animaal

So the new 3.0 campaign replaces the previous "Enemy Within"? The reason I ask is because I own both, but I never got around to flying the original :music_whistling: I assume I should just fly 3.0, not the original. I.e. they have the same general storyline but 3.0 is superior. Thanks.

I have both, and I think I spend more time in the Mirage. As the more mature module, there's more great single-player content. Also, while it's a positive that the Hornet is continually being developed, I like that with the Mirage (being a "simpler" plane anyway) it's somewhat easier to learn the systems, and they do not change significantly between updates. So for now I prefer the Mirage, but the Hornet is probably a more interesting plane overall, and once it stabilises I'll probably prefer that.

I recommend the Mirage. It's modern enough to have Fox1 missiles, synthetic runway on the HUD, a decent radar with IFF, etc. But old enough not to have a complex clutter of systems and menus. It's powerful but not confusing.

I'm not sure Razbam fully appreciates the urgency of this module. My PC is infested with B52 bombers, and my Mig-15 just hasn't got the legs to catch them :D I must say, I appreciate Razbam's up-front and honest communication.

I'm looking forward to the Mig-19 more than the Western jet that I've pre-ordered... I feel a little dirty. :D

I got shot down in my Mig21 (With a Soviet skin) the other night, and as I gently parachuted to earth, I had plenty of time to think about how unfair life is. I was able to twist my head around 180 degrees to see my own pilot's face. He was a guy with different skin tone to me, and a dodgy 'tache. To be fair, that 'tache probably fitted with the era of Soviet Mig-21s. It got me thinking. If making the sim *more unrealistic* means extra development effort, then I'm against it. Ideally, the pilots should fit with the era/geography of the jet and its skin. E.g. a Chinese-skinned Mig-15 would presumably have a pilot that looks Chinese. A US plane from the modern era could have any skin colour. If there's a choice, fine. If not, any random realistic pilot would suffice. If a company is committed to developing 10 skins for a modern western jet (or collection of jets), maybe some variation would be good - and realistic. I think that's how I would see diversity. Not for its own sake, or to "raise awareness". But to reflect the reality of the world in which these planes flew and continue to fly.

Thanks, a couple of good ideas there. Especially the "flashing" of contacts outside the TDC, and Fixed Beam.

I've looked in the Mig21 DCS documentation, and can't see a dscription of the radar "lock" mechanism. E.g. - The situation is that I'm attacking a bomber that has a single fighter as an escort. I want to pick off the escort first. Before I'm within firing range, I can see them both on the horizon. They are moving left to right. The bomber is in front, the fighter trailing slightly behind. On my radar, I can see I have two contacts, very close together. So close that they mostly overlap, that I can't tell whether I'm locking onto the bomber or the fighter. Does the radar lock onto: (a) the contact within the radar brackets with the minimal range from me (b) the "most central" contact - the one closest to the direction my nose is pointing © any random contact within the radar brackets (d) some other algorithm? Thanks.

I can empathise with that. However, I have found that if I start to enjoy a module, my opinions on its looks can change. Main examples: - Viggen. This was almost the last of the DCS modules i bought. I just couldn't get over the looks and steampunk interior. But after having a blast with it, I have grown to appreciate the aesthetics. It's my favourite module now. - The Mig-15. But as I grew to enjoy how simple it is to throw around the sky, its simple lines grew on me.

I don't think you can do that any more. As far as I know, modules since the M2000 no longer use Starforce DRM, and so Steam keys for those modules can't be activated on Stand-alone DCS. I'm open to correction though.

Saitek X65F

If the server could disable the AI, what would happen if a number of pilots chose to fly the Tomcat, and nobody took the second seat? I think that's a realistic possibility, when most people might want to actually fly. I have flown other WW2 simulators/games, where some of the planes could be populated by a second human as a gunner. However, it's not uncommon for somebody to jump into your plane and not be much help. Or worse still, shoot up your own plane (To be fair, unlikely in a Tomcat). But at least the pilot can choose to lock down the second seat, and let it be populated by an AI instead.

That is an impressive trailer. Am I reading too much between the lines? When the trailer says that the Jester AI will "allow you to fly and fight in the F14 in single player", it sounds like it may not be usable in multiplayer?

To repeat post above, a dynamic campaign. I appreciate that's tough to implement, so something I'd love to see in the interim would be a "dynamic mission". This would be a single dynamically(randomly?)-created mission with a specific target. The user would use the mission editor to create the flight packages, set up waypoints, ToTs, etc. The enemies would largely be invisible at this stage. After that, the user gets to fly the mission from cold-startup.

I treat it like a slow plane. To begin with, line up a good distance away. aim for a point at the start of the runway, and fly towards that point, losing altitude as a plane would. Very gradually reduce thrust (collective). As you do so, the copter will lose altitude quicker (like a plane), so you'll need to nose up a little. Hopefully, you'll be fairly slow and low by the time you reach the runway. Final adjustments to slow to a hover, and then drop gently as possible. It's not how the experts do it, but for me it minimises the required sudden and pressurised movements.

Maybe the Yak? It's the only module I don't own, and I'm not planning to get it. However, I have that niggling thought that maybe I'm missing out. It has happened before - I was slow to buy the Viggen, and now it's probably my favourite module.

DCS is expensive, no doubt about it. But it does give everybody an entry point they can afford. $0: SU25T and TF51D in the Caucuses map. For the price of a normal game, you can buy FC3 or a map or a study-level module. The way I see it, I remember years ago buying an Apache simulator, Longbow. It was fairly expensive. Later I upgraded to Longbow 2, which costed the same again and brought the simulation up to date with current technology. If you had bought the A-10C for DCS years ago, you would have had it upgraded to the newer 2.5 engine for free. No need to pay for an upgrade. And it looks like that will be the case into the future. Any modules you buy now are likely to receive upgrades to work with whatever new technologies are applied to the DCS framework. It's good value for me anyway.

I find it much simpler to have a single Logitech (/Saitek) profile for DCS, and set up the controls in each DCS module. It allows DCS to look directly for DirectX events from the HOTAS, rather than an interim step requiring virtual key presses. No clashes between modifiers. And the bonus that I don't need to mess with different Logitech profiles. Have a look at a post I made some time ago... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=199177

Thanks, I was thinking about that general time period - maybe the 50s-60s. I was wondering more about how the bombers could be protected. As you point out, the Mig-19 is relatively small and hard to detect. If you're planning a mission for the bombers, what could you do to protect them from interceptors in low visibility settings? I can't think of anything that could stop the bombers from being attacked by Radar-carrying Mig-19s.

This is a great thread, very interesting. I see that planes like this are designed with night/low visibility interception of bombers in mind. So I can imagine a scenario where one side might send a flight of B52s to bomb a target, and use low visibility to make interception more difficult. In return, the other side would send up a flight of Mig-19s with radar to intercept. How might the bombers be protected once discovered? Would they be protected by fighters that would also need to be equipped with Radar? Would bombers be sitting ducks once discovered? I could imagine a Radar-equipped Mig-19 locking and destroying an incoming bomber, but I can't imagine fighters from this age dogfighting each other at night.

** Edit: apologies, I misinterpreted the question - by asking how to "get into" the graphics upgrade, I thought you were asking how to work up enthusiasm for it. I'll leave my answer below anyway ** I tend to take the Caucus map upgrade for granted these days. Then I watch some Youtube video set in the old 1.5 map, and I suddenly appreciate the 2.5 ground features and more organic shape of the mountains again. If you're looking for a good time to appreciate the scenery, I can recommend the Huey. Low/level, not too fast, not too many systems to monitor. If you're not into the helicoptors, I like the Albatros for similar reasons.

Thanks. I had thought there was a range issue, and I was altering the release point to compensate. Reading the two posts above, and the linked thread, it looks like even in real life RR mode is more of a "last resort", and accuracy could be difficult.

How accurate should radar bombing (RR mode) be in the Viggen? I'm having accuracy issues, and I'm not sure whether the issue is my lack of skill or my lofty ambition. I've set up 16 vehicles in a square, on the 'X'-shaped Kobuleti airstrip (see red square in image). The Viggen is fully loaded with low-drag bombs in "series" mode. Flying head-down, instruments only at night, I can pick up the vehicles as a small return on my radar. I line it up so it looks centred when the radar range is 15km. I quite often get the range about right, but I'm nearly always to the left or right of the targets. Not by a lot, but often there's a runway-width between the vehicles and where the bombs land. Am I pushing the Viggen too far? Or is this something that should be achievable?

Rex854Warrior, that sounds like a valid point; it's not a side of DCS I know much about.

Thanks Chuck, I really appreciate these guides. I always keep them to hand when I'm returning to a DCS module. Might the descriptions of the course needle in the Mig-21 and L-39 guides be a bit confusing? The course needles in the Mig-21 and L-39 appear very similar. However, the Mig-21 guide says that the pointy side does the pointing. The L-39 image shows the thick end of the needle pointing to the runway, but the 3K knob description seems to say that it's the thin end that does the pointing. Mig-21 guide: L-39 guide: Looking at the official Mig-21 and L-39 flight manuals, the needles are described as working with the thick end pointing to the runway. Mig-21 flight manual: L-39 Flight Manual: I'm not sure if this makes any real difference, but I thought I'd mention it in case this needle feeds something (e.g. the bank director?) Thanks again.