Lace

What you need to remember about thermal imaging, is that two objects of the same temperature can look different. What matters is the rate at which they are losing heat (in a certain part of the IR spectrum) to their surroundings. It is as much about the material properties as the actual temperature. Edit - but yes, of course this is still WiP and will no doubt be tweaked.

As an option perhaps, but whatever you do ED please don't remove the feature altogether. Some of us VR users rely very heavily on it. Who carries a mouse in a cockpit?

It quite rightly should be bottom of the list. Once all the operationally relevant stuff is complete.

Runway lights are often highly directional. You can find yourself parallel the rwy and still unable to see it until lined up. Not saying the lighting in DCS couldn't be improved, but you'd be surprised how difficult they can be to spot IRL too. Use your ILS if you have it, or at least follow the published instrument approach to get you on to centreline. If still no good, then divert to your alternate. People want realism, real things are sometimes difficult.

Ok, here are the first couple, both as Red and probably of more interest here, Blue. First one is more of a FAMEX, second can be hairy. Keep your distance and use your sensors. BORDER SKIRMISH BLUE 1.miz BORDER SKIRMISH BLUE 2.miz BORDER SKIRMISH RED 1.miz BORDER SKIRMISH RED 2.miz

DATA is the receipt of a Datalink SPI. Added in the latest update.

I have the same issue on some missions. Doesn't matter if it is the left or right engine, it is the second engine started. Sometimes it goes after 2-3 tries, other times if Increase the power levers above idle it picks up too.

Ok, so like most of you I had it on pre-order. Unlike most of you I wasn't that hyped. From Wag's videos it seemed overcomplicated, and cluttered. I would fly it, but had already decided that I wasn't willing to invest the time to really learn it. So again, like most of you I downloaded it last night, and fired up a quick cold-start mission. There is something about this module which seems to have raised the bar. The little details, the monocle rendered in VR, with what seems to be correct focal distances. The dynamic elements in the cockpit. The parallax error and lag on the PNVS seem so real in their execution. Imperfection is digital perfection. The flight model seems good (IANAAP) and the systems aren't too complicated once you can play with them yourself. Performance in VR is no worse than any other module I have, and the new FLIR looks great. I think ED have exceeded all expectations here. BZ to all the team, well done on a first class module!

Two weeks.

Looks great. Can't be far away now I'd think?

Had a quick play with Blender last night. A few more features than 3D Studio 2! Stuff I could have only dreamed of back then. I'm going to make some donuts and then get on with some more relevant simple stuff, see how I get on.

Which helicopter do I want to see next? Kiowa!!! After that I think Chinook or some form of Blackhawk/Seahawk would be most versatile as a modern BLUEFOR lifter for the dynamic campaign. Pure wish list would be an Osprey. That's a helicopter, right?

They will be playable as SP, but will have 2x Pilot and 2x CPG slots for BLUE.

That's great. Going to give Blender a good looking at and see what I can come up with.

Remember IRL SEAD missions are not single aircraft. They are part of large strike packages with dedicated EW, jamming, HARM shooters, and other DEAD CBU armed aircraft. You are not going to take down a protected IADS/SAM installation by yourself. The 476th publish a decent threat guide 476TTP3-1.Threat Guide - Public Release - Downloads - 476th Virtual Fighter Group (476vfightergroup.com) which gives a bit more info on the capability of various systems.

I thought the point of the FC3 modules was that they were just hangovers from LOMAC? Worth including as an easier option for casual players, not as a stepping stone or training aid for FF modules. At risk of flogging this dead horse, my point is simply that if your end goal is mastery of a FF module, then start with a FF module, even if it is a 'simple' one like the L-39, F-5, etc. At least that way you are learning something about the processes in starting, operating and fighting a realistic airframe. If your end goal is to fly FC3 aircraft and you have no intention of investing the time in a FF module, then crack on. Nothing wrong with that.

Ah yes, that button. Must admit I often skip the BIT for that very reason. Same manual gymnastics required starting the Mossie too.

Anything is possible if you want it enough, but the question for the OP was which aircraft to start with. My argument was simply that if they are a VR user (we still don't know if they are) then FC3 complicates things be requiring keys to be mapped (and remembered) which is not the case in the FF modules. The F-5 is much easier to learn, to switch on the battery, I click the battery switch, I don't need to remember if it is LShift+B, or RShift+B, or whatever. The learning curve is steep for new users, Just remembering the start procedure is difficult enough without having to remember which arbitrary key press is required to do that thing. You can only fit so many penguins on the iceberg. IMHO FC3 workload can be higher*, and ultimately wasted time which could be used learning proper FF modules. If the end goal is to fly FC3 aircraft, then great, go out and learn them. * especially for VR

You can teach monkeys to fly. It is the button pushing which turns a VFR bimbler into a combat effective fighter pilot. How would you structure the A-10A training? Given there is a one-button start procedure, you won't learn that. The NAV/COMMS is through a magic non-interfaceable radio set. Ok, I'll give you arrival and departure procedures (same for any aircraft essentially), weapons delivery has zero commonality with the FF A-10C, You might learn 'navigation' in a first principles sense, but it will not teach you how the nav systems in the C work nor will the A teach you the handling characteristics of the C, given the simplified FM. There is no reason why if the end goal is flying the C, you would not just start learning the C. There is nothing specific to the aircraft that the A will teach you. You might as well use a C172 in xplane for learning the basics. One question though, assuming you are a VR pilot (since that is why this came about), why do you use the gear keybind in the F14 rather than a glance and a click? Do you look later to verify correct gear travel? Is it not immersion breaking to reach for a keyboard with the headset on?

YMMV I said 'effectively' unusable. If the end goal is competency in a FF module, then simply learning a load of key binds will do nothing to prepare you for that. A huge part of flying is about instrument scans - i.e. following a pattern around the cockpit as you interact with various controls and witness their effect. With a clicky cockpit in VR you are looking at each control as you interact with it, and can develop these scan patterns (especially important in VR since you can see the panel, but can't see the keyboard). Lets take the very simple example of landing gear. In a clicky FF module, you are forced to look down at the lever, you click it, verify the lever has moved, wait, verify three greens, then go back to the finals scan of on-AOA, on-centreline. Now a with the FC3 aircraft there is nothing making you look down at the lever, you just press whichever button is allocated to the gear level down, without taking your eyes away from the HUD. Good for simmers, bad for pilots. If you are just trying to learn to play the game, then it isn't that important, but if you want to fly FF modules in a competent and professional manner, then it is. The point is that FC3 aircraft are fine in their own right, but are not well suited as a stepping stone to the FF aircraft, which ultimately is what the OP is asking. You could spend a dozen hours in the FC3 A-10A, how much will that have taught you about the FF A-10C? Nothing, there is no commonality, no scans or flows, no procedures. Just pushing keys.

Hey, if FC3 works for you that's great, but I respectfully disagree. Even with several Warthog/Cougar combos at my disposal, I find the fact that I have to bind simple functions like gear, canopy, battery switch, etc to buttons overcomplicates things. With FF modules, I don't need to remember button maps, I just push the button. When flying the Viper with my Cougar for example, The only keybinds I have are LMB, RMB, Mouse Scroll up/dn, ESC and VR Centre (all modified stick hats). Everything else is on the HOTAS or a button I can press in the cockpit.

You don't mention whether you are currently or are planning to be a VR user - this has a bearing on your decision as due to the non-clicky cockpits, FC3 aircraft are effectively unusable in VR (or useable with a huge amount of button binds to remember). Personally I am an advocate of flying the aircraft you want to fly. The concept of trainers in a sim world is flawed, given there are no consequences for failure or crashing, and the cost per hour is the same no matter which module you fly. If you want to fly the A-10C, then fly the A-10C. Start small. Learn to start it, fly, navigate, and land. Learn the gun, then unguided rockets. Learn dumb bombs. Learn the TGP and guided rockets & LGB. Learn mavericks and sidewinders. Learn tactics and enemy capabilities. Learn IFR, AAR and night ops. Don't try to be combat proficient in one or two flights. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

I have both, but spend significantly more time in the Viper. Every time I fire up the Hornet, I think to myself, this is actually an awesome aircraft, why don't I fly it more? And then it goes away and I go back to the Viper. I'm not sure why, I think it is simply that I don't have any emotional attachment to the Hornet. Growing up I spent hours on Falcon 3.0. The Viper was a regular on the UK airshow circuit, whereas I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen a Hornet in the flesh (and non of those as a kid in the 80's/90's). This means that for me, while I appreciate and enjoy the Hornet, I will 9 times out of 10 go for the Viper., regardless of on-paper comparisons. The beauty of DCS is that we can just change airframes on a day-by-day or even hour-by-hour basis, without the real world limitations of requalifying etc. Even switching between rotary and fixed-wing, piston or jet. I'm sure we all have our favourites but don't limit yourself, it shouldn't just be about flying the 'best' aircraft, its about different experiences. Oh, and squats to pee up top ^^^ - If you are a genuine carrier qualified fighter pilot then you get to say stuff like that, otherwise it comes across a little walty. Don't kid yourself that competency with a game puts you on a par with the guys doing it for real. (I know you are probably just joking, but its laughable that simmers who have gone through no form of selection claim to be better than another type of simmer who has chosen to fly a different platform. A MSFS 747 pilot is not more professional than a MSFS cub pilot, they are still just playing a game). @Steel Jaw

Sounds great. At the moment I'm using IDF, Angolan, and Algerian skins for the units. A mix of desert/jungle appropriate colours, but lots of colour also feels appropriate for an African warlord.

Would love to, but most aircraft are sporting the liveries of the various export nations which supplied them at the moment. It's not easy to get stuff painted around here. I'm trying to go for something far removed from the sanitised and procedural modern US/NATO type experience a lot of missions offer, and go for something more chaotic and atmospheric if I can. Also I figure AH-64 vs MiG-21 is about as asymmetric as air warfare is possible to get. Might work, might not. We'll see.