Lace

Close, but no cigar. The up-going wing has a down-moving aileron, which raises the AoA of that section of the wing, creating more lift which in turn creates more drag, The down-going wing has an up-moving aileron which lowers the AoA of that section of the wing which creates less lift and hence less drag. It is the different levels of drag yawing the nose towards the outside of the turn, nothing to do with wings going faster or slower. This is countered in most 'modern' (like, since the 1930s) aircraft with differential ailerons, where the up-moving aileron moves more than the down-moving one, thus creating more drag on the down-moving wing, and partially eliminating adverse yaw conditions during most flight regimes. It is also why you don't use the ailerons at or very near stall conditions (i.e. high AoA), but maintain directional control with the rudder, as an aileron induced increased AoA can stall the outward section of the up-going wing, which then very rapidly becomes the down-going wing!

No different to inadvertent finger movements IRL. Try adjusting radios/UFC etc in even light turbulence. You need to make slow deliberate movements.

Concur. Now seem much less effective.

Transponders do not give location data. They can report altitude and an ident code. You still require SSR to locate aircraft.

Like anything, it depends, but to reiterate what has been said above, the Viper is one of the more economical modules when operated correctly. Be disciplined with afterburner use, and don't engage if you don't have enough fuel to win the fight. Boyd expected the USAF to use the limited fuel capacity of the F16 (LWF) as a reason to bin the program and expand F15 procurement, but while it is true the F16 carried less fuel, its overall fuel fraction (i.e. fuel as a proportion of total weight) was actually higher than that of the F15. Boyd kept this card close to his chest, and when as expected the Air Force criticized the F16 for having much less fuel than the F15 the erroneous thinking was pointed out.

Does the F-14 have linked seats - i.e. could the AI RIO eject both crew after being hit, even though this never occurred in the original flight and no human instigated the ejection?

Even sailing boats carry reflectors to make them more visible to the RADAR of other vessels. Unintended stealth can have unpleasant consequences.

A full fidelity X-Wing or Y-Wing would be fun, though limited unless we introduce extraplanetary flight. Given the need to stick close to the ground and operate in a semi-real near future world how about the dropship from Aliens? In a similar vein how about Terminator's HK? Or going more leftfield, a War of the Worlds campaign with AI tripods? Given their known CBNR weaknesses ED will have to expand the weapons options a bit otherwise it will be a fairly one-sided fight. As you say though, just a bit of fun, not serious requests.

Yes, the instant action missions are rather too 'instant' in most cases. It takes away a big tactical element of pre-merge positioning, plus as you say the proper aircraft configuration.

Really? Why have they not made a bigger fanfare about this fix? Great news, I'll check it out later.

X-plane 11 has an iPad app which offers similar functionality. Essentially an instructor can generate system and control failures, birdstrikes, change wx conditions, change cg etc. Very useful and would be great to have something similar for DCS.

I don't play online MP due to time constraints - most of the servers I would in theory be interested in joining require commitment to be online at regular and frequent times. The sort of servers I can just jump in and out of are exactly the sort I would wish to avoid. All of this 'base capturing' etc is hilarious, like you could just land on an enemy airbase at claim it - what about the ground forces occupying it? are they suddenly going to switch allegiance just because an enemy fighter parks up on the apron? For a simulator community who argues the minutiae of realism I can't see how anyone can seriously entertain such a concept. For me the ideal server would have zero chat, realistic mission-based objectives, and no respawn. Fly as briefed, against an organised enemy (AI or human) and IADS.

Both of these would be useful. The "Say again" the most realistic, but I also think that any important info, such as 9-lines, approach instructions, clearances, etc. should automatically be copied to a kneeboard page, as they would in real life. Until there is a functional VR pen and paper I think this is a good compromise.

We've been spoiled with the X-Rays haven't we! I find dragging the MiG-29s into either the landing party SHORAD or shipborne SAMs helps too.

Mission 8 ready for anyone still following. Northern Flank 8.miz

It is nice to know, but IRL, unless there is a post-strike recce element tasked then the debrief and BDA will depend heavily on the pilot's own assessment of the delivery. Personally I use Tacview for the AAR/debrief rather than the DCS mission debrief as it is a much clearer presentation of what actually happened, especially in a mission with a lot of AI vs AI combat to resolve.

Understood. I'll give that a try, thanks.

Soviet Air Land Battle is worth a read for an American analysis of the expected WARPAC combined arms tactics of the day. soviet air land battle | eBay

Is it possible to force the AI enemy to ignore a friendly unit without making it invisible? For example, in an NTTR training scenario I want the REDFOR to engage the BLUEFOR fighters but not engage the BLUEFOR AWACS or tankers. Is this possible? I'm aware of the 'ONLY DESIGNATED' parameter but would like something more bulletproof ideally.

My pleasure. I'm glad there are some people out there flying them. I mainly make them for myself. I'll take a look at the scoring again - I wasn't completely convinced of the mechanics of the process, and whether the scoring would total up for multiple hits, or simply count a hit once and score accordingly. As I've said before, this is a learning process for me and the feedback is invaluable. I've test flown #8 a few times now, and it is a tough scrap, but at least the weather is better!

Given that the rudder is forward and above the jet efflux it won't be easy. You'll need enough airspeed to maintain rudder authority. Propeller driven aircraft can reduce airspeed to almost nothing and rely on propwash on the rudder to yaw them round at the top of the manoeuvre. Given the higher airspeed you will get less of a hammer-head and more of a croquet hoop. The yaw will also increase the lift on the outside wing so you should roll outwards to counter that. The extra lift will create extra drag on that wing, further reducing the yaw from the almost ineffective rudder.

Good info. Thanks.

Our Viper doesn't support them. Not quite as catchy admittedly, but is the full steerpoint integration planned? Particularly useful would be the HSD lines (borders, airspace restrictions) and PPTs. There is no mention on the roadmap, will this require a redesign of the mission editor/planner or the addition of a DTC feature to work?

Good to know, thanks. And hope I didn't offend, I appreciate the enormous amount of work which goes into them.

Chuck's guides are fine for a quick and dirty overview, but no substitute for the actual manual.