Exorcet

A first person perspective with someone else at the controls can be experienced with any module through tracks. While you can't freely control the view in a prerecorded video, you can watch one while flying your own aircraft. No doubt that sharing a plane can be interesting and helpful to learning, but you don't strictly need two seats for that. However a two seat aircraft certainly is a convenient way to work with a mentor or trainee, and you can't quite get the exact same experience through other methods. So fair point here. If something is distracting you can just ignore it. A DCS module can take a long time to learn, but I don't really find them overwhelming if a paced approach to learning is taken. You don't have to learn everything at once, not even in real life. If people are getting confused then I feel like the problem is more likely a lack of direction in training. I can't speak for everyone though so if people do find a simpler cockpit helpful then that would be a trainer benefit. As far as learning a standard first, one could go that route, though there isn't really a need if for example you'll only ever fly the F-18. It also needs to be considered that trainers aren't uniform themselves. East and west is an obvious divide. There isn't a universal trainer and at some point if you do fly multiple planes you'll encounter something different. This may require some "unlearning" but DCS is a lot more accessible than a real plane. You can jump in and practice free of consequences any time. The IFR hoods in the trainers are a neat feature, but we can change the weather at will in DCS. The hood does save you a loading screen though, so there is at least some advantage to it. I've heard people say something similar regarding mentality, but I haven't found that to be an issue personally. Sometimes I fly the combat aircraft purely for training purposes and do "the boring stuff" for quite a while. It's actually a nice change of pace from a real mission. This point does touch on something else with respect to learning DCS and that's holding interest. If people genuinely find the full combat planes more interesting, I think that's a huge factor in sticking with the plane during the learning process. I often tell people to just fly what they love, I think that's one of the most important factors when it comes to module mastery. I also recommend the trainers, they are fantastic to fly. While I may not use them specifically for training myself, I can appreciate the desire of others to use them in that capacity. They absolutely feel different without high powered engines or FBW controls. Aiming for those coordinated turns can take some work like you said, but feel good to pull off. I've never shared a cockpit in DCS, but you've highlighted some of the benefits and I can see the appeal.

I owe most but not all modules. Proficiency is far from consistent across them all. My opinion of DCS is that, as the sim is now, the best experience comes from air to air combat with more modern planes. Due to that I spend more time with those airframes. My proficiency is high with 4th gen aircraft though due to the nature of early access, bugs, and sometimes a tight schedule I haven't learned everything yet. I don't focus on one module at a time, but that doesn't prevent me from learning multiple aircraft. Trainers don't really serve the purpose they do in real life in DCS. There aren't any benefits to training on them in the sim, they might even make learnnig your preferred module more difficult since there will be differences you need to adjust to when switching airframes. Trainers in DCS are just for fun or immersion, and there is nothing wrong with that, I've never regretted buying them.

Saw this a long time ago, thought it was fixed. Also with Hornets.

It's easier to just have two installs. I've never had to rollback because I have two copies of DCS, and I'll keep it that way as long as it's possible to do so. Isn't this separate from mandatory updates anyway? If the updates are forced, you're not getting a rollback. I've used Windows enough to know that forced updates do no good.

I really don't understand when people look down on the Hornet's radar. It's definitely better than the F-16's. If you mean the radar display and symbology, then fine, I think the F-16 is superior there as well. The actual radar though? I wish the F-16 had the 18's radar so much. The extra range and azimuth would mesh so well with the F-16's performance for BVR.

Mandatory updates would be absolutely terrible.

Could try using a script that detects when the player fires. Alternatively, use invisible instead of immortal and make the AI fire at points near enemies so they don't kill each other. There is no real direct way to do this, but a few indirect ways.

The load was not adjusted, it was the bingo amount. Full fuel for both at the start, bingo set proportional to weight. I could have just flown to 0 fuel which would be functionally the same thing, but I wanted useable range numbers. I enjoy the F-16 (and I like the Hornet even if I don't always get along with the controls) a lot but that doesn't really matter here, it's an objective test. I've tested both cruise and combat and I've seen the F-16 come out ahead when lightly loaded (ie AA config or small AG loadout). The F-16 uses less fuel innately and has less draggy stations. It does have a fuel fraction disadvantage, so on internal fuel only while carrying a big bomb load it can fall behind, but the drop tanks proportionately give it more fuel and don't add as much drag. I think one way to put it is that the F-16 is naturally a little more efficient, which makes some sense as it's single engine and not weighed down with naval equipment, but the F-18 is better at carrying payloads. Though if you have numbers to provide, I'd be interested in comparing. I haven't really seen many people do tests like mine.

Ah if that is the case I misunderstood.

There is no setting to force old clouds that I am aware of. Though if you open a mission in the ME and set the weather to dynamic, this might revert to the old clouds since dynamic weather isn't updated yet. I'm not totally sure, I've not tried to disable the new clouds. Though if you're editing missions in the ME you could also just set the skies to clear (or whatever you want) with the new clouds.

I'm just a bit curious here, because that's not my experience. Jammers are simple yes, especially when talking about AI jamming, but the player ones do have a tiny bit of variety. On the whole though, jamming does need work. On RCS though, DCS has taken that into account for years. The F-117 is proof. It's actually stealth. Large transports also have noticeably better longer detection ranges than fighters. We don't have hard coded detection ranges, they work by a formula. Now that formula is not as complex as reality (varies depending on the plane), but I think what DCS actually does needs to be acknowledged when giving feedback.

You could say that there isn't a need for very much at all, flight sims from long ago were pretty bare bones. Refueling damage is nice to have simply because it's realistic, and it because it rewards proper flying. It'll also be another factor to plan for when in the air. Learn your emergency procedures and be ready to put your knowledge to the test.

Fixing takes time, and bugs can only be fixed if they are found. The AI has been terrible at fuel management for years. I've felt it as a mission maker. People requested for a long time that AI be given an unlimited fuel option. It was finally added recently and I'm including it as standard in missions because the AI still uses too much fuel. There is value to having the option to disable things. Users should always have the option. A simulator doesn't gain anything from forcing settings on users, nor is any realism lost by allowing users to enable or disable features. While giving the option allows for users to get around potentially serious problems while waiting for a fix.

There is no reason they can't be. A sim gives us the ability to choose how we interact with it, that's a good thing. On the practical side, an off option could be useful for the initial implementation (turn it off if it's buggy), for debugging (turn it off if it makes refueling easier and you're trying to examine a bug with refueling), or if it interacts poorly with other features (turn it off in multiplayer because lag turns the drogue into a hypersonic whip of doom that cuts planes in half).

This seems to come up pretty often, while I myself think the ME is very good as it is. Not perfect, absolutely not, but pretty easy and intuitive. My solution for this is variables. You'd assign a variable like "Cruise Altitude = 30,000 ft" then in the waypoints, you set altitude not to a number, but to Cruise Altitude. Then there would be a variable table where you could see all variables, sort them by type, and by what units are using them. You'd not only be able to change multiple waypoints in a group at once, but literally every waypoint in the mission at the same time with very little work. And these variables could even be saved across missions, example a variable "F-15 cruise speed" could be made and set to be automatically entered whenever a F-15 waypoint is created. Years ago ED made it so that planes have default speeds for waypoints and it's still terrible. Create waypoints, later decide to change the aircraft (or use the aircraft route as a template for other aircraft and copy paste), and now all your waypoints have their speeds changed, most likely to a useless value. It was requested I believe by people I believe, but it doesn't appear to have been planned out and as a result is less than worthless as it just creates problems for no benefits, at least for me. Could be useful, but it also may need to account for things like refueling, combat, reserve fuel, random waypoints, payload (are weapons dropped or not?), etc. In other words, packages. Yes it would be a good feature. Technically it doesn't really require AI changes as it could be built around follow.

Maybe some material sciences courses would help you communicate the problem. 42,000 lbs isn't bending the wing, it's a force not a moment. The Empire State Building weighs 730,000,000 lbs. It's doing fine. The wings have to hold more than the tank anyway, there is a 25,000 lbs (or whatever) plane attached to them. At 14g, that's 350,000 lbs, a lot more than the tank. And the tank itself is going to be inboard because that's where the wing is stronger.

For now I actually plan to keep two installs. The main benefit for me hasn't changed. I can keep a stable version of the game to do my simming in while also having access to all the latest additions. Unless bugs are virtually eliminated, two copies just makes sense to me. However if I do find a given update to be an improvement I guess I no longer need to wait for a stable release to update my other DCS install.

I could have worded that better. There is no way to prevent any case of CSAR, but better weapons and a higher success rate means that CSAR missions should be less common. As for the F-35's suitability for CAS or CSAR, it won't perform those missions the same way an A-10 would, but it might not need to. With the F-35 being classified, this conversation can easily tumble into speculation, but the F-35 at least does have a large fuel load (the A and C do anyway), and most comprehensive SA system known to be a fighter, which includes a visual system (EODAS), and on the payload side can still carry a fair amount which will only be helped by trends in weapon miniaturization. A dedicated completely dedicated CAS plane would be ideal, but I don't think the F-35 is set for failure in that role. Hand in hand with weapons go tactics. If loitering over the area doesn't work, then don't do it. Sixth gen aircraft are taking communication and sensor fusion to new levels with the inclusion of drone wingmen. The future of CAS may see the piloted aircraft as more of a carrier and command/sensor unit than an attacker.

Kola will be a partially Artic map.

The A-10's ability to loiter can make up for the speed in some cases but there will also be situations where orbiting overhead may not be possible. The F-35 is capable of handing a winder range of situations. With a low enough threat presence, the A-10 is fine, but at that point you could probably use even cheaper options too. The F-35 can't carry its full load while remaining at maximum stealth, but that's not a problem because if stealth is required, it's the only one that would be able to do the job anyway. Stealth also isn't binary. External weapons will increase the RCS (possibly only from some angles) but it doesn't mean that the plane will be easy to find. F-16's and Super Hornets have RCS reduction features despite also carrying external weapons. If funding and resources were unlimited both planes could be employed and we'd be able to cover every type of situation, but I think the US is trying to go for the most efficient route for the real world. If the F-35 works as planned, you're eliminating CSAR by more effectively fighting or evading the enemy. If a need for a more specialized CAS aircraft comes about there are also other options to consider.

I was able to look into it, the problem is related to 55G6 maybe. When using E-3, targets eventually get too far away. You can also see random detections at long range thanks to the new fluctuating RCS (I assume): script2.miz

More to learn if you want to do everything the A-10 can offer. It might be AG only, but AG is typically more workload than AA. Militaries don't want pilots to be fighting their controls while also trying to dogfight. Carrier landings are harder than airfield, but an airfield landing doesn't have to be easy. Weather, visibility, airfield condition, etc. When it comes to the A-10 specifically, it can't thrust its way out of problems like multirole fighters can.

I agree, really useful on the Mirage, however in a real aircraft you can feel acceleration changes, so maybe that's why they were never added. The speed tape on the HUD can also be used to gauge acceleration in US fighters that have them. When it comes to AA fueling specifically, I make a note of the fuel flow needed to keep up with the tanker and use it as a reference, though in the Hornet the EGT reading may be a little more precise.

CAS is one role where the Hornet will likely come out ahead in terms of fuel. Especially if CBU's are involved. They're bricks, and the F-16 being a tiny plane feel bit of the added drag index, not to mention weight. I'll also mention that I really have no idea why the Air Force shuns 1000 lb bombs. They're a really nice middle ground between 500's and 2000's. I love carrying them on the F-18. I'd say the same.

Adjusting fuel is an apples to apples comparison. You can't use raw fuel amount, the planes are different. Cruise range also isn't just for ferrying, unless you're immediately taking off and going into combat. How far you can cruise is going to determine how far away you can fight. I haven't done as many combat comparisons on fuel use, but I've found situations where the F-16 comes ahead. It was able to get up to combat speed and altitude faster and then use mil power to conserve fuel while maintaining most of its speed. The Hornet needed AB the entire time to keep up which burned through the fuel. Again it's going to be mission dependent. Heavily loaded the F-18 will pull ahead.