Pyroflash

The problem with that is a lot of people don't have the time to sit there all day doing nothing while waiting for someone to pop on. Let's say, however, for the sake of argument that for some reason someone respectable and experienced does take the time to do this. The next logical step is where to start. If a student hops on and starts asking questions about how to start the aircraft, 9 times out of 10 the answer is going to be "refer to page xxx in the aircraft manual" because the manual is a clear and concise method of knowledge transfer. In fact, most aircraft related questions can be answered by simply reading the manual. Again though, let's assume that the question was not about how to flick switches, but more about how to fly in general. I understand that a lot of people may not be used to how aircraft fly in DCS, and that the controls and flight models can be overwhelming for those who are new to flight simming. In that case, yes; a real person would be of great benefit because they can actively instruct the other party on how to correct their flying mistakes. They can also answer any outstanding questions about how certain systems can be used to add capabilities to the flight. For argument's sake though, let's take it a step further. The student now wants to know how to shoot people down. Realistically, you are better off simply listing a web address for this one. Teaching people how to throw poop and pickle might work well for JDAM's, but not for anything that requires even the most minute amount of analytical attention. If the student really wants to learn this stuff without hurting themselves in the process, he/she should realistically try to find an appropriate squadron right out of the gate. If they don't get that input from people, they are likely going to fly alone or with a buddy on public servers doing the exact things that this community frowns upon. It might be YEARS until they seek out or get recruited to a decent squadron, and years more to unlearn all of the bad habits that were picked up. Now, what we have now aren't exactly training servers. You will see in the list of servers things like VAB (Virtual Aerobatics), The Virtual Tuskegee Airmen, or the like. You will also see various server hosting test range and weapons range mission types. These are the types of servers that will let people get information from people who are already on there, screwing around having fun, while not making it their sole mission for the next four hours to train someone who MIGHT show up. They already exist, and although not usually as populated as the major combat oriented servers, still usually occupy at least a couple peoples' time. This way, people can still hop in and get questions answered, and at the same time, the people already in the server aren't bored to tears

More than a few. Though they aren't exactly ineffective. The ones I've seen are also extremely well maintained for their age (Bl. 30/32's).

keep up the work, looks amazing!

Keep ooooonn it!

It's also good to get a decent foundation of how exactly your radar works, +- 60 degrees azimuth, +- 30 in TWS, etc. so that you can make your scans more efficient. If you want to know more, I suggest hoping into the 104th Teamspeak and talking to those guys. They know their stuff when it comes to BVR. If you are really serious about air combat in the Eagle, hit them up for membership. Knowing stuff about a particular aspect of air combat (e.g. radar operation, is nice, but a good pilot requires a real foundation in everything else first. It will really make you 50 times better than Joe Schmoe who flys alone every night and develops bad habits.

Merry Christmas DCS: F/A-18C please. If not, then I'd like an Mi-8 for Christmas. Really though, Chiclid, you do an awful lot for the community. It appreciates this.

Attached, smoothly (but relatively quickly) advance power from idle to mil. You should be able to easily see these results.

Probably, any '220 specialists we could get to answer this question?

The PW F-100-220 is pretty much smokeless for a given RPM. However, I have heard of smoke appearing in differing amounts during RPM changes. This appears to be consistent with what we see here. There may be some discrepancy as to the thickness of the smoke though. It also depends on how fast/how much you move the throttle. Try changing your camera perspective on the aircraft to a more realistic one (i.e. bottom up, viewing at a level angle, instead of viewing at an unusual oblique angle that wouldn't be possible without a chase plane or somesuch). If you do this, it should appear much more realistic.

If you think this is bad, just wait to see how fast people will be taking out SAM's when DCS: F/A-18C comes out.

Viper drivers are by far the most chill people I have ever met.

I've owned three Saitek products throughout the years. An X-65F, an X-52, and my beloved pedals. Both the X-52 and X-65F are in working order, though I have since given away my X-65F now that I have a warthog. The ONLY problem that I have ever had with any of their products is with the rudder pedals. After nearly two years of daily use, the right rudder pot failed on me. I am far too lazy to fix it. Actually, now that I think about it.. Does anyone here know how to fix such things? I'd really appreciate some help here.

Yes, it features interactive training.

Yes, but at 20nm, it doesn't matter right now. The missiles are extremely easy to evade with proper maneuvering and some chaff. When launched on in TWS, ideally, you already have your missiles in the air, and the bandit is threatened. If you have to go defensive active, then your flight should be there to continue to threaten the bandit instead of giving him room to breathe. Inside 10 miles, things get a little more hairy. Ranges start to close fast, and you've got to decide on how you want to proceed. Yes, TWS is a tool, and your RWR won't give a launch warning, **BUT**, you should be expecting a TWS launch from a capable platform anyways, so the defensive maneuvering should be largely pre-emptive as if you had gotten the warning anyways.

Why? I mean, unless you bittersweet at teammates often. ~20 nm at 20'k+ is a pretty good range to start the engagement. You have to put the bandit(s) on the defensive early, and range will close to ~15nm during the crank where follow up shots have a higher pk. At inside 8nm, the AMRAAM should be an almost guaranteed kill. Still find it pretty weak that it has an RTR of around that range, because TBH, three more miles and you are inside the head on heaters WEZ. Aside from that, your support should be slightly behind you, or even with you at the time of launch. If he is in the flight path of the missile, then something went wrong, and he needs to be GETTING THE HECK OUT OF THERE. If he is in front of you, and the engagement forces you to fox at undesirable risk to friendly forces, make sure that you maintain lock with the bandit until pitbull, probably all the way, or at least until your wing is clear. The most important thing to do at this point would be to communicate the potential threat to your team, and make sure they get to a position where the missile is unlikely to threaten them. If you cannot do this, you have other, more pressing issues.

Except the F-35X doesn't have a HUD. It has main displays that are capable of displaying the pertinent flight info, but not a HUD. If the HMD goes down, then you have to fly old-school, not that the HUD is a super critical piece of technology for normal flight anyways. I don't think it is too much of a safety issue.

Would they rather take the VSI entrant? Personally, I'm hoping that the U.S. will continue to look at BaE as a potential competitor in the helmet. I'm sure that these bugs will be worked out eventually in the testing phases. If it does fail, then there are other options. To burn bridges because of one failure? That doesn't even sound logical to me.

No, the list changes depending on location. The one in the F-15C is a static list, and does not change throughout the flight. Location 0 always corresponds to the starting airport. TBH, I always found the ILSN nav mode to be a bit ridiculous in the FC3 birds. Without having any actual procedures, you are left to find the slant range to the desired airport, then plug away at the LCTRL - ` combo until the desired range appears. I would go absolutely insane if I had to deal with something so inefficient in real life. The tower list displays a list similar to what you would see in the A-10C's divert CDU page.

I'm just kind of hoping that they've already made DCS: F-15C a reality, and instead of 'just' releasing an AFM, they are going to surprise us. One day I'll probably wake myself up from this dream :cry:

Nowehere. EDGE started out as a partner program, but was later turned into an in-house development project. BST, however, could very well be contributing development assets towards EDGE (Or the NTTR in particular).

I would love to see the F/A-18C in DCS, it's a great bird, which has made its name in history. It is, however, a turkey. Just keep that in mind for those who want an air to air beast. For a strike fighter though? With naval aviation, you just can't get much better. Unless you upgrade to a super hornet.

It is being alluded to that Nevada will be expanded at a later date. I would not rule out the California coast as a likely next step. In the mean time, yes, I'm going to take it as a safe bet that you are going to have to live with the lack of oceanic environs for the time being.

For that amount of money, you could just buy a new F-16C.

You'd have to force them to wear the reflectors in the missions. That would kind of even it out I guess, except for the fact that they'd have other advantages which couldn't be matched by any of the other aircraft.

I think the key words here in this announcement are that "There are a half-dozen areas" that need improvement. Only a half-dozen, out of how many is the real question. If they are relatively small areas, then a release could be just around the corner barring other technology relevant issues. If, however, they are bigger areas, then, *shrug*.