Sylosis

Maybe the answer is in between. Like, less curve and less deadzone, maybe not linear and 0 deadzone. Linear and no deadzone on the T16000m is, I think, also crazy. Keep in mind the name comes from the fact that it this joystick manages 16000 analog positions, versus the usual 300 ish on most joysticks. Why they decided to go for 16000 points?! No idea... I don't even know if it's really that much of an advantage... :S I mean, I'm not completely closed minded so I'll try it, but I am skeptical. I mean obviously when I first got it I wasn't using a 50 curve and I remember that something close to linear was un-manageable. But again, I'm willing to try. I've been wrong before.

And, also, why I was starting to think curves had something to do with A2A Refueling is because when I first tried it (the only plane I tried A2A refueling with so far), was on the Mirage and though I was always close to getting a connection, it was just impossible for me to do the small final corrections to achieve it. Any small input on my side was causing a movement that was too big versus what it required. So, I'm sure you can connect the dots, I thought maybe changing my curves would help. Don't get me wrong, I am well aware this is difficult and actual pilots who do it are very good. But, at the moment, I would need inhuman hand precision to be able to do it. So ya, that was just to help clarify where I'm coming from. And, I appreciate all the answers you guys provided so far. Though some think I'm crazy! XD

Regarding the curve I use, and to those who think I might be crazy, I used to have a lot lower numbers with the previous joystick I had. I was using a curve of 20 to 25 I think, and almost no deadzone. But, since I switched to the T16000, I found that it was SUPER sensitive. Any minor input on the stick was causing major movements of the plane. At first I thought I was just bad and should be able to handle that, but... Looking at videos of pilots, from withing their cockpits, in A10s, or Harrier, etc... You can see that they do make "relatively" large stick movements, for almost no movement of the plane. Just minor correction = "relatively" large stick movement. And I emphasize on "relatively". I'm not saying they are pushing the stick by 5 inches on one side. But at least 1 inch, to be honest, for almost no movement. And, to put things in perspective, if I do push my joystick by one inch with no deadzone and linear config, I'm going to be upside down in 0.3 seconds. Is there no one using a T16000 that can confirm this thing is very sensitive and precise? (and yes of course it varies a lot from module to module... The F-5 I think is a clear example of a module that requires a curve. Everybody will probably agree on this).

I was under the impression that, on top of a lot of practice and other tips that can be found on the forum, using non-linear axis is critical. I know it probably changes from aircraft to aircraft, and joystick to joystick, but I assume it should be somewhat in the same range? I have a T16000M (joystick, throttle and pedals) and from what I have found online, it is quite sensitive and precise. At the moment, I set my curves around 50, with a small deadzone of something 7 or 8. For the pedals, I have a big deadzone of 20, since those rudder pedals are a bit cheap and I feel the center is loose. Anyhow, what do you air refueling pros use as curves? Any chance someone with a T16000M could share some tip? Thanks.

Tried that and it worked. I mean, it didn't work right off the bat, but there seem to be a somewhat precise location that you need to be at. I used to ask when I was stopped, holding short of the runway. However, as per your suggestion, I tried moving forward a couple more feet, right on the edge of the runway. And then stop and ask. That is what was the problem... It's a bit dumb that it doesn't answer unless you are on a precise point (of course as long as you are on the right runway), but at least now I know what to do to make it work. And it explains why I was able to do it 10% of the time. It's probably because I was coincidentally at the right spot, 10% of the time. Thanks for the cue on the "tip of the nose over the runway"!

As additional info, I sometimes get a response, but that is probably 10% of the time. I'm surprised nobody has the same issue...?

Well that's my issue. I'm not sure I do have enough room for both versions. I did buy a SSD specifically for DCS, however it's 250 Gb. With all the modules and everything, DCS tends to take a ton of space. I'll have a look anyway, see If I can have both. But I must keep in mind it's really not recommended to have a nearly full SSD. If I do, maybe I'll try, but the Command Prompt method is not super tempting... I mean, I can manage my way around using CMD Prompt, but it's not my cup of tea. The other thing is that I finally managed to convince my brother to get into DCS and it's not been a super easy ride so far (too slow on hard drive, so had to reinstall on SSD. Changing Mirage config makes DCS crash, etc etc etc.). If I tell him that we get onto the beta, he'll probably just tell me to **** off... :( So, maybe I'll just wait and see.

Haha! Well, I don't have any issue with the terminology... what bugs me is the fact that, from what I understand, installing the beta version is not so straight forward. I haven't tried to be honest, I've just seen posts on the forums explaining how to do it and after quickly reading them, I rapidly got discouraged... I guess I could look into it more seriously, especially if it isn't that much work to install the beta.

Well, again, I'm not betting all my money on it, however servers switching to beta in 1.5 was, I believe, few months before 2.5 was released. I mean, I haven't been around forever, but I was on 1.5 for some time (couple of years, I don't know), and there were a lot of good servers for most of that period, that were on the released 1.5 For example, the "104th" server, which is quite popular I think, was on the released 1.5 version for a very long time. If it switched to beta during 1.5, it was only just before 2.5 was released I think. Anyway... I'm not really debating... mostly thinking out loud. If in the end, most servers stay on beta, I'll be the first to be disappointed. I was hoping to stop going against AI and join servers, but I very much prefer to stick to the released versions and not fiddle with the beta. Moreover, to go back to what the OP said... when he wonders if it's "wrong" that all servers are on beta. Well I think it is, in a way, wrong. It means that ED fails to have strong, stable, optimized, released versions. Or at least, that's how I feel it. If their released versions were coming out strong, a lot less servers would bother setting up the beta versions. So it's not wrong in a sense that "server admins shouldn't do it". It's wrong that "server admins feel it's better on beta"...

My god... why are so many people butthurt by what the OP asked!? Maybe the wording was not perfect, but wondering why every server is now on beta is a fair question. I too, was wondering that myself. From what I was able to gather, on different posts and what not, it seems it is mainly due to performance. When 2.5 was released, multiplayer, on larger scales (more than 2 or 3 persons) was almost impossible to play, even with powerful rigs. Since the beta version includes a rework on RAM management, it made sense for most servers to switch to the beta version. I can very well be wrong, but I doubt this will stay like that forever. As soon as ED brings out a stable "released" version, I am sure a lot of servers will stick to the released version and not the beta.

Yes well, as I vaguely mentioned, I had started the campaign before and managed to go all the way to.. something like mission 5 or 6. And I had no issue with mission 3 at that time. So, something clearly didn't trigger properly this time around... I wonder if it's because I forgot to tell Pontiac to jump in. I only told them once the fight was over. Apart from that, I can't see what I did wrong versus the previous time I did it.

Additional info, I got tired of waiting and anyway I was bingo fuel. I landed, still got the mission complete message, however the result was 90 and not 100. I suspect this is due to that possible bug.

I've decided to re-do this campaign, since I had never had the chance to finish it, and felt like doing it all over again. I have a problem with Mission 3. After clearing the area next to Uzi, and having Chevy move forward, it just doesn't do anything. I see that the Chevy did reach Uzi, while Pontiac seems to be stuck somewhere further away (doesn't matter since everything is cleared). Problem is, Uzi never tells me "Ok we're good now, bye" or whatever he is supposed to say. Which means I never get the OK to RTB... Am I supposed to do something special? I have tried fast forwarding time and still nothing...

In most missions, with most modules, I can never have the authorization for takeoff. The ATC just doesn't answer. I've looked around the forum I have seen similar posts, but with no real answer to it... Everybody seems to think it's because people can't set their radio on properly... but how do you explain that I was able to get my authorization for start-up and also my authorization for taxi. I've tried different things, like asking it while I am rolling on the taxiway, or waiting to be stopped just before the runway... nothing seems to work. I wait and wait and nothing.... And when I finally get pissed off and decide to takeoff, as I roll onto the runway, ATC will say that I am not clear for takeoff, and then change its mind and tell me I am clear for takeoff 3 seconds later.... And this isn't at a specific airport. The problem is generalized. What gives? (easy comm is off, however I have the issue on any modules, even FC3).

My god has it always been 125ish? If so...it seems I might've gotten mixed up between 2 modules... For some reason I was certain it was 160ish for the Mirage.. Sorry for my confusion

Since 2.5, I had not really been in the Mirage, as I was getting the hang of the Mig21, which I bought but hadn't tried much. That being said, I have now came back to the Mirage, which is at the moment my favorite module. I played it a ton in 1.5. But, now, in 2.5... I can't takeoff without blowing both rear tires... I used to rotate at around 180 knots, with a regular armament (4 missiles and external full tank), gently pulling the stick to raise the nose until the aircraft lifts. However, in 2.5, I've tried different rotation speeds, etc.... I always blow my tires. I have seen a similar post about this for the F15, so is this a general issue in 2.5? Or... am I doing something wrong? Weird because I have never had that problem in 1.5. So if I am doing something wrong, I don't understand what... I don't think I have changed my technique?!? Unless I'm crazy...

I haven't really followed the development of the F14 and I have a really dumb question but... Is it "only" going to be multicrew? Like, if you buy the F14, do you need a buddy to be the radar operator, or can you also fly it solo? (which would require some kind of AI radar operator).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think FC3 includes 2 variants of the Mig29, the Mig29S and the Mig29A. I've only flown the S variant. Are you refering to the S or the A? EDIT: Nevermind, after looking it up, it seems you were actually talking about the Mig29A, which is the non-R77 variant.

I was wondering how would you match up all of the DCS modules against one another. Actually, I'm mostly refering to air-to-air stuff. For instance, what do you think is a good match up for the Mirage? To me the Mirage feels a bit alone... not as modern as the FC3 planes, but a lot more dangerous than the F-5 or the Mig21. And then, indeed the F-5 and Mig21 are a good matchup I think, but that's about it? Are there other modules you'd feel can go against a F-5 and or Mig21 with equal chances of winning? I think the FC3 planes (F15, Mig29, Su27 and Su33) are on a similar level, but until the F18 comes out, there isn't a "clickable cockpit" module that is on par with them. And as you can probably understand, I'm looking at the big picture when trying to make comparisons. I'm not only thinking about "Thrust to weight", or "Maneuvrability", but also "Armament", "Radar Capacity".... which is why, at the moment, I feel the F15, Mig29, Su27 and Su33 are at the top of the food chain in DCS. But what do you think? Was curious to get your opinions.

That's a lot of good info thanks. Indeed, I obviously still need to understand some basics stuff and even though just copying a wikipedia hyperlink isn't super helpful, there is a lot of good information in there. And then there is being able to apply it. But, of all you said, the one easy thing to grasp for me is your last comment about SFM. I didn't even know the AI was coded using a simplified flight model... :S It's a small consolation... I mean, it helps knowing I am not all that horrible. Which brings another question: I've only seen relatively negative comments about the AI and the way it behaves (always knowing your position, now that SFM thing, etc.) Is there any chance DCS will review its algorithm for the AI? Not all of us want to engage into PvP on multiplayer servers.

Though I can appreciate your attempt at helping, this isn't super helpful. Just 1 minute into this article you read that "85% of kills are done with the attacker not being seen". Not useful since my post referred to the AI and as I recall, the way it is coded in DCS the AI always knows where you are. You could argue "then don't play against AI", but this is not the purpose of this post.

Hi, I've been struggling at dogfighting, especially with the F-5E. So my first question would be, is there something special that you need to consider in the F-5? Is there something special about this plane versus the others? My guess is that it's got not a lot of thrust and also, it has small wings.... so if you pull too many Gs, you just get a ton of drag and lose all speed. And then, due to the lack of thrust, that speed is very hard to recover. Am I wrong? I only play against AI, often I am in my F-5 against Mig21s. The AI seems to only do 2 things : turning around in circle in a horizontal plane. Turning in circle in a vertical plane. When he stays on a horizontal plane (same altitude), I can manage, however we just keep turning and turning and turning. What do you guys do? I tried just to stop trying to get behind him and just go in a straight line, and then come back in some way, but he always finds me super easily and therefore, I haven't had much success, since when doing that, he's the one that has no problem getting behind me. In a vertical plane (doing vertical loops, changing altitude), well there is nothing I can do... I lose all my speed and nearly stall. So when I put the nose down I can't pull any Gs, else I don't get my speed back... so I just need to dive... and then he gets behind me yet again. So that's it. Honestly, I have less issues when I am in the Mirage, but I could still use tips, but I don't think I'm that good either. So any general tips is welcomed. And in the F-5 I just suck... so any F-5 oriented is very welcomed.

Not sure if this is a bug or intended, but in the F-5E, I don't have any sound difference when I go into afterburner levels of thrust. In 1.5 there was some sound difference. It wasn't major, but it helped knowing if I pushed my throttle lever too far. Now, in 2.5, I really just have to check fuel consumption and such. There is no difference at all. Is this intended or a bug because of 2.5? Or am I drunk and there wasn't ever any sound difference and I completely hallucinated?

As somebody else pointed out, a lot of people share their user config files on the DCS site, so I would strongly suggest starting from there. Then you fine tune depending of what you like and don't like. VR is expensive and requires a powerful rig (though you seem to already have that). TrackIR is a very good, and cheaper alternative (but not super cheap either). I had been on DCS for a year when I finally decided to get a TrackIR and jesus man... you will not want to go back when you try it. As for the T16000, I am very happy. My very personal opinion is that there isn't really another joystick that is worth buying apart from the actual Warthog replica, but it's 4 times more expensive. Don't get me wrong, there are other very good products, such as the X52. But, it's still significantly more expensive than the T16000m and I'm not sure the added features justify the price difference. The only critic I could make would be about the rudder pedals. These are entry levels rudder pedals and you can feel it. For the price they are fine, but they are worth what you paid for. Don't expect top quality rudder for that price. That being said, I'm still glad I bought them.

You can't use DCS default control settings. By default it will map useless things on your joystick buttons. For instance, map the "view change" to one of your hat switch. It's fine if you really want to use it. But a lot of people here either use TrackIR (some go VR if you have the budget, and computer for it). The X52 is a popular joystick, so you will surely find "suggested" button maping and such, but I believe a lot of people will experiment and use their own stuff. At least, that is what I do. I don't mind using suggestions as a starting point, but I will always adjust to my personal preferences. And, I have a joystick that is not that much popular, even though I think it is great value for the price (Thrustmaster T16000m Stick, Throttle and Rudder)