Lace

Yep.

Nice!

Actually, it wasn't. It was built for two purposes. Why would a pure bomber have a FLIR sensor on an upper surface...? It was also an AWACS killer, close in with sidewinders, slitting throats in the night. Allegedly.

Temperature inversions would be a nice feature too.

It doesn't. I (and many others) will continue to buy every module and map released, as by doing so we are supporting a company, and maybe eventually we will get the ones we really want. Ever the optimist. Nobody is asking ED to do this all for free, most of us are willing and able to pay more for a module than some people would pay for a full game. I don't see many threads about the costs. I buy modules knowing full well I will never fly them, because it does nobody any good to see ED or any of the 3rd parties fail due to lack of sales. What grates, is that DCS is effectively a monopoly. It is the only high-fidelity modern combat flight simulator on the market, and the problem with monopolies is without competition it is very easy to get complacent. Competition is healthy and DCS has none (excepting the other WWII sim, and the generation-older Viper sim). Again, this sounds like a complaint, but it really isn't. I fully understand commercial pressures, and that ED and The Battlefield Simulator have other non-commercial clients who pay far more for systems trainers. Take it as a compliment that we users want it ALL and want it NOW. It's only because ED are doing such a good job that there is such demand. If the product was mediocre, nobody would care which modules or theatres were produced. As for the F-14A, that does give me hope that perhaps if HB can do it, it will maybe set a precedent that each module will cover a number of variants rather than one model/year/block. This seems like low-hanging fruit and would add much more variety to the line up, and though I'm not the biggest Tomcat fan, it would be nice to see ED follow suit with an F-16A, F/A-18A, FF A-10A, etc. Playing DCS is like taking pleasure in planting an avenue of oak trees. You enjoy watching the saplings grow, and know that one day the mighty trees will make an impressive sight, but at the same time it brings sadness because you know that you will be long dead before that happens.

Well ok, yes, we all would like the whole planet modelled and useable for operations, but who honestly would have put the Marianas map above Fulda Gap, or GIUK, or Afghanistan, Iraq, Balkans, Korea, Vietnam, etc. in a wish list? I know people wanted an all-water (i.e. high FPS) map for blue water carrier ops, but the Marianas isn't that. I know it is 'free' in the sense it is available as part of the core DCS game, but it is certainly not 'free' in terms of developer/programmer time. Likewise the aircraft and assets. Ideally we all want everything, but I'm not going to live to 200, so realistically we need focus. Look at the asset database for Command:MO, there are literally tens-of-thousands of air, sea and land assets, from the end of WWII to the near future. There is no way DCS can offer an authentic battlefield environment covering all regions and all timeframes of the 70 years through WWII to 2010ish, at least not to the level of fidelity and visual quality we as a community demand. The result is lots of artistic licencing. F-16C standing in for an 'A' model. Caucasus standing in for Norway, SoH standing in for Kuwait, M2000 for MIII, Syria for Afghanistan, etc etc. This is not a complaint about the work ED are doing. DCS is the flight sim I wished for as a kid in the late 80's/early 90's. What they have achieved is amazing, but also frustrating, knowing that they produce a couple of FF modules a year (for 2021 we've had the Mi-24, Mosquito, and maybe the AH-64 will make it in). How long will it take to get the aircraft I want? When will we see an F-111 (or any currently unmodeled a/c) for example? It doesn't feature on the roadmap, so maybe 2025+, but by then, how much time will be going into reworking the then older F/A-18C? Surely that will be due an update, so as the number of modules increases, it stands that the development time of new modules will also increase as time is dedicated to the updating and maintenance of existing modules. So we may never see an F-111, which seems to be one of the most wished for a/c on the forums. What does that mean for the less popular but still historically significant aircraft? They have no chance. Will we ever see FF A-models? Probably not, because why would the air-quakers buy something which is less capable than what is currently on offer? If there is no financial incentive for the developers, it won't be made, so there will always be massive holes in the inventory when it comes to flyable assets, which means DCS will never be the true sandbox it prides itself on being. It is a sandbox in that it has no particular focus, but not in the wider sense of sandbox depth like C:MO. Perhaps it should stop referring to itself as such. Lifted straight from DCS World front page (and long overdue a re-write): DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that is also designed to cover multiple time periods of interest such as WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War and others. Current regions to battle include the Caucasus, Nevada Test and Training Range, and Normandy 1944. New maps in development include the Persian gulf, Syria and others.

Ha ha, yes, that is the question. I have an older model. Short of buying the newer ones and testing them out I can't honestly say, but I would like to think that any genuine Microsoft (I should have said 'genuine', not 'original' in my response above) controllers will behave in the same way. My point was that in my experience, the non-Microsoft copies do not perform as well.

The problem with DCS is that its USP is the thing holding it back, namely the glacially-slow development of modules (and even AI units), which in turn is due to our (as a community) demands for ultimate realism and fidelity of systems. Factor in the sandbox nature of DCS, and we have a handful of units covering a time period of 70+ years and a bunch of seemingly unrelated maps. Even if we had a Vietnam map, which units do we have that could realistically fight there? The F-5 and UH-1 are too modern. The F-14 could if you squint, but never really fought there. Maybe when we get an A-6 and F-8 we might have something, but then it depends on the versions modelled. Focus is what is needed. Nobody wanted the Marianas. Falklands is great, but it needs a SHAR and SuE at least to make it relevant. Modern Falklands makes no sense. Maybe when we get Eurofighter Typhoon, but again, we will be getting a German version first. I know Razbam have plans for more South Atlantic modules, but what is the timescale, five years? ten? Will I buy it? yes, of course, and it will be great, but that is not the point. Syria is a versatile map, and a lot of the modern and LOMAC stuff fit in there, and Afghanistan would work in a similar way. The SoH map seemed solely to be for the benefit of the Hornet. DCS is trying to be too much, and this is ultimately why there is no coherence between the modules and the maps and what the players want. Given a blank sheet of paper I would love to see DCS: Vietnam '68, or DCS: Falklands '82, DCS: Germany '88. DCS: Iraq '91, DCS: Afghanistan '06, etc. Each fleshed out with relevant ground, naval and air units, with relevant FF modules. The problem is, we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper, and it would be incredibly wasteful to throw away the excellent work which has been done so far. This is not a complaint about what ED are doing, it's a wish for more, but since more takes time, it would be nice if they would focus on one period/conflict/region and finish it, before going somewhere else at random. Regarding Korea and Taiwan, the elephant in the room is that any present-day conflict is going to involve lots of 5th-gen aircraft which do not feature is the DCS inventory, and realistically probably never will. Again they would be great maps, but they would need to be modelled at a time which fits our current line up of assets, so 1990-2010 I guess. A bit of a ramble I know, but just a few thoughts on the seeming lack of direction.

I've just tried it on my system, and I start with 6x 9-Mikes. Warehouse quantities show 30 Mikes and 30 Limas.

I use an XBox controller for flying when I'm away from my main simpits. For me the original, genuine Microsoft ones are the best for a couple of reasons. I have tried others, from cheap knock-offs, to the fancy Razer Wolverine, but none are as useful for DCS. With the original MS product, the triggers are independent axes, i.e, you can map the left and right triggers to separate things. I use left and right toe brakes. In addition, the 'back' and 'start' buttons are recognised by DCS as actual buttons. This allows me to use them as modifiers, which doubles (actually quadruples) up the number of inputs you can map to the controller buttons. The other controllers I tried do not have these functions, which massively limits the utility of the controller. Some have additional re-mappable buttons which sounds good, until you realise they are just mimicking other button presses, and not actually adding anything to the functionality of the device. Battery/wired is down to personal preference. At least wired don't shut down mid-flight if you forget to charge them. I know people look down on game controllers, and I'm not going to argue they are better than a proper HOTAS setup, but with a bit of thought, you can find them very useful for complex aircraft. I've attached my Viper controls to demonstrate just how much can be mapped.

Hmm, no. It wasn't like that before. Maybe something changed with an update. You're right though, the wingman isn't much help in the fight.

Exactly. One would hope that each developer is actually measuring the cockpits as part of the development process. Cockpits are different sizes IRL. The Mirage is tiny, the A-10 huge. Going on how big your TM stick is looking is about as unscientific as it gets. Trust that the devs have got it right, rather than how it 'feels' to the untrained observer.

I must be one of the few who buyers who were not only not only disappointed, but actually happy with the Viper in it's day-1 EA state. Personally I'd rather be flying an incomplete module, than waiting forever for a feature complete version. I like to start incorporating new aircraft into missions, getting a feel for the systems, checklists, tactics etc, which is all perfectly achievable with a 50% complete module. However, Razbam will release it when they want to, not when we want them to.

A-6, A-7 and F-8 all in development. Possibly F-4 too...

We are simulating warfare. Warfare is not nice, or pleasant. I'm amazed people are squeamish about this stuff but will happily ripple CBU into built up areas. Personally I think the distraction of a wounded co pilot or other crew member would add a sense of urgency and desperation and certainly reduce your combat effectiveness, which is exactly how it should be. Microprose are incorporating this very thing into their new B-17 simulator, as they know that managing crew 'damage' is just as important as airframe damage in ensuring a successful outcome to a mission. At the very least, the damage model should extend to the cockpit and controls IMHO.

Flare works for me, not tried changing chaff yet.

You don't. You look at it with the VR crosshairs and click LMB. Nothing to map, nothing to remember.

Practical? You mean completely unnecessary. I have been flying exclusively in VR for a couple of years now and never needed to touch a mouse, trackball or VR controller. Map a stick hat to LMB/RMB/Mouse scroll up/down and simply look at the switches to operate. If you don't have enough buttons a modifier on your throttle lets you double up. I can't understand why so many people don't do this. Don't fight the HOTAS, use it!

I feel that accurately modelling the systems and crew stations of multiple vessels is unachievable, at least to the standard which would be expected from an ED module. Modern warships are incredibly complex pieces of equipment, which would make even the highest fidelity aircraft module look as simple as a Cessna 152. There is a reason for such specialisation of crew members. Not to mention the classified nature of much of the equipment on board. To accurately model these, never mind learn the required systems to the level required for effective combat employment would be a huge undertaking (or would require a huge MP crew - equally unlikely IMHO). Instead I propose a different approach. A 'Captain' sim. Rather than seat-swapping between stations, information is fed to the vessel's Master, who in turn issues orders. You can set ROE, EMCON, engagement ranges, etc but do not need to micromanage each system operator. That way, one can concentrate on the business of naval combat, without the minutiae. We can still have a realistic 3D wheelhouse, with the relevant repeaters as IRL, but just as IRL the Captain is unlikely to actually be hands-on any controls, the module would be more of a vessel management sim. As you receive damage, then damage control orders should be issued, and as systems are degraded, so is the information being fed back. You as captain could order an ASW or ASuW patrol be despatched, and give a patrol area to cover, and the vessel will prepare and launch the relevant assets. Or you could plan and execute a land strike using stand off cruise missiles. Think C:MO, but with a 1st person interface. Or a realistic interpretation of Carrier Command 2.

Useful given the upcoming IR signature improvements.

Trims fine for me too, but that's not to say a bit more fine control of the trim wheel would not make things easier.

Mission 9 attached. Anti-ship strike against the Marshal Ustinov. Don't get too close, those CIWS are vicious. Northern Flank 9.miz

Yes. Without changing power settings, you can trade speed and altitude. Say you are trimmed S&L at 120kts, 3000ft. You pull on the stick to trade some speed for altitude (a zoom climb). You are now flying higher but since you have not changed the power setting (which controls altitude) you will require more back pressure on the stick to maintain that new altitude. Two things can happen now - you trim nose up to hold the new altitude and reduced airspeed (you have swapped some speed for some altitude) or you relax the stick pressure and the aircraft reestablishes 120kts by entering a shallow descent until it stabilises at 3000ft again. Try it the other way. At 120kts and 3000ft you push the nose over. Speed increases as altitude decreases, but as you get faster the stick pressure required to hold nose-down increases. You are fighting the aircraft as it wants to find 120kts (I.e. by pitching back up). Again you now need to re-trim for the faster speed, and the aircraft will level off at a lower altitude and higher speed, or you release the stick pressure and the aircraft makes it’s way back to 120kts/3000ft. From this it should be obvious that a well trimmed aircraft is essential to an accurate strafing run, otherwise as speed increases in the dive, the pilot will need to fight very heavy pitching forces and end up oscillating up and down as the aircraft is constantly trying to pitch up, while the pilot is trying to hold a steady dive angle.

I seem to have caused further confusion here. Of course in a practical sense you are correct in that each aircraft manoeuvre requires the manipulation of multiple controls, and in order to accelerate in S&L flight you need both trim and power. Again, this is really easy to demonstrate. Trim for S&L flight and increase the throttle, don’t touch any other controls. Allow the aircraft to stabilise (give it a minute or two) and check the conditions. Are you now going faster, or are you flying higher? Your trim setting has essentially fixed the aircraft speed, and no matter what you do to the throttle afterwards, the aircraft (assuming positive stability characteristics) will eventually settle back to that airspeed. The only way you are going to get it to sit at a faster cruise speed is by turning that trim wheel nose down. edit - imagine this scenario, you are stabilised on finals, and low on the glide slope. Do you a) pitch up, or b) add power. One answer is correct, and the other is likely to end in a visit to the hospital (if you are lucky).

No, the answer to my question is 'pitch up'. The only way it would be 'get faster' is if you simultaneously apply forward stick (or trim) as you increase throttle. Given a S&L trimmed aircraft, you can go faster just by trimming, but, as you stated, this will result in a corresponding pitch down, and then a settling S&L at a lower altitude and higher speed. Trim effects speed. If you want to increase speed and maintain altitude, then you will need a power increase. Power effects altitude. If you are interested in how this all actually works in reality it is worth booking a few lessons with your local flying school (even if you have no intentions of taking it further). It will increase your understanding and help your simulator flying.