Lace

Doesn't the Viper automatically go to CAT/III when the wheels are down (or AAR door is open) anyway?

There is indication of whether they are deployed or not, but no indication of the angle/extent to which they are deployed. For that you need to glance over your shoulder, or practice 'one potato two potato' for the correct approach position.

Yeah, make A2A refuelling harder. Tough pitch.

Both A-4s and SuEs were A2A refuelled during the Falklands war. It was only the Mirages and Daggers which couldn't. Even so, you are right about the short time on target, though that was largely down to the fact that once the bombs were gone, there was no reason to hang around. They were not keen to mix it with the SHARs and 'bravely running away' was the preferred tactic. No disrespect meant to the Argentine pilots, but given their losses to the SHAR (21-nil) it was the sensible choice.

My only argument against the Phantom, is that it had such a long service life (1961-present day, almost as long as the B-52), with many operators, equipment fit, wing, engine and undercarriage types, role configurations, that unless ED builds some kind of Franken-Phantom (which it won't), then we are going to be limited to one specific variant, and as a result have lots of disappointed Phantom Phans. The simple solution is to not develop a Phantom module, it is to develop lots of Phantom modules. A phantom would be a day-1 instabuy for me, and I suspect the vast majority of DCS players. Not everyone wants the 'best' performing aircraft. Especially in the SP or PVE realms it is the experience which counts, not the meta data and K:D ratios. No, the Phantom is not a well groomed FBW, BVR weapons platform, it is a 26-ton St. Louis Slugger. A triumph of thrust over aerodynamics. Gratuitous pictures below:

70m above the trees is not very low. Especially for a helicopter. Edit - I know this isn't a Hind, but any excuse to post this classic video

May I ask which high-fidelity sandbox combat flight simulator you moved on to? I'd be curious to see which one is doing it better than DCS?

"2, Bingo fuel" "2, Ejecting" Can we have an option for unlimited fuel for AI wingmen please? Given that they will be flying the same profile as the player, who should be correctly managing their fuel, I don't really consider it as much a cheat as a workaround for the AI's burn rate. I know IRL the wingman will burn a little more, due to throttle corrections holding formation, but It seems like any mission which requires a longer transit time sees them unable to even get to the target before RTB-ing. Obviously fixing the AI logic would be the ideal solution, but this would work in the mean time.

IANAP but how easy would it be to convert non-combat aircraft from other well known civvy sims into DCS? There are already excellent PC-12, PC-6 ,C-208, C-130, DC-3/C-47 and BAe-146 modules available, not to mention countless airliners. It seems a waste to start from scratch on these projects when from an outside perspective the hard work is already done.

Not sure what that means. My point is that DCS is not the sort of game someone just steps into and clicks with. If you are new to the genre it can take hundreds of hours to learn flying skills, tactics, weapons employment, threat systems capabilities, etc. It's different to the button mashing or lap-after-lap grind in some games, but my point is a good DCS player is good because they invested time. Lots of time.

The levelling-up already exists in DCS, it's called learning the aircraft systems. You put in the hours one way or another.

I think the G tolerance and warmup idea wouldn't be too hard to implement. It would reward players taking the time to do things properly (re warmup), and prevent endless 9G turning engagements.

I will stand by it. If you want to feel like you are genuinely flying and not just playing a computer game, then VR is a must. I say this as a long time simmer and real world pilot, nothing beats the experience of VR, even if it means dialling back the visual quality a little. YMMV etc.

At least you don't have any actual Gs to contend with. I could never go back to 2D flying. I briefly flirted with TrackIR, but it just felt wrong on so many levels (no 1:1 movement, no depth, can still see the room around me). The way I see it is that VR quality can only improve, whereas flat screen immersion will never improve. I get that some people have motion sickness issues, or limited mobility, but for those who can, VR is a must IMHO.

Thanks for the feedback. To be honest, things just got a little busy at home and at work and the mission creating took a bit of a back seat. I wasn't sure there were many still flying these missions. You are right though, it does need some kind of closure. I'll look into uploading to 'User Files', is there much more traffic there than on the forums? Regarding M1, although not strictly accurate as a D+0 target, I did want to set a scene of isolation, which I feel the open water and poor weather helped create. I have started another mission set you might like given it involves the Hind. This will be multiplayer, with REDFOR comprising a military coup which has taken over a nearby island from a BLUFOR ally. REDFOR playable units will be Mi-24 and Mi-8. BLUEFOR will be land-based F-5s, and AV-8Bs from a small amphibious task group sent to assist. Weather should be better though (although, you can get typhoons that time of year...). The only thing holding me back on that one at the moment is the poor performance everyone seems to be experiencing with the Marianas map.

Fair enough. The Tacview images show them pretty much touching.

What about FGR.2 Phantoms?

Your enemy site seems rather densely packed. No surprise the CBU made mincemeat of them. Push the tanks further apart.

FWIW, my Sabre liveries do have the same effect.

Off topic but... +9999 A Combat Caravan, (or maybe a PC12/U-28) would be a great DCS module. Configurable as cargo transport, Medevac, SOF extract/insertion, ISTAR and even light CAS.

Are you moving the a/c before alignment is complete?

You don't need to pull 9G every time. Try to keep the G loading lower. I spent ages practicing BFM without using the afterburner. Just stick the throttle in mil and leave it there. Forget you have an afterburner and keep a close eye on your speed. This will force you to learn how to conserve energy, as once lost it will take a long time to regain. But remember, the FM is still WIP.

You will both need the Yak to fly two player. Use the free-to-fly scheme to try it out first before you commit.

The Yak is one of my favourite modules. for a simple sunset aero flight with the cockpit open it takes some beating. It has a few issues (show me a module which doesn't) but nothing that major. I would recommend it as an aircraft in its own right, never mind as a stepping stone to the more complex stuff. It is good for practicing the fundamentals, but I find the concept of a trainer within a sim a strange one. The best aircraft to learn in is the aircraft you wish to fly (be that Spitfire, Viper, etc.). There are no consequences for crashing , you aren't going to be binned from flight training, and there are no cost implications for training in a fast-jet, all of which apply to real life, but are irrelevant in a game.

So, don't move your neck in a way that your head protrudes through the glass? I'm not sure I've ever accidentally poked my head through the canopy. If you want realism, then do what people do IRL and move your head in the same way.