mungo13

Just a note regarding the STEAM: So far you should be able to pair your STEAM account with your DCS one thus fly modules bought on STEAM on DCS-standalone. What was changed is that in before KEYs were issued with modules and those could be typed in DCS standalone and activate there those modules. Now everything is keyless thus this pairing in necessary. It doesn't work in opposite way - module bought on DCS cannot be activated on STEAM platform. In short - what you buy on STEAM it can be used on both platforms, what you buy on standalone works there exclusively. It is a long time that I bought anything for DCS on Steam but whatever it was I simply incorporated in my DCS standalone. Thus there should not be a problem. But as it was said here - I also prefer to rather support DCS and partners directly than through the STEAM platform (but I made no oath to do it all the time :greedy: ).

Do not forget that there are also solutions with USB camera - although they require some work. As I have TrackIR I have never tried them but people tell that they work equally well. Thus if you are somehow budget oriented - check this way. If you buy TrackIR, take your time to set its placement, axis sensitivity curves etc. It may take a little time to get used to it (i remember that after the first evening with it I had nasty pain in the neck as I was trying to keep my view still. But 1-2 days more and some axis tweaking it became the 2nd nature). But even TrackIR may be "no-go" for some people due to some eye or spine related issues - although so far I remember 1 case compared to several people having problems with VR. Anyway, you'd want it even if you are not much interested in dogfight - that smooth coordination of your point of view with movement of the plane that goes through your brain (like driving car through the curve) makes it much more natural. Neither HAT nor any padlock works that well. As movement of your head tells your brain where you are looking and where the stick should go.

How well is damage model for the ground unit done in DCS (as for ships I have noted claims that it is rather some hit-point type than anything even barely realistic)? Those DU 2.5 inch penetration would be close to limits when attacking T-55. Side armor is described to be 80 mm that is more than 2.5 inch - but that penetration slightly changes for every single round and with closing distance during the attack. Funny thing is - if your round can penetrate side of the T-55 it can in theory penetrate even T-72 (T-80, T-64) as the thickness if the side is the same (metal quality, effect of the mud guards, tracks, wheels etc not included). So it is not OP nor unrealistic - just the likelihood of the total destruction should not be high. (Btw. that video shows this very well - they were able to penetrate T-62 in an attack but in another out of the 13 hits, none went in) Penetration is not equal to destruction sometimes even not to the real damage. Here comes quality of the damage model (I am newbie to the DCS details so I do not know what I am dealing with here) I tried to made some search about those new SAPHEI rounds - they do not seem to have lot of penetration. Some claims are around 20 mm of the steel. In that case even for the side of the BMP-2 would not be granted penetration. I suppose that in current situation there is not much need for the true AP ammunition in the actual theaters of war where US armed forces are involved. But in the case of the conflict where enemy has armored units and Harrier's mission is to go against such - would it go with gun loaded for the "soft" targets? Or they would use AP load?

Respectfully - one issue I see with "DCS world" is lack of the "world" itself. It is rather "DCS random". Try to make any balanced and periodically correct planeset for any time period. Within the WW2 the closest you can get is Spitfire, FW-190A8 and Mustang. Thus we are around D-Day? I am no plane-pedia but Ju-88 had many variants and not inevitably every one was able to fulfill all the roles. And as DCS is more exact-plane oriented compared to other sims you are most likely not getting plane able to do all the roles. And I think that later Ju-88's were unable to do dive bombing (correct me if I am wrong). Thus question eventually is: Which version of the plane? Once again it would be single-sided module as possible Mosquito should be rather a fighter type. For me: Late version of the Ju-88? Why not, but give us also same period B-25!!!

During those 2-day test I loved one specific type: Jester: Enemy, 2 o' clock low! *enemy 8 o'clock high, turning hard right at my tail* Is this guy using Sundial?

And what is going to be the difference between your manual and Chuck's guide for the Harrier? Just curious because despite lot of the pictures it is still almost 300-page guide

Are specs at the end of your comment of that old creaky machine? I have AMD Ryzen CPU, same breed of GPU (within wide range of GPU descriptions) and same amount of the RAM. At least in offline DCS runs fairly OK even when I have some garbage running in the background. I did some short flying in the Tomcat during the test and there were no clear issues. Although it was just freeride no serious testing. About complains - quite a lot of people are at home, so even if Heatblur decided not to participate in sale, this was good chance to have at least some time for just testing. So at least they could participate in the test itself. For me, it could tip the balance to buy at least one bird in some future.

Thus most likely same conclusions, with the difference that I just recently bought Hornet and already have Warthog and M2000 (I have A-10C for some 8 years now and Mirage for ~1 year), just when I bought Warhog I was not that much interested in jets. Fore several years. Same reason to go for Hornet: Jack of all trades (except STOVL/VTOL), nearly every modern ammunition and reasonable prize, carrier capable. So I will not have to learn several airplanes to be able to fulfill some particular missions. - F-16 is now off my list - who knows how long is it going to take to finish it, Harrier is nice plane, but with A-10 and Hornet it is partially redundant. Maybe in future. Now I can save some money. - Guy from Heatblur claimed that there will be some chance to once again test Tomcat and Viggen sometimes after this event and there is upcoming sale on Steam in may - who knows. Maybe I will get Viggen if there will be chance.

Wait for clarification by someone who has it, but that mount hit issue should be related to WarBRD base with extension (another discussed topic) and older straight 90-degree mount (or maybe similar 3d-party mounts). New Virpil mounts are already angled and that should increase the separation

Gentlemen, why are you doing this to me? Not in this thread and throughout the whole forum? I am trying to make my shopping list within allocated money and every time I manage to make it right, add module, scratch out "bad" one I always hit some talks about how unfinished the module is. I bought Hornet as it seemed to be more-or-less finished. And ... once again :mad: Is there even a finished module? I am already scared to look into treads for Ka-50 and A-10C as it seems every major module I have ever purchased is faulty. Mig-21, M2000, now Hornet. Harrier was already dropped from my purchase list, F-16 is about to suffer triple eject. sorry, off-topic, do not please take it as some flamewar bait, I've just suffered another dream destruction :D Back to thread: I hope there will be test of F-14 / Viggen soon. Especially the latter one as it is in my scope now (to keep my sanity: Is at least Viggen finished?) I love Tomcat, but for now I'll stick with Hornet As there was some question about "demo" and how it could look like: What about some kind of the restricted module? Just the default map ,no online, nor campaigns, instant actions etc. You can do the training, go through some simple flying and weapons testing in defined test missions and that's it. Maybe even the possibility of the paid rental - you get such limited access for some euro for prolonged period of time. P.S. So dear Heatblur - there is 1 more guy with some pocket money thinking about one of your products. And with serious distant future interest for the 2nd one. He just don't want another "cat in the bag" (rabbit - what ever else).

So in short and hardly surprising: European military complex doesn't want Germany to buy US made premium(!) weapon system. Something that was already presented when within EU circulated idea of punishing newer EU members when attempting to purchase non-EU fighters. If the biggest economy within EU makes it decision based on a fact that EU is unable to produce product with desired properties - there would be hardly any room lest to press upon anybody else. Besides - Airbus must be happy with the problem in which Boeing is sinking due to those issues with civil-traffic planes thus even such a minor financial support must be hated by them Once those planes start to be too aged it is going to be very expensive to keep them airworthy and are those foreign ones usable to cannibalise parts for i.e. ECR ones? Btw. it is Turks' fault that they got themselves into big problems with the USA. Besides it is probably much safer to buy weapons from the USA than EU consortium when it comes to possible political pressure, sanctions etc. Oh, France sharing their force de frappe with its recent arch-enemy? :music_whistling: Cancel the treaties with the USA that for decades backed up the safety of tho whole Western Europe and try to make treaty with France that once already said "goodby" to NATO? Moreover there is hardly anything to drop as their nuclear arsenal is either in submarines ballistic missiles or air-deployed cruise missiles.

Newbie's question: How to do that and how does it work? I.e. I push throttle fully forward and I am at max power and then I press button it jumps to max afterburner?

Question: Have you checked the VPC universal base plate? https://virpil-controls.eu/vpc-universal-compact-base-plate.html It would slightly change the footprint - but eventually that can be solved with file ... I do not know how is now your joystick mounted to the stand - whether through the standard holes or some adapter. But this universal baseplate is described to be compatible with the TM Warthog thus it should have 60 x 60 mm screw holes. Probably compatible directly with your stand. Little warning - I googled dimensions just to see and while diagrams shows this plates with 12 holes (I suppose - 4 for Virpil, 4 for TM and 4 for mounting) the picture on their webpage shows only 8 and lacking are the inner ones that should be for TM. Thus check but it could be your way to go. Otherwise buying piece of aluminium plate and looking for the workshop able to drill the proper holes for you should not be a dead end - if you have not tools to do it yourself. I am quite sure that if I send dimensions / drawings to companies that offers laser / plasma / water cuts of the metal and plastic plates it would cost me less than Virpil's plate plus shipping.

Yes but old "tubes" are easier to finish than modern flying electronics supermarkets. Looking at your collection: How do you judge Viggen and Mig-19? I have just recently bought Hornet - and this is my headache as it is complex aircraft, already released for long time and generally should be close to "final" stage. Thus if it is not, what is (except A-10C maybe)? If this was the only issue that can be even caused by DMG model of the ships or some bug - that would be the least important issue. Btw. after looking at Growling Sidewinder's videos - AMRAAMS were recently changed it terms of the range, thus as it is part of the armament of the Hornet - it was also unfinished due to this missile. Flight model and onboard systems / sensors / electronics are IMHO more important when judging status finished/unfinished Anyway - did you get closer to the solution of your original question about module purchase? I have 2 from your list (Warthog and Hornet), I love Viggen as a real airplane; same goes for Harrier (but discussion about it are plagued by debates how well or wrong is it) and despite I am not fully in the Viper's funclub - as in few years it will bear our flag - I should think about it. Thus your buying dilema is close to 100% overlap with mine :)

At the same time - are there flaws that require that much attention? As RAZBAM is in the process of the major overhaul of the Mirage (compared to the M2K I bought) and Harrier is neverending topic whether it is good or "early-early access" plane. That to say: 2 planes I'd like to have and 1 more I already have are made by company that seems to have serious issues to truly develop products in time - or ever :mad:. Then I can save money for Mig-19, add few € and wait for the next chance to get Viggen.

Which aircraft are you talking about (the "unfinished" one)? I am lost a little bit and I am watching this thread among others, as i am trying to figure out status of the various modules and whether they are worth buying at all. I am quite sorry that Viggen is out of the trial - I missed its period in the past event. Worth to note is claim that 13-27th may there should be 50% sale on all DCS products on Steam (and modules are transferable to standalone). But it causes me a headache whether it is true. Because all should mean all, including JF-17 and Tomcat and that turns on warning sign in my head.

Happy in general or happy because you did not buy Mig-19? I've probably missed the point but I am asking as Mig-19 is on my radar (I like old planes)

Wasn't there somewhere quote that ED is purposely avoiding (modern?) russian jets as it is their country of origin and their government would be somehow unhappy should they do so (and thus they leave them to the 3d parties)? Are they trying to "Bring balance to the Force"? Then some more modern Fox3 capable russian fighter/bomber would be needed. But will they do it? If they'd like to use the best of their modules, than F-15C is good candidate. And as long as we talk about jets, then from the past you have almost unlimited choices that would be interesting. Tornado? Jaguar? F-1xx? Phantom? And list of the russian planes - attack, fighters, interceptors. Oh, can someone imagine the fun with one of the true bombers? Tu-22?

I bound my steam account to the DCS standalone (I have there only old type license key modules) and they all work in standalone. Even if the Steam client is off or I have another account logged in. Just now, when I tried it asked me for the key for the Flamming Cliffs 3 - maybe I was at the end of some validation period, or maybe it was because I was logged to different Steam account (or both): I swapped STEAM account to the correct one, restarted DCS, works, no validation/key request. So I tried to turn off the Steam client and even log in with non-bounded account - both times DCS started without any issue. Thus I have hardly any valid conclusion - maybe it was just an general validation issue that is known to happen sometimes. Anyway, it clearly do not require the 2 services to be running at the same time (Steam+DCS) to run DCS standalone with Steam-licensed modules once the Steam is bounded to you DCS account. (Unlike another game shared with other service and Steam). P.S. I do not have Steam DCS downloaded in parallel with the standalone - due to the HDD usage. But it should be possible to have them both and run either standalone or Steam. Most likely not from the 2 PC at the same time (???). But I see no deactivation of the products in my STEAM inventory.

Try this one https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/steam/ There is description how to get older license keys from the Steam as well as how to transfer newer keyless modules by binding your Steam account to the DCS one. I have only older licenses on STEAM and I once did some transfers manually through obtaining license key from the steam and later did it for all of them by simply pairing STEAM and DCS account. It worked easily and was without any problems.

Planes are all included as AI at-least thus flying against should be of no issue, but if terrain comes from DLC you need to buy it. And I think same applies for the ground assets i.e. WW2 ground units that are paired mostly to the Normandy map (but can easily be used for the Korean war scenarios). Thus in such case the mission is unplayable unless you buy terrain / ground units You may easily check in mission editor what units are available Il-2:1946 A-20 was a beast. Scourge of the Messerschmits unless they had MK108 and were good / lucky with it and the one with twin 50-cal in the rear turret was nasty bird even tor the FW. Countless times we kicked out the teeth of those proud Reich-jagers uberaces who challenged us into the dogfight. Btw. go to youtube, check the channel of the Grim Reapers - those guys besides mission vids and very nice guides also make crazy tests like taking of the carrier in no-carrier planes and trying to land them back on the carrier and so on. And lot of other fun. Worth subscribing.

Are we now proudly talking about how old we already are and what "once upon a time great now absolutely classic oldschool" sims we played? OK, I am in: Their Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Their_Finest_Hour_(video_game) Red Baron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Baron_(1990_video_game) F29 Retaliator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F29_Retaliator Probably in thi order. And some other classics, but these were my starting point. Thus I came from the propellers' world into jet era and continued to the space (X-Wing). Those were the times my friends - no-one quarreled about the fact that pressing backspace action is not compliant with NATOPS page 487 line 36, and negative G carburetor starvation is not fully modeled for the Hurricane

That is probably the only unclear part for me. Tomcat and Viggen are out of free test and sale or they are available for test but not for sale? It is little bit confusing as the text (even at the news on the main page) is somehow mixing test part and shop part

I was just recently thinking about this: Why the only serious modules from the Wrong Side of the Iron Curtain are Mig-21 and Ka-50. Thus the answer is simply that they are studio from Russia and their government would be unhappy should they try? On the other hand it surprises me, that the 3rd party studios seem to be very little interested in. Despite several of these planes served even in nowadays NATO countries - so is lack of documentation a real issue? Or they think it is not going to hit the market at it has no glass cockpit and FOX3 missiles? Sorry, I am still dreaming of the Su-22

You mean that one where you could have planeset for the whole WW2 all over the world? :thumbup: Cheers!