Kirk66

Hi Reflected, Yep, that's my LS6-b; I've had it since 2001 and have put over 3000 hours in it - all over Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Illinois, etc. Nicest flying glider - although the LS4 is pretty close! To brag a bit - Being lazy and hating paperwork I claimed ALL my FAI badge legs through Diamonds in one flight in it - including Diamond Altitude in a thermal (!) over the Grand Canyon. Of course, in Arizona in May it really wasn't that hard ;^) - just mildly "irregular". If you are curious I could send you the .igc file. Back to the missions, and I apologize for being thick, but do I open it via the Campaigns option when I've selected the P-51? I see all the Normandy missions but not the bonus one on the Channel. I'll look again, it's probably me. Anyway, thankyou for the great missions - I really love the atmosphere in them. I do wish a few of them had the player as a wingman so I could tag along practicing formation flying and watching the war go on (I'm retired Air Force and formation flying is something I really miss in the civilian flying I do nowadays - mainly gliding and as a tow pilot in Pawnees). Cheers! Vulture (in a previous life in F-4s) or 66 (in my LS6)

Hi Reflected, question: how do I find the Bonus mission? I have the P-51 and both Channel and Normandy maps, have tried some of the Normandy missions but just now getting back into DCS - and looking for the Bonus mission I couldn't find it. I'm pretty new to campaigns, where should I look for it? Also, do I need to progress through each mission in order, or can they be flown in any order? Again, I'm really new at this campaign stuff... ;^) OK, so I found your FAQ and am a little smarter (maybe) - so I assume the bonus mission becomes available after progressing through all the original Normandy missions? Cheers, Vulture

This may be an obvious answer, but if you mean 8020 profiles, MonsterTech has an aluminum plate designed for the TM WH throttle. At a cost, of course... Vulture

"Interestingly the control column with the roll axis half way up carried over to some jets too! Take a look at a cockpit photo of a Jet Provost, I wonder what the advantage of this control design was?" Keeps your legs from interfering with aileron control when a lot of stick deflection is needed - not uncommon in unboosted controls. For a more modern example, check out the cockpit of an OV-10. Have never flown a Spit or Mossie, but have a bit of stick time in the Bronco and it works great. Vulture

Every military Mode 1 I've seen/used has been 00 to 73. Newer ones can handle 0000 - 7777. My guess is the Huey is wrong. Vulture

Been thinking about this myself. This could be tied to your current hardware setup, and allow preconfiguring all the "standard" controls and axes so that a new module could be flown right away. Perhaps we should propose a list of common, standard controls to be part of this? For example (just off the top of my head): Input devices: Warthog stick/F-16 grip, Warthog throttle, TPR rudders Axes: Pitch, Roll, Yaw, Brakes, Throttles, Prop pitch Buttons: Trim (pitch, roll, yaw), speed brakes, comms, TDC, gear, flaps. Additional personal preference "common" controls for zoom, VR reset, views, modifiers, etc. There are already generic controls (service controls, VR, modifiers) that apply to all modules; perhaps put common control in that list? Say add a check box to each control to add it to the "Common" controls so it carries across all modules - and if you want it to be unique (curves, perhaps) then uncheck the box? Vulture

Ok, I did some work on my wifi router and improved my download speed, and now have successfully downloaded and updated both my stable and beta editions of DCS. No other changes. Good enough for me - now to play a bit. Cheers, Vulture

Have tried updating both stable and beta at least twice, and they all end up stuck the same way. Game works fine, just cannot complete an update. Vulture

Recently, when trying to update both my basic DCS and my Beta install using DCS updated 2.10.6.63, I get a "Curl Error (6): Couldn't Resolve Host Name when trying to update DCS" near the end of the download. Autoupdate log attached. Have not had any problems previously with same hardware/software configuration; however my download speed has been very slow lately (around 1.5mps most of the time - ugh) and I wonder if that is the problem. Cheers, Vulture autoupdate_log.txt

Beautifully put, and I totally agree. Merry Christmas!

Dont know about the Tomcat, but on the F-4 (which also has a yaw string) there was a hole on the top of the plane, and inside the nose a place on a bulkhead to tie off the string. USAF paintscheme usually has a contrasting line on the top so you could see the string easily. Pretty much only time the string was present was when you picked up a new jet right out of depot; after it wore off it was rarely replaced (in slatted E models, that were not as sensitive to yaw as the the hardwings). OT, but if you check out 1-300's youtube channel you can see some excellent video of JASDAF hardwing EJs (including the last F-4 built - sn 440) with nice loooong yawstrings attached. Vulture

Block 50 is not compatible with Lantirn TF system; only the Block 40s had the necessary WFOV HUD that can display the Nav Flir video and TF symbology. Classmate of mine from the zoo was killed in a Block 40 doing night low level LGB deliveries with the Lantirn system. Having a few flights in Block 40s (including a night TF low level to the range and direct pops - from the pit no less) I can tell you it was pretty challenging! AF finally decided it was just too dangerous for a single seat fighter and dropped it. Vulture

Well, the F-4 does just fine with both ailerons and spoilers; and at high angles of attack, you HAD to use the rudder to roll (cuz using the ailerons would result in a departure!)...and a somewhat "dense" forward view. As long as the final result works... Vulture

Not weird at all. Zuni is a US Navy/Marines weapon, not used by any USAF aircraft.

I rarely do, unless it's something interesting, like a Huey or a P-51. Jets are boring to start, and aligning an INS? Not likely! I did that for 10 years in the real thing and it was never the high point of a flight, trust me. Guess what, real military sims, that are even more expensive and detailed than DCS (although it's getting closer...) often start missions engines & systems running, or in the air, etc. It all depends on what you are trying to do. Starting engines for the sake of starting engines can be fun but can also be a waste of time when you have to fit specific training goals into a limited time slot. I like DCS for the flying. If you like it for the engine starts, good on you; but enough of the dissing of those who have a different way to enjoy this great sim/game/money pit! Vulture

We played with both Brit Harriers (the early ones) and Marines, and never did anyone use VIFFing - it's a cool trick but really? As far as getting into a turning fight with a Tomcat - yeah, if an F-4 driver was dumb enough to do that he was toast. So don't do it! ACM is fun and all, but real world is really about SA and tactics (and cheating). So yes, a Tomcat will be all over a Harrier in a "dogfight", but if you can get the Harrier into the fight unobserved while the Tomcat is drooling over a kill on a bugging out F-4, it can make for some nice gun tracking film of a Tomcat getting it's brains gunned out! All fun stuff that made Friday night in the o'club fun. Vulture

Just a little personal anecdote - back when I was actively flying in F-4Es we didn't worry too much about F-14s as long as we were AIM-7 v AIM-7. Tactics and crew experience were more important. Plus it was nice fighting something that was easier to see (on radar and visually) than the F-4! On occasion we would team up with Marine AV-8Cs to beat up on poor Tomcats coming off a cruise - that was almost like clubbing baby seals...again, all about tactics and being sneaky. As far as it being a more combat effective aircraft than the F-15? One of the two is still in production. It's not the Tomcat... Still a cool jet, though. Vulture

Hmm, I fly with a TMWH, stiff (blue) spring, 15cm extension. 100 % on all the axes. Gazelle flies just fine - it's not a Huey, but when I compare my stick movement to what is going on in the cockpit it seems to match up pretty close. No problem lifting up to a stable hover, taxi, translation, etc. And I'm a retired F-4 WSO, not a helo driver... Sure, you can't slam the stick around - but I've got a feeling that's how the real thing flies. Vulture

Some interesting facts about P-47 vs P-51 escort ranges in the ETO. What you read isn't always what really happened! Vulture

I fly F-15E sims for a living (test engineer) and you can relax about not having a WSO - you can do 99% of the system actions from the front seat - but the HOTAS does get a bit complicated! Or jump in the pit and put the jet on A/P and work the systems from there - easier for air-to-ground but you will need a HOTAS stick (left and right hand controller, to be exact) for each hand, plus stick and throttles, so it gets busy there too if you are trying to fly and work the systems at the same time. You still need to be in the front for gear, flaps, master mode and master arm, but landing from the back is fun once configured. LANTIRN or SNIPER? Sniper is sooooo much better! Vulture

Sorry if this has already been mentioned earlier, but functionally there is NO difference between the old and new UFCs. It just replaces the display part, not the actual switches. It is not a fancy touchscreen controller like the Superbug's, or have any other function than displaying numbers, letters, and characters in fixed locations. Basically, they replaced LEDs with LCDs. Vulture

Without digging out my reference books I would bet the Lightning has better legs than the Mig-21, yet that seems to be popular... And I TOTALLY agree with focusing on Gen 3/4 jets; glass cockpits are boring. Plus you can jump into any one of them and know how most of the kit works right off the bat! Now, how about an A-1H/T-28D/OV-10/F-100/HH-3/O-1G set with a Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand map... Vulture

Actually, a lot of work being done on MR for military sims; think taking a full up dome sim and getting rid of the domes but keeping the cockpit. Pilot jumps in, puts on his helmet, and instead of the HMD he uses in the jet he puts on an MR visor - and now he can fly anywhere while still having access to his real cockpit controls, charts, checklists, etc. Interestingly, I actually was involved in testing an early example of this concept (MR: Merged Reality) back in 1993 (!) that used fiber optics and a heavy helmet with see-through lenses, in a Luftwaffe Tornado simulator (mounted on a 6-DOF platform, to boot!). It was (for the time, compared to other available technologies) really impressive, but the helmets were really uncomfortable and stupidly expensive. It does feel odd when you hold up your arm above the canopy rail and it disappears... Vulture

Anyone interested in where VR is going in flight sims should google USAF Pilot Next Training; they are going heavy into VR for flight training - and right now it's all pretty much gamer-level hardware. Vulture

A compass controller? What is this, the 90s? I want Suite 9, ADCP2, APG-82, JHMCS, SNIPER SE...oh, sorry, never mind... Vulture