firmek

Frankly speaking, if you have the F-18 and would like something else get the F-5 - just to experience an analog plane without the HUD and all helpers doing the job for the pilot.

I flew only the conventional landing mission so far but I have to say, amazing work! Really a positive surprise. Love the voice acting. For those that the trainer audio is too low -just increase the volume on the radio. One quick issue - the first mission has the view settings embedded. Edit: I just checked all the missions. Only the first one contains the view settings.

Turning down the music volume is so obvious is that I'm sure OP knows about it. The goal is different (think what not how). The idea is to have a possibility to play the music by default, so every time you're in DCS just to play a mission then have the music playing. However when while working on mission in a mission editor there should be a quick and easy way to have the music stopped. This could be a check box in the mission editor itself or a "play music in mission editor" option under audio tab. I'm sure ED could decide on the best.

Must have. F-104 should come with a "bribary" DLC as a early-access bonus ;)

You can't assign a cow to a country :doh: Cows are not a unit, they are intended to be used as a munition. SoonTM we'll be to load them up on the loadout screen.

I can confirm. The channels are listed in the kneeboard but I wasn't able to receive a RSBN signal.

Guys, you're taking it too literally. The whole point was to ilustrate something that should be obvious... it'll be long time before the display devices technology we'll reach a moment when a human eye is not able to not see a difference from a real world. The numbers had been just to picture the gap. We're looking on a game that is rendering graphics using a far away from natural algorithms. This already different from natural picture is displayed by a device which again is not even close to the real world image quality - extreamly small resolution, color space, dynamic contrast etc. I'm not even sure if people realize but most of the TN monitors are actually using 6 bit per color - 24 bit intstead of 32 bit color space (truncating the information from the graphics cart). And in reality, you don't have to be a pilot to understand the difference. Take any commercial flight as a passanger and see how much detail you can see loking down from 10 km or how far you can see. Computers are not even close to be there.

Just to give you an idea, roughtly: 27'' HD monitor: around 2M pixels, 81.59 PPI Human eye: around 576M pixels, 2190 PPI Do you still think the zoom is cheating. I could easielly do the math but I can bet that even with a max zoom you still get a lower PPI than a human eye has in reality. Stop comparing monitors to the real world.

It seems there is something wrong with how TACAN works with tankers. I had setup a tanker with an Y channel (lets say 12Y) but tested in plane using both X and Y bands, using all modes - receive, transmit and receive, AA receive and AA transmit and receive. - Y band set: bearing but without a distance is always received despite of the mode selected - X band set: receive and transmit receive modes don't work (no signal captured), AA receive returns bearing while A/A transmit receive both bearing and distance. I tried with several planes obtaining the same results which indicates it's rather a core DCS issue. Something is wrong, though I have to admit I'm so confused that I'm not exactly sure what. I assume X band should not work with tanker set to transmit on Y - those supposed to be a different frequencies. Reveive mode should only show the bearing while T/R also a distance but with the TACAN station mounted on the plane, should it work in REC-T/R mode or AA REC, AA T/R mode. I thought that the AA mode is to do the trick with 63 channel separation.

Its a common problem introduced by an update around end of May (look on known issues list). It's affecting all of the planes. Don't know but it looks a change had been made by ED which requires modules to align to get the interaction of external lights with cockpit right. It's not only the anti collision light but also other external lights - taxi lights from other planes, own position or even formation lights.

I'm not sure if it really matters - can't check in DCS right now but rather than AWACS select a tanker with a "Refueling" task.

I'm not really an expert but that was also a conclusion that I arrived to. The pattern in mission is purelly visual - that's why it's quite different when it comes to parameters from the one included in the manual. Even if you try to turn on a nav equipment when you're strating up the instructor will say to turn it off as it's an visual flight. Nice touch from the mission designers (no cheating in other words :D).

I have run into the same prolblem. Tested with different approach variants and configurations. RB-04 and RB-15, AI and non AI variant, using anti-ship task or/and engage group. Fully AI flights, flying with AI as a lead and as a wingmen. The generall conclusion was that the Viggen AI doesn't want to attack the ships with missiles. 1. Attack group. Does not work at all. Every time flight reaches the waypoint with attack group task assigned, it just turns and continues to the next waypoint. Doesn't mattter if its equipped with RB-04 or RB-15, AI or player version. Weapons set to auto. Just to test it, I coppied-paste exactly the same flight but changed the plane to A-10 with Mavs - worked perfectly as intendend. 2. Anti ship-role. Flight will sometimes attack but almost never from a far away distance. Rather that that, if it actually engages the fligh will first fly to the waypoint very close to the ships, turn arround and then fire the missiles from relativelly a close range. On top of that only flights equipped with RB-15 fired their missiles - actually both AI and player versions. Just that it seemed the AI version, AI fired from the further distance than the player ones. Overall: - RB-04 doesn't seem to work at all with AI (no mather the version AI or not) - RB-15 seems to work with AI (also no mather the version AI or not) but I had not luck to setup the flight to engage in a coordinaged way, as a group, from a far distance. - attack group where the group is ships doesn't seem to work at all with Viggen.

I agree. Kind of the ideas that you ask yourself why you didn't think about it before. The only issue I see is that in order to work the TACAN would have to be set to A/A mode.

On a really side note, maybe it's only me but the RAZBAM Terreain Team banner really reminds me the Falcon 4/Free Falcon style graphics :)

I wouldn't be so sure that F-5 is easier to learn. Yes it has much less systems, it's extreamly easy to operate the cockpit - do the startup, etc... This raw simplicity makes it however way much more difficult to master. Mirage is more advanced with more systems which obviously have to be learned how to interface with. On the other hand we're talking about pushing a buttons. When it comes to real application like for instance bombing, Mirage can do an automated CCIP while with F-5 you need to know and perfectly exectue a bombing table parameters. Being precise with bombing in F-5 requires a lot of practice and flight precission (starting run at the right altitude, approaching at correct angle and dropping the bomb at right altitude and speed). Bottom line, system whise Mirage will take a bit more time to learn (still it's really easy to do). When it comes to application, Mirage is way much easier to be effective with comparing to fully manual F-5.

AI can do the sling loading operations (which by the way can be seen on the screenshoot - it's an CH-47 AI model). So it isn't really an argument for CH-47. The argument for CH-47 could be it's a Boeing aircraft. F-15E has a big Boeing logo on it which isn't that a popular practice to have a manufacturer logo on the DCS module cover. I think it's only the Uh-1H which has it. Maybe RAZBAM has started a wider cooperation with Boeing.

Get the M-2000C. $ per content, F-5E is one of the simplest jet planes in DCS. Kind of like Sabre with a radar but without a SARH missiles capability. Don't consider F-5 as a priority if you're not a fan of the plane.

Maybe it's better to close this thread...

+1. Really looking forward to it. Not because of it's an F-14 as I'm not really a great fun of it but just bacause of the ammount of work, attention to details and innovative features like RIO AI. The only demotivating thing after watching this video and hearing a lot of great and intersting input is the fact that the main thing people take out from it is again disputing only about the phenix in MP "balance" and speculating on the new plane when this one is not even out yet :doh:

Consider L-39 before geting into the MiG-21. It provides a great progression, especially when it comes for the navigation but not only. Plus it's a great module on its own and comes with a great, Kursant campaign.

:thumbup:. There is always a discussion about the versions but in this specific situation, after a clear communication from RAZBAM there is really a little reason to insist on a different version. MLA actually also makes a lot of sense. There are however a flavors, different updates that even a specific versions has went throught where I think there is still a room for discussion. RWR is the main tool that helps to build the situational awarness. Take MiG-21 and F-5E as an example. It's a night and day difference. Yes, you're right. Conside that MiG-21 is also preliminary a high altitude intenceptor. The way how it's applied in DCS however is totally a different reality. At least in the multiplier missions its almost always low on deck approach ending up in a dog fights. Look on the most popular MiG-21/F-5E MP servers - if you're flying higher than 100-50m meters AGL in MP you're dead. In other words, if you want a samewhot realistic scenario for an interceptor - SP and mission editor are your friends. Still though you're left without a GCI. Geometry saves is you is just a small talk. It's like saying countermeasures are for poor pilots. In reality to use a geometry you need to have a good situational awareness and be in a good position with enough energy. This is maybe just a the the beggining of the fight long before the merge. Once the fight develops and situation gets messy the countermeasures is what saves your life.

Some really interesting information from Pngflyer. I don’t think we should be worried about material fatigue effects or the engine life time in the sim. As for the other quirks, well in real life they could have an immediate impact on the pilots’ life time expectancy. In sim they only make the plane more unique, interesting to learn and more engaging to master. I can only see positives of that. Otherwise I guess we would price A-10C for its flight characteristics which, well are obviously not exciting at all. Considering the SPO-15/10 discussion and countermeasures. They really will make a big difference. SPO-10 as we have it in MiG-21 is more or less useless. As for the countermeasures, why every single modern plane has them if they are so not needed and pilot should fight the missile geometry? C'mon... The version of RWR system and availability of countermeasures are a big thing that will define survivability and usability of the plane.

I'm sure we'll get plenty of time to enjoy the Tomcat before we'll be able to put our hands on MiG-23. Those are also two diferent beests so I could see flying both after release. However I feel a bit sorry for MiG-21 as I'm sure at least my flight hours in red team will go into MiG-23.