Jester986

What kind of level of completion are you aiming for for a release? Some people are happy with a flight model so they can fly it as soon as possible and thats fine. Personally I prefer the Jf-17 model of release to the F-16's though.

Looks like the artwork is pretty far along. So is this a completely separate third party or a Belsimtek type of third party?

So I went back to the post and it mentions working risers and elevator animations. So I just misread it. I'll edit my original question to reflect that.

Edit: I misread the post it's still there. My mistake. Leaving the original post so the reply to it still makes sense. On the recent update on facebook I see there's no mention of a hangar deck or working elevators in the future features. Did those get cut?

https://www.helisimmer.com/news/new-screenshots-info-dcs-mi-24p Mi-24 screenshots

Sorry to be a bummer but they have said they doubt they could get the information to make it at DCS level again. And with them being spotted flying again recently I doubt much is getting declassified. They did say they''d consider it if they could get the info though. It's not an aircraft I'm interested in though. I understand why some want it. I want some boring planes like a C-2 greyhound. But the 117 doesn't excite me.

I would echo Razor, with a slight edge to the Hornet. The Harrier is a little less polished systems and bug wise than the Hornet. But if you want air to air with some air to ground go Hornet. If you want mostly air to ground go Harrier.

They also mentioned possibly making it their next module. I think it would be pretty cool since it would be a completely different mission from what we have now.

Oh, I forgot to mention the JF-17. It also gets a solid recommendation. My Ranking would be: 1 F-14 2 F-18 3 JF-17 4 F-16 Harrier is fun but has some issues. its fine if you don't get too deep in the weeds on systems. Mirage used to be awesome but Razbam is currently upgrading it and with that some things have broken.

Something cool about the Dauntless I just learned was it also served with the Army air corps in Pacific as the A-24 Banshee. It had a few modifications like different radios, a different tailwheel, and no arresting gear but was pretty much the same plane.

On the topic of the F6F theres some good news for you. Nick Grey has said it's his favorite Pacific theatre fighter, the fighter collection has one, and he said they will 100% make one. Only problem is it is likely many years away. ED hasn't announced any Pacific fighters being in any stage of development other than Mag3's Corsair.

Got tired of waiting to fly the F-4u, so I bought an r/c one to hold me over :lol: Really looking forward to this one and anxious for the spring update. I'll probably get the P-47 just to practice for the Corsair. I'd ask for news but I know the answer, I hope work is going well and you all are alright in these trying times:thumbup:

F-14 is amazing and I like that its older and analogue. If you want something more modern the F-18 is great. It's a much more complete experience than the F-16 and you get carrier ops. Some people are simply enamored with the F-16 though and if that's the case for you go for it. It's not bad, I just feel its not ready yet and it doesn't elicit anything more than a hearty "meh" from me.

I think mag3 is doing a Lexington class with their F-4U? They are doing a carrier though. Hopefully we see alot more though and some escort ships.

I would leave WWI to the "other" sim. It's fun there but the idea doesn't really appeal to me in DCS.

Just FYI Falcon, your idea or post didn't bother me but it probably wouldn't look great for ED was all I meant.

I might be going to hell for it but I got a good chuckle out of that.

That was a little disappointing. The dispersion fix is good news but with the big update hinted for next week i was hoping for something on the hornet or supercarrier.

I play a lot of singleplayer and unfortunately I'm subject to the whims of the AI flight model. With the WWII content coming please consider making adjustments. I understand that it can't have the detail as the player aircraft without melting our cpu's into slag. But chasing F-5's, Mig-15s, and 109s on endless vertical loops isn't fun. The F-5 aggressor campaign is a perfect example. The second mission is practically unplayable when dogfighting other F-5s because they can go vertical forever while you quickly lose energy. The only way to beat it is using wildly unrealistic tactics.

I want all of the century series, so definitely on board for a Starfighter.

Seems in poor taste to me, but not enough to make me really care. If ED does do this though, please really give a lot of thought to PR. You don't want to look like your trying to capitalize on a pandemic. It's not a coronoavirus sale its a since you all are trying to avoid the public sale. Obviously someone in marketing can phrase it better than me but you get the idea.

Plus its older and therefore cool :)

In real life you learn your aircraft. The position of the collective generally corresponds to a certain torque. It's not exact but enough to know when you need to look at the gauge when your longlining, which is when the lack of an audio cue becomes a problem. Otherwise you should be constantly scanning all your gauges in between scanning the environment. Your never flying around just staring out the window. Also in the aircraft I have the most experience in I can tell by the engine sound where its at. I'm not there yet with my other aircraft but luckily it has an extra set of gauges built into the door that I can see while long lining. Some newer helicopters do have audio cues for when your approaching or at max torque but I doubt the gazelle does. If someone could knows better than great lets get it added. But for most people its just a quick glance at the gauge in between checking everything else that you have to keep an eye on.

To be fair the Gazelle does seem to lose an excessive amount of rpm compared to a real world helicopter like an astar. But an auto in the gazelle is definitely still doable. Have to talk to the mechanics and have em make a few turns down on the pitch links.

Cyclic goes back to increase the airflow threw the blades. In an autorotation the air going up threw the rotor disk keeps them spinning and generating enough lift to keep you from dropping like a brick. Adjusting the collective changes the size of three aerodynamic regions of the blade: the driven region, the driving region and the stall region. The overall lift vector of the driven region is behind the vertical so that lift also adds drag to the rotor system. The driving region's lift vector is forward of the vertical with respect to the rotor blades. That is where the energy is coming from to keep your blades spinning. The stall region contributes nothing but drag where as the driven and driving regions are producing the lift that keeps you in the air. You control the size of these regions with the collective and control the airflow through rotor disk with the cyclic. This gives you two ways to manage rotor rpm. Lower collective and aft cyclic both increase rpm while raising collective and forward cyclic decrease it. You can also look at it as trading airspeed for rotor rpm. My 206 has a little blue line at 100 knots to indicate that above that speed you will be in such a nose low attitude as to not have enough airflow to maintain rpm. It varies for every helicopter but generally speaking around 52-55 knots is going to give you your lowest rate of decent and around 90 knots will give you your longest glide. Between 60 and 70 knots is usually a good compromise because you'll have enough energy in your airspeed to convert to rpm in your flare to landing.