Foogle

It's very useful at creating asymmetric loads, I'll bet dimes to dollars that it will be minimally used until the PHIMAT comes along and balances it out. It does work fairly well as an ECM pod though.

Not getting into the F-15 debate (lol), but the F-35 gave the F-16 the run around after it's flight control limitations were released. Excerpt from https://www.keymilitary.com/article/out-shadows-0 which has become a premium site since I pulled the quote, sorry: "Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter manoeuvres (BFM) in an F-35. 'When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth-generation fighters. Remember, back the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn't really matter and that they would still easily outmanoeuvre us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least... High-G manoeuvring is fun, but having high fuel capacity and the ability to carry lots of stores is great too. During the weeks when we were flying BFM we also needed to drop a GBU-12 [laser-guided bomb] on the China Lake weapons range. Back in our F-16 days we'd have had to choose, since there is no way you can BFM with a bomb on your wing, let alone having the fuel to fly both missions in a single sortie. With the F-35, however, this isn't much of an issue. On one of the sorties, my colleague, Maj Pascal 'Smiley' Smaal, decided he would fly BFM and still have enough fuel to go to the range afterwards and drop his weapon. During the debrief, the adversary pilot told us he was confused as to why we went to the range after the fight. When 'Smiley' told him that he was carrying an inert GBU-12 the entire time and that he then dropped it afterwards during a test event, the silence on the other end of the line was golden'."

The preorder gives 24$ in savings, so they probably accidentally input the 30% discount as the price. It would be a very sneaky way to crash the servers if they did it on purpose.

The cost of developing a module is not small, and ED has numbers of how many copies of all modules are sold, and through that they can approximate how many will sell; so they can figure out how much the module should sell for to break even. If the Steam cut puts them below that threshold, then it's not financially reasonable to sell on that platform. That and, they already said when the module releases into EA, they will put it on steam with the standard 20% early access discount. So that breakpoint is somewhere between 49% (I messed up my earlier napkin math) and 56% of the retail price. The flight sim market is niche; no matter which way you cut it, there are only a finite number of people who will buy it. Selling at 1$ will never cover the cost to make the module.

RAZBAM refusing to sell you a module at a loss is now a cash grab and a middle finger. Sorry bud, but that's hilarious.

Do the other two engine aircraft have unique engine performance? I don't own any two engine modules, so I honestly don't know.

Valve takes a large margin, it wouldn't make sense to sell a module at 30% off on a store that takes 30%; a little math shows a return of 49% of the full price. My advice is to move to standalone, because you can bring any steam purchased modules over to the standalone client, which gives you 2 stores to buy from.

It's not a super dream version to want to fly a Suite 1 or something close. The module should cover as much of it's service as possible so we can cover as many scenarios as possible. If a mission maker wants a specific version, they should be able to restrict it to the one they want. Asking for less is honestly not cool.

EE will release with today's OB

Try a different target aircraft, the LUA files put the Mig-15 at a 0.25 IR emission coefficient , where the SU-25 is 0.7. Some quick non-AB numbers for you: F-16 0.6, F-5 0.4, JF-17 0.6, M2K 0.8, FW-190A8 0.1, F-18 0.75. You've picked the least IR detectable jet aircraft possible for your test, so it's no wonder it's so difficult to lock.

Tanks are "armaments" do a re-arm and they will be filled

Lie is a harsh term, but this forum is riddled with 'misremembered' bug reports. It's easy for someone to get hotheaded and post an exaggerated tale, only for a track/tacview to show what actually happened.

40nm is the draw limit of DCS, and with maxed out settings you can see units that far out.

All glidebombs can be targeted as they are considered "missiles", whether it's the LS-6, GB-6, or AGM-154. All freefall bombs; dumb or guided, are invisible to SAMs. It's just the way DCS divides the types of weapons. It's not a bug.

@uboatsis this correct? Is the LS-6-100 only laser homing? Why would it need a data cable if it doesn't have GPS/INS guidance

There are prototype and "test only" features on other aircraft; so long as it's not a fantasy feature, you're fine, thanks for the explanation.

Thank you for the small LS-6s in this patch! I noticed that we can double rack them, did the investigation turn up a data cable option for the racks? Also, I'm still hoping for the even smaller LS-6 50kg to be added. Thanks, you guys rock!

That's really too bad, an airbase on the far side of the sea would give land based aircraft (the majority of all modules) a chance to use the northern half of the map.

The wind will add a component to your velocity, which can pull your FPM to the side. The FPM button will Cage the flight path marker to the centre of the HUD. This is not a bug.

In your map outline you include the southern tip of Cyprus, will you include the Paphos and Akrotiri airbases in this map?

It's a quirk of the controls, TWS does not have a HOTAS control for AZ change.

Sorry, can you clarify this? Is the bearing supposed to be TDC -> WPT, or is it WPT -> TDC? The latter is the only one that make sense because it makes bullseye usable; but your post is ambiguous as to what ref has been fixed.

Fixed internally, just gotta wait for the next patch

At commercial airports with 60+ T/Os & landings per hour, and all the BS that comes with that, yes the continuous descent is the right choice. In a light to medium traffic airport, it makes little sense. Entering the pattern via overhead allows for the formation (we don't fight alone) to maintain cruising speeds the entire way to the airport, maintains flight cohesion right up to the break, and allows for visual contact with an airport that may be damaged without the knowledge of the flight. The USAF teaches the overhead for a reason. But to reply to your links, we don't fly commercial in DCS, maybe the C-130 will change that, but until then we should use fighter procedures, not airliner ones. Quick edit after fully reading the links: CDA is safer, faster, and more fuel efficient than non-CDA. The claims are only in relation to the earlier stepwise approach.