slug88

No you don't. The tracking mode has nothing to do with whether the laser/ir-pointer shines or not.

I'm pretty sure they've been in since the beta's.

In all likelihood you will not get playable performance with integrated graphics.

It's probably failing because of that "New Folder" at the end of your path. The path needs to point to the base of your install.

I agree with you here. I'm not saying the Iraqi's would've fared much better, I'm just saying that the delta in Iraqi tech to US tech was greater than the delta in Georgian tech to Russian tech. I agree with this and everything that followed, but none of it applies to the Iraqi airforce in GW1, because it was clearly not an effective airforce when going up against the US. As far as I know it was basically a non-factor in the overall war, which would've proceeded about the same if the Iraqi's didn't have a single fighter. In other words, both Russia and the US had the overwhelming air advantage, so I don't think the Iraqi fighters give them enough of an advantage over Georgia to make up for the rest of the Georgian TOE. However, this is obviously a complex topic, and not one that we're likely to resolve without completely hijacking this thread (and then some) :). Therefore I'll retract my original assertion that "Russia's most recent opponent, Georgia, was operating with arms of a comparatively more advanced tech level than any opponent a NATO member has fought," and assert instead that Russia has fought a fairly sophisticated opponent in Georgia, and in that conflict precision guided munitions were probably often preferable to aerial rockets :D.

True, the Iraqi air force in '91 had far greater capability than did the Georgian air force at any point in time. But I'm not directly comparing Iraq to Georgia, I'm comparing the difference in equipment between Iraq and the US to the difference in equipment between Georgia and Russia. In this sense, the dramatically outclassed Iraqi airforce isn't that much more impressive than the Georgian AF. In fact, though Georgia and Russia both flew Su-25's in the conflict, I believe the Georgian ones were more modernized. True, the Georgians lacked fighters, but in my mind this is easily offset by the rest of the Georgian TOE. Imagine if in GW1 the Iraqi's were flying A-10's, driving M1s, and shooting Hawks at the Americans.

I don't have the knowledge to definitively address which nation had superior arms on an absolute scale, but in terms of technology relative to their opponent, there's no doubt that Georgia was better equipped than Iraq.

I'd argue that Russia's most recent opponent, Georgia, was operating with arms of a comparatively more advanced tech level than any opponent a NATO member has fought since the inception of NATO. The equipment employed by the Georgian ground forces was comparable, if not superior, to that used by Russia in the conflict. Of course, that's only a single conflict and a recent one to boot, so its influence on Russian doctrine, if any, likely won't be visible to us for quite some time.

More advanced and better optimized graphics engine behind A-10C?

Yes, you can already achieve all that labels stuff with some minor editing of Labels.lua in DCS:WH, probably similar in BS and FC2. And I can confirm that your first wish is already implemented in WH.

But if that were the case, then this could be easily addressed by some modding, could it not? I thought the whole problem is that we don't even have a unique texture set, but rather a filter that gets applied over the regular textures.

Note that for PAC to work properly your airbrakes must be retracted.

I've seen it a few times as well. I think that's their default behavior.

Actually it should look much better than that; that shot shows the old Su-25 model from LOMAC/FC1.

If you want a nice looking Frogfoot, buy FC2. It's got a brand new very high quality model.

You need to set the nav source to EGI before you activate EAC. It's on the panel directly in front of the flight stick. New procedure as of 1.1.0.8.

There's a Free Download button. See attachment.

Woah now, what's this? First I've heard of it, care to expand? :) :)

Just to reiterate what ethereal said, dont is angle of attack, not speed. Yes this is normal. You have more authority to pull positive g's than negative g's. In fact, the aircraft doesn't do so well pulling sustained negative g's; I believe you can get engine flameouts due to loss of fuel pressure.

Username, what's your airspeed when you're doing all this? From your description it sounds like you just might not be giving it enough throttle.

I've asked for and recieved BDA from JTAC. It's usually something like, "two units destroyed, re-attack is authorized."

It's true that braking effectiveness is directly proportional to the force of friction between wheels and runway, and also that the strength of this force is partly determined by weight on wheels. However, I would've thought that at the speeds at which flaps are actually providing noticeable lift, the limiting factor to braking force would be the tire rubber's shear strength, rather than the normal force. Hence the anti-skid switch, which works by decreasing brake strength to ensure that the wheel rolls rather than slides; in effect it enforces an upper limit on the force of friction. Therefore I'd expect that the only effect of flaps on braking effectiveness would be the positive contribution of aerobraking. Of course, this is all pure intuition on my part so please correct me where I'm wrong :).

Why would you do this? It'll make you use even more runway..

Like Depth said, you can give yourself (and your wingmen) completely custom loadouts via the mission planner (not to be confused with the mission editor). You can also adjust your flightplan, view friendly assets, and view enemy assets as allowed by the mission designer.

I don't think that's right. Do you have a source on that? I seem to recall reading that the reason this mode isn't in WH is due to some complexity of the 3d cockpit, which makes it more difficult to implement than in BS.