Kula66

How is this going to work? ... The military will never allow details of their key fighter systems to be released to either the public or a Russian sim developer, so if they are funding/steering development decisions, this implies we will never see things like the F-15 or Su-27s in DCS?

I think that says more about other sims than about how good BS is ... lack of tree modelling and large terrain mesh sizes being the most obvious points. Yes it looks stunning from up high, but near to the ground it looks decidedly 90s. I am really hoping this is an area that gets addressed in the A-10 mod. I've only ever seen military sims on TV and have been appalled by the poor video definition - I guess they focus on 'switch-ology' and procedures. A2G needs good terrain - it DOES influence RL tactics.

DCS:BS is great fun as a helicopter flight sim, but IMHO poor as a combat sim. I love flying the thing around but the AI and terrain modelling are poor. When you get that close to the ground that slow it needs to be dramatically improved to work. Nothing like the feeling of BVR on-line in the early days before the cheats prevailed - when you had the bad guy on your radar screen, an AMRAAM about to go active and he knew nothing about it ... absolutely awesome !

I think in RL, wingman have to expend more fuel to follow their leader. Leaders should fly accordingly, ie. not force the wingman to use AB to catch up etc,

Tez, You are a star - that seems to have fixed it! Many thanks for your help and also Natalya & Alexey at StarForce! Regards, James

Ok, I've contacted Starforce (and they responded very quickly) and they say I installed the wrong patch and need to contact ED. I purchased the game when it first came out and downloaded the Russian version (it had Russian menus) so when the patch came out, I downloaded the Russian patch. Here is thir response: "The point is that mentioned by you serial number is for the game DCS Black Shark published by "1C Multimedia" company (see full information about your serial number below). But you have installed and are trying to activate another version of the game published by "The Fighter collection" company. You can check it through protect.dll file in the game folder, right click on it, go to Properties tab and check Company Name value there. Most probably you've installed the wrong patch for another version of the game (not for your one) or install the wrong distributive of the game initially." All seems a bit of a mess! How can I get this game working? Thanks, James

I've tried that site before and it is not very helpful. It just tells me something is wrong. How do I contact StarForce directly? I can't see a contact email on their site. I bought DCS:BS from ED, not from StarForce - doesn't ED have the ability to fix the license problem?

Thanks Alexander, The clock is accurate ... I'll check to see if it changes. Given that it has only ever been on this laptop and I haven't changed the disk or amount of RAM etc. don't I get a number of activations or similar? Where have they all gone? Regards, James

Cheers Boberro, However, the site isn't helping much, all I get is: Attention! • Invalid Hardware Code. Make sure the Serial Number used is valid for the product you are trying to activate, generate a new Hardware Code and try again. I guess my hardware code has changed when I had to restore my computer from a backup. I'll drop them an email.

I purchased BS shortly after release (I think I ended up with the Russian version). About a month ago I had to rebuild my laptop due to a full disk encryption error and now it is asking me to activate BS and will not let me 'play'. I've tried putting in the original activation key, but to no avail. I have only ever played it on this laptop. I also have LockOn installed and this has been working fine. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks, James

Great pics ... in RL has an attack helicopter ever been shot down by an MBT? Seems to happen far to often in BS!

I thought the F-15E also a had a load of strengthening (and weight) added to handle the low level flight ... you can't drop that! F-15Es could go A2A in the airforces that have purchsed them and don't have a dedicated A2A bird - F-15S/K I think are based on the E.

Agreed - plus in the latest a/c pilots spend about 80% of their time managing the systems!

Perhaps FC will be used as a test bed for new missile and seeker modelling ... I can dream!

No, IMHO, LockOn was/is great, but too much is broken for an addon to fix - it would be a new game ... if DCS:FastJets gives us more details, working missiles/seekers, better AWACS, working ECM, working counter measures, cheat free on-line play etc etc - Thanks, but I'd rather wait.

I know fixed wing are different, but I read in some F-15 book of a pilot on a transatlatic flight having to turn around and kneel on his seat to pee because he couldn't do it sitting ...

Well, I was very cynical and would be very happy to be proven wrong! Lets hope they use it as an opportunity to pilot some technologies for DCS:The Fighters!

I know what you mean, you get that first shot off after burn-through, beam to defeat the return shot, loose him during the wild manouvering to dodge the r-77 and than a mad panic trying to re-acquire while knowing he has you locked! Its what I love about LO over BS ... it can still make me sweat!

Widle, Yes I've read that doc sometime ago ... the thing is we just don't know. Interesting info sure. These studies often have an agenda - look at the BAe studies on how effective the Typhoon is v other a/c. There are also vast numbers of variables. Also, modern missiles (currently classified ones) are alot smarter than earlier 120A/B ... look at the IIR stuff. So much of this stuff is secret, for all we know the F-22s are ending production early because a super A2A UAV has been developed!

Agreed ... I just hope they spend as much time on the radar, missile and seeker modelling as on the a/c themselves. It is no good having a lovely BVR fighter a/c if the missiles are as broken as in LO.

Ok, best guess of smart people ... I can live with that ;)

No, they are designed to produce less drag and as such probably less turning ability. Less drag = more range and more energy at a given range allowing greater ability to manouvre. To counter this the R-77 has a larger diameter motor, which will push up the weight etc etc. Western designs tend to be conservative and no one is saying Russian designs are not ground breaking or innovative (there are dozens of examples in other military fields - SSNs, tanks, TV, SAMs, ASMs etc). However, Western designs have proven to work very well in recent combat - although they have not been matched against the latest Russian designs. But, many of those advanced Russian designs are only in serivice in small numbers or no longer operatign at all!

Ok, I didn't explain this well - if a plane is flying at 10k' and scans a volume of sky from say 5k' to 15k' - would it use doppler across the whole volume or be smart enough only to use doppler on the parts of the scan below it. If it used doppler on the whole scan, as I suspect, because it is in doppler mode, you could just as easily beam the rader from a point at 14k', ie. above the radar as below it, at 6k'. This doesn't seem to be how it works in LO where above = no doppler and beaming doesn't work and below = doppler and beaming does work. Re: missiles, the very low drag of AMRAAM vR-77 needs to be considered - those potato mashers must be very draggy, especially when turning.

I used to fly alot online but it just got so frustrating trying to fly the textbook Eagle profile, on high looking down! From what I understand you should have at least double the missile range in RL! The mechanics of notching, does it really only work low to high? I uderstand the way it works, but does radar use doppler on lower targets and not on higher ones (given that this can all happen in a single series of successive scans) or doppler all the time. If the latter is the case, then you should be able to notch a radar even if the radar is lower than the target. This doesn't seem to be the case.

I hate to think this is true (never tested it myself) - the opposite of RL. Interesting stuff Yoda .. I really hope they get it right next time!