Ornithopter

It's just a side note to this thread, but that Essex Class carrier shot me down or damaged me about 6 times out of 20 bomb runs, maybe even more. I was coming in from at least 3500 meters, and 30-40 deg dive, and maybe 850 kph. So, it would be a pretty frightful fate to have to fly a Judy Jill torpedo bomber against one of these ships by itself, let alone an entire Task Force, in 1945. All those Bofors guns really getcha.

@AeriaGloriaThanks for your advice. I'm getting consistently good results on moving targets now. (Screenshot reminds me a little of a Midway painting)

I was targeting a large ship travelling at 25 knots. First I put the big reticle on the center of the target. Than I hit and held the lock button. It gives an aiming circle, which I called the "second thing" above. I then placed that smaller reticle on the target (which has moved) and didn't release the lock button until the laser turns on. Then, finally, I release the lock button, put the final aiming pipper on the target and release, after about 2 seconds. I only tried it a few times, and it could just be poor technique requiring practice, but my bombs were falling in the target wake, so I just wondered if I was doing it wrong, or if the mode is successfully working? It didn't seem to compensate for the movement of the target very well. By contrast, on stationary targets, I'm now direct on target, as a result of the recent fix to the laser.

So what is all this stuff about using the "pre-planned" CCIP mode for wind or moving targets? If the target is actually moving, I put the first pipper it gives me on the target now, and then the second thing on the target where it is next, and then the actual death dot that results is where my target is predicted to be at impact point of the moving target? Did I get that correct, or if not, can you explain?

That's the workaround for the instrument not working? People shouldn't have to mess around with those settings for the variometer to work. FIX IT!

I just did some bombing runs with FABs and was getting bullseyes, on a non-sealevel map. It looks fixed to me. I didn't even look at the DTC.

Yeah, this is most certainly broken. I guess I won't be flying ifr in this aircraft. I think there should be a hotfix, just for this.

Well, I hope they make the laser rangefinder work soon, because that sucks.

You are are clearly a really smart person, but that didn't help.

All the people who have been alienated from MP in some way, should form a squadron of misfits, or black sheep, if you will. I can be Pappy, having multiplayer experience as a JF-17 pilot a few years ago.

So, for now, until a bug is resolved, I need to set the QFE of the target on the altimeter?

I'm getting the hang of it, which is a lot sooner than I do some modules. I've even gone through 3 of the 4 basic bombing methods, the last one I haven't gotten to being equivalent to an "over the shoulder delivery". The plane is pretty straight forward, compared to some imo. I've seen some threads that say the ground attack accuracy is off, but is it any worse or better than the F-4E module in Dive Toss? My first tries with CCIP and CCRP were actually within about 50 feet long or short, so it didn't seem all that bad to me. Really fun aircraft, and glad that I got it.

Reliability issues could also be extended to weapons on the player side as well. We've read of notoriously unreliable early Sparrows dropping off the pylons, duds, but I've never seen failures like this in the game.

I'm pleased. I went through the Nav tutorial and it's a little bit of a strange way of doing things, but pretty straight forward. So now I'm a virtual MiG-29 pilot. I like it enough that I think I should learn to paint skins for this. I already have a name in mind for my personal aircraft. Her name is Rio.

Thank you @Thamiel, @AeriaGloria, @Flanker for responding to my questions regarding the difficulty. I bought it and have tried it out. I think Flanker probably was right that it's one of the easier ones. I have almost no experience in FC3, so the ease of flying really really surprised me. The plane I've been flying lately is the C-101 trainer, and this aircraft, flying-wise, is about as easy as that. On my first flight after mapping essential controls, I just took it around the pattern for 6 touch and goes, and all of them were decent, by the third and fourth I was greasing the landings, and by the actual full-stop landing I was airbraking, nose wheel off. By contrast, no matter how much time I spend in the Phantom, or even the F-5E, my landings are almost always like dropping a sack of bricks on the pavement. It's especially easy, because unlike some of the others, you have so much power and acceleration that even when you get behind the power curve, you can get yourself right back in front of it again. Was a little bit weirded out that in the English cockpit labels version, the units were in Imperial not Metric. Not used to that, but it's intuitive because those are my units. I still don't know whether the Variometer is in ft/min or m/s. I just completed the startup tutorial, and it reminded me a lot like the MiG-21, which I think is on the gentler end of the learning curves of DCS modules. This seems like a 3rd gen cockpit, but with some impressive 4th gen capabilities. So, this is just about the right thing for me to learn right now. Fourth landing approach, no sweat at all, and what a beautiful airplane. I couldn't have done it better if I'd had a Fly-By-Wire aircraft and a Velocity Vector on the HUD.

I can't find it because my Mosquito navigator is AWOL!

QFE = QNH - (Target elev/30)

I've had this before. There is some checkbox in the TrackIR driver that you can use to just force the profile you want, instead of allowing TrackIR to pick the profile based on the game you're playing. Unless you have the situtation where DCS is trapping the assigned keys for Pause and Center due to double mapping, I'll bet thats what it is.

Under what circumstances would it be optimal to check the Sequential mirror rendering box?

Where is that, F-2?

I'm curious about how it's going to be implemented. I presume you're going to be able to pick from among several pre-made heads, several helmets, and uniforms and then mix and match? I wouldn't guess you actually get to make the head like in role playing games.

My countdown from most difficult(oh, why even bother level, I'll never be good) to easiest(why don't they all work like that level) 4th Gen modules is: 5) Tomcat RIO, 4)A-10C, 3)F/A-18C, 2)M2k, 1)JF-17. So you're saying its a bit more difficult than the M2K in your opinion, but its not F/A-18 levels of learning complexity, is it? The reason I'm asking is because I'm not sure I want to take on a new difficult module. On the other hand, my alternative is sitting there watching mind-slobbering navigation tutorials on the Chinook, and how the navigational-hydraulic operates on the rear linkage valve. But, then again, I could be flying a shiny new MiG. Life is full of really tough choices.

Thank you for the update. Unfortunately situations such as Polychop or Razbam can make people question the DCS ecosystem, and for those who are worried, I think this wlll help set peoples' minds at ease, knowing that you're still alive and kicking. It does mine.

I don't think it would be appropriate to start an entirely new topic for just one subjective question, so I'll just ask. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being most difficult, how would people rate this aircraft's learning curve relative to other 4th Gen aircraft in this game?

Are you serious? No, after seeing their lack of response to recent customer comments in this thread, your quote doesn't mean anything to me now. As I've been reading this thread over the past several days, I frequently saw the names of some of the official Aerges people at the bottom of the screen, concurrently reading the thread. And THAT actually annoyed me, especially since people were starting to get nasty with each other. If the sentence you've cherry picked from an obscure video about a VR headset is still applicable, then obviously one of the officials reading this topic could have re-asserted it right here and right now. Why didn't they?