streakeagle

My eyes aren't "wonky". The old website is gone, but it used to be filled with rendered screen shots show casing both aircraft under development (T-38, F-16, F-15, etc.) and Nevada that had amazing geometry, texturing, lighting, shadows, and reflections. They weren't in-game shots, but they looked amazing. These above in-game screenshots remind me of their old rendered screenshots, especially the glass on the Mirage. This is no SFP1 or LOMAC, this is the promised land that FighterOps never delivered... Only instead of a T-38, we get an L-39 or a Hawk or a C-101. But with the A-10 and F-15 already available as flyables, DCS will be very close to what Fighter Ops advertised. This is an archive that has some of what I remember that I see in DCS 1.5 Screenshots: https://web.archive.org/web/20051103024330/http://www.fighterops.com/ Hit "Next" until you get to the shot of the F-15 in the foreground with two-seat F-16s in the background with the shiny glass. There were also various shots of Nellis. The last useful screenshots published had a T-38 parked at Nellis or flying over Nevada. The in-game shots of the T-38 never quite matched the rendered models, but the above screenshots jarred my memory. I had all but forgotten about FighterOps. Technically, FigherOps still exists, though there does not appear to be any pretense that there will ever be a game and the private pay-access Area 51 forums are long gone: https://www.facebook.com/fighterops?fref=ts http://www.fighterops.com/

Looking at those screenshots, DCS is ultimately providing what FighterOps had promised for years... Ultra realistic sim and graphics centered on Nellis. Is it just me, or is the aircraft floating a bit above the tarmac. Look at the shadow versus the main wheels over several different pics to see what I am seeing.

I remain patient. I have no interest in maintaining a beta install in parallel with a main install.

I remember announcements for Capt Sim products, most famously the MiG-21UM, but I have never bought any MSFS products other than FSX and FSX Gold. In that time frame, only two sims had my attention: SFP1/WoX and Aces High.

The DCS L-39 (like the DCS P-51D) presents me with a unique opportunity. The Kissimmee airport near my workplace operates T-6 Texan, P-51Ds, and L-39s for the purpose of allowing people to fly them and even get rated to fly those aircraft solo. It would be nice to save money over a few years (perhaps soaking up some overtime for my own personal gift fund), then use the money to fly the P-51 and L-39. It would be interesting to compare the responses of the real aircraft to control inputs, then come home and try duplicating the results. I would need to wear a go pro type setup so that I could record instrument indications. It would be a fun experiment for me (though a costly one). I could better use the money on other things that I would use far longer. I also might be better served to save up for a one-time flight in the Collings Foundation's F-4 Phantom, but again the cost-effectiveness is extremely prohibitive... much better ways to spend the money for long-term benefits rather than a few minutes I would never forget.

Fantastic stuff!

They eye candy all over forums and facebook is so beautiful... but mixed in with one helluva bug list, both global and end-user specific. I hope they squash them bugs quick, because I want the long promised higher frame rates, higher quality graphics, new gameplay features, and a large squashing of long existing bugs, a very rare combination!

I am going to patiently wait for the general/debugged public release of 1.5. Looks pretty good, though!

It was a small scale development aircraft, designed to test the concepts of stealth. The F-117 was preceded by a scaled down demonstrator as well, Have Blue.

After buying in early and waiting forever, I ultimately got the MiG-21bis and love it even in its current "beta" condition. I flip-flopped on DCS WW2. I put in money to get all the expected planes for free (including the Me262 for $75-$80 and get some printed manuals). I pulled my money out since I knew their goal was extremely unrealistic. Then I put just enough money back in ($40 I think) to maximize my chance of getting 4 or 5 aircraft. When the house of cards collapsed, I ended up getting the Fw190 and Bf109 for $40. I don't think the map is included any more or maybe it is... doesn't matter since it has never materialized. If you want the earliest possible access at the lowest possible initial price, buying in early has paid off every time for me. But the delays, the endless excuses and/or lack of communication is stressful. If you are patient, the best thing to do is wait a few weeks for a flash sale and get a decent price or wait a few more months and get the newer releases for almost nothing. I have bought into all of the available pre-orders. The Hawk and C-101 still don't have EFM's. Based on the latest info, the P-40F is going to miss the promised release date, too. If I were smart, my days of paying full price for delayed, half-baked releases would come to an end. But I would like to believe that combined with others who are doing the same, my financial contributions are helping the DCS World ball to continue rolling. It may be slow and painful, but I like where it has gone and appears to be going. I have RAZBAM's SF2 aircraft. The results were great despite some lingering graphical bugs. I certainly didn't want to return them for a refund. If the RAZBAM DCS World releases match or beat Belsimtek and Leatherneck, I will be very happy. I will take a chance and pre-order the Mirage 2000, then use the success of that release or lack thereof to decide on future RAZBAM products. I am utterly amazed at the progress that DCS World has made despite the delays and bugs. In the past, air combat sim developers always compromised between survey sims and study sims. DCS world has uniquely provided both. Some fault the diversity in era, especially given the very time/place specific Black Sea map, but I love it. If RAZBAM transitions to being an established/successful DCS developer via the Mirage 2000, their unique list of planned projects will definitely be part of my DCS stable.

This is a great aircraft and I can't wait to fly it. I hope it marks the beginning of a string of successful RAZBAM addons for DCS World!

Was that an exercise or a party with one hell of a fireworks display? Fantastic firing range with an amazing group of air and land forces operating concurrently. Seeing the old F-4, F-5, and AH-1 operational takes me back at least 30 years. "Impressive" is an understatement for this exercise and the video.

I have Shoot installed and working on Win 7 64-bit. I use it for DCS. Sometimes it glitches and it can only be fixed by closing the program and restarting, but for the most part it works well. A key aspect of this software is that it uses a very old version of .net, so you have to install the old version and use a special config file to make it work. The config file can be generated by .net which has some sort of backwards compatibility tool, but I provided my copy to the Shoot people, so I think they are still hosting it. The support forums for Shoot go over all of this, but they are long and confusing after all of these years. Some people who once used Shoot have gone on to more modern payware that works as well or better without having to install ancient versions of .net. I was going to do so myself, but after years of not using Shoot at all, I tried it again and found on my latest PC. It rarely glitches at and is working well with DCS. I use it to make and respond to radio calls, very immersive!

So let me get this straight, the effects of a nuclear bomb are immoral compared to conventional warfare? WW2 covered far more area than any single atom bomb. The effects of fighting a large scale (global) conventional war for just a few years lasted decades, certainly affecting children not even born yet. There were (and still are) minefields and unexploded ordinance all over Europe. Does Japan surrender without dropping the A-bombs? Probably not. Those two bombs saved millions of lives in exchange for the thousands that suffered their effects. It would have been immoral to invade Japan D-Day style when the bombs were available to avoid that blood bath. Japanese women, children, and elderly were supposed to fight to the death. Based on the the island hopping campaigns, I believe a large majority of them would have done so. Jump ahead to the Cold War. The frightening potential of atomic warfare ensured that even big conflicts like Korea were carefully fought to avoid an all-out World War 3 fight between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I can fully understand why Iran would want nuclear weapons. Once a country has them, they will never be invaded and they get to sit at the big boys table in the United Nations. Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea get a level of respect from their enemies that ensures most conflicts are at best minor skirmishes. Unless some odd situation triggers a major nuclear exchange, nuclear weapons have been the most sane, humane, and moral weapons to ever be created. Unlike all conventional weapons created before or since, they were only used once and dramatically reduced the number of lives lost over the long haul.

My preferred method of testing FMs is simply to have known performance data points, better yet complete charts, and then turn debug mode on and see for myself how the net lift and drag values compared at that those points. My AIDE tool allowed me to convert SFP1 flight models into standard performance charts found in flight manuals. I would simply tweak the values until the output of my program fit the charts. Unfortunately, the last version I made/released to accommodate some changes TK made to the flight models introduced bugs that I could never fix making the program unstable, most likely a memory leak or worse. The program was large and my free time had dwindled. I always dreamed of a day when I could start from scratch and make a newer better version. NASA has CD0 plots for many aircraft of the 1960s/1970s, so it is fairly easy to get that value correct. Many flight manuals for jets have V-n diagrams that let you get Clmax vs speed and altitude. Many have level acceleration times from one mach number to another (i.e. Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.2), which provides T-D/W (specific excess thrust). If the sustained g performance charts are available in standard height vs Mach format, you basically have everything you need to get complete lift, drag, and thrust tables. The difficultly is in proportioning those numbers to various parts of the aircraft. There is a program called DATCOM based on all USAF performance prediction techinques that can be extremely useful for SF flight modeling: http://www.holycows.net/datcom/ Of course WW2 aircraft performance was never documented as well as jets. The pilot manuals are generally devoid of performance tables. Military testing was sometimes very subjective... unclear what fuel was used, weights, and other critical test conditions. The performance of particular engine and prop combinations are hard to determine. Jets are generally easier to model than prop planes... at least at subsonic speeds.

Looks like a great museum! Thanks for the pics.

I pre-ordered as soon as I saw the news this afternoon. This is a jet I see flying around Kissimmee almost every day at work (as well as T-6 Texans and P-51Ds). It will be a pleasure to fly a DCS level version in the sim knowing that one day I could pay to actually get some stick time on one.

At very close ranges, the convergence/divergence is the spacing between the gun barrels ;) Per the above images, even with very exaggerated convergence angles, anything range closer than the convergence point has to be somewhere between the barrel spacing and convergence. At the same time, the apparent size of the target in terms of field of view always increases as you get closer. The problems with close-in shooting are: 1) safely getting into position without a collision or overshoot, 2) avoiding debris upon scoring hits on the target.

Cool beans: 25% more lift! But that means someone didn't spend enough time in the wind tunnel despite decades of development.

I have flown the MiG-15bis a fair amount of time. But I haven't looked into gun convergence. I use the 23mms to sight the target, and usually score a kill using them... but follow up with the 37mm if the target lives long enough. I have a habit of getting fairly close before shooting consistent with advice from Eric Hartmann: fill the windscreen with the target :)

Jump way ahead to Operation Desert Storm. It took a while to admit/confirm the F/A-18 shot down by the MiG-25. No one on the US side even wanted to consider that an old, lone MiG-25 operated by Iraq could slip through AWACS and CAP/escorts to snipe a very modern F/A-18 with state of the art RWR/ECM. I wonder where that Iraqi pilot is now? Did he even know he scored the kill?

I don't know that Russian propaganda was all that much worse than US propaganda. It is true that the Russians credited the MiG-15 with more F-86 kills than were deployed in total throughout the war. But how many times have respectable US sources quoted that F-86 Sabres scored a 10:1 kill ratio compared to Vietnam F-4s pathetic 2:1 ratio? Thanks to Russian documents, we now know that kill ratio was very close to 2:1 in Korea, with Chinese/NK pilots edging the ratio toward 3:1 and USSR pilots aroun 1.4:1. So, I preferred balanced documentation with information from both sides involved rather than assuming one side is mostly correct and the other is mostly lying. It seems that the key to getting history right is the loss records. With rarer exception, the records reflect what aircraft were actually lost/damaged on what days. Correlated with kill claims, this provides the most accurate estimate of combat results. For Vietnam, the records of both sides agree about 70-80% of the time. This is absolutely amazing when you consider the huge amount of overclaiming that occurred in WW2 and Korea. But even in Vietnam, there are days when a pilot was certain of what he had shot down but the other side recorded no loss for that day. So was the pilot mistaken or confused? Or was there an accounting error in the loss records? Or was there a conscious effort by one or both sides to distort their numbers?

Hard FM uses the entire data ini values. It is designed to be as realistic as possible, but requires detailed tables of physics constants. Some flight models have incomplete/incorrect information that make them behave poorly on "Hard". Normal uses a simpler, more linear model that doesn't have as much stability or stall issues. I understand the math and always played with hard FMs. I don't know what equations or math is used by normal. Even the stock FMs thoroughly researched and tweaked over the years by TK can't have entirely accurate data. Some real-world pilots preferred the behavior of normal over hard. In the end, it will never be a true simulation whether you fly with hard or normal, which is why TK used the world "hard" instead of "realistic". So, if you like advanced physics modeling of stability and dynamics, play on hard, if you prefer more stability/smoother control, play normal. It is a game and it is supposed to be fun, so play the way that makes you happiest.