Zeagle

Yes. That's the perfect elevator trim for takeoff in the MiG. I rotate around 290kph. No issues. And if you are bouncing on landing try reducing your vertical speed on touchdown.

That was a welcome addition

I don't think it's a lighting issue. That looks like a 3d-modeling issue to me...As in someone for got to merge the verts...

I too noticed this a long time ago. I have since pretty much stopped using the in-game JTAC in favor of scripting. However, I do think they have it backwards.

You guys complaining of the reflections probably don't want bugs on the windscreen either...lol Go get a ride in an airplane with a canopy. DCS did a great job on the in-cockpit reflections. Airplanes with thick glass have reflections in real life. There are numerous Su-25 cockpit videos you can watch to confirm that DCS is spot on. Also watch the Combat Approved episode where the guy went for an attack helicopter ride. The first thing that happened was a bug splatters on windscreen as he was filming. lol

B Been scratching my head over this one. Thanks for the info

based on what?

clicked on the link but no image

+1

Just began my first sortie in 2.7. All I can say is a great big thankyou to ED. The weather is amazing. And thanks for the waypoint number in the MiG-29 HUD. Keep up the good work

The gameplay is determined by the mission creators. You have to strike a balance between playable and realistic. It's not easy. And as far as I can tell, the Hind's primary role was as an attack helicopter. The troop carrying function was off-loaded to aircraft like the Mi-8 early on in it's life. They designed it to carry troops as a way to get the army to buy it. After it was in service, that ability was used, but not the way it was advertised. You have to remember that it was one of the first true attack helicopters.

The purpose of the Mi-24 is....as I see it...(and in my best Schwarzenegger voice) ..."to crush your enemies ,see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women" (Conan)

OMG I fly DCS to get away from phones.....

I have flown on many servers and most are airquake. I prefer to fly in a more realistic manner. So I create the missions for our server. I try to create plausible scenarios. You won't see the enemy just hanging out and picking off players over an airfield. And helicopters have a role to play in all scenarios. I am sure there are others out there who do the same. Personally I am looking forward to the Mi-24 and will include it from day one into the scenario. As far as the airquake issue goes, I had to put a password on our server because of those types. They get frustrated at flying 90km to the battle and can't be bothered to read the briefing, join the Discord, or use voice comms. They want hot starts and carriers 10 miles from the action. I can see how that turns people off from multiplayer when they get on a server like that. The dynamic campaign sounds ok. But I think a hand-crafted campaign is going to be more interesting really. So instead of complaining about the what the dynamic campaign may or may not do, learn the ME and start making missions. It takes a lot to create something playable and plausible at the same time.

+1

I must say it looks really good!

The MiG-29 is a great bird, even in it's FC3 form. It's challenging to fly, fast, and can survive even against some more modern opponents. Just map the functions to your HOTAS and go for it. I always have spots on the server for the MiG. I am sure that in the future someone will make a new MiG-29 module. But for now, I really enjoy the one we have.

Yes I have many many hours in the hornet and the F-14. I prefer the F-14. I also love the Mi-8 and have ordered the Mi-24. That being said, it takes more than just some push buttons and glass cockpit displays to make me think a module is good. I think the original developers who created the FC3 birds did a great job. For example, simply watching some cockpit videos of the Su-25 in action shows just how well they simulated this bird. I actually prefer a more accurate simulation to a pretty simulation, although having both is better. But back on topic...+1 for some MiG-29 love ED

I love the MiG-29. I own most of the modules for this sim. And I must say that the FC3 planes were done well for their time. But we really do need a full-on Mig-29, Su-25 (UTG?????) and Su-27 series. I find myself now flying the Su-25 and MiG-29 more often than not. Sometimes I think the so-called "full fidelity" models are more hype than substance, clickable cockpit or not.

That's a great idea. I will implement that for my server as soon as it's possible. In the meantime, I will be making video briefings for my missions as soon as 2.7 comes out.

Fred...I disagree. You always need to set the course on the HSI. However, you may be technically correct on the CDI. I don't work on them. I just used them in the air.

seriously?

The localizer is simply a VOR but with a little better accuracy. Tricks are used to make it not broadcast around a complete circle. Your HSI uses the signal from the localizer to show the difference between the radial you are on and the radial dialed in. It's that simple. So the dialed in radial is required. The GPS in your fishfinder works differently.

what dporter22 said