb stuns me. When I get over 40.000 feet It wears a little off though. Not a clue how to read the mach counter so the only thing I have is the IAS and my vertical velocity indicator to keep me in check and stable. What I also notice is that my side tanks have independant fuel indicators, but my center line tank hasnt, is this true? I reach ~60.000 feet and conclude that the earth is flat. The F-15 starts to feel wobbly due to lack of air under and over the wings. I decide that its time to return home. At this point I start to notice how I LOVE the way all the info is given on the center right side of the cockpit. Instead of only a gauge that is open for interpretation, there is a counter within every gauge as well that shows more exact numbers. Why didn't other manufacturers think of that? The lady with the electronic voice tells me I have bingo fuel. Apparently this means I'm not empty and still have 3000 lbs to get home. Great feature, although with these thirsty engines I hope to land safely. Thank god Anapa is in sight. The plane lands as a dream and seems to be easier to land as the Su-27 was when I started out, although this could be an experience thing. It doesnt like to decelerate after landing though, and why does my drag chute refuse to open? An hour and 15 minutes after take-off, i'm safely back on the ground :) Overall, after this first flight I can conclude a couple of things. The F-15 loves to climb and accelerate. Together with the AIM-120 this makes it a very suitable interceptor. Like most American aircraft, The F-15 has an overcomplicated information lay-out and compromises the time my eyes are towards the blue sky; it tries to cram too much information into too little of a space. The black cockpit is also more eyestraining than the standard russian turqoise pit, although this could be due to the age and fidelity of the module. The cockpit also gives me the feeling i'm in the cockpit lower and that the entire cockpit is smaller, although again this could just be a color thing. The counters within the gauges are a godsend though and the automatic trim significantly reduces pilot work load. Before my next flight, I'll read the manual so I can try out Navigation and both BVR and WVR attack systems. If I have fuel left, I'll test rate of roll and turn rate at different altitudes and speeds. I'm looking forward to it :) @GGTharos: You mention a list with stuff that isn't modeled, could you post a link to it? :)

Well, after 23 tries and 12 hours of my life, including a final 3 hour sortie, i've finally given up on the Cold War Warrior campaign. In mission 2 it says I need to destroy a column of SPH's on a road. I arrive on that road and nothing is there accept a couple of trucks, but I DO see a different regiment of units next to the road. I attack those without success and land at Krasnodar for refuel and rearm. I go back to the strike zone and the column had spawned. After multiple attack and rearm runs I finally manage to destroy the entire column and land a final time Krasnodar to end the mission. It says a mission result of 50%?! I could just as well have done kamikaze at a single truck and I would've gotten the same result! When I want to do the next mission it shows mission 2 again.... Fudge you FC3. Don't even get me started on the Su-25T campaign, but at least that one was free. And then there is the logbook: I know DCS doesnt recognize training hours as flight hours, but with the Su-25, sometimes it recognizes 1/3 or half of the hours flown as "real" hours, and sometimes it calls you a lying POS and doesn't register anything! But at least this doesn't compromise the gameplay, just the immersion. It's just a disappointment to look at my logs and not being able to see how much I play this game and in which aircraft. For example, i'm flying the MiG-21 for almost a year now, with just 30-40 hours accounted for, just because I like to train myself before performing combat sorties. And this is with all DCS aircraft. Anybody knows a fix for these problems?:cry:

Cobra's most recent avatar change :) http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2692223&postcount=94 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2692412&postcount=96

The plane is question is "Red 44", a MiG-23MS from the 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron. Not a lot of 4477th's MiG-23's made it to the end (only 9 or 10 if I remember correctly), so seeing this in this overall good shape is pretty nice. This particular arcraft was last flown by LtCdr. Cary A. Silvers during a Green Flag exercise on march 8th, 1988. After that, it went in durable storage, which explains the overall good shape. Detailed flight records of Red 44 were destroyed at the end of 1988, when the 4477th was disbanded. Here are some documents of this plane. The first is a picture from it take from the book America's Secret MiG Squadron by Gaillard R. Peck Jr. The other is the flying schedule during the last exercise of the 4477th, taken from the book Red Eagles by Steven Davies. (NB: "F-4" was 4477th's code for the MiG-23, "F-5" was the code for the MiG-21.)

A dedicated throttle isnt that expensive, and it would free up your current slider for some other useful functions :thumbup: @ED: Please give us some early Jumo's.... :-(

There were also problems with 3rd party devs and the SDK and the way certain parts didn't work as expected. From this quote, I gather that the Viggen was already very advanced around new year. If assumptions are correct and LN has indeed started working on a Draken, then that must mean something in the pipeline has freed up which must be the Viggen.

Then I apologize for that, just checked it and it says so indeed. I've unfortunately looked over it all this time, although it would be nice to have a same warning on the Steam Store (where I buy most of my modules). On that page, only the Hawk, L-39, Mi-8 and the Huey have some info tucked away in the description that parts from the module are still missing. A single sentence on top, like they do for seperated modules that are included in FC3, would negate a whole lot of disappointment :)

Bf-109 doesn't have a campaign either

That would be awesome! Damn it, with the current amount of content coming up I must choose between excellent modules, instead of just buying everything I fancy, damn you DCS! :mad:

I bought the F-86 and Mig-15 about a month ago, at that time the "english" F-86 manual consisted of an english table of contents, the rest of the manual was in russian. I'm between parties here: The lack of a manual, training missions and campaign make this module worthy of criticism. That it is uncompleted after all these years is a legitimate complaint of a customer that pays top-dollar for these modules. However, if we look at pure content: FC3 is a much more broken and unupdated mess than this, and that module, without the coming MiG-29 and Su-33 updates , is considered "finished" by ED. BST is at least honest and that should be commended. So yeah, don't judge a book by its cover, but when pages of that book are still missing years later there should be some info or plan from BST to do something about it. The reason i'm not complaining is because I see BST is still actively working on all these modules, the planes themselves are top-notch (You guys really aced it, Belsimtek) and I bought it just a month ago, but something should definitely be done about it. What really ruffles my feathers though, is that the ED store and Steam aren't upfront about which module is still WIP and which isn't. I wouldn't have bought the modules, if that information was given upfront and honestly. This lack of transparency about which modules are finished and which are still WIP is really bothering me, together with the lack of information about what content a module contains. @NeilWillis: It's ok that you're fine with it, but every customer has the right to complain if something they buy doesn't meet their expectations. I can understand that you're tired of the same arguments over and over again, given your seniority and activity on this forum, but the fact that the same arguments are repeating themselves means that something is structurally wrong. What the solution is, the devs should decide that for themselves.

I'll just leave it at that

DCS is the reason I fell in love with this awesome bomb buggy, would definitely buy a full simulation of this amazing plane.

This is mostly to the multiple developers working on DCS. I was just looking at the MiG-15bis manual from Belsimtek and the amount of data in that document was staggering, it even includes hydraulic schematics and really small details, like the fact that the landing gear doors use dedicated hydraulic actuators (not those used by the landing gear). The interview with Erich Brunotte for the Fw-190D9 was much appreciated by the DCS community and a great insight in a small part of the development process. To a large part of the users including myself, the planes are a "black box": We pay 50 bucks for it, it works and we know what simulation level the module contains, but further info about what makes a DCS module, a DCS module is not known. When we buy an expensive watch, suit or car, we can easily get a tour or a video of the manufacturing process, and by doing so it creates 2 things. One, the understanding of the value of the product for the customer. Two, brand value for the company that produces these amazing things. We all know it takes years to develop a module and a boat load of money, but a "making of" video would be a pleasure for a lot of fans, and would provide an easy argument to the "why does a DCS module cost this?" threads. Is there any chance we'll see some behind the scenes footage about how a module is made and what it takes to make a module? :) Thanks in advance, Vincent

It concerns the text for the sight selector and bomb-target wind control dials, screenshot added for further information. ;)

Had the same problem, open your command line and force DCS to update. It should do the trick. More info: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114030

FPS almost halved here as well since updating to 1.5.3 with same settings, really weird considering the changelog given :huh:

After doing some flights figuring out the NDB system between Sochi and Batumi, I'm now flying between Anapa and Vaziani (211 Mhz, morse: -. .-) So I set up the compass before taking off by: 1) Set the system to Comp. 2) Selected the 200-410 Mhz scale 3) Turned the knob to 211 Mhz. I got a good signal strength and the proper morse signal. However, the compass keeps dancing! Climbing to a higher altitude while keeping course 120; The radio compass remains on the fritz. What am I doing wrong? :(

So..... Is there any news/info on when we'll see the carriers announced?

- Usage of external fuel tanks and the systems involved - Realistis length and distance of missions - Navigational challenges - Long distance flights instead of going back and forth between Anapa and Tblisi all the time. - Highspeed testing of equipment without the feeling you're steering a plane inside a bath tub. - And last but not least, it would give the player a much bigger feel of freedom and possibilities. Again, for playing Air Quake and helicopters the current sizes are fine, but when you want to do other stuff, things are getting cramped. I understand the reasoning of ED behind the choice of going for highly detailed environments, I really do, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that there isn't a good market for low detail, big environment maps. Especially if/when the other Soviet interceptors are developed. Again, why not cater to both sides of the market? NTTR/SoH for the fans of helicopters and other machines that require high detail, small map size for immersion, and for jets and war simulations low detail, large map size for immersion. DCS was designed to be a sandbox for a plethora of military possibilities, and you can't disagree that the current map sizes are one of the limitations for that objective. @Shez: You're absolutely right, but those are system modelling/ AI modelling issues, a different branch then texture modelling issues. ;)

@Sithspawn: Does this mean we can expect more accurate cities on the Black Sea map? Did a landing at Soganlug this morning; Downtown Tblisi looked more like the outskirts of Belgrade... But in all honesty, I would rather trade in added detail in the Black Sea map for more space. If I want more detail I can always go out and buy NTTR or SoH in the near future. Currently, for me, the Black Sea is only sufficient when using WWII aircraft, when the aircraft has a jet it quickly becomes too small and a lot of users feel the same way with the lack of size. Going down one road doesn't necessarily have to close the other in this case.

Thank you for the clear communication RAZBAM, as always. :thumbup:

I played with this simulator for a couple of weeks back when MH-17 was shot down. I wanted to know what it would take to be capable of shooting down such an aircraft. It opened my eyes. SAMs are just as complex as aircraft and I feel I really learned about the training necessary to operate such a beast, I also started diving into the NATO bombings of Serbia and take my hat off to the crew that shot down the infamous F-117. Zoltán Dani was an amazing officer. It also let me dive into the Operation Linebacker background and replay the scenarios. It is a full-blown "realistic to the switch" simulator, with the two-dimensional graphics and lack off co-op (SAMs really need a team of people) the biggest draw back. Too bad ED and the guy behind SAM Simulator couldn't agree on the terms for inclusion into DCS. :(

@Solty: I don't understand the discussion. According to your own numbers, for every four 109 G-14 there was one 109 K. And those numbers discount the fact that production was ramping up rapidly, with 325 deliveries in december '44. What does numbers also don't show is the strength and composition of the Luftwaffe during 1944. You're acting like the Dora and Kurfurst was like the Me 163, or the Ta-152 even. Like Kurfurst wrote: The Kurfurst was by no means a rare bird.