firmek

This may be a bit off topic but I followed the advice to use static objects instead of real, AI disabled units. The problem though is that the static objects spawn on top of the structures. I assume it's a known issue or should I report it in bugs section? I guess the only workaround is to create a real AI-uncontrolled units in case of any covered parking spots.

Yeap, this is also what I found: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3383488&postcount=33

I agree that C-101 has a great potential. A lot of people are looking forward for a western trainer. The issue is that when I got the C-101 in December the EFM and CC variant were almost there, just after the next corner. After almost a half year I feel we're in the same spot.

[sarcastic mode on] On release as the changes go first to production version of the system and after some time are rolled back for to staging for testing. [sarcastic mode off] ;) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200724

Basically, if I get it correctly, from a performance perspective it's better to use the static aircrafts instead of the AI uncontrolled.

Common 12GB... please have a mercy...

I'm not following all of the news but the first posts clearly says the next in the plan after Harrier, MiG-19 and Tucano is the Mirage III. Which also makes sense from the perspective of recent news that RAZBAM is making a map, speculated to be the Falklands.

Snapshot from a live web cam of devs doing dev stuff while nerfing the AA fire :D

What I find insane is that 1070 for which I paid around 450$ a year ago now is in about the 650$ price range. Frankly speaking unless something is done with this insanely ballooned prices of GPU's I could not care less about any new releases. There has to be a limit of being reasonable and throwing away the money.

I'll most probably not be able to find a specific post on this topic but I was rather sure the accuracy of anti-air fire of armored vehicles has been reduced. Unless it's a placebo effect and I just got used to it and manage it it's nowhere a problem as it used to be. At least to the extent of applying some basic good practice like not overflying the targets.

It's usually not that easy to find such information. My general comments was related to the current state of DCS - in which we have the modern H variant of B-52. While I could imagine the MiG-15 fighting the B-52, it would be more probable to see it intercepted by MiG-21, 19 or even 17.

Sorry to be the one saying that but you had just experienced the less appealing side of DCS. Which is that as afar as the MiG-15 is a great module by itself there is almost zero content for it. You may try to look on the forum for the B-29 but the B-52, especially modern H variant which we have in DCS is way too fast for MiG-15 which was created in prop engine bombers era. Unfortunately MiG-15 is not the only module facing problems with a lack of content and AI units to simulate environment from its native era.

As far as you have a mission with two fighters starting in mid air heading straight on each other than maybe yes. Everything more complex beyound that are totally two different words. But I guess we're talking about a sturdy sim that is reflecting all of the apsects of flight, not only pushing the fire button.

It's sad to some extend that poeple bring down the differene betwen FC and full fidelity modules just to clickable cockpit. Kind of shows lack of respect and understanding to the hard work that devs are doing to research and implement fully simulated modules. It seems that those tousands of work that goes to implement different systems and sensors are not really recognized. Clickable cockpit is only a top of the iceberg. The whole aspect of Advanced Systems Modeling is missing in FC3. We're talking thinkgs like radar, radios, navigation systems. - How can you navigate without TACAN, ADF and other navigation equipment? - How do you react to changing situation, enter a mark points, new coordinates of the targets? How do you exectue any CAS, COIN mission properly under such conditions? - How do you navigate in multiplayer without possibility to create the flight plan? How about IMC flight without pre-loaded flight plan? - How to you want to communicate correctly without a simulated radio equipment? - Does a proper radar simulation not matter at all for you (I'm not talking about the screens but the sensors)? You're fine with a simplified, super all seeing radar target acquistion alghoritms? - How do you run a systems check prior to takeoff? - Doesn't a systems demage modeling matter to you? How do you work out about any failure and apply any emergency procedure? - How do you manage your countermeasures? - do you think that any of DLC campaigns for A-10C would be possible with the FC version of A-10? Should I go further. There is a whole world of systems and aviation that is missing or just implemented in extreamly simplified way in FC. Whatever you say and however pro you're with combat tactics in F-15, FC is arcade comparing to the full fidelity modules.

You actually almost anwsered your own question. Get the plane you llike and are thrilled about the most in reality. Also understand if you're more interested in the AA or AG. Then look how much content you get for it - stock campaign, DLC campaigns, user made missions. Since I have a few modules I can also share some opinion: Blue Team: A-10C. Module that defined the full fidelity simulation and DCS. Due to systems still after many years the most complex plane to learn. It also has the most of the additional content from all DCS modules, including paid DLC campaigns and free community made missions. Obviously extremely specialized - CAS, COIN focused. It's not really a strike plane. Minus: Nothing with the module coding. Texturing could get some refresh. As for the plane itself - soooo slow, not a "fun" of a plane to fly. M-2000C. Consider it mostly a fighter with some added AG capabilities. It comes with one of the best stock campaigns in DCS. Though there are still some issues and things that don't work it's overall in a quite good and solid shape. The best option currently if you're up for a modern fighter. To some extend it's also versatile. AJS-37 Viggen. Strike aircraft. Totally opposite to A-10C - which is good for long loitering and picking up the targets. AJS-37 philosophy is to fly fast over a pre-planed route to precisely execute a single strike and get back home as fast as possible. IMO the best quality art cockpit as for now in DCS. The only minus is not that much of a content available at the moment. The module itself is quite completed. F-5E. Nice small plain but unless you're crazy about F-5 don't get it as a priority. It's one if not the simplest jets in DCS. If you want a plane from that era get MiG-21 first as it's much more capable with more systems overall giving more bang for the $. Get it on the sales. Otherwise nothing wrong with the module itself though the radar could get some love to move it away from that paint/pong look. AV-8B. AG and CAS focused. More versatile than A-10C. IMO way too early in the development process unless you're great fan of it. Even in that case get it only if discounted. F-86F. Great plane with almost no content except of a great museum relic campaign. A bit more versatile than MiG-15 with more AG strike options. C-101 Aviojet. Lacks a professional flight model. At the moment don't get it unless extremely discounted. UH-1H. Unless you're a fan of it get Mi-8 first as it's more complex, capable and faster. Red Team: MiG-21 bis. I'm sure there will be people that will bring out some issues with the module but frankly speaking I love it. Judging by the popularity of the cold war server I'm not the only me. The only real issue is the stock campaign which is the weakest one from all DCS stock campaigns. The plane itself is actually quite advanced. It has front aspect attack capability, automatic sights, quite wide range of ordinance, night operations capability. IMO much better option than a simplistic F-5. L-39. Now this is a special one. Aazing little plane to fly around. Not so much capable when it comes to actual combat employment but don't underestimate its possibilities. If you're up into aviation, practicing the flight procedures, navigation, approach patterns, some of IFR, IMO it's the best plane in DCS. Not the fastest one but also a joy to fly. If you're up for a trainer, L-39 should be a priority buy. L-39 provides a great learning curve for MiG-21. Mi-8. I'm biased as it's my favorite module in DCS. Quite complex, amazing flight model, fast, pure fun to fly. IMO comes with most immersive campaign in DCS. Obviously preliminary a transport but can take quite a lot of ordinance. Ka-50. The only attack helicopter at the moment. Most of the fun comes from employing tactics rather than flying it. IMO quite opposite to Mi-8. MiG-15. As in case of sabre. Great plane with almost no content. However - F/A-18 is coming soon. Maybe it's worth to wait for it. Skip the FC3.

I may try it later on just for sake of testing but overall I'm rather against turning the page file off. It's not only used as an backup, additional memory in case hardware RAM runs out but also to allocate memory for non performance critical applications. In other words, even with a lot of hardware RAM it is generally not advised to turn the page file off.

Ordered RAM arrived today and I had an opportunity to do some simple tests. Starting DCS and joining a Blue Flag server with a clean booted Windows 10 and just the Track IR running. With 16 GB DCS loads for around 4 minutes, eventually showing only partially (not fully rendered) role selection table and finally failing by exiting back to main menu and staying unresponsive. No other option than just forcefully close the application. Memory RAM max / peak total commited - 12 GB / 22 GB With 32 GB During the first try DCS fails in similar way to join the BF server as in case of 16 GB RAM but now it exists back to main menu after around 5.5 minutes. Memory RAM max/peak total commited - 12.5 GB / 21 GB Second try - after the first crash, without restarting the PC. DCS loads role selection table in around 1 minute. The table screen is almost not responsive - FPS counter shows 1-2 FPS only. It takes around next 2 minutes to get into the cockpit and arrive to stable, normal FPS. Memory RAM max/peak total commited - 15 GB / 23 GB Conclusion. Non decisive at the moment but looking on the numbers 16 GB should have been enough for DCS to load. 32 GB didn't seem to solve the problem. I think the issue is also connected with loading time which may also depend on the internet connection. Or just the MP loading algorithm needs fine tuning. I had no issues while playing SP DLC campaigns with 16 GB. If that matters, I have 2 SSD drives - one is OS and swap file dedicated only, second used by DCS. GTX 1070.

If yes please think about some new concepts. In example: 1. Make the air war being a part of the ground conflict. We know that moving units are performance heavy but as the Persian Gulf map is expected to be less performance demanding maybe it's a good opportunity to look into bringing some of the ground conflict back. 2. Persian Gulf map has some nice big, fat strategical targets like oil refineries. Airbases don't have to be the most important targets. 3. Not all of targets have to be capture-enabled. Some could only be destroyable. Just secure them with tight defenses so it's not easy to take them out.

My ordered 16GB arrives tomorrow. I have 16 GB installed and no issues with SP but busy MP like Blue Flag in 9 out of 10 cases doesn't even load. I'll share the feedback if more RAM did actually help. If it matters - OS and swap file are on dedicated SSD, DCS on another SSD drive. Question though - and sorry as it had been asked billion times. Should the modules be deactivated before installing additional RAM?

Frankly speaking I see zero reasons for this topic. :doh::doh::doh: Firstly, ED had clearly communicated there will be no more FC modules - only full fidelity ones. Second, at the very start author closes the discussion with calling those that are agains the idea "elitist", also not givning any "none" option in the pool. Third is the basic failure to understand that the difference between the full fidelity module and FC ones is not the clickable cockpit. Or is it and programming the clickable switches takes 2-4 years?

Cmon... don't brake the party :gun_rifle:. Just in case you don't remember the old F-5 vide and "what is this F-18 doing there" : Again, consider MiG-29 officially confirmed :D

I'm probably late to the crowd but hell. Wags - about 9:59, Matt saying "Hello mr. Fulcrum". MiG-29 Confirmed!!! :yay:

Thanks Viktor. What you write perfecltly makes sense. I know exactly what you're talking about. Especially with a heavielly loaded helicopter, dropping the collective down and trying to regain the power afterwards can make for some "exciting" wild bronco ride like moments :)

When it comes to the original question - what is the best way to slow down without gaining the altitude? Unless dropping the collective to the floor, slowing down the Mi-8 in a straight flight takes a lot of space. Something around 2-3 km depending on the speed and altitude. And speaking about the altitude if I understand correctly before starting the approach and slowing down the altitude should be lowered to around 100m. What also helps (at least for me) is to follow the speed altitude rule from the rolling landing approach - maintaining speed 20 km/h more than the altitude. However the fastest way to slow down seems to be doing the 90 or 180 degree turn. Like on the video, starting at 1:50: A question regarding usage of collective during approach and landing. For some reason I remember that the collective shouldn't be dropped below 3 deg. I can't find however nothing in the manual. Is it a real rule or something I did invent?

I get the point - I mean that there are modules with a dedicated view.lua file (stored in DCS, module dedicated folder). I did actually use those files to copy the view settings into the server.lua file. However I still fail to understand what is exatly wrong as at least the head position, min/max FOV, 6DOF limits, view angles limitatios seem to work. Also the default FOV stored in the snap views file is applied correctly. The only module for which there is a special case is the Mi-8 where the max FOV can be set in the user options. In all of the other cases, including the MiG-21 thanks to using the server.lua stored in user folder I have exactly the same min/max FOV settings (and thanks to snapviews.lua the same default FOV).