Volator

The gear lock is there to avoid accidentally retracting the landing gear when the aircraft is on the ground.

… und während sie solche Kurven zieht, steigt sie dann auch noch zunehmend.

I agree, these are HGU-55s used in the GAF from the late 80s on.

Interessant; habe ich in meiner fliegerischen Laufbahn bisher nie so erlebt, sicher auch aufgrund der im Artikel genannten besonderen, seltenen Situationen, unter denen Wirbelschleppen ein Faktor werden können, aber definitiv beachtenswert. Was ich schon hin und wieder erlebt habe, war das Durchfliegen der eigenen Verwirbelungen bei Vollkreisen oder beim Kunstflug, und das war nur ein kurzer, leichter Stoß und niemals auch nur annähernd am Kontrollverlust dran. Im Anflug in Landekonfiguration, langsam, bei Windstille, mag das natürlich anders aussehen.

B747 und A380 sind natürlich wake turbulence monster, das ist klar, und vielen hier wird sicher auch der Fall A380 vs. Challenger im Luftraum Mittlerer Osten bekannt sein. Deswegen haben sie ja auch die callsign-Ergänzung "heavy" bzw. "super". Man sieht aber in den obigen Videos auch, dass z.B. der A380 nicht 90° um die Längsachse gedreht wird wie ein fighter in DCS, so schlimm ist der Effekt auf den nachfolgenden Riesen also nicht. Und das Video mit dem chinesischen fighter vs. KC135 zeigt, dass letzterer nur ein wenig durch die wake turbulence des Chinesen bounced. Gravierend ist das nun wahrlich nicht. Eine Cessna 172 dreht keine andere C172 mit ihrer wake turbulence auf den Rücken, und ich vermute stark, dass eine F-16 auch keine andere F-16 auf den Rücken dreht, so wie es in DCS gerne mal passiert. Die einzig kritische Kombination in diesem Zusammenhang: Wir wissen alle, dass eine F-14 einen double engine flameout hat, wenn sie durch den Abgasstrahl einer anderen F-14 fliegt, dadurch aus einer Rollbewegung ins Flachtrudeln gerät und der RIO beim Ausschuss dann stirbt.

Definitiv!

Da dieser Yo-Yo wohl einer der ED FM-Hauptentwickler ist, findet der seine Arbeit naturgemäß immer super und correct-as-is. Kritik an FMs wird von ihm immer mit irgendwelchen mathematischen Formeln abgebügelt, bis dann hin und wieder nach ein paar Monaten ein kritisiertes FM plötzlich dann doch ohne Kommentar nachjustiert wird.

Couldn't agree more.

Oh, which Air Force, Naval or Army units were based there?

Since the Navy dudettes want some water to fly their missions from the boat, we will need the North Sea and the Baltic Sea in the simulated area, so the airbases we really want are: Wittmund, Jever, Oldenburg, Nordholz, Husum, Leck, Schleswig, Eggebek, Kiel, Laage, Ribnitz-Damgarten, Parow, Peenemünde... just to name a few. ... and Ahlhorn (along with the A28 highway strip), Diepholz, Wunstorf, Hopsten... and I forgot the German Army airbases, so Bueckeburg, Itzehoe and Rheine-Bentlage as well of course

I think this happens in some rare lighting conditions at dusk/dawn... I once had it too.

OK, here is one more post for more traction. It is an annoyance indeed. On a sidenote (and this has already been said in other posts), currently the callsigns for GCI always revert to "Axeman" in multiplayer, no matter what was set as callsign before.

JG-1 might be something for you:

Ah, sorry, I didn't see the "Easy Communication" part...

You must assign "Radio Button (radio call menu)" to a key/button, not "Communication menu"! Just tried some patterns at Gele, radio comms work without any problem in the Jak-52.

Since HB used a German F-4F to some extent as reference (at least according to the videos they released during development phase), it may well be that they included the German variant. Naturally, I like it

@SuperKermit TOViper basically described how we sometimes practice A2A in our squadron 1./JG71 "Richthofen", depending on the training mission. I see you're from Germany, so if you are "the right stuff", you might wanna check us out and get in touch with me. A fair warning, we are not for the casual sim pilot though.

Hi, does anybody have (older) non-RNAV IFR charts available for the Norwegian airbases? I have Navigraph, but it only offers modern (RNAV) approaches/SIDs/STARs and particularly no TACAN approaches that I'd be most interested in. "Simplates" seems to offer TACAN approach plates, but I'd like to avoid paying for a second product that probably has 99% similarity with Navigraph. I'd be interested in TACAN approach charts and non-RNAV SIDs/STARs for Bodo, Bardufoss and Andoya.

Amen to that. First procedure after every patch is this for me: Try it, it doesn't break integrity check and makes the FM plausible again.

I can only check on the older CBUs, the manual I have available does not include the CBU-87 as that weapon is too new for the manual. You are probably refererring to the latter one though as the in-game CBU-52s and BL755 do not offer any fuse options in DCS, right? So this might be of no interest to you: For the CBU-87 I only found this in a Chuck's guide for the F-15E (!): ... and Wikipedia says this: (Since my squadron is a Cold War Luftwaffe F-4 squadron, we do not use the CBU-87 and thus never came across this issue)

I don't know... what about this "sandbox" thing that DCS is supposed to be, where you can do whatever you want (except enjoying realistic, historical scenarios due to missing assets and maps ) I mean, there are four official trainers now, there is the Huey, there is the Hip, and all of them basically only offer you to fly around a little and fire a few shots. Sea King and Sea Lynx would offer the very same. I think I would love to fly my ass off in a Sea Lynx (or, a little less, in a Sea King) off a frigate in bad weather, simulate some VERTREP, some VIP transport, SAR, and shoot the door gun every now and then. Sure, ASW would be cool, but mostly for the operator I guess, not for the pilot, so I think naval helicopters already have a spot in DCS even without ASW.

Wow, that was impressive! I guess the cockpit crew didn't aim for the 1000ft marker but for the piano bars for a reason...

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/341440-post-gina-upcoming-module-speculation/#findComment-5363485

It's probably more than just management, but I don't know more than you, it's all just guesswork. Since TG has the SMEs, I think they are still paramount to the EF project, but they might have found out that programming and designing a DCS module takes a lot more than what TG could provide in a reasonable amount of time when HB has the resources and the experience, which might have lead to TG crawling under the hood of HB. Again, all guessworkonly. I do think however that it was a smart move for both teams to join forces.

I understood it more as a joint-venture between HB and TG. I don't think TG is "out" at all.