Andrew8604

I use similar curves on pitch and roll axes on all my DCS aircraft. Just my preference. Seems easier to fly steady and in formation like that. Others insist, "Oh, no-no-no, you must keep linear. Using a curve is a crutch". I ignore them. :) I only add a curve. About 17 to 25 in both pitch and roll. Sometimes I put a slight curve on wheel brake response, too. Whatever feels right to me for the aircraft. In the image here, the pitch axis appears 'truncated'. I wouldn't do that. I'd keep it full throw capable. Just the response curve to where near center, the response is less. I think this is making up for our "short" joysticks with spring resistance. I think most real aircraft have longer sticks that are mechanically connected to a hydraulic input system or cables and/or push rods and levers. Like doodenkoff said, here, a balance of trim and power. Often I'll set a desired power setting and chase level flight with the trim, gradually smoothing out to the right trim for the right airspeed for a given power setting. Whether you hold trim and adjust power or hold power and adjust trim, it should eventually dampen out. If you are adjusting both, you're probably chasing it all over the sky. And flying in formation is constant work of fine adjustments. Also, I think it helps to have something like the Thrustmaster Warthog which uses Hall effect sensors and has no 'flutter' or 'noise'. When I let go of the stick, it always reads a steady 0 on the X and Y axes (or if not zero, a steady, consistent number). Plus it has something like 16,000 points of resolution which seems to allow for very fine control inputs. There may be some other quality joysticks that do this, too. But those that use potentiometers instead of Hall effect are noisy and low resolution...like only 512 or 1024 points of resolution. Then you need to add 'dead' zone to cover the 'noise' of a centered stick (noisy pot). However, if the stick (pot) is noisy at center, it's probably noisy at all other points, too. If you often see flight control surfaces, or the stick, slightly fluttering when you aren't touching it, your stick probably has potentiometers. Real aircraft have approximately infinite points of resolution. The pitch trim on the L-39C seems maybe slightly too coarse. Might need more points of resolution, or a slower response speed. Then again, the real flight controls of a real aircraft aren't always that "self-zeroing". I had trouble holding altitude in a real Cessna 150, too. While my flight instructor seemed to have "the perfect touch". Just practice and experience. Keep working at it and remember to relax your grip of you are too tense. :) Hope that helps. And on pretty much all DCS modules, it seems like once you touch the roll trim, you can never get it back to a perfect center. Always causes you to hold slight control pressure either left or right for the rest of the mission. That's my experience.

Agreed: Remove those reflections mentioned. May have been a reasonable effect in 2D. But in the 3D world of VR, looks like an image etched or printed on the sight reflector glass plate. Fun flying this jet.

BUMMER! I only just became aware of this project...now over a year on long-term, indefinite-sounding hold. :( Like...I don't ever expect to see it. I would have paid $60+ for this plane...hint, hint, ED and other 3rd parties!! Skyraiders typically carried 4 times the ordnance load of F4U-4 Corsairs or P-51D's, BTW. A-1H Skyraiders actually shot down 2 MiG-17's over Vietnam in 1965 & 66...in the right situations, I suppose. MiG-17's shot down plenty of F-4 Phantoms and such, though. AD-1 = (A-1A) AD-1Q (2-seat, radar countermeasures) AD-2 = (A-1B) AD-2Q (2-seat) AD-3 = (A-1C) AD-3N (3-seat, night attack) AD-3Q (2-seat) AD-3W (3-seat, airborne early-warning, belly radome) AD-4 = (A-1D) - now with autopilot AD-4B (1-seat, now four 20mm cannon and ability to carry tactical nukes) AD-4N (3-seat) AD-4Q (2-seat) AD-4W (3-seat, belly radome) ---all aircraft AD-1 thru AD-4 were out of service before 1962, when AD-5 and later versions were renamed to various A-1 Skyraiders ---- AD-5 = A-1E (the big-cockpit Skyraiders -- originally to have been for anti-submarine) --- A-1E's came with conversion kits to allow them to be 12-seat transports, cargo or air ambulance. AD-5N = A-1G AD-5Q = EA-1F (were from 54 modified AD-5N's) AD-5W = EA-1E (with belly radome) AD-6 = A-1H (1-seat, was an AD-4B with LABS and jettisonable canopy, plus new bomb racks). AD-7 = A-1J (1-seat, AD-6 with more powerful R-3350-26WB engine and stronger gear -- final version) Seems like when whoever makes the A-1H, they might as well concurrently make the AD-4B for Korean era and the A-1E to go with the A-1H for Vietnam era. A-1E would be an extensively different plane, though. And if an A-1E, might as well make at least an EA-1E as an AI version for Airborne Early Warning and Control.

One of my dreams about WWII-era flying, too. Inspired by old movies like, "Air Force" (1943). Although, I had never heard of the YE-ZB until now. B-17's, PBY's and other patrol aircraft going out several hundreds of miles to sea in search of enemy ships. The navigator's desk and radio operator's station aboard these larger planes. So far not a part of DCS's short-range tactical air combat. I think HF radio would be interesting in DCS, and MW and SW radio. If there could be a radio spectrum simulation associated with scenery maps where broadcast stations of the era could be received with realistic attenuation and interference from various sources, such as thunderstorms and ionosphere. I imagine being able to tune in vintage radio programs and vintage music while flying in the DCS map (ability to load your own mp3 files and have them sound like they are coming over the airwaves from long distance). Would one be able to tune in broadcasts from Hawaii or Australia from locations like the Mariannas or the Solomons? And that's not to mention sending and receiving key coded radio messages. I don't think they used Morse code, but we could use that, as well as an optional Morse code to text and text-to-code conversion tool in-game. Sometimes interference would make the coded message difficult to receive where only a partial message could be understood. And so forth. That would really help with immersion in the sim/game, especially on long flights over the Pacific. Imagine being able to send a key-coded message from a patrol aircraft on location of enemy ships, and then AI carrier battle group would "understand" message and launch planes on an airstrike. Way beyond the short attention span of most DCS players, I know, but it's a cool dream, I think...if we are entertaining the idea of WWII aviation at all.

What really is the maximum size of a map in DCS? What are the limits that restrict map size? Is it total gigabytes of the files for the map? If that were the case, couldn't vast areas of open Pacific Ocean be included in a map...I mean, if it's just water? Or, is it coordinate system limit? Are the maps all "Flat Earthed"? When they get so big, curvature of the Earth must be factored in, in order to allow for "great circle" routes? (Let's not start the flat earth argument here, ha ha). Because I would like to see a South Pacific map...Guadalcanal to Rabaul. This is really where all the air-to-air battles, other than Midway (which preceded it) took place. I have been reading about the Battle of Rabaul. The Allies worked their way along the Solomons (losing a number of ships along the way) and then took airfields all around Rabaul to surround it and cut it off from resupply...and then began bombing it. But I don't think it was ever invaded. It was cut off, made ineffective and bypassed. I believe it was surrendered to the Australians at the end of the war. Rabaul was Imperial Japan's Southern fortress. Probably analogous to America's Pearl Harbor. Although, they also had Truk. The air battles after this, such as the Great Mariannas Turkey Shoot were mostly one sided. The Battle of the Philippine Sea (Turkey Shoot) was probably the largest naval battle in history is terms of number of ships (and number of capital ships) involved but was fought all by aircraft (and submarines). Anyway, that was north of the equator, southwest of Guam and Saipan. Now, in DCS, in my experience, we seldom re-enact battles in history. We seldom seem to have the right aircraft and other resources at the right locations to do that. But rather, I think we usually conduct fragments of battles in a realistic 'spirit' of history. A South Pacific map would allow "sandbox" battles all along the area, and/or just flying and navigating unfamiliar and far away places in history, hopefully configurable as the way they were at that time (1943-44, for example) or in more current time.

Awesome! You've grouped them all together. Yes, a Vietnam map I would consider thee ULTIMATE map in DCS. (although, I suppose some others wouldn't) The MIG-21bis...close enough, just restrict the missiles used (player's discretion). F-5E-3...close enough. MIG-19P...close enough. If an F-8E or F-8J gets made, excellent! An F-4E would be close enough, although I would prefer the F-4B and the very similar F-4C/D. The F-105D, F-100D and MIG-17 would be important as well as a full version of the A-4E Skyhawk. For helos: I think UH-1H is close enough. Add the OH-6A (Hughes 500C), AH-1G Cobra, the CH-46D and the CH-47A. Vietnam really has two, almost separate eras. The Rolling Thunder era of 1965 to 68 and the Linebacker I & II era of 1972, which was mostly about the B-52's in December of '72. And they are further divided into the US Air Force aircraft and the US Navy/Marine Corps aircraft. The NVAF can pretty much be grouped into one, I think...MIG 17's, -19's and -21's. For Rolling Thunder, the USAF mainly used F-105D's for daytime strikes on Route Pack VI (from Korat and Takhli Thai AB's) and F-4C & D Phantoms for CAP (from Ubon and Udorn Thai AB's). The Navy used A-4E Skyhawks for day strike and F-8E's and F-4B's for CAP and the A-6A went in pretty much alone for low-level night strikes, I believe, in their portion of Route Pack VI. That's where I'd say the main concentration of a Vietnam map should initially focus: North Vietnam, Laos and Thailand, and off shore into Tonkin Gulf. That's still a big area, but more of a NE-SW corridor between central-west Thailand and Route Pack VI North Vietnam. The terrain is mostly solid trees. Less infrastructure than on the Normandy map, I think. Another big factor was towering cumulus clouds and thunderstorms. Such clouds are sorely missing from DCS.

Nevada map should be expanded to include China Lake Naval Weapons Center and NAS Fallon air bases. They are within the map now, but only as lower res satellite imagery. Make them fully detailed like Nellis AFB and Creech AFB. Also, it would be nice to have Edwards AFB and its dry lake bed runways, for fun. Such a historic place. Mojave Airport, Inyokern Airport and Bicycle Lake Airport would be nice additions, too, in California. As for expanding the boundaries of this Test and Training Range map, extend to the north east to include the Utah Test Range, all the way to Hill AFB and the Salt Lake City Area. This would include Dugway Proving Grounds and the smaller Wendover, Ely and Elko airports. It's about 325NM from Hill AFB to Nellis AFB as well as to NAS Fallon, and about 260NM between Fallon and Nellis. This would make a nice sized area for longer range missions. China Lake is just 135NM west-southwest of Nellis, and a nice, long 423NM from Hill AFB. As for the San Diego and Los Angeles areas: Make them a separate map called the SoCal Map, to include MCAS Miramar, NAS North Island, MCAS Camp Pendleton and NAS Pt Mugu and the Pacific Missile Test Center range (PMTC) that extends into the Pacific ocean, including the Channel Islands, Catalina Island, San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Islands. Include some 300 or 400NM out into the Pacific Ocean. Then, if possible, make a flyable transition corridor between the SoCal map and the Nevada map. Do not bother with the detailing of every house in the Los Angeles basin to San Diego megopolis. Too much. Just make it a good resolution satellite image. Main object is military bases and training ranges, I think.

I've had CA for a couple years. Had loads of fun driving around Nevada roads with it and setting up little convoy and air defense missions with it, in 2D. Then I got more into flying the aircraft. 2 months ago, I made the switch to VR with Rift S. Since then, I've flown the A-4E and F-18 a few hours each...it's great! Then I tried the Huey. So much fun, I've done nothing but Huey flying since. Now, I got the idea of trying to man the guns on the Samuel Chase in VR using CA. Figuring that in 3D it might be a bit easier to aim the guns. Oh my gosh! It's unusable! It's screwed up. The terrain/scenery/the VR world moves with your head movement when it should stay put. But a HUD-like gun sight stays put, instead. Causes dizziness/motion sickness. Press 'B' for binoculars and you have a proper view with 'fixed' scenery where you can look around freely and comfortably, but the binocular frame is fixed and its function is useless. Also, it placed my position somewhere around the tops of the masts of the ship. There is some good potential of fun operating various gun mounts on the ships for WWII air defense scenarios. I believe many of the US ships' larger AA gun mounts had "directors". I believe a twin or quad 40mm mount was aimed by a detached 'director' mount, it was slaved to the director. The 5"/38 guns could be slaved to a radar director mount. The Samuel Chase does not have these, but it appears to have 50-cal machine guns in place of what I think should be director positions for the twin 40mm mount(s). Lookin at real photos of USS Samuel Chase APA-26, it had a twin 40mm mount on the bow and stern, with 3-inch mounts to each side. Each 40mm mount had a single director above and behind it. The rest of the guns appeared to be twin 20mm mounts in various location. More impressive would be the AI hoisting landing craft over the side to embark and transport the Marines for amphibious assault ashore. If only someone would make a set of US Navy WWII fast-carrier battle group ships. A Fletcher-class (or similar) destroyer, a Cleveland-class light cruiser, a North Carolina- and/or South Dakota-class battleship (ironically the main air defense units of these battle groups), and an Essex- and/or Yorktown-class aircraft carrier. The fast-carrier battle groups would go 25 to 30 knots and deliver the airstrikes. The escort carriers and old, slow battleships (West Virginia, California, Nevada, etc.) escorted the amphibious battle group ships, like the Samuel Chase and LST's, and provided shore bombardment and fire support.

Penalty for getting shot down or crashing...for destroying the aircraft...you have to pay ED $5 to re-activate your module license! LOL Then they make more money to make more aircraft, ground vehicles and ships. I really like the Search and Rescue idea. By searching for this idea in the forum is how I came upon this thread. I've been flying the Huey a lot recently, because I like how everything looks at low-level using my new Rift S VR headset (before that I had been using Track IR and a 2D monitor). I set up a mission where I fly a Huey from ship to shore with 3 flights of 4 other Huey's to all land at an airfield in northern France (Normandy map). Then I set up a flight of 4 AI-controlled F-4E Phantom II's to provide mock close air support by rocket or bomb attacks to points in a tree line. The AI usually manages to crash or run out of fuel in at least one of the F-4's. When the pilots eject, I race on over there in the Huey to try to land near the pilots to pick them up. Anywhere from about 1 to 7 miles away. I didn't plan the mission that way. I just stumbled on the idea when I saw jet go down and 2 parachute in the air. It would be cool to actually be able to pick them up...or to have a helicopter like a Jolly Green (HH-3) or SH-60 or even HO3S-1 (Korea) with winch and cable to lower a basket or collar to lift the pilot out of the jungle or out of the water. Some times I have to search for a long time using a search pattern to finally find those tiny pilots. Radio, beacon or smoke would help immensely.

Day-umm!! Ha ha ha. I wanna see pictures of the F-18, A-4E-C, A-10C, AV-8B, F-5E, Mirage 2000 and the Viggen...but NOT the Tu-128 Fiddler B!! LOL

Is there a significant difference between GTX and RTX cards running DCS 2.5.6 now? Can an RTX take any load off of the CPU vs a GTX card? A few weeks before the upgrade from 2.5.5 to 2.5.6, I got a new GTX 1660 Super w/6GBs DDR6 on a 32GB RAM, Ryzen 7 3700 system. Running a RiftS VR, it ran pretty smooth in everything but side-to-side head translation. There I would get some lag in frame rate, I think. But since the upgrade to 2.5.6, the lag is just a little more apparent. But rotating my head left and right, up and down there is no lag. Only moving my head side-to-side. Also, I'm spoiled from using a 43" 4K monitor at 3840x2160 resolution (8.3 megapixels) with Track IR5. The pixel pitch is so fine that individual pixels can not normally be noticed. The 4K gives much better visual acuity compared to 1920x1080 or Rift S's 1280x1440 (1.8 megapixels), but only 2D. Compared to real life at 20-20 vision, this 43" 4K monitor is like 20-40 vision, pretty good, but not as good as with corrected vision. Rift S is like about 20-60 vision, getting pretty bad. I can't imagine using any VR goggles of lesser resolution than Rift S. HOWEVER, the head tracking of Rift S is far, far, far better than Track IR. Rift S tracking is smooth, error free and 1-to-1. Track IR has to use reduced head movement with accelerated view movement because you still have to see forward to the monitor in front of you...like a 4-to-1 ratio of view rotation to head rotation. And Track IR has poor head tracking video arrangement next to Rift S, especially in looking overhead. If Oculus could come out with a Rift with 1920x2160 resolution (4.1 megapixels), each eye, with the same angle of view, I think we'd have 20-40 vision in 3D. And if they, and our video cards, could do 2560x2880 in each eye, I think we'd have 20-30 vision in the goggles (7.4 megapixels).

Never mind if UFO's are real or not. I think it would be fun if we had the "option" to have UFO's appear at random in DCS. Maybe a small module for $4.99. Doesn't seem like it would take too much programming or PC performance. Maybe a checkbox in DCS settings: Unchecked means "no stupid UFO's". If checked, you then choose frequency of occurrence in number of flight hours. So, if you put in 100 flight hours, for example, odds are a UFO would appear in your area of flight once per 100 hours with a wide range of randomness. You might see it or you might not ever notice it. The UFO's could be of very low detail level. Their AI will never allow a "player/client" aircraft to get within a mile or so. They can play around and allow a player to get a closing speed, and possibly even a radar return or lock-on, but then zoom off at Mach 3 to 30 at the last moment. :) They could be any of about 20 different sizes and shapes somewhat similar to classic reports in history. But NOT the mother ships from any Sci-Fi movies!! LOL Sometimes, they might just be mysterious star-like objects at night that do things like come to a dead stop at 45,000', and then drop straight down at 30,000 fpm and disappear into the sea. Or zoom straight up and off to the stratosphere and out of sight in seconds. Or they might hold a position 3 miles abeam your aircraft for a few minutes. Or they might "park" at your 6 o'clock, 1 mile for a minute. Or they might be moving along at a supersonic clip 100 feet over the ocean for 10 or 20 miles. Frequency could be set as low as 0.1 hours in which a UFO will show up for sure...maybe 2 or 3 of them. Especially in the Nevada map over Area 51. Mysterious lights over Groom Lake at night. They mostly come out at night...mostly. :) Sometimes they would illuminate the ground at low altitude, as if looking for a vehicle on the highway near Rachel, NV. :) All just to add a little excitement, intrigue and mystery of a different kind to DCS. Rarity of occurrence up to the player. But always able to be switched off "disabled" by user or server admin. And hopefully never, "darned UFO appeared and my game crashed!" LOL Or maybe it could just be "rumored" to exist in DCS (for free), but no one is "officially" sure. :) Sort of like Minecraft's Herobrine character. LOL You won't know until..."What the heck is that??"

If for nothing else than to look realistic. The stars do not look natural, currently. Like you say, all of the same intensity. I too could not make out any constellations. The night sky just doesn't look familiar. Also, the stars twinkle even from in flight. From my few flights at night in a real jet, the stars do not seem to twinkle. From a stationary position, twinkling stars are cool. From in flight, no twinkling. At least that's what I think. You guys share your observations from real night flights. And, not just correct intensity (magnitude) but subtle color as well. Also, accurate position and phase of the Moon for date and time. And, for the planets: Jupiter, Venus, Saturn and Mars...the rest aren't generally visible.

Thanks for that link to that video. I wish I could talk to Admiral Briggs about the A-4. I'd have a few hundred questions to ask. :) And have him try this A-4 in DCS and see what he thinks of it. I'm sure he'll find things wrong with it...mainly do to limitations...but all-in-all, I bet he'd like it...especially in VR. I love flying this A-4. Between it and the F-18, I hardly have time for any other planes.

I have used the 88mm Flak guns from the WWII Assets Pack. I place them in groups of about 4 to 6 guns with the optical range finder unit. I place a few of them around SA-2 missile sites to defend them from low altitude attacks. Then I attack them and area targets with A-4E-C and AI F-5E's and AI F-4E's. It makes for some excitement. Sometimes I'm inbound at low level in an A-4E-C to attack a SAM site when a bunch of flak shells burst around me, together with 23mm tracers. Problem with using 88mm Flak is that it's part of WWII Asset Pack and everyone who flies in such a mission on a server, apparently has to own the WWII Asset Pack. That kills enthusiasm for such servers. So, I WISH for guns mentioned here to be added to the general array of Air Defense weapons, like the ZU-23. This doesn't have to wait for a Vietnam Map. Vietnam-type missions can made in any of the maps. I'd like the following Soviet Era towed anti-aircraft artillery mounts... 37mm M1939 57mm AZP S-60 - single-barrel, towed gun, optically aimed... but when grouped with a tracking radar like the SON-50 "Flap Wheel", would be radar directed. 85mm M1939 52-K/KS-12 100mm KS-19 optically directed. However, when grouped with a SON 9 "Fire Can" radar, would become radar directed. 130mm KS-30 directed by SON-30 "Fire Wheel" radar director, when grouped together in ME.

Zuni Rockets - Weight seems incorrect in ME When choosing weapons for the A-4E-C in Mission Editor (ME), the weight of LAU-10 - 4 Zuni MK 71 seems incorrect. The weight of an A-4E with full internal fuel and 100% internal gun ammo is shown as 17148 lbs in ME. I then add a LAU-10 - 4 Zuni MK 71 to any pylon and I get 18118 lbs. With a weapons weight of 1089 lbs. Take away the 119 lbs of the 20mm ammo and you have 970 lbs for a LAU-10 launcher pod with 4 Zuni rockets in it. Now, Zuni rockets vary a bit in weight depending on rocket motor and warhead combination used. But the NAVAIR Tactical Pocket Guide A-4/TA-4 Aircraft 1976 lists the LAU-10/A Rocket Pack as 553 lbs full and 105 lbs empty, without specifying warhead or motor. So why 970 lbs in the A-4E-C mod in DCS? And when 2 LAU-10's are mounted on a pylon, it goes up to 2046 lbs, that's 970 lbs x2, plus the weight of a TER which is 105 lbs. But shouldn't those weights be 553 and 1211 lbs? That's a significant difference. Searching the Internet, I found various sources on the Zuni rocket. I tried to stick to only US Navy publications (declassified). I'll get right to the proper weights of the Zuni rocket configurations, followed by some interesting information on the Zuni rocket components, below. The weights: MK 16 with Mk 24 warhead -- 108 lbs MK 16 with Mk 32 warhead -- 108 lbs MK 16 with Mk 33 illum -- 105 lbs MK 16 with Mk 63 warhead -- 115 lbs MK 71 Mod 0 with Mk 24 -- 115 lbs MK 71 Mod 0 with Mk 32 -- 115 lbs MK 71 Mod 0 with Mk 33 -- 112 lbs MK 71 Mod 0 with Mk 63 -- 123 lbs MK 71 Mod 1 with Mk 24 -- 128 lbs MK 71 Mod 1 with Mk 32 -- 128 lbs MK 71 Mod 1 with Mk 33 -- 125 lbs MK 71 Mod 1 with Mk 63 -- 136 lbs LAU-10/A launcher (empty)-- 105 lbs The LAU-10/A thru -10B/A launchers were not compatible with the MK 71 motor. So, I presume, LAU-10/A launchers would have only been loaded with MK 16 motored Zuni's. That would be 105 lbs for the launcher and 108 lbs x 4 for the rockets, totaling 537 lbs. However, the NAVAIR publication lists the loaded weight for the LAU-10/A as 553 lbs. So, a disagreement of sources. If the MK 16's were loaded with Mk 63 warheads, that would 565 lbs. Still doesn't work out. But since the NAVAIR guide doesn't specify which configuration of Zuni it probably does some weighted average. 12 to 15 lbs of give-or-take may not be that important. I think I'd go with the list of weights I have, above. Anywhere from 525 to 565 per loaded LAU-10/A. A loaded LAU-10C/A or LAU-10D/A would be more. Let's assume a 140-lb empty weight for a LAU-10D/A. With 136-lb MK 71 Zuni's, that's still only 684 lbs, not 970 lbs. The LAU-10/A is the 4-tube launcher that holds 4 Zuni rockets and can be mounted on an A-4E pylons and TER (Triple Ejector Racks). The Zuni rocket itself consists of 3 components: Rocket motor (aft body with fins), warhead (forward portion of body and nose) and a fuze on the warhead. There are 2 different rocket motor sections, the MK 16 Mod 1 and the MK 71 Mod 0 and Mod 1. Each of those can be connected to any of about 7 different warheads, some of which can be configured with 3 different fuzes. Basically, there is the Mk 24 GP warhead that has a delay fuze built into the base. The delay is 5ms, for use in armor piercing applications with an inert steel nose cone attached. It can penetrate 2 inches of steel, 3 feet of concrete and up to 30 feet of dirt. Then there is a point detonating (PD) fuze which provides instantaneous detonation for general purpose, which mounts on the nose in place of the steel nose cone. Finally, there is a proximity (VT) fuze which can attach to the nose to provide for air burst, fragmentation of the Mk 24 warhead. You would think that would be enough, but there is also a Mk 32 warhead that is called ATAP (Anti-tank, Anti-personnel). It only accepts the PD and VT fuzes. With the PD fuze, it effects a shape-charge and can defeat pretty much all conventional armor (to 18 inches), including tanks and battleships, as well as blasting a ring of anti-personnel/soft-target fragmentation out to 70 feet radius. The VT fuze sacrifices anti-tank function for a wider area of anti-personnel effect, by air bursting. And then there is the Mk 33 warhead which is a parachute flare that can rapidly place itself 3 miles in front of the launching aircraft and provide 1.7 million candle-power of light for 70 seconds. There is also a Mk 34 smoke warhead (WP-white phosphorus and RP-red phosphorus) and a Mk 63 HE-fragmentation warhead. The lower-powered MK 16 rocket motor was used from 1960 to beyond 1971. Pretty much all of the Vietnam War. The MK 71 motor entered service in June 1971 and was more likely used mostly by the US Marine Corps with the A-4F and A-4M Skyhawks in the 70's and 80's and beyond. The MK 71 Mod 1 is apparently still in inventory today. Interesting note: The Zuni rocket was developed for use as an unguided aerial rocket against aircraft. It was developed with the proximity fuze. The only air-to-air victory of an A-4 in the Vietnam War was the shooting down of a MiG-17 with a Zuni rocket! I would presume one with a proximity fuze. The rocket motor of the Zuni was used to develop the AIM-9B Sidewinder. And that is why the Sidewinder is 5-inches in diameter...it is a Zuni rocket motor with a seeker head and steerable fins attached.

Mk-81 Snake Eye bombs on MER bomb racks. Definitely not certifiable the way it performs here. I would say, Warning: Do not carry Mk81 SE bombs on the MER (6-station) multiple-bomb racks. You will blow yourself up...dead! :) Even pulling a constant 2 G's during release, one or more of the bombs will detonate a fraction of a second after release...even if set to release at 2 second intervals, or singly. In real life, this would not (should not) happen because bombs have a safety where they do not arm until a set time has passed after being released. And, I believe they have arming safety wires connected to the fuzes that only get pulled out by the bomb's fall from the rack. And then I think that starts the timer delay (by the airstream spinning a small rotor) of arming the actual fuze. BTW, I'm doing all this in Nevada map DCS v. 2.5.5.41962. The larger Mk-82 SE bombs seem to release ok from TER (triple) bomb racks. We don't have the option to mount Mk-81's on TERs. The Mk-82SE's fall a bit from the rack and then open their drag plates. On the other hand, the lighter Mk-81 SE's seem to open their drag plates immediately upon release and get dragged aft, immediately and hard...too hard, I think. My guess, is that the real Mk-81/Mk-82 Snake Eye bombs would fall for about .75 to 1 second before the drag plates would deploy, to ensure the bomb was well clear of the rack. Is there any way this delay could be programmed into this A-4E-C mod? That might solve the issue. Also, the bomb fuzes would probably not arm until about 2 or 3 seconds after release, maybe even longer, for safety. Any way to program that? Also, I should construct and run through a complete test of all release modes of these bombs and other munitions on this A-4E-C. For instance, if I set the fuze to off...not armed...with a load of Mk-81's on all stations and select all stations and select Bomb/GM Arm mode, and select STEP - SNGL...upon pressing the bomb release button, all bombs release at minimum interval (not quite instantaneously). Is that what is supposed to happen? Whereas, if I arm the bomb fuzes with either Tail or Nose & Tail, and the rest of the settings the same, I get one bomb released per press of the button. If I set RIPPLE and SNGL, the bombs will release one at a time at the interval and for the quantity set on the AWE-1 panel...and that's cool. It doesn't always seem to be consistent, though. In some cases, the bombs only released in pairs. But I have to do some thorough, methodical testing.

I want to know more about this. All players have to have the A-4E-C installed, right?

Are you doing a "deck run" takeoff? That is, not using the catapult? If you are positioning at the catapult but not getting hooked up for launch, and then holding the brakes and applying full power and then releasing the brakes...no, you'll never make it. You might be able to do a free deck run from the far aft end of the flight deck with the carrier doing 30 knots, into the wind and your A-4 less then 20,000 lbs or so. Really, though, you have to connect up with the catapult. The most reliable, least frustrating way, is to set your mission to "takeoff from runway" and see that it's placed on one of the 4 catapults on the CV-74 carrier. I believe that will place you connected up with the catapult, engine running and ready to go at mission start. Also have your desired armament and fuel loaded on the plane from the mission editor so you are all set. Each flight, you get one launch and one arrested landing. You can't seem to launch again in the same mission because you can't get connected back up with a catapult again. I have so much fun with the A-4E...this plane just HAS to become a full-fledged module, somehow. It would go great with the future F-8J, any version of the A-6 Intruder...and an F-4B or J Phantom II. It desperately needs SRS and in-flight refueling to make it complete. But, as is, I have lots of fun with it. A big thank you to those who made it happen.

Vought F-8J would go well with an A-4E Skyhawk on an angled-deck, Essex-class carrier. Although an Essex-class carrier appears to be in-works for the F4U-1D Corsair, the much modified angled-deck Essex with steam catapults is almost completely different, externally, other than having the same hull. CVA-11 Intrepid, CVA-14 Ticonderoga, CVA-19 Hancock, first group with starboard elevator more aft and CVA-16 Lexington, CVA-31 BonHomme Richard, CVA-34 Oriskany and CVA-38 Shangri-La second group with starboard elevator more forward. Since the F-4 Phantom and A-6 Intruder could not operate from the angled-deck Essex carriers, the F-8 Crusader and A-4 Skyhawk were the primary air arm of those ships during the Vietnam War. Ironically, the large EKA-3B Skywarrior could operate from these carriers. There's a nice color picture on Wikipedia of an EKA-3B refueling an F-8J from USS Hancock in 1972. The Community A-4E-C is almost good enough...loads of fun to fly. It needs to be a full module so that it can have a radio and work with SRS and do inflight refueling, including being a buddy refueler. Also, DCS needs to add 57mm and 85mm AA guns, which should be fairly simple. Until then, the WWII Assets' 88mm Flak guns can do as a proxy. I use them now in single-player missions for the A-4E-C. Anxiously awaiting the F-8J and, hopefully, its Essex carrier! And AI versions of the EKA-3B Skywarrior, E-1A Tracer (AW), SH-2 Seasprite helo.

For who ever else reads this thread, I'd like to revise my criticism of the TrackIR 5. I was finally able to figure out my tracking issues. The TrackClipPro has 3 LED lights on it. They MUST be seen, individually, by the IR camera at all times or tracking stops. I realized my tracking issue when looking up and to the left was because two of the LED lights merged in the IR camera's view. I figured out a positioning of the TrackClipPro so that the LEDs will never merge. If you want TrackIR to work for you, you have to figure that position out depending on where you place you IR camera unit. Now TrackIR is working much better with no "dead zones" of tracking.

I like the A-10A in DCS. It's the first plane I flew in DCS, 3 years ago. I find its systems much easier to operate than the A-10C. It is a simplified module compared to the A-10C. And it lacks a "clickable" cockpit. So what functions there are, have to be utilized via keyboard or programmed to joystick/throttle buttons. I wish they would make it a clickable cockpit and add some of the systems to it without making it so complex as the A-10C. I'd buy the A-10A again if they would do that. In my opinion...in a nutshell, the A-10A is more of a "gun, rockets & dumb-bomb" aircraft you navigate in the daytime by pilotage. The A-10C is more of an all-weather, "smart-bombs & missiles" aircraft with INS/GPS, waypoints and infrared sensors.

Thank you for your advice. It wasn't a light source interfering. It wasn't the curves. But thank you for encouraging me to take another look and figure it out. What I realized is that the 3 LED's of the Track Clip Pro have to be seen individually at all times or head tracking stops. When I started to look up and to the left, I realized two of those LED's merged and the tracking stopped. I also discovered that the Track Clip Pro can be adjusted in more ways than I thought. I managed to reposition it so that no two LED's will merge in any head position needed. It works far better now!! I spoke against it too soon. I am still a little disappointed with its clip design for clipping on head sets, but it is working very well now. I'll just treat it very tenderly. Thanks again!

If the F-18 is your major motivation, you can get that and learn the steps it takes to start it up and get going with no weapons and just practice flying from point A to point B or remaining in the landing patterns for touch and go's. You want the basic setup of the nav system so your HUD will work right. Just follow the checklist in manual. I make a condensed version of the checklist of just the things I really need to set for the flight. It may be a challenge to fly the F-18 at first, but as you get better at it, you'll be happy. You can just use the weapon mode for Mk-82 500-lb bombs and carry only about 4 of them. Too many and the extra weight will make flying a little more difficult. Don't lug Sidewinders on the wings unless you just can't bear flying without their cool looks. :) You can also load the F-18 with no weapons and no pylons...clean wing configuration and it flies even better. It looks pretty sharp all clean and sleek with the included Blue Angels skin. Once you can refuel from the C-130 inflight and land on the carrier, you can pin some wings on yourself. :) I have over 300 hours and in flight refueling is still a major challenge for me. It takes very fine movements on the flight controls. If you want someone patient to fly with, let me know. Although, I have to figure out the online voice communications. I don't have Skype, I use TeamSpeak.