Leaderboard

Ja, das wird noch "eine Weile" dauern. Wir wurden auch gefragt ob wir daran teilnehmen möchten, haben uns aber dagegen entschieden da es in unseren Augen wenig Sinn macht einen Entwicklungsstand herzustellen, der eigentlich noch nicht da ist. Sprich - Klar kann man das jetzt schnell hübsch texturieren und mit irgendeinem Flugmodell ins Video geben, aber das weckt falsche Erwartungen. Generell sollten Ankündigungen (finde ich) immer ein bisschen hinter dem eigentlichen Entwicklungsstand zurückliegen. 3D Modell und Textur sind nun mal eine Sache, ein Flugzeug und seine Systeme in Code zu übersetzen eine ganz andere.

Time = T, F-15E F = 6, E = 5 T = 6-15(5) 15*5 =25 6-25 = -19 -19 So T -19 Days Roflmao.

A fix has been made for this issue and will be in a future patch. thanks

I love it when people speculate. This thread has been a lot of fun to read, there are a lot of very, very knowledgeable people posting here and it shows. The thing is, we won't know really until the Phantom gets here, and more importantly until people become proficient with it and learn how to operate it. When the F14 was first released into early access people were throwing tantrums that it flies like total crap. However it wasn't the plane, it was the pilots. When eventually people learned how to handle it at high AOA and how to actually fly it properly (rolling the plane with pedals at extreme AoA or a combination of stick and pedals) it was a whole different story.

Thanks again, everyone! The virtual Forrestal's crew is sending their warmest regards, they said your efforts made their Christmas aboard a good time and they hate to see the season end. As is tradition in the virtual Navy, their virtual logbook entry on January 1st, was written in verse, with a passage commemorating your galant efforts: "We send our thanks to the kind DCS crew, we're now sailing due south 180°, Would it have not been for you to help see us through, We would have been lost in deep waters with freezing degrees. We're set south now, on a warm course to sunnier shores, We no longer dread the upcoming tasks, duties and chores. We sail with a heart full of courage and love, occasionally waving off players, And cheering at 3-wires, as we follow you all beyond, up and above." Winners will be announced shortly.

How is a 9.12 or a Su-27S modern? These are 30-40 year old variants with Cold War era avionics.

Because the point is not for you to have enough time to ''learn'' it. It's to see if it's something you're interested in investing in to learn. It's a demo. You remember how demos used to be? Like ''first three levels'' or ''two hours or the end whichever is first''? It's that kind of demo. Jesus. Give people something free and they complain it's not free ENOUGH @@

Напомнило, извините )

An $80 module is not expensive. Many games today can cost between $60-$70 or more. The trial period isn’t so you can just joyride the game, it’s merely to give you an introduction or to test whether it runs well on you system etc. If you like it, buy it.

I'd really love it if you folks worked on them, my biggest complaint about the DCS is that we have almost no WWII and Korean War Red Army assets

Greetings! Today I'd like to share our 2022 end of year development report on the A7 Corsair, which has been extracted from our full company report which is available here A7 Corsair II for DCS World Artwork The Corsair has had a tumultuous journey! 2022 saw the completion of our complete remake of the A7 3D model, which took a significant amount of time. With the aid of Iakov, our new artist, both the external and internal models of the A7 have been completely remade from scratch as we've previously discussed. The remake started work in 2021 and was completed around Q3 in 2022. The remake is significantly more detailed than our original model, with almost all elements of the aircraft accurately modelled, including maintenance areas. Having such a detailed model delivered by Iakov meant that lots of work was required in terms of optimizing the model to extract the maximum possible performance, without compromising much detail. This is still ongoing, however most of the exterior has now been optimized, as well as large chunks of the cockpit. Work is ongoing to optimize the remainder of the cockpit so it can then be textured. Work has begun on UV mapping the exterior model and to that end we have created a dedicated Paint-Kit team, who are providing value feedback during the UV mapping process to ensure that our paint-kit is as easy to use as possible for livery artists. Work is also well underway in animating the cockpit & exterior as well as setting up clickable areas, which has been very helpful in allowing us to start testing more systems in-flight using proper procedures. Flight Modelling The A7 Flight Model has undergone extensive work this year, especially in the first half of the year, with much of that work being 'behind the scenes' so to speak. This year we've been working closely with Research in Flight, an aerospace & hydrodynamics analysis company that creates tools for aerospace engineering applications. They are the developers of Flightstream, a sophisticated numerical flow solver and one of our primary tools that we use for CFD analysis & data collection for the A7. We have been working closely with them to enhance & improve our A7 Corsair model, to the point where we have been able to supply validation studies and case tests against the real wind-tunnel data we have gathered. The A7 model has also been used to test & assist in development of new control surface analysis techniques being integrated into Flightstream, in turn also enhancing our data collection capabilities for various control surface & damage configurations. CFD Collaboration & NASA Presentation As part of our collaboration, we spent some time this year developing some internal tools to aid in the collection of CFD data; not only for the A7 but also for any model we wish to analyze. One such tool that I developed personally was a utility that facilitated the conversion of an OpenVSP model into a solution-ready FlightStream model. Without going into too much detail, what this accomplished was an extremely fast & efficient method for simple OpenVSP geometry models to be analysed in great detail in FlightStream. For us, this allows us to gather CFD data in a fraction of the time required using traditional modelling techniques. Our work was shown off at the 2022 NASA OpenVSP workshop, and we have since made the tool publicly available, where it is now being used around the world in both academic & commercial design purposes. We have even been informed the utility is being used over at Boeing! It is our hope that this simple tool will make CFD modelling more accessible to all sim developers. For further reading, you can see the presentation slides that relate to the relevant Flightstream developments here. Of course, all this only matters if it helps us to develop the A7! Although it's taken some time, these developments have been a worthy time investment. By forging a new workflow, we're able to tweak & experiment with our models in a fraction of the time to get the best results possible when testing unusual aircraft configurations. If you've worked with CFD or know alittle about it, you'll know that it is an enormously time-intensive process using conventional techniques, and almost always requires constant model tuning & tweaking to collect valid results. As we are now developing the advanced aspects of the A7 Flight Model, this has been absolutely essential when testing non-standard configurations. For example, using our workflow we've been able to run tests and collect data on virtually every control surface interaction possible, in order to assess the relative significance of unusual interactions and determine how best to model them in-sim. Some examples include interactions between the flaps & elevator at various high Angle-of-Attack configs, forces in a spin and leading to a spin, spin recovery analysis and post-stall analysis. Furthermore, this new modelling workflow has provided us with a very efficient means to study the effects of airframe damage on flight dynamics, an aspect that is often modelled with only very simple approximations due to data limitations. Not so anymore! Design & Development of Control Augmentation System (CAS) and Automatic Flight Control Systems (AFCS) In terms of Flight modelling, the latter half of 2022 has been heavily focused on designing & developing the CAS for the A7 Corsair. This has been a huge undertaking and admittedly has required a large amount of time on my part devoted to studying advanced engineering control system design principles. Although we don't have the exact equations used in the real aircraft CAS, we do fortunately have enough information on the inputs & outputs of the system to be able to reverse engineer it. This has required us to approach the situation in much the same way as the original aircraft designers, attempting to carefully craft a control system that meets the requirements of the airframe and pilots. Although work is still ongoing, we are quite pleased with how things are shaping up and are confident that with the feedback from our SME's we will be able to fine-tune the CAS to operate almost exactly as the real system would. Flying with the CAS switched on is a completely different experience than flying with it off; the airframe is incredibly difficult to control without it. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we get this right and we are dedicating an appropriate amount of time & resources to try and achieve this. The CAS is only one part of the A7's AFCS, which is used not only to enhance flight stability but also for Autopilot control of the aircraft. The AFCS is being developed in tandem with the CAS and has made significant progress in 2022. The primary Autopilot modes (HDG, ALT, ATT, Airspeed) have all been developed & implemented. We are currently in the process of refining the Yaw Stab system, which stabilizes and corrects for aircraft slip and assists in turn coordination. CAS & AFCS naturally have a strong interconnection with the control surfaces and thus required a complete rewrite of all of our control surface models. This was completed in 2022 and are controls are now working in harmony with the AFCS, respecting defined authority limits and behaviours. As a pilot you will need to be aware of & respect these limits to ensure that you are working with, and not against, the AFCS. The A7 Corsair is not a simple airframe to fly; it has extensive quirks that need to be understood and mastered for the aircraft to be flown effectively. The AFCS is a quintessential part of this; understanding & mastering it will be a key component of flying the A7 well. Other FM Developments On top of everything discussed above, this year we have been working to refine our mathematical classes & methods implemented in our codebase. Focusing on optimization, we have been spending time implementing new methods of data processing that require less computational resources to achieve the same result. An example of this is interpolation and look-up table (LUT) modelling, which is the foundation of data processing in a simulator and one of the primary methods used to implement CFD & aerodynamics data. These calculations happen thousands of times every second and have thus been a big priority for us in terms of code optimization. As discussed in the CFD section, we have developed a new workflow that has allowed us to quickly and efficiently analyze aircraft damage scenarios and the impact of damage on Flight dynamics. While still in-progress, we have been very pleased with the data we've been able to collect and are currently busy expanding the Flight Model to include damage modelling. Sound Design Although still only in the very early stages of development, work has begun on sound design for Corsair! Thanks to the collaboration from some amazing people in the community, we've been able to organise the recording of a real A7 during a maintenance engine run. This is of course an extremely rare opportunity, and we are so grateful to the good people at Tulsa Tech University for making this possible! Thanks to some collaborative efforts from 'Armorine' in our community discord (who has also been invaluable in helping us to secure certain documents. Thank you Armorine!), we were able to organise a professional field recording of the A7. The recording was carried out by Tulsa Tech's team of sound engineers & sound engineering students, with the entire engine run captured from various positions by professional grade equipment. The team even went so far as to produce an excellent master of the samples for us! In total we were given an amazing 29 high-quality aircraft samples from various mic positions, as well as 4 completed mixdown tracks. Below you can see some shots from the recording process Tulsa Tech sound engineering team, responsible for the excellent recordings provided. Images provided by Tulsa Tech & Armorine System & Weapons Development Alongside all of this, work has continued throughout the year to develop and flesh out the cockpit systems of the Corsair. Once again, we owe our thanks to 'Armorine' for assisting in helping us to acquire some missing documentation. Unfortunately, due to the nature of systems development, we don't have a wealth of flashy screenshots to show here, but I will do my best to explain the various systems under development and the state they are in. One of the biggest priorities this year has been developing the codebase & logic underlying the A7's targeting and weapon delivery systems. To this end, lots of time has been spent refining and further developing the armament control systems: developing correct pylon release cues & logic, release inhibition conditions, developing calculations for interval drops and developing the core logic that underpins the sophisticated weapons systems of the A7. The culmination of this has been the development and integration of CCIP & CCRP weapon release modes; both of which draw heavily from various sensors and targeting systems in the aircraft before making real-time calculations to determine an impact point. We are pleased to say our A7 can now accurately release unguided weapons on target, using both CCIP & CCRP methods that are unique to different weapon types. Work is ongoing to further develop both weapon release modes to include inhibition cues as well as to develop the navigational modes of weapon release, such as Bomb on Coordinates (BOC) and offset bombing modes. Navigation systems also received some development time in 2022, with the INS and tactical computer systems currently being expanded upon and developed. We have developed the aircrafts waypoint system, including storage, recall and editing of flight plan waypoints. We've also made progress integrating information from the navigation systems into other aircraft avionics; most importantly the HUD and PMDS. 2023 will see the detailing & expansion of the INS system; expanding on current modelling of the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMS) and the development of the Doppler Radar, both of which feed information to the INS. We will also be working to implement mark-points, target points and other in-flight navigational systems. As a pilot flying the A7 will require careful monitoring and management via positional updates and pilot corrections; the A7 requires navigational updates to correct for INS drift, in a similar fashion to the Viggen. As we've shown throughout the year, 2022 has seen the development of most of the A7's key avionic systems in various states of completion. The Projected Map Display (PMDS) is integrated and functioning, with current work focused on integrating navigational data from the Tactical Computer, as well as integrating some of the lesser used functionalities. The RWR has been on the backburner for some time due to some limitations in documentation, however we have now obtained the necessary documents and work is now ongoing in developing the RWR fully! The aircrafts multiple radio systems are also well in development, with the primary functionality of all radios already implemented and work ongoing to implement cockpit controls, presets and other functions. The A7 Radar systems are also well in-development as we've previously showcased, with current work focused on radar targeting functionalities as well as navigational cues. As well as all the above, our current codebase is being constantly refined, expanded upon and rewritten in order to be more realistic with its flow of information. To elaborate, we are aiming to mimic the flow of data as it occurs in the real A7 avionic systems, with many avionics being dependent on other systems and prone to certain failures and accuracy limitations. For example, the tactical computer relies upon information from the Air Data Computer (ADC) as well as IMS systems in order to complete navigational and targeting calculations; any inaccuracies in data supplied from either the ADC or IMS will result in flow on errors and inaccuracies further down the avionics chain. In practical terms, this means that simple things like damage or icing to your pitot tubes can result in inaccurate data being supplied to the ADC and thus the Tactical Computer, creating targeting & instrumentation inaccuracies. We want each system to be interacting with each other as organically and realistically as possible, allowing for the accurate simulation of failures, errors and inaccuracies as they can occur throughout the aircraft. To summarise the state of systems development in the A7 Corsair: most if not all systems have been developed and integrated to at least a basic extent, with work now being focused on expanding and developing the advanced functions of each system as well as the interconnections between each system. This will happen in-tandem with the art, as more & more cockpit controls and displays become available and ready to be tied to code work; we anticipate this will be ongoing for much of 2023. What's next? We've previously discussed our 4-phase development roadmap for the A7, which roughly translates to the following 4 phases: SFM Based model Basic EFM & flight systems Advanced EFM & advanced flight/weapon/avionic systems SME testing & tuning + damage modelling We are currently approaching the tail-end of phase 3, which as expected has been the longest development phase by quite a margin. Our goal is to complete phase 3 and move into phase 4 of development at some point in 2023. We know it's been a long wait and it seems to still be forever away, but we want to say thank you for your patience and hopefully this report can give you some insight into what's been happening behind the scenes. Thanks for reading! Sincerely, Dan K. FlyingIron Simulations

Some more rivetin. Bulk is done. Some adjustments, which unfortunately are a real pita due to the skewed UVW´s... Means, if i find good ref, i cant really apply it. So the Dora Tex will just be a fancy look-a-like... Some panels still have to be corrected. Eg, removed the first aid panel/hatch, as i couldnt find it on any ref pics. Some hinges have to be corrected etc.

Not to be too pointed about this - my friends usually say "communication is the responsibility of the sender". If the majority appear to misunderstand you, you may want to rethink the message. Personally, I understand the desire to stretch the free time for a module, and the idea to differentiate between 'stick time' and 'elapsed time' from our (ED's customers) side is natural. It would indeed be great if ED were that generous and implemented such a scheme. To be blunt, I think they have little incentive to do so. For a simple reason: A customer wo can't make a purchase decision within 14 calendar days will not buy - they simply aren't sufficiently interested. Yes, it would be great if we had more time. But if you can't decide in two weeks, I submit that you won't in 6 weeks either. It's not about the stick time. It's about excitement. ED's goal is not to give you a number of hours to play a module for free. ED's goal is to get you hooked/excited enough to purchase that module outright. And they likely have studied the curve of diminishing returns and concluded: no added value after 14 days. You may have added value, or I. But ED's no longer interested to give us something for free - because in all likelihood, we won't buy. Put differently: I believe that the percentage of those who didn't purchase a module only because they ran out of trial time to be vanishingly small.

Back Office

It is always best to check your motherboard instructions, but for me on a asus board I would select XMP profile 1 and be good to go.

I am such a person (pretty much only have a few hours of DCS time in the weekends) If ED did this, that would mean I could fly each module for 7 weekends, for free. Given I could do this every 26 weeks (trial resets after 6 months), that would mean with only 4 modules I could play the entire year, for free I don't think the trial is meant for that

repeatedly pressing TMS aft makes the tgp "jump" even though it shouldnt, also notice the coordinate display on the TGP page top left change everytime TMS aft is pressed. TGP_CZ_jumping.trk

Cunningham and Driscoll benefited from their BFM training, which the MiG pilots mostly did not. It's evident that skilled MiG pilots (those existed) with enough training (many less existed) and capable equipment* (even less) could and would provide serious trouble for an evenly skilled/ trained/ equipped F-4 crew. That's basicly what Have Doughnut and the follow on projects showed. It's not that a skilled and tactically savvy F-4 crew couldn't cash in on an unexperienced opponent. But that's also forgetting that an actual war isn't fought 1v1 allthe time and that the enemy has a working set of brains, too. The more capable fighter will eventually come out on top, all else being equal. That's just a matter of rolling the dice often enough. The F-4 will be able to exploit tactical blunders by Vipers and Hornets (or any other opponent), but that's for the most part just hanging on. It's going to be quite competitive against contemporaries, but I wouldn't expect to easily walk all over MiG-21s either, as there are some pretty savvy Fishbed-drivers out there, that will be able to negate the F-4's strengths. I'm fairly sure you know all of this, but I'm trying to kind of manage expectations of the casual reader/ player here. BTW: Love that tiger-noseart! ____ * It's mostly being said that the IDF won against the arab air forces because of better training. That's both true and false, as arab air forces not only were trained by the Soviets (bad), but they also had a good deal of RAF heritage (good) to draw from. What couldn't be helped was the mostly blowing soviet hardware.The R-3S was a very sh1tty missile that was very hard to employ effectively on a MiG-21 in a dogfight.

Imho, eventually, it all comes down to practice and getting used to something. I flew DCS helo's since they were released (Ka-50 on DVD era)(can't remember if that one came before or after the Huey ). Initially I used my 15 yo TM Cougar set until the gimbal broke, then switched to TM Warthog, then switched to 10cm extended TM stick (never messed with springs) and now Virpil collective. Apart from the broken gimbal, the only reason I switched, was to increase immersion/realism. But honestly, none of the improvements made me a better pilot. I could do just as much with my Cougar, as I can now with the Virpil and extended stick. But I do admit, it took me many many hours to get the right feeling. (what did help me a be a better virtual pilot, was when I switched to VR, but that's another story)

Just a thought on the matter of disappointment: Disappointment comes from the mismatch between expectations and reality. Since you can't control reality it is logical to manage your expectations. In regards to the marketing videos of ED, my suggestion would be to expect nothing in particular in the first place and just enjoy them for what they are - an unrealistic* showcase of the beauty of DCS to generate an urge to play DCS (worked on me! ). *Let's be real: Any ED Marketing video has almost nothing to do with what we players experience in the game. First and foremost because we experience DCS (mostly) from an in-cockpit perspective, whereas the videos feature 90% outsight shots for the sake of a compelling cinematography (again - works for/on me!)

Jo! Endlich Fehlt nur noch die Kiowa. Ob das auch dieses Jahr noch was wird?

I'm using DLSS at "Performance" setting In MSFS with Reverb G2. The trick is to set the rendering resolution even higher than the 100% resolution of the G2 (which is around 3100x3100), so try to set it to 3500x3500, or even to 4000x4000 to se wonders. If you thought before that the G2 is super crisp then multiply it by 1,5. This is what you'll get at decent framerates. So if DLSS will come to DCS then this alone combined with multithreading should indeed yield enormous change for the image quality in VR.

It was super clear until you started to negate any logic deducted from your OP. No, I don't like this wish, because it'd simply take the dev of my fav game out of business.

When I’ve used DLSS in that other civvy sim, instruments and other items look pretty ordinary. Maybe this will be different.

Not sure, but DLSS brings its own antialiasing method (DLAA), right? Since DCS is completely aliased in VR, even with MSAA 4x, DLSS may enhance the image quality.

I was just pointing out that the licensing is rarely an issue to modules and definitely not the cause for the lack of official A-4. It's definitely less certain than the sun coming up You are certainly correct a lot of the assets from the mod are unusable due to people's involvement (and licensing of the base assets for the 3d work) a lot of work would have to be redone. The module requires a lot of work regardless. It wouldn't all go in the trash but at the end of the day the A-4 for a lot of people was a hobby project and not every hobby can be turned into a monetised product. I say that as someone who wrote 60,000 lines for the A-4 project. It's understandable that people want the opposite to be true because they really want their A-4 as an official module. It's hard to fault people for their enthusiasm for the project and wanting it to be official.

Bonjour à tous, Tout d'abord Bonne et Heureuse année 2023 ! Je suis nouveau sur le topic et c'est un peu grâce à Kazumawa94 qui m'a beaucoup aidé à apprivoiser la bête ! et qui m'a donné le virus pour votre travail sur le Rafale ! Merci donc également aux frères Cuesta pour tout votre travail et tout ceux qui aident à faire en sorte que le MOD soit aussi sympa et agréable à jouer, c'est un vrai plaisir Je suis actuellement en train de réaliser une sorte de "manuel" pour le Rafale, pour faciliter la prise en main, pour les nouveaux surtout Si vous pensez que ça peut être utile et que vous êtes curieux de voir ce que j'ai fais, je peux vous l'envoyer par MP, je suis ouvert aux conseils et autres suggestions. En parallèle j'ai commencé un skin et merci à Sushy73 pour son aide sans qui je ne me serais jamais lancé, il m'a bien guidé ! Merci à toi Voici quelques photos, il est en cours de finition mais le plus gros est fait. Bonne soirée Fly Safe

I posted this in the release date thread. Looks like they aren't planning on a eurofighter release this year. We believe that 2023 will be a truly exciting year for all, with the introduction of eagerly awaited modules like the DCS: F-4E by Heatblur, DCS: F-15E by RAZBAM, DCS: OH-58D Kiowa Warrior by Polychop, DCS: F4U-1D Corsair by Magnitude 3, DCS: C-130J by the Airplane Simulation Company, new Mirage F1 versions by Aerges, DCS: Normandy 2.0 map by Ugra Media, the DCS: Sinai Map by OnReTech, and more! Please don’t miss to watch our 2023 AND BEYOND VIDEO! Link I'm not really surprised they didn't want the eurofighter in the vid. There is a certain segment of the community that takes appearing in the vid as a firm commitment that it's coming in the next twelve months and then starts screaming if it doesn't (despite the "xxxx and beyond" name).

Have a Phantastic 2023! Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

FCR not shown in the 2023 and beyond video doesn't automatically mean we won't see it happen in 2023. I'm sure there are more features coming to DCS in 2023 that were not shown in this short video. But I guess my glass is just half full

Hey guys, this is reported internally and already some tweaks and fixes being checked, I will leave this open for any more data and examples as well as for when fixes come through. Edit: looks like we are testing a new option to turn off flat shadow softening.

No yet.

Thread cleaned, a reminder if you want to use our forum please stick to our rules. Do not discuss other games or sims and keep the discussion clean, no profanity or insults.

For 1. see here (report from 1972): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0904287 For 2. Ok this is going to be a lot of data, so if anyone has any corrections, please let me know. I've seen multiple charts, some of them without much context so I may be missing some things. See the MiG-21bis performance chart here from a German manual that I have (7500 kg, 2x R-3S. Right is special afterburner, left is regular afterburner.). I also have a Russian manual that says the has the same plots but the language barrier has stopped me from delving deep into them. Note that there's another plot which I think is a very light MiG-21bis that's sustaining ~8.4 G at Mach 0.95 or so which seems incredible but I don't know where it's from. Thread is here: Comparing this to the plots in the TO 1F-4E-1, the slatted F-4E appears to have a noticeable advantage at what I believe is 60% fuel and 4xAIM-7E's (42,777 lbs) - see figure A9-97 on digital page 446. The following chart is on page 1 of this thread as well. I recommend you download the manual if you don't have it already: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2015/09/f-4e-flight-manual-complete.html Turn rates for the Mirage III and F-106 is a little tricky. See the plots I have below which I believe are instantaneous G's (I don't think they can be sustained rates, because they'd be way better than the F-15A/C sustained rates per TO 1F-15A-1). Mirage IIIE: https://imgur.com/a/ohoRApq F-106A, 7700 lbs fuel: https://imgur.com/a/xsv32hB The closest analogue I have in my notes for the sustained rates of these jets is this J35 Draken which is of somewhat similar delta configuration (yes I know the intakes are weird) and has a similar T/W and wing loading. See that page below. Again take this with a grain of salt as I don't have the whole manual so I could be missing context, but if it's any indicator of the sustained rates of the Mirage IIIC, E or F-106, the F-4E is also a decent amount better. https://imgur.com/a/pvclj8b Another close analogue could be the clean MiG-21F that was tested by the US which has an almost identical STR to the slatted F-4E at 5000' (you'd have to eye-ball/interpolate the data in the F-4E chart): The F-4E also has a lot of ITR charts but they are all at a very light weight of 37,500 lbs which is drops of fuel. That's why, to get a SL best ITR at a representative weight of 42000 lbs, I used a different chart... see the F-4E max load diagram at SL below. It actually appears to be able to reach 6G at Mach ~0.55 with the F-106A reaching 6G just past Mach ~0.5 at sea level. Very similar ITR! https://imgur.com/a/65ov9WT True for any pilot vs pilot but in a 1v1 BFM fight (like is often the case in DCS), any 4th gen fighter will eat the F-4E for breakfast assuming competent pilots who keep tally on each other. I don't mean to be a downer, but we probably just should be realistic. The F-4E cannot compete with an F-15, let alone a Mirage 2000. So maybe you can clear something up for me. Either I can't read anymore or the plots I have aren't 100% clear but I have some Lightning F6 plots from a manual and my conclusions for time to climb is that the F-4E is quite noticeably superior when I look at the plots, but anecdotes have always said the Lightning was the best on earth: Lightning Mk 6 time to climb: https://imgur.com/a/Hz9dzTH F-4E time to climb with my notes overlaid: https://imgur.com/a/OfF7pmn And below is the Lightning F6 load diagram but I can't tell 100% if it shows sustained or instantaneous loads (like the Mirage III and F-106 charts). On one hand, the 3G line is almost the same Mach at SL compared to the F-106 and any of the lines are only slightly worse than the sustained plots for the F-15. So either the Lightning was very, very good for its time in STR, or it was a little worse than the F-106 in ITR. Both seem possible, but the plot must be one or the other. https://imgur.com/a/JxkkyYM Finally for what it's worth, F-104A pilot Walt Bjorneby's perspective on the F-4 with and without slats: "I was in the 319th FIS flying the F104A; friends of mine were in the 479th TFW flying the C model. I can confirm both outfits did use DACT (loose deuce) and emphasized use of the vertical. 319th was an Air Defense unit and primarily flew in pairs, thus 'loose deuce' was a natural choice. Our A models after mod had the G flap limits; 1.8M or 550KIAS. Thus we could actually out-turn F4s in level flight, that is, until they got the new slats, in which case we went vertical and ran them out of fuel because of the extra drag when their slats extended and they had to use lots of AB to keep their energy up. They got a lower corner velocity; we got the J79-19 engine and a LOT more Ps."

The point of the trial period is not for you to learn the entire aircraft. It’s a trial. It’s seems like people just want to freeload, that’s not reasonable. Welcome to PC gaming. We only play games on the weekend because we have jobs that give us the $80 to spend on games. It seems you have life’s priorities mixed up.

Chill out, we are resuming the production of PZL P.11c that will successfully oppose the Su-57 :D

What the OP is asking for is ridiculous. The purpose of the trial period is exactly that. A trial. A period to try out the module to see whether you like it or not or whether it runs well etc. You can decide this within a few hours, you don’t need weeks. What ED offers is quite generous. Most games just allow a 24-hour refund period if even that. It is actually. Now $80 is expensive for a cup of coffee. But not a PC game, again when taking about US$ this price range is fairly normal. The issue of currency exchange and worldwide pricing is a bit off topic.

No that's actually very real. Adverse yaw at high AoA on Phantoms was notorious, but it's also true it's partially not knowing how to fly it. Our E was partially trying to address the problem, but it's still something to be aware of. Don't know the number for the E, but for the hardwings, as you approach 15 units of AoA, you must use more and more rudder instead of aileron, and surpassing 15 you must not give ANY aileron input or risk flat spin. Again. These are numbers for the hardwings, so we might have more wiggle room

"Just another AMRAAM" that entered service in the mid-2010s. Not going to happen for a c.2007 F-16.

One ARC-210 will be added, RT1, with UHF and VHF functions and related HUD, UFC, STAT page, and COMM changes. This will replace one of the VHF radios. We still need to add the STAT page and UFC function. Once those are done after the team return from holiday, it will enter internal testing. Later, after initial release, we'll add the SATCOM functions. Kind regards, Wags

I would also get 64 GB DDR5.

I'm hoping this will be addressed in the new DC. At the moment, re-arm and refuel times are (for good reason) incredibly unrealistic. I'm curious to know how this will fit in with a real-time DC? Turn around times should be 1-2hrs in surge tempo, or 4-5 at a more sustainable tempo. Currently it is less than 1-2 minutes which would destroy any sense realism in a real-time campaign. Take this for an example - say an airfield has an allocation of 16 Vipers - these are useable assets which can be fragged on tasks, flown, damaged, etc. Let's say three flights of four are on a mission, and return. At this point there are only four available for tasking. They could be immediately occupied by the player, assuming the role of a different pilot in a different tail number, but at some point, through attrition, maintenance and lengthy repair of battle damage, it could be conceivable that there will be no assets remaining which are flyable at that time. From a gameplay POV, it would make sense to have some kind of fast-forward time skip until their are enough aircraft available to continue, but in a multi-player environment this could be challenging to implement. DCS already has warehouses implemented for airfield munitions, will aircraft spares be added to the inventory, meaning asset repair could actually be impossible until the relevant spares have been delivered? Could airframe damage render an aircraft irreparable for the remainder of the campaign? I guess these are more questions than wishes. My wish really is that it is done in a realistic, meaningful way. Endless hot-pits and battle damage repaired in minutes would remove the requirement for proper tactics and planning to minimise losses to your limited number of assets, and as a result make for a very unrealistic campaign.

Thanks ED for the CH-47! I‘m very exited about to this and curious about more informations on the variant we will get and progress of development.

The time skip is the workaround of course, but my point, which many people seem to be missing is that the time skip is not without consequence. For the player nothing really changes, but for the dynamic battlefield, those extended repair times mean day becomes night, FEBA shifts, SHORAD move and your intel is now several hours old. For example - If you are fragged to drop a bridge, and screw up your attack, you shouldn't be able to just RTB, and have another crack at it 20 minutes (game time) later. Sure in the real world 20 minutes have passed and for the player nothing has changed, but in the virtual war you have skipped 4 hours ahead, that armoured column has now crossed the bridge and you have missed your chance.