G.J.S

Some will work, some may not for reasons I’m not party to. My guess is those that don’t just require updating by the mod originators in order to work in the 2.7xxx environment. And it’s no conspiracy to get you to buy anything. Likely it’s just a mod that no longer works has been abandoned by the creator for any reason, like maybe moving on to other things, lack of interest, no longer part of DCS - moved to another sim? -, it could be any one of a thousand reasons. The FC3 types are seemingly aircraft to give you a flavour, and of the type that should be enjoyable to those who don’t need or want to go into great depth to fly, like some of the more recent high spec modules. There are mods that cater to the FC3 brigade, you just need to keep an eye on the mod section. There is no right or wrong in DCS, should you wish to really learn a certain type - they are there, and in most cases modelled really well, both in look and function, as well as employment and procedure. Should you require a lighter, more fun way in - there are those that provide here too. Make DCS what YOU want . . .

?

No, the pylon itself is correct, it’s the mount plate at the top of the pylon that should lay flat on the wing underside. We had same on F-4’s, that’s why the pylons were handed. *actually scratch that - there is a small gap there also. Oops.

The pylon should be vertical, it’s the mount plate that seems to be not connecting to the wing lower surface - it’s at 90* to the pylon.

?? Thats not what I meant.

I think it may actually be more interesting to model a short nose bird, then you as the pilot have to make a decision . . . take the gun - or take the centreline fuel. The outcomes would be interesting to hear from others. Stubbies all the way!

Nope. From my frame of reference:- F-4 can attain well over 500kts at full dry and below 4000ft, but average (frugal) cruise would be around the 360kt - 420kt mark. Similar higher up also. Tornado similar if anything but capable of a lot quicker down low, it just depends on why you are cruising - are you just stooging around or are you going for distance and need to be frugal? Just because it ‘can’ do it, doesn’t mean you have to all the time.

SPPU-6, and SPPU-22, are the pods in question. The -22 is the heavier of the two, and can be mounted either forward firing or rearward. The only reason to have it rear firing is suppression (not targeted) when the aircraft has overflown an enemy position. In the case of both systems, the barrels can be depressed to a maximum of 45* down.

This forum needs a “special” section . . . .

Lol. In my instance, it is very sporadic - sometimes can go days and have no issue. But going from this and other threads, it does seem like there is something about AMD cards that is giving many and varied problems lately. Heres hoping that smooth runnings are just around the corner.

Im Nvidia, and I get this issue sporadically also.

Not too long before they were retired, and they were definitely ML variants. Unfortunately I did not get a back seat, but a couple others did.

Yes it widens the envelope, providing you can still maintain a sight picture. If the TGT goes behind a -23's shoulders, he loses sight. I do know chap. Sort of. Having flown against Czech -23's before in a friendly capacity, good natured turn and burn providing training for both parties. Seen it, and had pilots re-living it and suggestions of how to stay out of "the burps" over bar discussions. You cant fight that which you cannot see . . . . Have i offended you at some point in the past I'm not aware of? My sparring time against the Czech -23's was when I was on FGR.2 (very late '80's, early '90's). The MiG had a reputation alright . . . just not that great of one. Low level - high speed, it would have caused even Tornado a headache, that was where it really came into its own, fast and straight. At lower levels was where its turn performance was better - but still it was woefully ungifted. Higher up - turn if you want, but unless you have many knots on the airframe, you wont be getting away. It did have good points - acceleration when clean was stellar, low level ride, simplicity, and ability to operate from rough or ill prepared strips.

Flogging a dead horse? While the -23 DID have a period of time where it was relevant, its too much of a dinosaur to be considered worthy of the expenditure that any of these upgrades would require. Please understand - these are MY opinions alone. The Helmet mounted sight:- Now, this would only really be of use in an aircraft that can at least turn with the best of them - the MiG-23 is NOT a competent dogfighter - in any sense of the word. The -23 most effective trait is straight line acceleration and speed at low level - that's ALL it has going for it. It cannot even attempt to kid anyone that it has any dogfight in it - the inlets are very prone to surging during maneuver, throttle response is slow by more recent standards, rear view is a distant dream, there are too many canopy bits impeding view, the list goes on. The R-77:- THIS would give the -23 a reason to make other later gen aircraft respect its nose, but it would require an expensive radar set update to utilize, and nobody with any business acumen would allow that kind of expenditure on an antique when there are many other options in the late '90's. As for the picture itself, white 36 is a test aircraft that is dragged out quite a bit to show theoretical loads - some of which are true, some of which are scaremongering (literally my d*cks bigger than yours mentality to intimidate).

Generally, the Harrier is referred to as a STOVL aircraft in use. Short Take Off, Vertical Landing. This represents its most common employment.

Ahhh . . . Switzerland, I spend a lot of time in Montreux myself, love it (even though I’m British). Regards your question - it could be either, weeks or months, before 2.7 progresses to stable. There really is no set time. It will get there when it’s classed as ready by the gods of ED.

For a second there I thought this was going to break into a Jay-Z sort of joke song . . . .

It’s a shame that - at least on carrier - the crew dont just disappear after aircraft shutdown. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen pictures of a carrier still recovering aircraft while either an S-3 or C-2, E-2 were in that very same spot, so that size aircraft is capable of being there during recoveries, it’s just the flight crew would not be standing around waiting for applause!

Not just AMD. Nvidia user here, and I get them (very sporadically!). Sometimes I may see them every few minutes, other times maybe once an hour. When I first saw it I immediately thought “shit! Bird strike!” and tried to avoid.

Glad it’s resolved, have to admit though - some strange little things been happening since 2.7 arrived . . . . Early days, so should settle.

Editor only, or in sim too? Used mine last night (latest OB) and no issues any map.

The ORIGINAL Karman line was agreed as being around 270000ft, maybe this has some significance? Recent advocates state that the demarcation of space should begin at 50 miles, so it would fit if ED are going with it?