Ornithopter

So SharpeXB is arguing that eveyone should just jump into planes such as the A-10C because that's how he did it, therefore planes like the Yak-52 (or even the jet trainers) have no purpose. I'll totally agree that there is a wealth of training materials out there in the world. But you, DCN, are arguing that you need an airplane to teach you such things as the ability to "turn correctly". Whether the included tutorials are up to the task of not, isn't the Yak-52 the appropriate plane for you to be able to practice those basic skills?? If you're at that level of skill, wouldn't you want to learn to fly the simple stuff in a basic airplane? If you truly think the trainers are worthless, then sure, go jump straight in to one of the airplanes with the biggest learning curves in the game!!! On the positive side, a plane such as the A-10C is very "easy" to fly. But not as easy to work the nav systems or weapons systems. You might even be so sharp that you'll be rattling off Mavericks and working with Bullseyes and SPIs in no time,lol! But keep in mind, none of the tutorials for those more advanced aircraft will teach you basic airmanship, any better than the trainers. I truly think you will be a much better flight simulator pilot if you learn the basics of flight in a simpler aircraft. I'm talking simple stick and rudder stuff. If I was coming to flight sim brand new, I probably wouldn't have picked DCS as the very first one, but if that's all I had, and those training aircraft had existed back then in DCS, I would have definitely taken advantage of them. I'm glad they exist now, because it helps me even now to go back to the simple stuff, instead of being one of those HUD-zombies or capable of doing nothing more than following a magenta line. It's amazing how bad one's skills can slip when you're never doing any more than just putting a velocity vector on a virtual horizon line on the HUD.

So you're saying that you don't even lift, bro? Full disclosure: I only have the C-101, but that's enough for me to weigh in on this discussion, isn't it? But how could you possibly be so vehement in your opinion about the value of these kinds of aircraft, if you don't even have any of them? If Aviodev ever gets the Sea Eagle cruise missile in order, I'll bet I could penetrate a wall of Zeroes, get in to the Japanese fleet, and sink the Shokaku with the C-101. You keep pointing out over and over that it's just a video game, so why such lack of imagination and rigid thinking when you ponitificate about the worth of such an airplane, and how others should value it?

I think most people would agree with this, generally, although a step ladder approach to learning would be preferable to many. Re-reading the original post, he is primarily talking about the Yak-52, which has no weapons, therefore he questions it's usefullness and playability. That's a personal choice (many enjoy flying a GA airplane in MSFS, where there is no combat at all). Since Combat is DCS' middle name, it's understandable that one might not be interested in non-combat aircraft. But let's keep in mind that the MB-339, C-101, the L-39, and even the Mirage F1BE, are also fully combat capable. There are all kinds of combat scenarios that these aircraft can fit into. You can strafe trucks, drop bombs the old-fashioned way, and you can dogfight with guns or IR missiles. If playing online, an optional human player in the back seat obvoiusly doesn't have to be an instructor of any kind; They can act as WSO, Navigator, a FAC, or just a buddy along for the ride to chit chat. It's really all up to the imagination.

If I was starting flight simulation as a complete newbie, and was brand new to full fidelity DCS planes, I think I might look very seriously at a trainer aircraft as my very first module. Maybe people who consider themselves experienced in DCS, or are real pilots, forget that there are basic things to be learned. The people in this thread alreadt know how to fly patterns, do radio navigation, fly at night, instrument approach, drop a bomb, etc, but if you were completely new to it, it would likely be easier to start with something simpler than a Tomcat or a Phantom. Even the F-5 could be overwhelming to someone compIetely new. I imagine there are people that don't even know what the flaps are for! I didn't say a trainer aircraft is "necessary" for a video game, but traditionally one starts with arithmetic before algebra, don't they? There is certainly nothing wrong, and probably everything right, with someone sending themselves through a simulated "real" training pipeline with the appropriate level of complexity at each stage, stepping up to more complexity in increments, instead of just being overwhelmed.

I picked up the C-101 during a sale, even though I was somewhat ambivalent about it, and was just looking for variety. I eventually went through most of the training missions for it. Although I wouldn't argue it's needed as a pre-requisite to other planes, for all the reasons mentioned, I think it did improve my DCS flying. More importantly I just think it's a really good airplane for it's own sake, and I have fun with it. It's perfect for when I feel like flying something relatively simple, or want to just explore a scenery. I'm glad there are airplanes like this in DCS.

Aquorys, By the extaordinarily in-depth, and passionate description of your dogfight, sounds like it must be the most immersive air combat simulation you've ever experienced, and you really love it! You aren't "underwhelmed", you're addicted to it. Or else, you're just being snarky.

I'm a fan of Final Countdown type scenarios and DCS really is a Sandbox sim. I can't wait to take on the entire Kido Butai in my F-4E. I'll bet I can protect Task Force 58 during the Great Turkey Shoot in my lone Hornet, all by myself! Good to see this series branching out into this theater a bit more.

I guess that depends on the actual amount for what you're getting. Price of a few pints of beer for a little bit more functionality? You bet. That would be okay with me! Regarding the topic at hand, I would pay a FF price for a FF Su-25a.

No wonder why I'm not hitting very much in TGT find! LoL, I thought Jester was actually firing the laser, at least some of the time. So even when dropping a dumb bomb in a "dive toss like delivery" it's mandatory for the pilot to use the "temp" Full Action trigger to fire the laser for ranging information. Thanks for clarifying.

I would be happy if the FC aircraft at least had the basic ability to tune a Comm or Nav radio and a couple of things related to weapons management. A plane might not be Full Fidelity, but I would be more enthusiastic about FC planes if they were better fidelity than what they currently are.

I have a related question regarding what actions Jester can be expected to take when in TGT Find. One way we have of doing it is pointing the nose/reticle at the target and then using the Jester Context action to get him to stabilize the pod on the target. The problem here is that Jester doesn't really do a good job of actually keeping the pod pointed at the specific target, only the general vicinity. This is problematic especially for LGB's. It's my understanding that Jester will actually fire the laser at the appropriate time (it's just that its not likely to pointed at the exact target!) The other way is to use the rear cockpit Antenna controller "temp" controls to physically control the pod from up front, as well as half action and full action. So...IF we do it this way to keep the pod pointed exactly at the target, will Jester still fire the laser, or do we, as the pilot, need to do it ourselves? Also, can we mix and match the two methods? If I'm the pilot, lets say I use the Jester Context action to roughly track the target, and then as I get within laser range, I refine where the pod is looking using my "temp" controls. Will Jester still fire the laser, or have I essentially taken over for him, and need to do it myself? (Related wish list item: Have Jester say "Laser On" or "Laser Off", so the pilot can know what's going on back there)

Thanks, that clears up my confusion. All along, I actually have been using the Bomb Table computer to get the Cd, and then having Jester enter it, and hence getting accurate drops (when I fly a pre-planned angle and speed) but then I came across these in the manual which confused me: "Depending on the selected mode, the WSO must setup the aircraft fo the desired attack profile. Only modes DT and TGT FIND generally require no preparation." pg 646 "It requires no specific setup or planning and can hence also be used for targets of opportunity." pg 649 In other places, such as when presenting diagrams from the real aircraft manuals, or in the weapons delivery checklists section, the manual does indeed, like you said, specify that a Cd must be entered by the WSO. Thanks for clarifying this. I do think it would be better if the manual were slightly more clear on this.

The manual implies that for a Dive Toss delivery, there is no requirement for the WSO to input a Cd. How is that? How would the WRCS know if I'm dropping a Mk-82, or a Volkswagen Beetle? Even if it computes the range correctly, wouldn't I need to tell the WRCS what I'm dropping, and at least a rough estimate of the delivery angle, speed, and drop altitude, so that this coefficient is accurate? I have the same question with TGT Find: If I'm doing "CCRP" from a either a level bombing profile, or a diving profile, wouldn't I need to input a Cd for it to know when to drop?

You've stated basically the same opinion about 10 times now, and you aren't going to leave it alone, are you? As Bignewy said, if you aren't interested in it, then don't buy it. Simple as that. At this point it seems you're just concern-trolling the issue.

I really doubt they would be doing an F-35 if they weren't aware of the challenges awaiting them. It isn't their first airplane.

I've not been following the drama, but with the right monetary offer, why wouldn't it be possible for ED to purchase the rights to the F-15E and continue to develop it, assuming RB would be willing to sell it?

As already pointed out, Aerges, Aviodev, and Heatblur offer multiple versions of the same aircraft, for the price of one. Maybe that isn't the most profitible way of developing a plane initially, but the value and flexibility it adds is immense, and at least for me, keeps me coming back for more. I think ED should definitely do both an earlier and later version of the F-15C.

If it would help out: I recently had a "hang on loading" problem with DCS. I looked it up. I went into the User/Saved Games/DCS folder and renamed it to Temp. It then forces a rebuild of that directory, inlcuding the configuration files.. That made it all load again. It was easy then to copy the old Input and Snapview.lua file from the Temp to the new DCS folder, and reset your graphics settings (because a REALLY smart guy writes them down). The problem might be right before you, Tensorail.

Seems like a pretty petty thing to get all bent out of shape over. As for me, I find it so annoying how long it takes to load, that I take that time to get a can of beer from the refrigerator, and get on with my DCS session by the time I get back. Don't you have better things to obsess about? Add me to the appreciation event. I really happen to like DCS.

Excellent! I can definitely see that this kind of thing wouldn't be used very often, but the idea that someday we will be able to do it, grease pencil and all, is pretty amazing!

"As they sat at the end of the runway before takeoff, the WSO would put the pod in 9-acquire so it was looking left of the airplane. The pilot looked at his TV picture to see where the pod was looking; then he would look through the left side of the canopy at the same point. With his left eye closed, he then drew a half-dollar sized circle on the inside of the canopy aorund the point with a grease pencil. He then repeated the process wth his right eye closed. When he opened both eyes, the circle appeared as one black circle around the same point at which the pod was looking. Later, during the attack, with the pod in 9-acquire, he looked through the circles and flew the jet to superimpose them over the target, thus allowing the WSO to see the target in his TV picture. It was a five-cent fix to a multi-thousand-dollar problem" - Sierra Hotel: Flying Air Force Fighters in the Decade after Vietnam So, as pilot, I know how to use TGT Find with the Pod, with the Jester Context action, to designate a target under the gunsight reticle in 12-Vis. However, how do you do this in 9-Vis, looking 90 degrees left of the aircraft? I can't find any Jester command to make him flip the pod to 9-Vis, and also, it seems the Grease Pencil will only draw on the right side of the canopy. So there appears to be no way to do the above procedure from the book. So, is there some way to make Jester flip over to 9-Vis, without having to explicitly go to the back seat and flip the switch for him, and is there any way to draw on the left side of the cockpit with the Grease pencil?

Been waiting almost week now for a refund, but it hasn't even been looked at as far as I can tell. I'm assuming this must be because the system is swamped with requests?

I must have watched too much Yellowstone, because the first thing I thought of was having "E.D" burned onto my chest with a hot iron!

I'm surprised this thread is still going on this morning, but If they are actually giving out refunds for the SE, I would think that would resolve the issue for a lot of people. I wanted to buy a plane when I did, and I bought the SE, but in retrospect, I would have gotten something else. So if they actually give you a store credits at this point, it's like never having bought it in the first place, isn't it? Some people might stubbornly insist on being consumer purists, but relinquishing the Strike Eagle for a different airplane or helicopter would certainly work for me.

That would be totally dependent on what your system specs are, cpu, gpu, RAM...