Lace

^^^ Correct, there is no MLW for the Viper. If you can take off with it, you can land with it. OP - chances are you are too steep in your approach. It is possible to be on-speed/on-AoA, but above glideslope which will result in an excessive rate of descent. Don't slam it into the runway, and use a small amount of flare just before touchdown to arrest the landing. I usually get the slightest side-to-side rock as one wheel touches first (depending on crosswind component), but the nose won't drop if you are gentle enough.

In the meantime... Gunner HEAT PC Still very early in development and requires optimisation, but very promising.

In a word. Coherence. To expand, coherence and a time machine. I get that DCS has evolved as a sandbox, and that is great. A sand box offers almost unlimited re-playability, it allows users to be creative, and doesn't tie them to a particular era, or war, or set of SOPs. But it is also the problem. With a time machine, lets go back, pick a time period, and a theatre, and fill it with land sea and air units relevant to that conflict. Rather than the bit of this, and bit of that, and orphaned modules, and temporally irrelevant maps, build DCS: Desert Storm, DCS: Fulda Gap, DCS: Allied Force, and of course DCS: Vietnam. Not just maps, but complete warscapes, with units and assets and tweaked AI tactics to make them feel individual and complete in their own right. But that's not how it works, and DCS as it is, is still way better than 10 year-old me imagined sims could get after seeing MSFS 3.0, and for all of its faults it offers an experience unlike anything else on the market. So in reality what I really want is the DCE, and a bit better performance. That'll do.

An XBox controller is small enough to tuck away in your luggage without any fuss, and offers a number of axes and buttons which can be configured for DCS. You can pick up a cheap clone for next to nothing too. Give it a try, a lot better than keyboard IMHO. Edit - This is my Viper XBox map, I use VR and this covers 99% of functions required to operate the jet. The only time I touch the keyboard is for a view change which is rare.

Buy the one you like. That way, you'll be more inclined to spend the time to master it. An emotional attachment is more meaningful than some arbitrary better/worse criteria. However, if you love naval aviation, and want true multi-role, then go with the Hornet. There is no other option really.

There should be an option for all modules. Instant rearm/refuel for the impatient air-quakers, and realistic rearm/refuel timings (i.e. much longer rearming) for the dedicated mil-simmers.

The documented limitations are one thing (and mostly incredibly obvious). They don't however mention any altitude, speed or asymmetry limitations, even though these do seem to be a factor in-game. The failure to maintain pitch within the proscribed limits is the issue the OP has reported, not in incorrect flight regimes. At least, that is how I read it. I don't think anyone is trying to engage George while inverted, gear down, with a FLCS failure.

I only find it struggles a bit at high altitudes (above FL350) or above M1.0, or, with an out-of-trim loadout. It struggles to maintain a coordinated turn if you are heavily asymmetric. Once you manually trim the aircraft it works ok again. No idea if this is how the real aircraft behaves though.

It could be fixed by ED though, by having two types/skins of each bomb, and properly allocating them to the warehouses. That way, whenever you arm an aircraft, you receive the correct ordnance for that site.

Monstertech do offer the Viper TQS plate now on their website. Joystick / Throttle Mounting Plate – MTSIM – MONSTERTECH

^^^ I can only imagine the bug reports and general outcry from the MP community if comms jamming becomes a thing. "We want realism!!!", wait, not that much realism. It would be nice to have a loitering AI EC-130 just ruining everyone's day though...

'Fixed internally' means just that. It has been fixed on the ED internal testing version but it has not yet been pushed to a publicly available version. I'd imagine it will feature in the 2.9x Beta, and then follow later in 2.9x Release.

I fly VR so the cursor is in the centre of my vision, which combined with a LMB/RMB/Scroll HOTAS bind means just a look and click - no mouse required. However, I still spend a lot of time setting up the aircraft on the ground, countermeasures, MFD master mode config, TGP setup, RADAR modes, etc. (you have 8 minutes of INS alignment - might as well put them to good use), and then FENCE etc during the ingress legs. Make use of the ALT HOLD/STRG SEL autopilot modes if needed. You'll find with the Viper that once set up there are very few non-HOTAS controls you will need to manipulate, and the majority are on the left AUX or gear panel. It is possible using modifiers to multiply the number of HOTAS inputs you have, so in theory you could have all these additional controls mapped too and not need the mouse at all - the difficulty here now becomes remembering what is mapped where.

The style of recent wars has been low threat SAM/ADA and essentially zero threat A2A. Loitering looking for targets of opportunity is not something you would do in a contested environment. CAS and BAI would be a tough fight without air supremacy or superiority. The F-15E was developed as a replacement for the F-111, i.e. low and fast striking against pre-planned targets. This was the how it would have worked against a near-peer threat in the 80s, and it would probably perform a similar role in a near-peer war today. Once the 5th gen doorkickers have done their thing.

The difference between real flying, and simulator flying (not specifically the AH-64), is that real pilots rely on many stimuli which are absent from a computer sim. Things like control forces, almost imperceptible seat-of-the-pants g-forces, vibrations, external cues, etc, which even the best VR setup is missing. Simulators are very good for practicing certain scenarios, workflows, procedures, etc, but not great for relaying the actual process of controlling an aircraft. A real pilot will have an almost instinctive ability to manipulate the controls almost subconsciously based on many hours and reps. These movements will not necessarily translate directly into the game 1:1, depending on a number of factors, like input device location, stick forces, travel or curves. Combined with the lack of feedback cues above, and the reliance on the image on the screen, then no wonder they will end up behind the curve and potentially lose control of the aircraft. This doesn't mean the flight model is wrong, or that they would be unable to master the module with a few hours of practice, it is just that no matter how much some users try to convince themselves, flying a game, is not the same as flying an aircraft. They are two different, but related skills, each of which take practice.

Mental math is a big part of flying.

The magnetic north pole is not in the same place as the geographic north pole. To complicate this further, it moves, and to complicate it even further still, the magnetic field is not constant across the globe. Each place will have a variation value which is valid for that chart issue date. The chart should also show the rate of change. IRL, when flight planning you draw a line on a chart and read off a true bearing. You will then convert this to a magnetic bearing using the variation value, and you will then convert it again to a compass value using the compass deviation value as placarded in the aircraft. Note the values could be positive or negative. C = D+M = V+T Compass = Deviation + Magnetic = Variation + True Cadbury's Dairy Milk Very Tasty. It also works backwards, which is more useful when going from a chart to the aircraft T+V = M+D = C True Virgins Make Dull Company Depending on where you are, and therefore how big the variation is, will depend on what you do with it. a 1 degree error on a 60nm leg will result in a 1nm error. If the deviation is small, and your typical leg distance is small, then you may well disregard it (most pilots can't hold a heading accurate to 1 degree anyway, 5 is more realistic for most VFR fliers, even in good weather). I can honestly say that I've never used it in DCS. There is a good app you can download called Aerovariation, which will give you current and historic values for anywhere on earth. AeroVariation on the App Store (apple.com)

[wags] huh, what's that 2.9 doing there? [/wags]

F-111 would be a day-1 instabuy for me. From a technical stand point multicrew is pretty well established now, the F-14 showed variable geometry is possible, and the F-15E TFR should translate over without too much difficulty. The only issue I could see would be economic - are there enough potential customers for such a dedicated single role platform? (though I guess the same argument could be made for other modules already produced). Wags' recent interview with Mover & Gonky surprised me a little when he said they will soon be running out of 4th gen aircraft, when there are so many iconic examples still to produce. Notable by their absence and my personal favourites would be the F-111, F-117, Jaguar and Buccaneer, but I could list so many more I would like to see represented.

Must be due one soon, it seems a while since the last OB update. Surprise F-4E anyone?

DCS for me has always been about the aircraft (helicopters included of course). I like the idea of CA or a RTS element, but really these are sideshows. My dream is a fully developed 70s-80s GIUK/BALTAP/Central Front focus for DCS, with a full inventory of AI ground, air and sea assets and an expanded range of 3rd/4th gen aircraft and a fully developed dynamic campaign engine, with varying levels of involvement based on rank (play as a junior wingman and just fly your mission as fragged, or as a more senior Officer, and play from a more strategic perspective - as a pilot. I don't want to be spending half my time organising logistics for ground units)

It's funny you say that, but that's exactly the feeling many students describe the first time flying a very light helicopter (like an R22/44) - like balancing on the head of a pin.

Personally, I'd like to stretch it to include Leuchars, Lossiemouth and Kinloss too! And add a Buccaneer, and a Nimrod, and a Phantom FG1, and an F-16A, and...

Baltic Approaches would tick those boxes, and be more in line with the typical map sizes. Perfect hunting ground for ASuW Viggens and Tornados.

Looks great. I fully expect this to become my go-to map.