firmek

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.

Well if you want a good audio, when it comes to headphones or speakers dont go for computer hardware manufacturers like Logitech for instance. Second, get a good sound card like Sound BlasterX AE-5 or ZXR.

Where there any news regarding further Harrier variants? I might have missed them.

I'm with Boris. It's great that we're getting another map but at the same time we'll again end up with a fantasy world play ground rather than a compleate, comprehensive scenario simulation. How we can hope for a good show if all of the main actors: Sea Harrier, Super Etendards, Mirage III are missing. That's the issue with DCS. We get a great modules but are not able to achieve a theater simualtion. Think how much a better fit for current and future DCS a Norwegian-Barents sea map would be instead of the Falklands. As for community modules. C'mon, they are not the core od DCS nor should be a driving criteria for deciding which map should be implemented.

Congratulations to RAZBAM! It's one of the most anticipated planes in DCS. Instant buy for me and I'm sure many others as soon as it goes on pre-order. It also means that ED and Belsimtek must have their hands full otherwise I don't think they would let away such an icon. Heatblur must also have something big on the horizon after F-14. As for the schedule... I wouldn't however expect it ealier than 2'nd half of 2019. Which is fine with me, more time to get better with Harrier. Well, we had heard about "dedicated development teams" and how different parts of the modules can be completed independently on many various different occasions. Reality proved otherwise so let me and probably others remain so to say "sceptical". At least we'll get a pleasant surprise ;)

This is just amazing. I'm actually just now going through NAVAIR 00-80T-111 and was thinking how great it would to have FCLP area in DCS. Any chance we could get an LHA auxiliary landing field for Harrier pilots :D. Pretty please :thumbup: Google maps. Article

Untill now the only supprise is that after 10 days there is still no news.

Simple, whenever a mouse cursor is over a kneeboard allow to switch pages back/forth with a mouse wheel scroll.

If I would be buying the MiG-21 then maybe but as an owner of the module I certainly don't have to agree and accept negative changes. 1. The cockpit glass used to be in much better shape. At least when I bought it. 2. Fore-mostly as a DCS customer I expect some standard level of quality from implementation of modules. As far the canopy and visibility is concerned all of the modules except the MiG-21 provide the same experience. If MiG-21 developers insist on impacting core game-play features such as visibility I would vote for a post or petition to bring this problem to ED attention. Anyway, its not even the dirt which is the biggest problem. The crazy level of sun reflections are. Depending on the viewing and sun angle the glass looks like wet sanded with a 4000 grit paper. Just look how bit is the corona effect on first screenshot. The first two pictures - MiG-21 and F-5 taken at the same time of a day, same spot and same heading.

This is taking so much time I'm starting to believe:

I had been playing with the tankers recently and did get a really different and unconsistent results. The mission included two KC-130 and one S-3B. The issues were: 1. Unable to communicate with one of the KC-130. It just does not respond to radio comms. Others two are fine. I'm sure it's not a user problem - I can communicate with other tankers. 2. TACAN does not work with S-3B. 3. I've seen issues that although TACAN was setup with "Y" band I had to use "X" band in Harrier to get the signal. In other words TACAN Y75 - plane X75 was required to make it work. 4. In the same mission, in Harrier is able to receive a range and bearing to the KC-130 with an activated TACAN while Mirage shows only the bearing. I really got confused with all those issues. Sorry if those seem a noob questions but just to understand how to use the TACAN. Should the TACAN receiver be setup to T/R or A/A mode. I assume the A/A mode would require 63 channel separation in order to work correctly and would provide distance only.

Fully agree and also keeping fingers crossed for C-130. Developing one seems to have only onportunities without any drawbacks. It'll open DCS for wider public, a lot of current DCS community would welcome it with open hands plus it'll create new world of oportunities for mission designers. Actually not only. You may not be interested in even getting or flying one but still you'll benefit from it as the overall environment gets more interesting. Just to use the example of trainers in BF - not everyone has them, some actually dont want them but all benefit from having more complex environment to fly in.

You do realize its a video game not a full time job? Assuming 2000 working hours as an avarage per year you'll reach Lt Col in 9,6 months and Col in 19 months - assuming playing conctantly 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, no cigarate or lunch breaks included :P. Reaching 1000 hours in a single video game title is a lot. I mean really a lot.

+1 A few "usability" questions. In respect of how it's done with the real systems and delta to current implementation: 1. Is it possible to slave the TGP to other sensors - INS/DMT/IRMAV (in the same way as DMT slews to designaged wpt)? 2. Is there a HOTAS "shortcut" to switch to TGP page? I could sweare I had read about it in the NATOPS manual but can't find it right now 3. What does the SLAVE mode exactly do? Does it slave the DMT to the TGP? 4. How to reset the TGP position - the NWS button does not seem to do it properly. Not TPG related but I think I also read that the SSS Left cycles between the map center/decenter and the EW page. This was somewere in the EW chapter. Can't find it though.... I'll edit the post if I do.

Thank you for the poll. It's going to be really interesting to see the results. For me at least there is really no brainer - Open Beta since years now. Simply due to: - getting the modules on a release date - getting updates as soon as possible - no major - show stoppers issues through many years of running OB

It's my childhoot movie. I wanted to go to military flight academy after watching it :D As for the 2n'd part. Now I'm more grow up and see one big issue with this movie - Tom Cruise. The only way it could get worse is Ben Affleck.

So, it's a third day already. Can we get the news. Please?

I think its just a matter of RU icons enabled instead of NATO ones. They are much better for mission editing.