Idle_Wild

Fabulous. Well I tell you what, sign me up to win the Persian Gulf map which I don't have. Or better yet, have the mission in the Caucuses map.

The mission appears to be based in the Persian Gulf map, but you can win the Persian Gulf map as a reward. Bit of a logic fail there don't you think?

C17 would be nice. Could drop AI units into combat to take control of airfields and setup FOBs? Of course this could also be done by a GCI or similar oversight role and remove the need to fly the heavy at all. Plus the thing about a heavy, are any of the maps big enough to require this, and if they were eventually big enough, wouldn't that make the air combat a little too spread out?

In Britain they tried to enforce the metric system about 5-10 years ago but there was a general revolt because of the confusion over daily tasks such as purchasing produce from supermarkets. Milk and Beer are still sold in Pints. Fresh Produce in Pounds and Ounces although if it's pre-packaged it does tend to be metric. Distance measured in Miles and Altitude in feet. Metric does apply to non food based weights generally, and more scientific endeavours in manufacturing and industry. Although not everywhere, if you look at housing here, rooms are generally advertised in Feet and Inches.

Super 530s rarely find their target. Anyone else having this difficulty? At the moment I'm finding it hopeless using the Mirage because every other A2A aircraft seems to have Fox3s with a greater stand-off than the Super 530s almost 1/3rd extra distance in most cases. Even when I do get in range, they never seem to find their target, even on good aspect with the target flying a relatively straight flight path.

But realistically, how would the A/C know it was on an aircraft carrier?

Thank you, hope it does what I'm looking for, I'll give it a whirl.

I have a DPad on my HOTAS, and I don't have a head tracker so I usually use it to look around. Is there any way I can use another button to toggle the dpad between looking around, and activating the various sensor select buttons?

Regarding wikipedia, in my opinion the notion that is it an uncredible source is a fallacy promulgated by Universities in order to maintain the status quo. As long as the information is referenced with credible sources, then at the very least it's a good basis for obtaining summarial information and pointing you to further reading sources. I suppose one thing I did not consider is that, although the speed of sound changes by only 12% from the altitudes quoted. The actual atmospheric density will be lower, so the speed of the missile could be higher. But 2x faster?

I was watching the following video, where this player fires the AIM54 into the upper atmosphere, and the mach continues to increase all the way to the Karman Line, where the simulation apparently ends at 100,000 metres and the missile abruptly disappears. At first I thought, ok the atmosphere will be thinner, so the speed of sound will decrease even if the rocket motor on the missile had stopped providing acceleration, which could explain why the mach was increasing even when the missile was decellerating. But looking at wikipedia, the speed of sound only varies by about 25%, cycling up and down all the way up to the Kaman line, at the Karman line it's only about 285m/s which is just slightly slower than the launch altitude of 20,000 metres (68,000ft) where the speed of sound is at 295m/s approx. so a 4% difference, and I might expect a 4% increase on the rockets maximum mach as a result, but as you can see, the mach keeps climbing, and climbing, until the missile disappears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg Reading further about the performance of the missile Wikipedia states, the AIM54 is capable of mach 5 at 30,000 metres, where the speed of sound is 310m/s, vs 275m/s at the Karman line, which is a difference of 12%, which brings the potential top mach up to mach 5.6, not mach 9 as per the video. But also, the missile is travelling almost vertically which should reduce the top performance somewhat, not to mention the rocket motor had been exhausted well before this point.

Hi, since today's update, firing a Laser Guided Maverick in the AV8 causes an instant crash. To repeat. Load LMAVs and a TPOD onto your AV8. Lase your target. Press the fire button. Instant crash.

My words of advice would be to ignore the previous 2 replies as they're obviously having reading comprehension issues. First person randomly starts talking about auto pilot. Second person takes the first peron's statement about continuous trim adjustment literally. Clearly has no idea what a trim is for, if you had to adjust the trim continuously it would be pointless having a trim at all.

Get the M2000C. It's more complex but is a much more capable aircraft. If you buy the F5 you will spend your time flying places slowly and getting shot down, it has a useless radar. It is also useless for A2G.

The same issue is present on the ground in M2000c. If you try to refuel at an airfield your drop-tank does not refuel. You have to clear the drop tank from your inventory under "rearm", wait for that to complete, and then add it back in under "rearm" again. You sometimes have to do the process twice, before you see the extra fuel coming back.

Why not just turn your game resolution back down to 1920 x 1080? The performance in 4k is likely to be dire anyway?

Hello, I don't seem to be able to get any audio output when using SRS? I've watched a few youtube videos showing how to use it, and I've tried from the M2000 and SU25 but I hear nothing even when people confirm on text that they're speaking. I've only tried on the Blueflag server so far. If I tune the radio in, I can confirm on the SRS radio overlay that the frequency is populated. And I see the green circle next to the radio in use. If I access the blue flag website it shows me as being on SRS and on the chosen frequency. I have confirmed I've selected the correct audio output device in SRS. So I'm at a bit of a loss. Any suggestions please?

No it isn't. Issue is still present.

I can't see either pilot models or ATC voices making any impact whatsoever to the overall experience of combat flight simulation. This is thinly veiled leftist social justice and equality rubbish, and it should stay well clear of our sim.

There appears to be an issue with the ambient lighting levels in cockpits now. The SU25T is completely washed out, so much so that trying to use the TV optic is almost impossible to use as everything appears to be white. The only option I can find in the settings is gamma, but even when turning the gamma down from the default of 2.5 to 1, everything still look very washed out, although darker. The TV is still impossible to use. If I then go back into the M2000, with the gamma set to 1, most of the switches and panels are completely dark to the point of being invisible, and you need to turn the gamma back up to 2.5 to be able to see them again. I did not have this issue in DCS version 1.5. AMD Radeon RX580 / latest drivers.

Ok so SP works, good luck trying MP. I have a better spec than you and it chugs and splutters after loading, you can barely interact with the role selection roster, you select a slot and click Briefing and the game crashes 9 times out of 10 due to being out of memory. The game is broken and has been so for 2-3 months now.

50% off on steam only? Can anyone explain the logic behind the sale on the modules being available to steam only? If I commit to steam I could have 50% off and pay only £26 for the harrier. If I want to buy it via the DCS website it's almost double that price. :doh: From the recommendations on the forum about getting direct access to releases and not having to wait for delayed steam releases it was deemed best to buy direct from the DCS website, this is starting to look like a mistake.

My in-game resolution 1280 x 768 is lower than my desktop resolution (2k). Since 2.5 even with full-screen selected the game will appear to tile itself in the top-left hand corner of the screen, apparently only filling about 50% of the screen, with the desktop visibile behind (but no border as in windowed mode). If I go to game settings and deselect full screen and apply, then go back to game settings, select full screen and reapply, this _sometimes_ fixes the issue, recently however, reselecting full screen and applying puts the game back into the top-left tiled display, so I _have_ to use alt+enter to get the game to go full screen. This used to work fine in 1.5. The problem alt+enter then generates is that the fully-clickable cockpits are no longer fully-clickable. The overlay for the click interactions seems to be displaced compared to the display, so if I need to click a switch, I have to float the mouse around and hope that I can find the interactive area, because it doesn't line up with the on-screen switch. This can be very annoying as it takes me 5-10 minutes to get into a multiplayer game now (I often have to connect twice as the first attempt appears to time-out throwing me back to the main menu), I'm running spinning disk and load times for this game are horrendous. When I finally get in game, I find I can't interact with anything due to the full-screen issue.

Any aircraft requires a moderate amount of back-pressure in a turn, in a 60 degree turn, you generally have to pull quite firmly on the stick to keep the nose above the horizon so that you don't lose altitude. My point is, it's not even possible in this craft, regardless of the amount of back pressure, at 30 degrees it attempts to stall, at 60 degrees it tries to flip itself out of the turn. It does not perform correctly. Take these charts as another example of general performance: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=119337&d=1435854227 https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=119338&d=1435854247 There's no way you could rotate in this simulation at 160-180knts. You would be dropping like a lead brick at 250knts.

The aerobatic performance of this aircraft can't be modelled accurately, surely? I've just downloaded the latest version of DCS 1.5, and have attempted to familiarise myself with the SU-25T, I have never flown fast jets, but it's like flying a lead-brick. With the pylons completely empty, it has no maneuvering ability, if I attempt a medium level turn at 30 degrees of bank, with more than a fraction of back-pressure on the stick, and combined rudder pressure, the stall warning goes off, and I get either a wing-drop on the inside-turning wing or a completely ridiculous flip from the outside-turning wing which inverts me towards the ground. Even under full engine power. I've attempted this at airspeeds between 400-670knts. If you attempt to commence a turn at 60 degrees of bank -- forget it. Turning performance doesn't appear to be worse with a full weapon deployment, however it does struggle to reach 500knts at straight and level. Obviously flaps and spoilers retracted. In my opinion, for a war-fighter aircraft, with two massively powerful turbojets, it doesn't fly correctly.

Edit: This was supposed to be in the final release sub-forum, rather than the beta. The aerobatic performance of this aircraft can't be modelled accurately, surely? I've just downloaded the latest version of DCS 1.5, and have attempted to familiarise myself with the SU-25T, I have never flown fast jets, but it's like flying a lead-brick. With the pylons completely empty, it has no maneuvering ability, if I attempt a medium level turn at 30 degrees of bank, with more than a fraction of back-pressure on the stick, and combined rudder pressure, the stall warning goes off, and I get either a wing-drop on the inside-turning wing or a completely ridiculous flip from the outside-turning wing which inverts me towards the ground. Even under full engine power. I've attempted this at airspeeds between 400-670knts. If you attempt to commence a turn at 60 degrees of bank -- forget it. Turning performance doesn't appear to be worse with a full weapon deployment, however it does struggle to reach 500knts at straight and level. Obviously flaps and spoilers retracted. In my opinion, for a war-fighter aircraft, with two massively powerful turbojets, it doesn't fly correctly.