Leaderboard

I'm not trying to be a punk, but that's only partially true, isn't it? There are systems - like the datalink - that are a weird magic box pretty divorced from reality. Where did the design of that magic box come from? It's not a real system, and the real systems are classified or export-controlled. So either you just make them up, or they're carefully calibrated to reflect non-classified word of mouth on how the real system sort of works. The real EM-performance of the F-18 is classified or export-controlled. The performance of the DCS jet is an estimate, based on incomplete documents that aren't classified or export-controlled. If you could not make some sort of estimates not 100% based on sourceable documents, we would not have an aircraft and you would not have our $80. We get it. You have a fine line to walk. But it seems disingenuous to say "We 100% can't do this without a sourceable document" when there's plenty of stuff on the jet for which you obviously can't point to a sourceable document.

Hello, the tracking method used is wrong. The method being used in DCS is proportional navigation, however, the correct method should be three-point. Three-point is main guidance method, there are secondary methods (for vertical guidance only) for low-flying targets and helicopters, although it probably won't be possible to include multiple tracking methods. Three point method, in short, means system is trying to align 3 points into a single line, that being put the point of the missile on a line formed by launchhing vehicle and the target. This then makes the system a fully-automated command line-of-sight system. Semi-automatic command line-of-sight method is used when target is tracked manually via a high-magnification camera system instead of automatic radar tracking. In case of interest I can enclose the pages explaining the main guidance method.

Mirage F1, screenshot 10 from aerges's facebook

SOURCE https://twitter.com/RAZBAM/status/1545581574531551233 Bye Phant

Dear Aerges, If the manual is in a state to be released any time before the 20th, would you consider making it available online? I'd love to get the chance to study up on the CE before it's here and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Книга по аэродинамике продается в свободном доступе.Можно ему хотябы ФМ исправить,а то его трясет как припадочного http://www.aircraft-reports.com/sukhoi-su-25-aircraft-aerodynamics-manual-russian-language/

That would be an F1-MF2000 for the Moroccan Air Force. Even more modern than the Spanish F1M. Though I wish we were getting it. F1M only has a single MFD, here are some pics from Aerges

Так вы же давно не российская компания. Да и стран эксплуатантов больше 20 до сих пор.

CE: the first bird we're getting, mainly an interceptor with some unguided ground attack weapons too. Navigation through radio beacons. EE: As above, but in addition to that: aerial refueling probe, INS navigation system, option to use a better RWR BE: Mostly like CE afaik, but a two seater training bird. Guns are deleted. M: modernized in late-ish 90s and has a more modern HUD and MFDs.

New screen from Aerges facebook

After years of work and dedication, the whole Aerges Engineering Team is happy to announce that our DCS: Mirage F1 module will be released in Early Access on the 20th of this month. This is our full Development Report: The Aerges Engineering Team is pleased to introduce the DCS: Mirage F1. The Mirage F1 is a legendary single engine French fighter jet from the Cold War era. It has had an illustrious career serving with the air forces of France, Spain, Greece, Iraq and many other countries and has taken part in multiple conflicts. From its original role as an all-weather interceptor, it has evolved with multiple versions into a capable multirole platform. The DCS: Mirage F1 will allow virtual pilots to accurately experience the feeling of flying a 1970s third generation aircraft. This is a particularly interesting aircraft, as it is equipped with a more sophisticated flight control system and navigation suite. However, it lacks any screens or computer assistance and has to be flown carefully and with skill. Early Access features: In the release into Early Access, the Mirage F1 CE will be available in an almost complete state. As development continues, the other Mirage F1 planned models (EE, BE and M) will be added. Some of the most relevant features available at the release date are: · Professional Flight Model (PFM) based on performance and engineering data of the real aircraft. Situations of high angle of attack and outside the flight envelope like stalls and spins are also accurately represented. · Extensive and detailed simulation of all flight systems: o Flight control system, both in its normal electro-hydraulic mode and in degraded modes. o SNECMA Atar 9K-50 engine including working envelope, damage, compressor stalls, flameouts and emergency modes. o Cyrano IV-M radar, a unique Cold War era radar in DCS. o Electric system. o Hydraulic system. o Fuel system. o Navigation suite: Navigation Indicator (IDN), TACAN, VOR. o Radios: TRAP 136 and TRAP 137B. o Electromechanical 1970s era Thomson optical sight (a predecessor of present-day HUDs). o Integrated ALE-40 countermeasure suite. o Internal and external lighting. o Armament system. o RWR. · Extremely high-quality 3D model, based on blueprints and laser scanning of a real Mirage F1. Includes animations, lights and a damage model. · Very accurate 6-DOF (Degrees of Freedom) cockpit with realistic and detailed instruments and controls. · Variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons, some of them not seen before in DCS: o Short range IR missiles: MATRA R550 Magic I, AIM-9 J, AIM-9 JULI, AIM-9 B. o Medium range missiles: MATRA R530 IR and EM. o Rocket launchers: MATRA F1 and F4. o Antirunway Durandal and cluster Belouga bombs. o SAMP family of bombs (both free fall and parachute equipped) o Laser guided GBU-10, GBU-12 and GBU-16. o Other American and Spanish made bombs. · Sound modelling based on recordings from the real aircraft. · Extremely realistic flyable simulation of the Mirage F1 CE, EE, BE and M models. The EE, BE and M will be released after the initial release of the CE. · AI models for most other variants of the Mirage F1: C, CT, CR, EQ, EDA… · A vast variety of liveries for the different countries that operated the aircraft. · Interactive training and practice missions that will help you gain proficiency in the F1. · PDF user manual that will give you pilot level understanding of all the systems in the aircraft. Next steps in the development: The immediate focus of the Team is the completion of the remaining WIP systems in the Mirage F1 CE. In particular; some scan modes of the radar, the radionavigation modes of the autopilot and the implementation of the S530F ‘Supermatra’ missile. After that, work will continue on the other variants of the aircraft, starting with the Mirage F1 EE. When air-to-air refuelling, the inertial navigation system (INS) and the new RWR are completed, the EE will be ready for release. The rear cockpit and multiplayer interaction of the F1 BE will be the following task. Finally, the new systems (radar, screens, armament, radios) for the F1 M will complete the development of the DCS: Mirage F1 module. by https://www.facebook.com/AergesEngineeringSL/

This is now reported, thanks!

I can do you one better than that. By understanding MGRS you will be able to answer your question by yourself. For example the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France is at 31U DQ 48251 11939. The meaning of each part is: 31U DQ 48251 11939, grid zone is the largest area type 31U DQ 48251 11939, grid square is the second largest area type inside a given zone 31U DQ 48251 11939, easting is a measure from the western edge of the grid square to the location 31U DQ 48251 11939, northing is a measure from the southern edge of the grid square to the location The way easting (or northing) distances work is the following: The distance can be indicated by any number of digits 48251, the location is 40,000 meters east of the western edge of the grid square 48251, the location is an additional 8,000 meters east of the western edge of the grid square 48251, the location is an additional 200 meters east of the western edge of the grid square 48251, the location is an additional 50 meters east of the western edge of the grid square 48251, the location is an additional 1 meter east of the western edge of the grid square So the distance is 40,000 + 8,000 + 200 + 50 + 1 meters from the western edge of the grid square to the location. Similarly the distance is 10,000 + 1,000 + 900 + 30 + 9 meters north of the southern edge of the grid square. In order to fit a numerical location (4, 6, 8, 10, 12, etc. digits) into a system which can accept a smaller numerical location you have to lose digits. Officially you only truncate so "39" becomes "3" not "4" because in some situations rounding will push you over the border into a new grid square or even grid zone, breaking everything. Most of the time rounding is fine though. You drop the least significant digits in pairs, one from easting and one from northing, until it fits in the new space. 48251 11939, remove these to fit into 8 digit 4825 1193, remove these to fit into 6 digit 482 119, remove these to fit into 4 digit 48 11, remove these to fit into 2 digit

A small glimpse of work in progress on a few props for the USN. Will perhaps include an AIM-54 version and other relevant ordnance in time.

As is meant to be:) There, fixed it for you :)) Both sides have their tastes of course. And both can be blind to arguments from the side. They're both right in their own ways. I can enjoy modern aircraft in short bursts, before getting utterly bored of the experience. And still find enjoyment in MiG-21 8 years into its release. Apache is cool and neat, I guess, but it doesn't thrill me like trying to overcome challenging environments in Hind. Truth is, the more modern a module, the more likely for it to have a bunch of guesstimations thrown here and there. Not saying older aircraft are immune to it, we know they're not. But there's still a difference in the likelihood of that occurring betithem and their younger successors. For some that is completely ok if it's the price to experience that airframe or at least a semblance of it, for others less so. And that's fine. The more diverse stuff DCS can come up with, the people it can attract. And also, the more diverse, the more retention of users and their interest in the platform. While I prefer my 60s-80s aircraft by far the most in DCS, sometimes I do take a break from my favorites and enjoy WW2 or modern stuff for example. With all that said however, I do strongly believe 60s-80s is really the best period to represent in DCS. Not nearly as done to death in sims as the other two extremes, a lot more likely to be made to the level of authenticity expected of DCS due to likelihood of getting access to documentation, and a lot more likely to have a complete and competitive blue vs red and/or historical matchup. That doesn't mean it should be the only period in DCS of course. But for a while, more modern stuff was all we were getting announced/released so some of us got a little restless because of it But now we have more oldies coming up. Thus, I don't know if there's as much ground to be worried about for us Cold War line up lovers. More modern stuff are coming too like Eurofighter, Strike Eagle. And often they come before the stuff we Cold War folks want, because at the end of the day they'll sell more copies quicker so devs sometimes prioritize them. 70s-80s fighters and strikers filling up from both sides in DCS is just the objective best outcome and the dream though, so it's nice to see it happening Yeah, not nearly the same thing/experience in any way shape or form though. So much so, I'm not even sure if there's a point in mentioning it.

А вот тут я бы поспорил. Если человек будет оставаться в теме, посещать форум, читать новости , видеть сколько разных интересных вещей появляется. То вполне себе однажды он решит обновится. А если его в один день отключить и разложить на пути грабли, то тогда конечно вероятность что купит - стремится к нулю. Понятное дело, что проекту для развития нужны деньги, и бесплатно выкатывать обновления никто не станет. Что правильно. Но в тоже время DCS это сложный и требующий длительного подготовительного процесса продукт. С разбегу, с наскока в него не войдешь. И "из коробки" как в танки играть не станешь. Поэтому абонентская плата , как во многих других продуктах, тут не прокатит. А тенденции в части ПО контента - все идут к этому. По крайней мере пытаются. Я вот , например , плачу каждый месяц 6000 за парковку возле офиса. Для меня это тоже деньги. Но бывает так что я приезжаю один раз в месяц. Как бы дорогая парковочка получается. А не платить - нельзя. Мне фирма итак 50% оплачивает. Иначе бы все 12000 платил. А час парковки так вообще 150 р стоит. Вот и приходится иной раз ездить специально чтобы парковку отбить. Так же и ДКС, я купил модуль, чтобы в том числе поддержать проект, но пока руки до него дойдут - 100 лет пройдет. А потом выясняется что все! нет поддержки. Тогда надо как то гемплей менять что ли. Чтобы человек сразу, сходу мог летать. Какой то супер ИИ инструктор должен был быть. Который голосом будет объяснять каждую кнопку и тумблер в кабине. Чтобы мир живой и открытый был. Динамические кампании. Тогда другой разговор. А пока, людям приходится ковыряться во внутренних файлах, чтобы что то настроить по человечески - то какие подписки... Ой, что то меня в маркетологи понесло. Извинити

Да, было бы не плохо. Даже может и лучше. По любому последняя использованная должна сохраняться, даже если будет выбор дефолтной Если бы применялась последняя использованная, я и тему бы не поднял. У меня каждая новая группа - США. И каждый раз: Именно что ерунда выходит.

You are powerless to resist...embrace the chaos

Fictional Argentine Air Force I‘m creating two fictional Argentine Air Force liveries based on the Fiat G.55 Centauro, just a perfect match for Razbams South Atlantic Map Download: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3324863/

You’re completely missing the point…..

The one that says optimum airspeed is 240KIAS and optimum wing-sweep is about 40° - or 200KIAS and 40° with SAS off.

Hey hey hey... nicht die RC-Helicopter beleidigen. Die fliegen schließlich nach realen physikalischen Gesetzmäßigkeiten... Interessante Behauptung. Ist dir bewusst, dass die Huey denselben Rotordurchmesser hat... Und ich sage, doch, da sind paar Dinge extrem unglaubwürdig und manche einfach falsch. Vom fliegerischen Aspekt bin ich sehr enttäuscht, was ED da mit und trotz ihrer SMEs in den early access gelassen hat. Ich hoffe wirklich, dass da noch ordentlich dran gearbeitet wird.... Kiowa kommt halt leider von denselben Leuten, die die Gazelle gemacht haben... SMEs sind m.M.n. ein zweischneidiges Schwert für uns Customer und eine Richterliche Entscheidung*) für ED. Vorallem in Verbindung mit Forumrule 1.16 Also ich komm mit dem Apache klar, aber der Rückschluss auf ein gutes Flightmodel wäre natürlich auch unlogisch... Voll nachvollziehbar... Aus purer Neugier... was heisst selbst erleben dürfen? "You have it!" oder "Sit back, enjoy your flight" Also subjektiv gefällt mir das FM ganz und gar nicht, und objektiv gibts auch gravierende Fehler. Ich weiss, dass man sich das nicht notiert, was man wo liest, aber haste vielleicht n Tip, wo die sich dazu geäussert haben? Ich fände es "uncool" wenn das FM nicht "besser" wird. Das SAS braucht mMn noch Liebe und Zuneigung. Forum rule 1.16 spricht dagegen und SME overrulen den Rest... SME, die teilweise jetzt zum ED Team gehören... Objection! Reicht es aus, wenn ich nur behaupten würde "professionell real live Helikopter" zu steuern, oder muss ich dafür Beweise liefern. Und wenn Beweise notwendig sind, welche haben die SME von ED vorzuweisen? Nochmal, ums klarzustellen, ich behaupte nicht, dass die SMEs fake wären, aber damit ich von jemandem eine richterliche Entscheidung*) akzeptiere, hätte ich gerne etwas mehr als die reine verbale Selbsterklärung. Das ist prinzipiell korrekt, aber ich glaube das kann man kompensieren.... Und was macht es fürn Sinn etwas auf den Markt zu bringen, dass nichtmal mit käuflicher Hardware annähernd authentisch geflogen werden kann?? Dann kann man auch den Aufwand für ein FM reduzieren.... Ich weiss, das klingt jetzt doof, aber diese Sätze zeigen, dass dein Verständnis über Wellenleistungstriebwerke in einem Hubschrauber nicht korrekt ist. Ich mein das echt nicht böse. Oder du hast es zu sehr simplifiziert, dass es dadurch falsch geworden ist. Was wolltest du damit sagen? Äh... ne. Torque limits sind nicht dafür da. Die sind in erster Linie dafür da, dass es den Hubschrauber nicht in der Luft zerlegt. Oder bei einem späteren Flug durch Vorschädigung dazu kommt. Die Triebwerke juckt der Torque ehr nicht. Das was nach der Arbeitsturbine kommt, ist es, wo der Torque einwirkt. Aber nicht nur das Getriebe selbst. Freilauf, Getriebeaufhängung, Heckrotor oder der Ausleger. Oder die Blatthalter oder oder oder... Gibt viele Gründe für ein Torque limit, die ich auch nicht alle kenne. Aber die Inspektionsintervalle... hm... wird denn im Kriegsfall das Torque limit angehoben, wenn hart auf hart kommt? Tja... 1.16 wieder... aber ich empfehle es nochmal zu lesen, was über Schutzfunktionen da genau steht. Ein overtorque wird nicht verhindert. Erst recht nicht, wenn der Pilot mit dem linken Arm arbeitet. Ein stärkeres Triebwerk bei gleicher Gearbox ermöglicht es dem Piloten bei noch grösserer Dichtehöhe als zuvor den Eimer zu overtorquen. "Schönes Beispiel" dafür: UH-1D zu UH-1H Das DEC schütz nicht so wirklich vor overtorque. Torque limit dynamisch? Wie meinst du das? Unterschied DE/SE? Ein Bremspropeller in der Bremsgurke wär ein interessanter Anblick... Also das ist ne Sache, die einfach doof ist... Fall 1: ED wusste von dem Fehler, weil er vorher gemeldet wurde... doof, dass das mit diesem Fehler in EA gegangen ist. Fall 2: ED wusste nix davon, weil... hat das echt keiner gemerkt?? Ich hab in der ersten Stunde bemerkt, dass da was nicht passt. Konnte es nicht sofort zuordnen (woher kommt der "roll" input???) aber kurz darauf wars klar. Dieser Fehler führt jedesmal zu nem ungewollten roll input, was vermutlich das Aufschaukeln der Karre verstärkt. *) Ich hab den Begriff "Richterliche Entscheidung eines SME" von mir gegeben... das soll soviel wie Folgendes bedeuten: Ende der Diskussion. Denn wer kanns besser wissen als ein SME. Der SME hat immer Recht. p.s. Mein persönliches Mimimi... Ich hab >1k€ in DCS gesteckt. Mittlerweile gefallen mir so einige Entscheidungen des ED Managements gar nicht. Der Apache war (bis auf eine spezielle Ausnahme) das letzte Modul, das ich blind gekauft habe. Die Fanboy Brille is runtergefallen. Diese zwei Wochen trials sind ne gute Entscheidung von ED und das ist zukünftig der Weg den ich gehe. Ich hätte mal lieber darauf warten sollen, beim Hind und beim Apache. Fox

Мне вот интересно а что если американцы или украинцы для какого нибудь гипотетического Falcon BMS сделали бы имитацию Су-25 или того же Су-27 по информации полученной не от РФ а от третьих стран, например на основе той инфы которую получили США при покупке и обкатке Су-27УБ тех которые затем продали в частные руки, то такой условный симулятор Су-27УБ забанили бы у нас ? "Американская компания Pride Aircraft выставила на продажу два истребителя Су-27УБ. Соответствующее объявление размещено на официальном сайте компании. Самолеты продаются по цене 5 миллионов долларов за каждый. Стоит отметить, что стоимость производства такого самолета оценивается в 30 миллионов долларов. Как отмечает «Интерфакс», данные истребители ранее стояли на вооружении украинских ВВС. Агентство со ссылкой на американские источники сообщает, что пара Су-27 была продана Украиной частной американской компании, организующей обучение военных пилотов."

As a long aside - in the USAF the back seaters initially were pilots straight out of Pilot Training ... it was thought that the Phantom was too much for a new pilot to handle. As a result, many pilots in the back were not getting much experience flying the plane, but became really good Weapons Systems Operators while awaiting their turn to upgrade to the front. The normal GIB route was to get a tour in SEA in the pit, come back to the US to upgrade to Aircraft Commander, and then return to SEA in the front. "Unfortunately" for many GIB pilots awaiting their chance to upgrade, the USAF concluded that new pilots could in fact handle the airplane, and started assigning pilots to the front seat straight out of pilot training. At the same time, back seaters started coming to the Phantom from Navigator Training. All that resulted in some "mentally challenging " situations ... as when a new Lieutenant AC came into a unit and was crewed with an anguished Captain pilot who had hundreds of hours in the back seat. To further distress pilot GIBs, the USAF started sending pilots from other aircraft to the Phantom front seat based on hours of flying experience. That way a pilot who graduated Pilot Training in a class ranking below others (who chose fighters) got to the front seat ahead of pilot GIBs by "virtue" of having flown long hours in cargo or bomber aircraft. The sad part of that travesty was that some very talented pilot GIBs languished in frustration to the point that they left the Air Force. Gene K

А если спросить про отечественный аналог советской эпохи - Ми-24П? Он ведь из аналогового стал цифровым продуктом.

Вы пытаетесь задать вопрос Министерству обороны РФ на форуме DCS ?

Однако за западную технику вы где-то берете.

As a matter of fact, YES! And much more! To tease..... Swift boats! Fairmile class

Unless something has drastically changed, DCS only allows four aircraft per flight in any situation.

Well, I managed to get the 1969 Hermes version to fire the new Sea Cat. Still working on the other Hermes carriers. I've got them to have the Sea Cat launchers track, but they don't fire. Hermes69.7z

1. You're not effectively trimmed. You think you are, but you're not. The amount of oscillation is based on how far you are off level trim, versus how large your throttle adjustments are. 2. You're approaching too fast. This is observed by how hard the drogue model snaps to the probe once the bounding boxes align as valid, and still you're moving well forward of the contact point before finally getting the closure to stop. And the instant you finally get the drift towards the refueled to stop, the PIO kicks in because of how far off trim is; any throttle correction changes relative trim based on the minor speed change, so the farther these values are off to be correct, the bigger the shift is going to be as you go on and off the gas. Trim it up. Walk it in. Walk. Don't run. You will confirm how far off of trim you are by taking one foot per second bites, rather than the whole gulp. If you're stable enough to plug at a slow approach from pre-contact, you're going to stay in the basket. As to visibility, lower your eye level using the control keys found in the view menu. This will provide proper visibility of the cues required to make AAR work.

Do not worry. The guys are assisting with the wakes and sub code. I am taking all the files and adding them to the main mod. I was going to release a up-dated version, but after discovering how to make all the weapon code co-exist with the new torp code, I have decided to add other weapons. This needs to be done in Max. So it is taking longer than usual. To use all the files now, download all the added files posted in this thread, and copy them to the corresponding mod. Allow overwrite. The wake lod files are added to the shapes folders.. The rest are either complete lua files, or snippets to add via edits. If confused as hell now....LOL just wait a bit. I need to finish the PT boat mod first. If anyone else wishes to post a complete mod with all the fixes, Please do! This is beginning to look like a community mod and all should get credit for the work they contribute. I will recognize them in the next "official" release. I am personalty thrilled to get both torps, and missiles/guns working together again! To all that helped, Merci! Much appreciated. Cheers!

The correct procedure is to use bomb mode, taxi and then use emergency handle to 68° to begin oversweep procedure - there won't be a problem then. Even if you had it at 68° already you don't need to push it all the way forward. Just a bit forward and back will suffice afair.

То ли еще будет, даже актуальные кареты (ЧА2) превратятся в тыкву после выхода ЧА3, как сказал чиж.

Well, it's gonna be seen up close when it's on ramp, or when you're holding hands with one while escorting. This level of detail is simply what's expected of assets in this day and age.

Hi, new model work takes time, we do our own work we are not buying it from other sites. If you have ever done model work you will know how long good quality models take. Appreciate you may not have the patience for waiting but this kind of work will always take time, we share progress with you all when we can. thank you

People are starting to cotton on to this idea and its developed a stronger online movement since the original posting, with some really good servers. Reminder that the sentiment of my post was not about exclusivity, just where the benefits lie, especially in multiplayer adversarial gaming with a flight simulator. The same goes for the WW2 arena, except the jet era allows 'more and faster'. There's a lot to be said for "games and contests" where you see your opponent and dance with him a bit. Fox3 and lots of avionics have their place, I've enjoyed them, but it didnt sustain me, there is no way, most of the time, to know if your missile hit which is not satisfying. Imagine taking a football penalty and just as the ball is kicked you switch off the camera... Dogfights in the modern post 00's are also fun, but HOBS kindda ruins the point so they are restricted to 'contests'. If you have to restrict the weapon, other restrictions apply that are less understandable, like guns vs guns. It's in a bubble and unnatural. Fly By Wire in a computer simulation is like an spiritual opposite, they aren't immersing flight models, the Hornet is like driving a mouse across your screen. Flying the big F-14 and landing that, well the flying is fun because its quite tricky. Controlling your plane could be more challenging. Suppression of Air Defence only exists via scripting and I've persoinally taken that as far as it can go before a human is involved, its completely artificial. Destruction of air defence is another version of BVR combat. FIre, RTB, maybe not even any BDA. If the script is a radar shutdown, you will likely miss and repeat. Jdams are so boring people wrote songs about that. Bomb fuse delay is coming (imminently according to ED video)... lower, more dangerous and ridiculous feats with dumb bombs = more fun, more visceral, more talent, more fireballs, more giggles. One of the issues that prevent more widescale adoption of the older planes, in my opinion, is the multiplayer premise that anything other than the percieved 'best' is not worth playing. This comes from when people look at every module and pick in a bubble, it actually makes sense to be fair to them. First module? Pick a Hornet. Second module... erm, so you are telling me I have to pick something that can't do anything that this module can do? I get it. But no one seems to understand each module doesn't live in a world where all of them exist at one time and this is because many multiplayer servers are terrified of removing the modern airframes because they lose traffic. Suddenly your F-5 is looking hot versus the C101 when you realise you are the faster and safer one... We (the entire community) need to be comfortable with server restrictions We already had Fox2 nights for many years, a simple restriction we played for a long time, but we are artificially creating that and not limiting the airframes on servers to make it feel right. What we need are servers that exclude the popular modern modules to allow Cold War to really come alive with people using a thematic world that makes sense. Everything has it's place, modern, has it's place, WW2, has its place, but lets embrace servers who make authentic restrictions by supporting them.

- Опять весна, опять хочется в Париж! - А Вы что, там уже были? - Нет. Но опять хочется. (C)

and you already got a response from ED yet you are still trolling about this ..

I know many people share your opinion but I don't think we always have to prioritize the more historically influential aircraft, and those kind of get priority by default (ie no surprise we have most of the teen series, Hind/Apache, the upcoming F-4, etc). Also I think people need to stop looking at realism as a binary true/false thing. Every aircraft in DCS is built to a different level of fidelity, though most are probably around the same amount of "realism". The F-20 having not been in service may miss some details compared to other modules, but that doesn't make totally it unrealistic. At the very least I think a developer would have to try to get in touch with Northrop to access the validity of the module. Apparently there is a manual: https://www.avialogs.com/aircraft-n/northrop/item/4941-ntm-1f-20a-1-northtrop-f-20a-utility-flight-manual It even includes how to use the FCR, which I've seen other documents for. The F-20 was a prototype but it was in a pretty advanced state by the time it was killed off. Northrop really wanted to make the sale and they knew they had some competition from the F-16 and lack of support from the US.

Hmmm. Aren't you faulting ED/DCS for succeeding at their mission? In the real world, military development strives to increase probability and precision of delivery, while minimizing an operator's exposure to threat. That is why it's so much easier to fly the Hornet and deliver ordnance on-target compared to doing the same in, say, a Sabre or Mossie. In other words, the armed forces try to limit the amount of danger that they expose their operators to. That's the most sane approach to an inherently violent occupation that one can take. It's also diametrically opposed to thrill-seeking, which is the hallmark of games which we are playing and talking about here. DCS is a game that strives to re-create real-world objects as exacting as possible. And that trend to reduce "thrill" (danger) in favor of reliability in the real world comes through in the transition from reality to game. So it would make sense that trying to accomplish something with the Hornet is much easier than doing the same with an older, less evolved airframe. Some players like that, others don't. You appear to be part of the latter group that loves the challenges older airframes present that are no longer that pronounced in newer aircraft. It's a play style that is as valid as any other as long as you are having fun. And even I attest that yes, it's a boatload of fun even though I'm a bug driver when not pushing a whirlybnird through the mud. All playstyles are valid, none is superior to another, and usually not all are attractive to you, the individual. Ask real-world military aviators, and they will write entire Anthems about how much safer they are for them, and how they enable them to return to their husbands and children. I personally like that JDAMs are available, even if I seldom use them. Boring? Perhaps to some, not to me. And should they bore me, I won't use them. It's a matter of playstyle, and I love DCS's (increasing) ability to curtail missions/games to certain parameters so that they can re-create a specific playstyle - be that through server-imposed rules, or scripts (I wrote a mission once that prevented aircraft from getting very far if they - against the agreed rules - carried certain weapons). In my mind that indeed seems the future of MP gaming, making it so much richer: servers that can faithfully re-create an era (e.g. the early 1970s) TBH, I don't give a rat's behind about what 'the community' needs to be comfortable with. Who I care about are the people who frequent my server, and who enjoy playing with whatever I can offer. If they don't like it, they are free to leave. Server owners may be despots ("my house, my rules"), but they do pay the bill. If nobody shows up to their server, that too is their problem, so they usually work out a compromise. I'm looking forward to see if and how rule-based server restrictions can enrich the MP scene. Because I think that it's going to be a great, varied future.

If the group was placed in the editor you can use mist.getGroupTable which returns the entire table for that group as saved in the mission file. Frequency and other stuff are added in where available to the databases and get grabbed via getGroupData. However its more of a curated list of info and I do need to go in and add values that I missed from time to time. Looking through the DB examples the frequency value seems to be a little inconsistently present.

...de rien I'm glad I could help in eliminating these issues, at least it's a benefit for all of us who like to play PBO_CEF's and your campaigns. Btw. I have to restart all campaigns from beginning, continueing with new script is not possible. Doesn't matter since after only 4 missions I seem to realize a certain difference in missions. After all the good memories with Falcon 4 years ago, I'm happy to have something similar that I can stick to... I guess my french isn't good enough for a tutorial in your language - too bad

https://flightsimgeeks.ru/interview/intervyu-baltic-dragon/

There might be some issues currently.

Далее... Поговорили про планы сделать ИИ ботов более реалистичными. Про работы над Торнадо. Типа в процессе Аналогично про карту Афганистана. Ну и в целом про сложность симулятора в плане всяких настроек, обучения освоения. Привлечения новичков. Про какие то там условные картриджи , для записи свои планов полета, а то дескать человек сидит полчаса вбивает там свой план, прямо в кабине, по хардкору.. как истинный тру пайлот . А потом через 3 минуты после взлета его самолет догорает в кустах. Что это обидно... И было бы неплохо как то сохранять планы полета ... Про поддержкку VR шлемов тоже речь зашла. Ну в общем такой разговор, неформальный, что называется " без галстуков" без какой либо конкретики и обещаний. Дескать, работа идет? - да! Идет потихоньку - ну и зашибись.

here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/cn/files/894598/