Tom Kazansky

Yeah, I got that. And there is no fuel burning engine that will change that without carrying its own oxygen with it like a rocket. As I mentioned before my tests don't contradict what is correctly stated before about t/w ratio. They just show whether the thrust combined with the energy gained before t/w drops below 1, by thin air, is enough to get to 30k feet.

After your reports about the names and the missiles I checked the version of my file again, and have to say, I klicked on the wrong line for uploading. The correct mission is this one P.S.: 1.) It makes sense to set fuel to unlimited for longer training flights with high "health points" at the start, as you mentioned. (With limited fuel I've learned about the afterburner usage of different planes.) 2.) What is odd: I tried my first uploaded mission (05.04.04...) again and although the pilots names were different from the script, the hit counter still worked correctly. Maybe someone with better knowledg of scripting could tell me why. ice 05.04.05 AA Training FA-18 vs. X (LUA-hit-counter works).miz

In VR I use the seat adjustment for AAR, dogfight and landing (some times). I had no problems with finding a good spot for AAR in the F-15E. I started to use a switch of my HOTAS (throttle) for seat adjustment (or vertical camera adjustment for modules that don't have the other) while I was learning the Mirage 2000C.

He said "without conformal fuel tanks". Our F-15E can't go 90° to 30k after take off. I tried. I also expect a Eurofighter can do it, not only because of the thrust to weight ratio but also because of the fact that its engines are optimised for high altitudes.

Good to read. Yeah, those AA missiles weren't meant to be there. A relic of a test, that I didn't remove before uploading. I hope you get your server project running.

And please add bindings for Gear up and Gear down (we only have a toggle and a special 2way switch) EDIT: Please disregard this post! We already have those two bindings but they are like "hidden in translation" in my German version. For all people with the same version, who didn't see it like me: We have: "Landing Gear Lever Toggle..." "Landing Gear Lever UP else DOWN" and we have: "Fahrwerksausfahrhebel - FAHRWERK AUSFAHREN" "Fahrwerksausfahrhebel - FAHRWERK EINFAHREN" So, we have all we need. thanks.

Bitteschön

I've found the source of the code right here in the forums and, after all those years, I want to thank you @Bushmanni for a lot of fun with this method of A2A-training!

@cpt_milkeye LATE EDIT: the attached mission is not the correct mission bc of an upload mistake of mine. I added the correct one with my post on Friday 25th (v 05.04.05) I've been using exactly what you described for a number of years. There is only 1 thing the mission (not the script) adds: As soon as the "health" of a plane reaches zero, it gets vulnerable and you can kill it. For "unlimited" training just set the health to 1000 or more. I like to see a burning bandit at the end of the day, so I like this feature. I did not create the hitcounter script. Just found in in the WWW 2017 and AFAIR I did not change more than variable names, if any. So I don't take credits for the script. I never shared it btw. until totaday. (end of disclaimer ) So here it is: customEventHandler = {}; function customEventHandler:onEvent(event) if (world.event.S_EVENT_HIT == event.id) then local target = "unknown"; if event.target:getCategory() == Object.Category.UNIT then if event.target:getPlayerName() then target = event.target:getPlayerName(); elseif event.target:getName() then target = event.target:getName(); end; end; if (target == "Pilot Red" and trigger.misc.getUserFlag("1") >0) then local hits = trigger.misc.getUserFlag("1") -1; trigger.action.setUserFlag("1", hits); elseif (target == "ice" and trigger.misc.getUserFlag("2") >0) then local hits = trigger.misc.getUserFlag("2") -1; trigger.action.setUserFlag("2", hits); end; end; end; world.addEventHandler(customEventHandler); Here is my mission where I added the output and other little things. To adjust the "Health-Points" of the enemy plane and your own, simply edit the 2nd and 3rd trigger values in the ME. I'm German, so they are called "F1 Gegner-Leben" (="Enemy-Lifes") and "F2 Player-Leben" ("Player-Lifes"). default is: F1 = 30, F2 =10 Because I do my weapons trainings 99% of the time on the Nevada Map (NTTR) I only have the mission for that map. And I use the F/A-18C for both planes in this version of the miz. (see attachment) EDIT: the names of the pilots/units are important for the script. So mine is "ice" and the enemy is called "Pilot Red". EDIT2: I use the stable version of DCS 2.8.7.42718 which (today) is 1 version behind. Hope that doesn't matter. ice 05.04.04 AA Training FA-18 vs. X (LUA-hit-counter works).miz

Lost my own bet to some extent. Tried it with a clean F-15C but needed to reduce fuel to 10% (means almost empty), which allowed only the climb (right after take off) and a save landing right after "falling" down. But: The F-15C just reaches 30k feet within a stall regime and has to use the altitude to recover to a stable flight. So, my conclusions: 1.) Even the T/W ratio of the F-15C is not enough to play starship - certainly not in normal/safe configurations. So the Hornet wil be doing worse by design. 2.) Everything what is posted here to explain why "T/W >1" does not mean you have a VTOL aircraft is correct. (Will repeat this with the Eurofighter/Typhoon as soon as I get my hands on it )

I need to correct my own post: After testing, the Hornet does climb/decent even in auto flaps configuration by increasing/reducing thrust. But just a little bit. (Maybe enough to get oscillation when you are not used to it). The rest of my post still stands: there is not much room in an AAR situation for VVI adjustments by power.

I'm not at my PC but I bet even with a light F-15C which has an even better T/W ratio than the Hornet you couldn't climb 90° after take off to 30k feet because of the reasons others posted above. (Has anybody tried this? I will...)

This seems odd and is never needed in "my" Hornet. Increasing power only adds a rate of climb in landing configuration. But in normal/auto-flaps config the Hornet will keep 1g even with more power, so it won't climb. In an AAR situation, how much power do you add? I mean you have to closely match the speed of the tanker. Imho there is not much range for a power shift to gain altitude. Maybe a track replay could be helpful?

+1, sure, but let me add one question (maybe people like @Sierra99 could answer): would an air refueling be done with those 2 planes flying towards the sun?

No, it isn't new. edit: From August 2nd 2021

same here

If it is in current OB then it is in stable too, because till the next OB they are the same version.

Amazing!

Stable user here. Just want to thank you for releasing the Strike Eagle to that version. I see it in a very good state for an EA module. Had a lot of fun already. Thanks a lot at ED and Razbam!

+1 +1 edit: interesting fact: there was no additional update for DCS needed, so the error was outside of the latest stable DCS version.

I'm torn between what you posted and the dream that a new DCS II could run close to flawlessly, almost free of bugs and with superb performance. But I'm afraid that's not realistic. However, from time to time I'm figuring for myself, how much money I would spend for the same/DCS II modules I have bought already in DCS 2.X

I guess he does not mean DCS 3 neither, because we will get that as we got DCS 2. Guess he meant something like "DCS II"

Yeah, you mixed it up with the Hawk. The C-101 is still supported with passion.

It's just not fair not to add the C-101EB. Lovely little thing. Well made for DCS.

Imho, we had the golden age in the 80s and 90s and now we have the platinum age with HOTAS, VR and flightsims like DCS. Let me add a guess: who ever starts DCS while enjoying his youth, will call these days the golden age 30 years later.