streakeagle

The F-15E is exactly the replacement for the F-4E: 2-seat, hi-tech multirole.

Patiently awaiting the AFMs. The F/A-18C will be a great ride: multirole, carrier-based, and a tad old-school. Would be nicer for me to have the F/A-18A, but they are so similar I don't really mind. Much more excited about having this version than the E/F Super Hornet. There is one skin I prefer on Hornets above all others: After that, I like the Blue Angels. Blue and gold are my favorite colors.

Loving the updated UH-1H FM. The original was fun and challenging, but unrealistically unstable. Now, the FM is nearly as hard as it was, but a soft touch on the cyclic avoids the wobbly goblin effect. I can land on the oil rig. I still can't beat the hard instant action ground attack since I am not accurate enough with the rockets at long range to kill both the ZSU-23-2 and the BMP before overflying the convoy and getting trashed by the BMP. I did destroy the entire convoy once, but was out of rockets and so damaged that I could not even begin to approach the static targets without getting shot down. On the other hand, I have the easy instant action ground attack down pat. If I practice on static targets with no return fire, maybe I can get my rocket pod skills up to a point where I can trash the convoy AAA escorts in the first pass and use miniguns to finish the soft targets, leaving me with a relatively undamaged helo and some rockets to do the same to the static targets. My standard night is: try UH-1H oil rig landing a few times to get warmed up. Fly UH-1H hard instant action ground attack until tired of dying. Finally, Enjoy chomping on a pair of Fw 190D-9s with the P-51D. Sometimes, I throw in some F-15C DACT guns only vs 2 x Su-27 just to enjoy the vulcan and the F-15's power/agility. I still haven't mapped Su-27 controls to my stick yet, so I haven't spent more than a few seconds trying out the new Flanker 3d pit.

But I don't want to see the lineage... I want the end result. Unfortunately, DCS is far from complete and it will be quite some time before I really see the end results I really want. But the UH-1H, P-51D, and MiG-21bis are a great start. Mi-8, Fw 190D-9, and F-4 are good compliments for those three. Having several major DCS level variants of the F-4 and MiG-21 and the historically correct environments would be perfect.

Flanker has come a long way. I never had Flanker, but I have LOMAC/FC/FC2/FC3. Love the direction the game is going and pretty darn happy with where it is now, especially since my hardware can run it pretty well. Bring on the AFMs for the F-15C and Su-27! Provide AFM upgrades for all the FC3 aircraft and continue to refine/improve the missile AFMs, and FC3 will be near perfect for my purposes. Of course, I will be happier with DCS:F-15C and DCS:Su-27. My flying rotation is pretty steady between UH-1H, P-51D, and the FC3 F-15C. SF2 is getting almost no time right now. I need to take the time to map the Su-27 controls to my stick/throttle, then I will put it into the rotation. The upcoming AFM upgrade will probably motivate me to get it working sooner rather than later. Can't wait to try the F-15C and Su-27 at the edges of the envelope: high AoA at subsonic speeds. I would also like decently modeled taxi/takeoffs/landings.

I have come a long way since I first sought to buy a B-8 grip to splice onto a USB stick... but I still have a long way to go. My son is going to visit family over the summer (about 6 weeks) and I will only join him for the last week, so I anticipate a tremendous amount of progress before the end of the summer. But I have not made any particular plans about exactly what I want to accomplish, so I might not get as far as I hope. I have been spending all my free time enjoying the current setup with DCS and SF2... with the release of the UH-1H and AI Fw190D9 focusing nearly every last minute on DCS UH-1H and P-51D missions. I love that the UH-1H used the B-8... I like it when the stick on the screen matches the one in my hand... right down to the button/switch functions. I may focus on eliminating the Warthog throttle by making an F-4 throttle, but I would like to get more time in a real F-4 cockpit before committing to that. So I may just sand/fill/paint what I already have and try to fabricate some ejection pull handles for the top of the seat and wire them to a switch on the BU0836X so I can map them to in-game eject functions. So many things to do, so little time and money to do them!

Sometimes, I can damp the initial oscillations and get into a great hover and stay in it with very subtle movements of the cyclic... but my lifesize real F-4 stick shaft length gives me a huge edge in precision/sensitivity. I have no friction or detents, and my centering springs have almost no pull at center. However, one wrong move and it takes me a while to damp down the oscillations. I can generally stay in an area the diameter of the runway width, sometimes almost perfectly still. But my ability to transition from forward flight to a safe steady hover and land on the oil rig is an explosive work in progress. I can land on the oil rig, but not very often. I am more likely to transition into a high, non-recoverable sink rate or snap my tail off on the tower or break a skid, or drift off the landing pad and settle down/explode on the larger platform. I have improved greatly with practice, but it seems to be a steep learning curve... which I love

If FC level aircraft can be created relatively quickly and then almost as quickly offered with AFM, that is a great strategy to expand the plane set and customer base while continuing to work on full DCS modules for the hard core crowd. While I love the full-blown DCS modules I don't really like the idea that it will take years before the flyable plane set expands to a useful level. But I can't stand the LOMAC/FC flight modeling inherited by FC3. An FC3 level aircraft with an AFM has most of what I want and potentially superior across the board to anything the SF series has if done right. So let's see how this plays out in terms of how realistic/fun/immersive the AFM is and how it is marketed. If a full blown DCS aircraft is $40 to $60 per module, how much is an FC3 aircraft and how much is an AFM upgrade? Of course there may only be two options: FC3 w/AFM or full DCS. This could be like Accusim, where there is a base aircraft and an Accusim upgrade. As long as ED stays in business long enough to crank out full DCS versions of significant aircraft from the Korean and Vietnam conflicts (i.e. F-86, MiG-15, F-4, MiG-17, F-8, MiG-21, etc.), I will ultimately be happy. Hopefully, this new approach will help make that possible by meeting the needs of a lot of people and thereby bringing in more money for development.

What he said! Hoping for at least Exp 3 before TK gives up the SF series completely. There are still so many planes he never added that deserved so much to be a part of the stock SF world. I had always hoped that nearly all AI aircraft would end up being stock flyables.

I don't know if Nevada will ever be released. Maybe DCS is gone by next year? Just don't know in the flight sim market. If it ground to a halt right now, I would be OK. The UH-1H is awesome. I already liked flying the P-51D, having an AI Fw 190 D9 to shoot down is just icing on the cake. The FC3 cockpits are way nice. Of course, I would prefer the DCS level F-15C and Su-27. As far as I can tell, ED and DCS are doing fine and it is just a matter of how many 3rd parties can adapt and succeed. Hopefully, the MiG-21bis delays are a thing of the past and it gets released before the summer is over. I am not only eager to fly the MiG-21bis, but to see if the MiG-23 is next.

Paypal had the problem fixed by the time I purchased it a little while ago.

Love it. So far, everything I hoped it would be, and as it is only a "beta", I would dare hope that it is only going to get better.

While I expect DCS to proceed... it is really such a niche that the whole idea could go bust before it gets very far. But due to the lack of competition and the current evidence of steady progress, all my eggs are in this one basket. Against my better judgement, I prepaid for the MiG-21bis, and more than the bare minimum to help improve the odds of it getting done. But paying for a product that isn't available yet is generally a bad idea... paying for a Fighter Ops forum subscription even a worse idea ;) But I wouldn't have bet on the MiG if I didn't have 99.9% certainty that it would get done in a reasonable amount of time. Those that prepaid for DCS:A-10C looking for DCS:Nevada are still hanging out to dry. Hopefully, edge is compeleted AND turns out to be great, followed by an upsurge in third party participation and productivity. Would be nice if DCS creates a market similar in scale to FSX with lots of choices across the range in quality and cost for all types of addons to create whatever world you want to fly/fight in. It would be nice if sea combat makes it into the spread and all aspects of the game have the option to have addons at the A-10C level of quality and realism as well as the FC level to suit everyone's preferences.

Any mod of ArmA is nowhere near the quality of Jet Thunder or even the "lite" SF2 when it comes to flight/air combat simulation. If ArmA was any good in this role, DCS and SF2 wouldn't exist.

The patch was fully downloaded in the morning when I got up, I installed it, installed UH-1H, and activated UH-1H. I didn't have time to try it (still don't have time yet), but had to start a mission to activate it. So, I took off and hovered a few seconds. Just using the default mappings to my BU0836X stick and Warthog throttle, I could lift off and hover with a bit of wobbling. I don't know if one of the throttle axis was providing tail rotor or what, but I could use the cyclic to damp most oscillations and hang pretty steady without using rudder pedals at all. As soon as I get the time, I will get my stick/throttle/pedals all mapped and enjoy this awesome helo ride :)

Some of the QF-4s put up quite a fight. Some survive multiple missile hits and repair cycles before being written off and/or disintegrating. While I would rather see them distributed to museums to be appreciated, it is probably more fitting they go down flying in a blaze of glory while helping make sure the next generation does their job as well as possible.

I am sure those are later delivery manuals. Except for a very few systems (no AAA-4 Infrared, different comms, and fat wings for fat tires), the early blocks of F-4C was for all intents and purposes an F-4B right down to the paint job on initial delivery. The early F-4D may have retained the capabilities of the F-4C, but most certainly couldn't even carry AIM-9s on the wing pylons as delivered and had to be field modded to get them back after the AIM-4 proved to be useless in dogfights. So there is not telling what the F-4D could or not carry -- but the missile status panel still had the lights up to a certain point, so maybe the wires were still there? Until later control panel upgrades and/or wiring changes for "special" weapons, it is possible that the only thing keeping USAF F-4s from carrying AIM-7s on their wings was the lack of the Navy pylon. Aside from the odd RAAF photos, it is safe to say, possible or not, the USAF F-4 variants never actually carried the wing mounted AIM-7s and therefore any "realistic" loadout ini files for them should not permit it. At the same time, photographic evidence and cockpit lights indicate that USN F-4s appear to have always retained the wing pylon capability. While not commonly used, it should probably be a valid loadout ini entry for all USN F-4s.

The auto updater has downloaded 120 MB... torrent has gotten 3 GB... now do I have to completely uninstall to use the torrent? I don't want to uninstall and certainly don't want to waste/disturb module activations. But I also don't want to wait a week for the auto-updater.

1.2.4 is out. Already have DCS:UH-1H downloaded. About 1/3 the way through the 1.2.4 auto-update, but it has slowed down a tad. I wish the auto-updater could tie into torrents. Correction, 2/3 done... must be moving in spurts. When it moves, it jumps. It really jumps... applying update now, but won't have time to try it yet. Have to fix dinner and take my son out to play. Oops... must have only finished "file check", auto-updater is at 11.8 out of 1359.9 MB and crawling very slow. Others say the torrent to download the whole install is faster, but I think I will let the auto-updater do the job.

I see little to no value in FC level flight models. SF2 has far superior flight modeling to Lomac/FC. If DCS merely expanded the FC planeset rather than having higher fidelity aircraft modeling, I would play it as much as I did LOMAC/FC/FC2... once in a while. I already have a wide range of sims at a survey level with only a few at the hard core level... and none of those cover aircraft I want to learn to the hard core level. DCS only has my attention because of the announced hard core aircraft: MiG-21bis and the promise to deliver more aircraft from that generation and older. Additionally, the F-104, F-86, MiG-15, and UH-1H are the projects I am interested in. But aside from the UH-1, those aircraft fly and fight better in SF2 better than they ever would at an FC3 level of modeling. So I am willing to wait quite a while if the finished products are at the level of accuracy of the A-10C module. Pending the release of the UH-1 and MiG-21bis, most of my DCS time is spent in the P-51D. While I would prefer historically accurate terrain and even better yet, the complete globe, all I really need is a sandbox capable of modeling the missions I want to fly. The existing terrain is adequate for this purpose.

It may have a sight center option... but I just struggle to get the right angle with TrackIR. Though I agree, sight centered is the way to go for a default view. But since the sight is fixed, it doesn't really help that much once I get used to where the bullets are falling. i.e. in Aces High, the best pilots use just a dot for reference leaving their view unobstructed. I have always preferred to fly with historically correct sights, but then Aces High doesn't give the P-51D once of its advantages: K-14 LCOS. So, I can understand people gaming the game rather than using the diamonds that don't adjust to wingspan/range and don't move to reflect calculated lead. Unfortunately, having precision in one sim doesn't directly translate to precision in another given different physics calculations. One aspect of DCS: P-51D I like is that the K-14 works pretty close to the original (at least after they got rid of the bugs). But with just a little practice, estimating lead angles visually with just a dot works just as well or better and leaves your forward view a bit more unobstructed.

I think the "multiple 3rd parties doing the same plane thing" is already fixing itself, and not necessarily in a good way. The F-15E is one of the most complex systems you could try to model and a poor choice for learning how to do things the DCS way. Will 3rd parties even be able to produce modules comparable to the existing Ka-50, P-51D, and A-10C? If they can't do so in a reasonable amount of time and make a profit, they won't be releasing any DCS modules at all. All I can do is sit back an wait to see the results of both ED and the 3rd parties. The UH-1H will give me a taste of 3rd party capabilities. Hopefully, the MiG-21bis follows soon as well. But I am not holding my breath waiting for 3rd parties to deliver everything or even anything they originally announced. I hope I am wrong, but I expect most will pull out of doing DCS modules before releasing even one module. I am counting on ED to produce their official modules in a reasonable amount of time and more importantly to the same level of accuracy as DCS:A-10C. I just hope they finish something I like and want before I am too old to learn/enjoy hardcore flight sims.

I now have a headrest :)

Been spending a lot of time doing 1v1 with the enemy set to the highest level, "Hero". With the Spitfire Mk1A vs the Bf109E-4, I can kill the Bf109 every time, though sometimes needing a lot of patience. But the I cannot get the Spitfire while flying the 109. I can't close him, I can't out climb him, and I certainly can't out turn him. Just to stay with him, I have to slowly bleed my altitude down until he drives me into the sea or he gets a good burst into me. At any other level: Regular, Veteran, or even Ace, I can smoke the Spitfire. Just not on "Hero". i will say this: I hate the German cannons because of their low muzzle velocity/fast drop, making high g shots very difficult. I also hate the offset gunsight. In reality, being offset doesn't mess up the sight, it just appears to move around and you have to move so that it is on the glass. In the game, if you are not centered over the sight, the bullets do not fall on the cross in level flight. Overall the Spitfire is much easier/more capable aside from the wimpy 8x0.303 guns. Aces High has performance charts that agree with BoB2. They show that the Spitfire I actually was superior to the Bf109E-4 in almost every area of the flight envelope. Given that the Bf109 pilots were low on fuel and ordered to stick close to the bombers rather than boom-n-zoom on fighter sweeps, it is amazing that they didn't do much worse. I also practiced full realism take-offs, which are graded verbally. It took me a few minutes, but I finally got a perfect takeoff rather than the reminder to be "gentler with my kite." The Spitfire is also much easier for performing a rapid scramble takeoff.

I have faith that DCS can and will become THE combat flight sim for any time frame... if they can make enough money to keep going. My only problem is whether they will get as far as I would like before I die ;) When you choose to make a combat flight sim that is both a hardcore study sim and a survey sim, that is a huge can of worms. Rise of Flight is along those lines, but models a time frame with only the simplest of aircraft systems, and it has still taken many years to expand to its current stable of fairly well-modeled aircraft. Which is better/easier? Starting with a survey sim, then going back and filling in the details to make each aircraft into a dedicated hardcore study sim or starting with a hardcore sim and slowly expanding the library of flyable hardcore aircraft? I was enjoying the Third Wire approach -- starting off with a decent number of flyables and slowly improving the game engine while also expanding the planeset, but the money ran dry before it got as far as I would have liked. The idea of polishing Falcon 4.0 into Falcon Allied Force, then adding an equally well modeled aircraft like the A-10 or F-15E sounded good, too... but again the money ran out. Flanker -> LOMAC ->FC->DCS:Ka50->FC2->A-10C -> DCS:World -> FC3 has a unique flow from study sim to survey sim to study sim to survey sim... rinse, wash, repeat. For now, it seems to be working as a business model as long as people are willing to keep paying for updated versions of the same original code (much like Third Wire in that aspect). The Fw190 will enhance P-51 air combat fun, but the UH-1H is what I am anxious to see. How can this be the first time one of the most popular and prolific helos has been modeled to a hard core level in a combat flight sim? The one fatal flaw I see preventing DCS from taking over all PC flight simming is the small regional map (again like Third Wire) versus the globe of FSX and X-Plane. I hope they have plans to eventually create a globe that gets populated with their regional maps. I would rather fly into generic blue or green unmodeled areas on a complete globe than hit imaginary walls.