Blackhawk NC

Tired to change those setting and it had no effect.

In the F-16, I cannot use a hat switch for antenna elevation because even a quick bump moves the elevation much too far. The scale of movement should be dialed back so effective control of the antenna elevation can be done smoothly and effectively using a hat switch. Neither a rotary nor a slider is available on my hotas so the buttons in the control menu must be used. The movements are just to quick!

SOLD!

Want to sale my Gigabyte Aorus RTX 2080 8gb graphics card. I upgraded and I no longer need it. Great shape! Asking $325 plus some shipping. Let me know if you are interested....

I have tw0 button boxes made with zero delay usb encoders......They work fine without coding, plug and play. You cant identify each individually so sometimes they get mixed up when i startup. But if you get a two player zero delay encoder you can connect up to 20 buttons without problems. At least i did..

Do you still have this?

We are a small squadron that is looking for a new home. We fly REDFOR aircraft and we are looking for a server operated by a Blufor squadron that would welcome some direct PVP opposition. We fly most evenings and are based on the east coast of the U.S. As DCS multiplayer servers are trending towards Blufor PVE, we have found ourselves without regular opponents. While some larger servers have PVP, they tend to be without a mission for the REDFOR. If you operate a BLUFOR server that runs missions the would include live REDFOR opposition, we would like to hear from you. We would welcome the competition. Message me! We are ~SCAR~ .........

Have you considered making a generic plate with generic labelling.......Like SW1...SW2...TGL1 TGL2? I have been looking for something like that. Like the Virpil is done.

Your server is interesting, but why is it PVE? No real REDFOR opponents. As a REDFOR pilot, I don't understand why PVE is so common. Isnt it more fun to fly against a real pilot on the other side?

But would you fly a sopwith camel against an f-22.... It would offer no fun value! and no fun, no reason to purchase new products from DCS. Or perhaps DCS should limit the updates to these production blocks to conform to the time period that is being simulated. I doubt and Viper would be a welcome addition in the channel map with the FW-190

All of the above are very good points! However this begs the question, is DCS going to continue to update the Blue side aircraft with more and more modern equipment? As they gain enough data to do so and the information becomes available to a point where it is reasonably reliable, where reasonable performance assumptions can be made based on available data, will DCS update the viper and the hornet to those more modern standards? Would that be like moving the actual production date of the simulated aircraft to later version? If they do that, won't it completely destroy ANY real PVP play? That was the original point of this thread..... At what point will DCS say that Blue side is so technologically far ahead of any opposition aircraft that it is a moot point to even develop OPFOR aircraft? AND ARE WE ALREADY THERE?

I am not sure about the version of the viper, f-16c block 50, but i think it entered service in the very early nineties. Our version of the Hornet, the f-18 lot 20, entered service in the late 1980's. The Aim-9 X and the AIM-120C entered service around 1996. In DCS World, we saw fit to advance the technology far enough so that we could use a very late model missile on two much older airframes. We also advanced them so that a helmet guided targeting system could be included, which I don't believe was originally part of these production runs (not sure though). Some of the various hang on systems were also developed well after this version was built. But we are comfortable with including these very handy, very advanced options in DCS. Shouldn't we limit the armaments to the weapons and systems available at the time of production instead of saying that "this aircraft got these improvements later anyway , we can pretty accurately simulate them and these Blue pilots will love this"? Perhaps we are simulating a "much later" production run of the f-16 and the f-18..... or perhaps the aircraft is after the air force wide modernization? My point is an SU-27 or a J-11 might be a very effective opponent for a production 1996 F-16c or a 1987 F-18c. I am not sure about the version of the viper, f-16c block 50, but i think it entered service in the very early nineties. Our version of the Hornet, the f-18 lot 20, entered service in the late 1980's. The Aim-9 X and the AIM-120C entered service around 1996. In DCS World, we saw fit to advance the technology far enough so that we could use a very late model missile on two much older airframes. We also advanced them so that a helmet guided targeting system could be included, which I don't believe was originally part of these production runs (not sure though). Some of the various hang on systems were also developed well after this version was built. But we are comfortable with including these very handy, very advanced options in DCS. Shouldn't we limit the armaments to the weapons and systems available at the time of production instead of saying that "this aircraft got these improvements later anyway , we can pretty accurately simulate them and these Blue pilots will love this"? Perhaps we are simulating a "much later" production run of the f-16 and the f-18..... or perhaps the aircraft is after the air force wide modernization? My point is an SU-27 or a J-11 might be a very effective opponent for a production 1996 F-16c or a 1987 F-18c. I am not sure about the version of the viper, f-16c block 50, but i think it entered service in the very early nineties. Our version of the Hornet, the f-18 lot 20, entered service in the late 1980's. The Aim-9 X and the AIM-120C entered service around 1996. In DCS World, we saw fit to advance the technology far enough so that we could use a very late model missile on two much older airframes. We also advanced them so that a helmet guided targeting system could be included, which I don't believe was originally part of these production runs (not sure though). Some of the various hang on systems were also developed well after this version was built. But we are comfortable with including these very handy, very advanced options in DCS. Shouldn't we limit the armaments to the weapons and systems available at the time of production instead of saying that "this aircraft got these improvements later anyway , we can pretty accurately simulate them and these Blue pilots will love this"? Perhaps we are simulating a "much later" production run of the f-16 and the f-18..... or perhaps the aircraft is after the air force wide modernization? My point is an SU-27 or a J-11 might be a very effective opponent for a production 1996 F-16c or a 1987 F-18c. sorry i didnt think it sent......LOL sent three times...

Is it just me or does it seem that DCS World is quickly becoming a PVE game? We continue to see development of more advanced and capable aircraft for the Blue side but never any newer aircraft for the Red side. When the Eurofighter is introduced, it will only add to the imbalance. We have now resorted to just letting some traditionally Blue aircraft ,like the Viper, fly on both sides. This has resulted in basically Hornets and Tomcats against Vipers. The JF-17, while very capable, is plagued by missile and avionic bugs that regularly spring up and are very slow to be corrected. The SD-10 is a newer more advanced missile but for some reason underperforms even aim-120b missiles in most encounters. Meanwhile the AIM-120c missiles seem to get regular performance improvements. The SU-27 doesn't even have a FOX 3 missile available. The J-11 carries R-77 missiles that can barely leave the rail before starting to slow down. The R-73 missiles outperform the R-77. With each new addition, DCS World becomes less and less enjoyable for players that like the Red Side aircraft. While the recently added Hind helicopter is fun to fly, it adds very little to the game. The Black Shark had many of the same capabilities. We constantly hear squawking about lack of information that prevents Red Side aircraft development, I feel that many logical ASSUMPTIONS about aircraft and weapons performance have been included in the development of Blue Side systems. Yet for some reason we can't cant hang an SD-10 or Chinese equivalent on mainstream J-11s and include them in most multiplayer Servers. We can't make player to player datalink work on the SU-27 or J-11. Those improvements would be less than authentic and we can't have that. We can't model an R-77 that is even slightly effective. But we can make the AIM-120c and the AIM-54 track golf ball size maneuvering targets from 100 miles away after the guiding aircraft has turned and fled. By the way, in real life combat, did the AIM-54 ever really kill a single fighter sized maneuvering target? I'm not so sure it did. Our Navy never did. I think they tried twice and both missiles missed their mark. So much for authenticity.... I"M JUST SAYING....

I am having trouble getting labels to work. I have double checked the gameplay settings but I don't get labels in single player or multiplayer when labels are allowed. I do get the neutral dot but nothing else. L Shift f2 and L Shift f10 make the dot go away but won't activate labels..... ANY IDEAS? I have tried both open beta and stable.... they are exactly the same!

Yes, I did believe that.... I see now that it operates differently from a normal modern compass. Makes more sense as to its behavior. Thanks!

I find it difficult to believe that the Germans could not make the compass on the BF-109 more responsive, or at least install a magnetic version. Just my opinion.....

I am new to the DORA, but when i am in a turning fight this aircraft easily becomes uncontrollable. Even at reasonable speed, 450 - 600 kph, it will depart flight and begin to roll and spin, usually to the left. I have been trying to figure out what i am doing wrong. I am a new warbirds pilot so I am sure it is my mistake, but the manual has been little help...What do you think I am doing wrong?

It does seem like they kinda just fly off into space......even when fired almost at no escape range...HHMMMmmm?

We are a small squadron of dedicated REDFOR pilots. We are looking for a new home since our last regular server began to concentrate on PVE instead of PVP. We currently fly JF-17, SU-27, J-11A, UH-1 and KA-50 aircraft. We only fly REDFOR. Our squadron name is ~SCAR~. We are not looking to join another squadron but we are looking for a new home with good competition in the PVP arena. My callsign is ~SCAR~ Blackhawk. If you are interested, please respond here and I will check back!

I fly the SU-27 and J-11 ALOT. It just seems much more sluggish. It may have started at this last update a few days ago. Seemed fine until then. Might just be me......

It seems that the su-27 and the j-11 have had the thrust levels changed ?.. they used to recover airspeed quickly during a turning fight especially if you lowered the nose. Now it seems they are no longer recovering that airspeed even in full AB with 10 to 20 degrees of nose low.... anyone else notice this?

It does appear that enemy aircraft are easier to spot at reasonable distances and overall appearance is significantly better. I didnt see anything mentioned in the update notes but i am sure all 4k users appreciate these improvements.