Shadow_1stVFW

Well... When you put it that way, it really makes sense. On a serious not though guys, in addition to the rudder, you want to put some aileron into the wind also. It really helps keep the aircraft level and counteract that crosswind.

The ADF panel is controlled by the pilot in the left seat. Same as the radios. This is not a bug, but a function of cockpit load sharing. Should work fine in single player Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Not sure where your information is from. But it's a matter of SOP. Your aircraft is going to be secured in at least one of three ways, the parking brake, chocks or it'll be chained down. At aircrew walk time, maintenance will start to break down the tie downs, start removing covers and pins and preparing the aircraft for flight. To varying degrees depending on location and SOP. (You'll stay chained, chocked with the brake set on an aircraft carrier until you're about to move for example. Or at an airfield you'll be chocked with the brake on) Like I said, it's all about SOP, whatever the squadron set. Seeing as chocks are not standard for ramp or hot starts in DCS (which I think they should be, by the way) the parking brake should be applied when entering the game. In my squadrons, our aircraft are always chocked and chained at night. By time we walk, the are only chocked. And it is SOP to set the parking brake prior to shutdown. And it will remain so unless it needs to be towed (maintenance obviously knows how to handle their own aircraft). At "strange fields" other than your home field, we instruct the linemen there not to tow the aircraft without up there so they don't ruin the hydraulics. But only in that case do we not set the parking brake, because they don't always listen. In fact, we use the parking brake extensively. Any time we are stopped, except for past a hold short line, JBD, or following an aborted take off (there we have a hot brake check before setting it). On another note, the talk about hot brakes following a landing. This is only really an issue in very hot climates (read summertime in El Centro, California. Look it up 120 degrees F). You won't see many fires though. We have fuse plugs on the tires. When the brakes get too hot the fuse plugs will pop, the tires will deflate slowly, keeping them from exploding. Source: I fly fighters Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I agree with you, should be standard to step into the cockpit. This might be visited when they correct the light gross weight parking brake roll bug. Or at least one might hope. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

The autopilot isn't perfect. You'll see deviations from the input paramenters. I think the effect is a little overdone, but not terribly so. You can help yourself out a bit by being very close to your desired autopilot holds and stable before engaging it. You will have to monitor the autopilot control input very closely while letting it fly. Especially during an approach. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I set my altimeter to field altitude to try and get the most realistic setting. I've seen what you're saying about the tankers being at different altitudes than I set. I always assumed they were operating off a QNE as given by the airfield they started from, which would zero their altimeter on deck there and be different from mine. Or some other value of they air started. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Multi player. Typo. But your computer talking to the server talking to their computer. Which is telling your computer what they are doing. Sometimes the system hiccups. Which causes lag. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

What you're experiencing is a part of the multi player experience. Your download is kind of low. You'll probably see this on busy servers a lot. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Thanks, it's good to know you listen to contructive feedback. Looking forward to #9. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

From Zeus Folks, we are aware of the problem. We have other stuff with higher priority that must be dealt with first. We will check this issue in due time. In the mean time, you can map the TDC slew to buttons to make it useable. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

It has nothing to do with "eliteness". I think you've missed the entire point of what I've been saying. My suggestions were actually based on the implimentation of the Blue Flag server. I'm actually more concerned about capability more than anything else. The driving force behind that train of thought was from Greg's post about the plans for round 9. Leaving the F-15 and F-5 against the rest of the fighters. The issue I take with that is if we go with that, red will possess multiple aircraft with high off boresight targeting and weapons. If you go back and read my post, my point was to equalize the field and provide an environment for the most modules to be used. That's what I'm saying. I also spend the time to justify those decisions. So take it or leave it. But no, I don't think less of anyone for what DCS module they like, or fly. So please don't suggest that. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

Well, nonsense adjustments to you, mission planning to me. To each his own. I spend a lot of time planning a sortie and coordinating to make sure it's successful. And I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to in an F-16. Let's say this, you disagree. That's fine. That's just like, your opinion, man. I don't like the FC3 airplanes, it's simple. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

So, I'll speak to the eagle, since I've spent some time in that module. The systems are simplified, such as the radar. One of the most powerful radars in a tactical aircraft can't do something as simple as expand the view to sort cantacts. Requires no time to align the navigation system. Sure, the flight model is done very well, and as I understand it, the rest of the FC3 modules have great flight modules. And that awesome. My issue being that they are out of place. FC3 is a decent platform by itself, but DCS world is moving away from that. BF is moving away from that. It is very "gamey" to log into a server, throw on some missile and be airborne 4 minutes later. And when you die, here you go doing the same thing in another 4 minutes. It might take me 25-30 minutes to get the A-10 and M-2000C airborne and ready to execute a mission. If you don't agree, that's okay. But in my opinion, BF is not the place for airquake. They've stated they are looking to foster communication and teamwork, and that's not airquake. And as for the SU-25, like I said, that recommendation is to maintain a simular capability for both sides. I'm not associated with BS. I'm just a member of the community who chose to voice my opinion. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

Very well written. I hadn't thought about curving the axis like this until now. Thanks for the idea. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

Of course they'd need different paint jobs, haha. And the only reason I'd say to take away some of the CBUs is because they are pretty much easy mode. Haha, don't get me wrong, I love them, use them all the time. But you don't need a CBU-97. And as for the GPS guided bombs. SU-25 has a lot of Vikhrs. So I'm all about laser guided bombs and mavericks. But you don't want to give too much ammo to people saying things aren't fair. And I agree the KA-50 should have all its weapons I know what you mean man, I agree. Was just a thought. But I don't like it either. Let the sharks be sharks haha. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

So, I had a few ideas that some friends and I have been bouncing around between ourselves that I thought we'd share with the community to help improve the blue flag experience. We've been flying since round two, so we've kind of watched the event evolve into what it is today. The first idea is to remove the FC3 aircraft outright. With the exception of the SU-25, and I'll explain that in the next point. But I'd say get rid of the FC3 aircraft because they are a huge point of contention. If you don't fly them, then you complain that they are too simple, provide a huge gap in capabilities and are too easy to get started and in the air. You might also feel like they contribute to a "gaming" atmosphere that I believe the guys at Buddy Spike are trying to avoid. If you do fly them, you are likely not too keen on spending the money or time involved in one of the fully simulated modules. While I understand this, I do feel like the benefits outweigh the cost in removing the FC3 airplanes from the server. Which brings me to force shaping and team balancing. These two point are all the rage on these forums, right? We are in a constant uproar about trying to balance the teams. Arguments stem around capabilities, numbers, time zones, everything. As stated, I think we should remove the FC3 aircraft, leaving us with a handful of modules that actually compliment each other quite well, and compliment the BF style of server. When placed side by side, you can create a very even force structure, for both teams, as I intend to point out. Red v Blue M2k vs M2k SU-25 vs A-10 (A/C) MIG-21 vs F-5 MIG-15 vs F-86 KA-50 vs SA-432 (all varients) MI-8 vs Huey and MI-8 Allow me to explain. M2k vs M2k: This will cap the capability of BF aircraft to the Mirage and will provide no unfair advantages. The aircraft is IFF capable and both teams can have an effective cap platform. SU-25 vs A-10 A/C: This will provide both teams with a very effective ground attack platform. Inclusion of the FC3 aircraft here is only to provide fairness, as not including the SU-25 would exclude the red team from having a very valuable asset. Including the A-10A allows for the simplicity of the SU-25 to be matched by the blue team, without overly negating the use of the A-10C. MIG-21 vs F-5 MIG-15 vs F-86: I'll talk about these in tandem. First of all, we have two classic line ups here, I'd call that fair. As for the argument about these aircraft against the mirages, good point. The 21 and 5 stand a fighting chance, the 15 and 86, maybe not so much. But that doesn't negate the possibility to fly these aircraft in an attack role. Combine that, with the earlier suggestion of adding different values to different kind of aircraft to influence use of that aircraft, I can see these four aircraft being flown more. I see them attack communication relays maybe. Definitely light attack. Maybe follow some A-10s to help close out an area. It can work. KA-50 vs SA-432: Not a fair match up, the Gazelle is definitely outgunned, out ranged, and much less effective as a single helicopter. But there isn't much that can be done about that. But it has an RWR and the Black shark doesn't. So there is that. MI-8 vs Huey and MI-8: I'm not sure everyone will agree with me here, but the way I see it, this kind of helps offset the inequality from the Black Shark and Gazelle. The huey is slower than the MI-8, though it is arguable better armed with AI door gunners. In an effort to help the blue side out, I'd vote to give the MI-8 to both teams. If for no other reason, if two helicopters leave from opposite teams to each other farps at least they can get there at the same time. I argued with myself to say, well, have the Blue team unable to arm their MI-8s, or something. But the MI-8 is the world's most popular military export helicopter and for good reason. I do think it should be available on both teams. As I said before, if nothing else, as to throw a bone to blue for the KA-50. As for weapons selection, this is another very contentious point in the community. And a lot of thought needs to be put into it to keep the game playable. For the helicopters: The only restriction I can think about is restrictions the KA-50 to unguided weapons, but I don't think KA-50 pilots would like that too much. I know I'd be pissed, it would help level the KA-50 to the Gazelle, but I'm not sure I like the idea. So over to the community. For the attack aircraft: To be fair, red team cannot have a SEAD capable weapon. Fact. I also would restrict use of the CBU-97 and 105. And GPS guided bombs. Leave the LGBs and all mavericks. I think that puts the A-10s and SU-25s roughly on the same level of effectiveness. Fighters: It pains me to say it, but the restriction on semi active radar guided missiles should remain in place. I don't think it's necessary, if I'm being honest, but I do think it pushes the fighters a few miles closer before weapons can be used, which will assist with all the visual fighters actually standing a fighting chance. But other than that, there isn't much to restrict here. I do believe that these suggestions would lead to a more balanced team distribution without huge gaps in capabilities providing an advantage to either side. Both teams have roughly the same number or aircraft they can fly, and the environment doesn't prohibit the effectiveness of any aircraft to a large degree. Sure, we exclude some of the community with the lack of FC3 aircraft, but you also are providing a much more equal playing field. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

It's pretty simple, you can enter an offset based on lat long, or bearing and distance from your current waypoint. And you can enter an altitude for your offset point. The answer you are looking for is very well described in the manual on the section about the INS system. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

Alright. Thank you very much Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I have been meaning to read about this. So the bullseye reference in the bottom of the radar display is distance and bearing TO the bullseye? And that's relative to the TDC cursor location also, correct? Is there a quick reference to the aircraft's bullseye location? Or is that just the readout on the PCN with relation to the bullseye WP? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

Makes sense now Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

It works for all waypoints. If you create or preload them the shortcut works. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

Mine has been showing a declination of +6 degrees Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

Alright, after doing some testing, I've come to this conclusion. In the Mirage level CCRP bomb release of a GBU-12 being lased will miss the target more than it will in a dive release. Last night a friend and I released probably 12 GBUs in a level delivery, none impacted the target. Today, I tried dive CCRP releases at around 20 degree dive angles and scored 4/4 hits with 75% kill (the first one I had a radio SNAFU and caused a missed) Track and TACVIEW attached. I'm just curious, guys that are having issues hitting the target, can you try dive releases and see if that buys you a better hit rate? TACVIEW TRACK

Shouldn't be significantly different. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Any word from ED if there will be an update this week? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk