Leaderboard

From Polychop discord:

Good evening friends, virtual pilots! After the weekend I spent at the museum, I bring you more news. I took a few shots and established other contacts regarding my project with people who worked on these aircraft in our air force during their time. I am also bringing a few interesting photos and also a short video of the starting sequence and the pitching of the engine before takeoff (of course, this part is not completely finished yet, but I am gradually working on it). I wish you a nice evening and watching! Many thanks for your comments and continued interest in this interesting aircraft!

VSR radar mode now in development.

Probably the last update to my textures overhaul. I reworked the external cockpit textures by adding missing rivets and other details. Details like wrinkles in the cables of the AOA/NWS indicator and HUD. I have also added actual MFD pages and instrument gauges. Most of it is entirely reworked but these textures are heavily based on @Ala12Rv-watermanpc and @wolfthrower cockpit textures.

... and it's only Tuesday guys! Can't wait to see this week's newsletter to discuss something other than constant fight over platforms and their websites. When I saw that comment about how badly ED runs their platform... Geez man, that's well beyond my comprehension of what's that to do with F-15E Strike Eagle. Frustrating as it is, suck it up. There has to be a balance in nature so I will not pre order @Dragon1-1, I will buy at full price, that wat you will have more benefit with your Steam purchase. Happy? I wonder why this thread is still open.

This reminds me when a guy drives a car on wrong side of road and wonder 'WTF so many idiots are driving in opposite ?'.

You can't look them up? I mean you obviously did not. The F-15 has dogfight kills against MiG-21s, 25s and 29s. They are all well documented, this is an exercise for you to look them up. You're overplaying your knowledge. Maybe you could consider that your knowledge here is lacking? Like, severely lacking. You are very wrong. I was designed to dominate in all phases of combat, taking major lessons from the F-4. That doesn't mean it'll be 'better' than everything out there, but it was way to deal with everything out there. The BVR attrition comes from ACEVAL, where it was shown that otherwise low-level threats with all-aspect missiles become high level threats in a dogfight. This is true for all aircraft. BTW guess what, the F-22 was designed to dominate all aspects or air combat as well, taking lessons from he F-15. Your knowledge is lacking. Yep, the gun was used one time (not a surprise, guns don't get much A2A use these days). The majority of kills for the eagle was done with sidewinders ... what's the range on that now? Again, it's an exercise for you to bone up on your knowledge, so don't ask me for links I think your knowledge limits you more than the DCS equipment. You're absolutely wrong. Maneuvering fights will always exist and for reasons most people don't want to even think of in a game. There are the most modern approaches these days with HOBS missiles etc, but even now the aircraft needs to maneuver. Have you spent hours preparing your BFM/ACM skills too? Maybe that's coloring your opinions. Preparing for BVR is great and you always should, and you should always attrit your enemy BVR as much as you can because you will eventually end up in a mission where you cannot retreat and must merge. All of this 'lulz I'll just go cold' is DCS virtual pilot garbage. Yes it's valid IRL, but not the way it's used in game (in particular in MP servers where it's all lonewolves for the most part)

This is so weird, why someone would want to discredit himself so severely on this forum for no apparent reason.

The point was more about the fact, that the very first(!) engagement, already went from BVR to close quarters, as trained and emphasized by the Israeli air force. This is getting ridiculous... I am out.

How many AA kills in total have there been in the last 20 years? All else aside, to Nahen's original point, the F-15E will do just fine in BVR. If BVR fails it will be fast enough and have enough fuel to run away and allow "contempt of engagement." Anyone who takes the Mudhen into a 1v1 gunfight server clearly likes a challenge, but I also see videos of people being successful with the AV-8B there too so if that's your jam then go for it.

I see you didn't understood (or didn't want to) my points: - I never meant to compare the MiG-29 to the F-15 - you were downplaying the importance / reality of close quarters combat / maneuverability / etc ... and I mentioned you that, the very same jet you praise - the MiG-29 highly embodens much of these concepts ; - you constantly say "DCS is a fun fetish of maneuvering combat" ... so in all true you should also say: "DCS is BVR fun fetish" ; as a HUGE amount of discussions here at the forum are precisely about BVR missiles tactics, BVR missiles performance comparison, BVR missiles realism, etc. edit On the F-15 maneuvering kills, I'm sure Israeli Air Force does have quite a few, although I don't have the slightest idea if they were in the 'last 20 years', or to what level of detail they will share that info publicly.

By Wags, F-16C roadmap update

Why does this even matter? The B-52 was designed to drop nuclear weapons, how many nuclear strikes has it made? The F-15 was pretty clearly designed to dogfight. Even factoring in the MiG-25, the west initially believed that it was an agile plane. This wasn't totally debunked until 1976 when Eagles were already flying.

You buy the module through ED, ED have explained why Razbam don't want to offer 30% on Steam (they'll make too little after Steam's cut), but have confirmed the 20% discount will be on Steam. I'm not sure what else you want/need them to say? The reasoning has been explained, and it makes sense. You might not agree with that reasoning, but I'm not sure that's on Razbam. BTW I can understand being a bit miffed that you can't get the same discount, but it is what it is. You always have the choice to move to standalone if getting that extra 10% means that much.

After contacting the guys that developed the A4-E and the Bronco I have a solution that works (tank engine sounds restored). I am just waiting on permission from them to go public as it requires some changes to files (very simple I might add and completed using Notepad) in case they want to publish them as part of an official update. So hang on, don't go removing files or editing sound files, the fix was really simple after the hard work had been done by the A4 team.

The F-15 was the FIRST fighter built with Ps requirements in the design. This is a historical fact. It absolutely was built to maneuver. That is why it has a conical camber on the leading edge which adds drag in supersonic dash, because it was less complex and less weight compared to adding LEFs and the drag penalty was considered to be worth it for the benefit gained in maneuvering. The F-16 was being developed after the fact to get a Hi/Lo mix of vastly capable but expensive airframes paired with a higher number of less capable and less expensive airframes. It was the F-16 where GD went above and beyond the required maneuvering specification of 9G sustained at 60% fuel and instead delivered 9G sustained at 100% fuel.

Do you really believe this? In the middle of the Vietnam war, the USAF was designing their next gen fighter with no dogfighting capability?

null> a truly unrealistic "hyper lobby" behavior of the given AI of DCS. Yep, culprit #1. Don't play vs ACE AI. It's wasted time. > As long as my RADAR is tracking the bandit, the AIM54 should be guided! Just saying Neg. You said you are past A-Pole, in DCS the missiles are on their own. See below. > Is the time has come to reach the pit bull state, the Flanker is so close that they answer with ET's or ER's Review your timeline. You can spot a Flanker at 120+nm between AGC and PDSRCH, you have all the time in the world to employ multiple times. I agree on the ER though, I made a partial WEZ model, and it's crazy, it reminds me of the R-33 when ED forgot to implement something (the old R-33 was not losing any energy even when manoeuvring). I'm not saying it's wrong, but wow, that's a fast missile, much faster than the SD-10, which in turn is faster than the AIM-120C-5. > If I wait with my launch until the bandit is close like 30 miles- He is in perfect shooting condition for his ER's and because of the higher speed of the ER's At 30nm you still have the advantage (unless it's human, and it's lofting it): you don't have to babysit the AIM-54 until A-Pole, just let it go earlier. Also, no one says that you have to stay high post launch. The greatest jump in the MAR occurs between 35k and 25k. > the the tomcat radar should feed her with data as long is the cat is still tracking IRL only for the A, IIRC. Not implemented in DCS due to the game's limitations. > That is exactly the opposite how an air superior fighter should work. Why? At low altitude, the gap between the AIM-54 and the 27ER is at its narrowest point. To paraphrase a meme, you're flying in the whole sky, not only above 30k > Equipped with the most useless missile in DCS. Do you have a super duper tactic, range, radar mode or what ever, to get a save hit on an enemy fighter? Have you considered the possibility of user error? I have the feeling you do not properly understand the AIM-54, and especially what it needs to be successful. > When the TOMCAT was in service 1990- the Soviet force had not only MiG21's and some Floggers. The Cats faced opponents like Fulcrums and Flankers: You may have missed a *tiny* geopolitical fact that occurred in those years. Which led to a drastic change in, well, everything (ditching of the AIM-152 included). Not to mention that numbers on a piece of paper don't mean much, as we are all witnessing since last year, and looking at the past, the presence of working and up-to-date pieces of avionics in the Soviet inventory, such as modern RWRs, is debatable. Also, you listed 1755 aircraft. 5.1% are Flankers, definitely the most scary of the batch. So, I have the feeling you nailed the biggest issue: the AI. In DCS, it is uncapable of doing pretty much anything but notching or go cold (because it does know the energy status of the missile). When you see a MiG-21 perfectly notching your AIM-54 multiple times in a row, you ask yourself some questions, isn't it? My solution is making your missions more realistic by moving backwards a few years (although we'd need the 45/50 for that). Get rid of AWACS and datalinks, then randomise the opponent's skill up to veteran and their reaction type. For example, if you look at the Iran v Iraq war, or even the 90s Gulf War, you see aircraft blown out of the sky without even trying to defend. Lastly, what have you done to your post, my eyes are bleeding!

There's at least one more reason that made me choose Steam over standalone: Convenience: a central, self-updating trusted app that manages all my games ("One app to rule them all!". Errrrm). I removed Origin, Rockstar, EA, Ubisoft, GOG and all the other 'standalone' apps from my drive that mucked up my folders, start-up time and fragmented my library view. Now I don't have to remember who makes/sells/licenses what. I just have one big library. And only steam has my credit card number. I know it's not a popular opinion, and some people think that I should move to standalone to lend more support to ED because they (ED) make more per sale on their own store than through Steam. I contend that even though ED do make more per sale on their own store, they make (I think an order of magnitude) more sales in total on Steam, so the contribution to their bottom line, even after taking away some 30% is still much greater than what they make from their own store. That is why it's financially attractive to work with a big (really, really big in case of Steam) distributor even if you have to pay them a share of your profit - it's beneficial to both sides. Neither Steam nor their customers are the bad guys here. Steam regularly reaches customers that ED would never be able to sell to, and to quote the CEO of a software company I worked with and who was in a similar position: "I'd rather have 70% of something, than 100% of nothing". Selling through Steam is good for ED. Steam customers are good for ED. People are more likely to discover DCS through Steam than they would be willing to download and run an app from an obscure formerly East-Block developer. That's an instant win, because in order to get hooked, you have to download first - and once you see how great DCS is, people can get hooked. But they need to download first. So I urge you to not knock Steam - I think we should acknowledge that Steam is doing great things for ED. Now, if RB don't see it that way, that's their decision. We'll see if they can afford to also forego Early Access sales on Steam - which after all have the exact same conditions as pre-order sales. If not (and I doubt they can/will), RB unfortunately lost money and goodwill on this - somewhat uncommon - decision. Here's still holding both thumbs for RB and the F-15E to be a great success.

Trip down memory lane clearing the garage out. 34 years of Flight Simming. Shame dont have the old F19 / F15E Micronullprose boxed games anymore. Janes 15E too but not in shot.

If you're interested, here's the start seq for a 15 (It's been nearly 20 years since I've kicked a Strike out of chocks but here ya go!) Both ENG MASTER switches - ON Both ENG CONTROL switches - ON Both ENG GEN switches - ON JFS STARTER switch - ON (THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT) JFS HANDLE - PULL (If JFS start is unsuccessful, ROTATE handle CCW, and PULL again) JFS READY LIGHT - ON AMAD FIRE TEST switch - TEST WHEN READY TO START #2 ENG FINGER LIFT - RAISE (#2 engine is always started first unless otherwise required by maintenance) Listen for audible JFS acceleration and airframe vibration from CGB engagement and isolation decupler rotation Verify UTILITY HYD and PC2 HYD press increase Verify OIL press increase AT 20% ENG RPM #2 throttle - ADVANCE TO IDLE STOP AT 50% ENG RPM, JFS should decelerate to idle AMAD/ENG FIRE TEST switch - TEST NLG PIN REMOVAL - VERIFY (Crew Chief is holding it up for you to see before stowing) #1 ENG START (Same as #2 except no fire test and at 50%, JFS will decelerate and shut off. Also verify PC1 HYD Press)

I'll clear that up right now - you're right, it's not an F-15 statistic, it's an overall weapon statistic and it was a study on the trend of BVR changes. You write about nothing all the time, what's your point? You wrote that the eagle wasn't designed for dogfighting. You're wrong - it absolutely was, and they absolutely train for it. You make some dubious statement about attiring bandits BVR as the reason for this. Guess what F-16's do - were they built for dogfighting? You made some dubious statements about there being no maneuvering fights. The F-15 has been in a bunch of IRL turning fights (as I've mentioned before), and a bunch of those sparrows were shot well inside WVR range, under WVR conditions. Again, easy to look up, do that yourself. Even in very modern combat aircraft have found themselves in very definite WVR conditions, that again runs counter to your earlier statement that maneuvering capability is somehow not needed. Everything single aircraft designed has a minimum maneuvering capability, and any aircraft designed for air to air combat primarily has plenty of it. The F-35 is one aircraft that is designed primarily for strike, and so it's not so great at dogfighting ... but air to air is it's part-time job.

Yeah, but I don't see other people talking this way to you. You know, it's clear from your tone that you are here essentially looking for an argument.

How do you know for sure, exactly what did or did not happen, more recently over the skies of Ukraine, Siria, and other less known hot spots around the world ? And "that's how it always will be" ? Hahahaa, can you foresee the future ?

The 3D model itself is actually pretty close. It's the details, flight model, visual effects (afterburner, etc) that are lacking. Oh, and it's lacking a cockpit lol. But man if we could pump some fidelity into this thing, it would be a ton of fun. It's already fun to fly. I would be willing to help in any way I could, but Im more of a graphic designer type don't know much about modeling. If it was higher fidelity it would certainly be a popular mod. After all, it's the Blackbird.

Vietnam won't be a possibility until destructible trees are in the game. Otherwise it's going to be a major letdown when they can see through the trees, shoot through the trees, but your bombs hit a branch and the splash doesn't do anything

@Nahen you are relentless in trying to prove points that are incorrect. I am never sure if you actually believe what you write, or if you are just trolling for fun.

We need to discover a 'Thud' as well...

I remember playing a pirated copy of Microprose's F-19 Stealth Fighter, bought off the streets of Bahrain at a local shop, while stationed in Bahrain, 1990 after Desert Shield/Storm ended. Bought my first PC when I got home the end of that year and have been throwing money at the genre ever since.

So what ? I don't see anything wrong with it. People come to DCS to get from it whatever enjoys them the most... if it is close quarters air combat / dogfight, what's wrong it that ?

Oh, and while I'm at it (and I don't intend this to be a debate between the two, but I will chip in my personal experience, bearing in mind that I have 200+ games in Steam, but have used the ED launcher since it's birth) 1) Download rate via Steam is excellent, but unless an ED module has literally just been released within the hour, the P2P method of the ED launcher is also excellent. 2) Ok. Steam offers the refund within two hours (and no doubt other plusses), but since I've never, ever used any of this, I'm not sure how much of an advantage this is - with ED modules, I always know exactly what I'm buying, so it's hardly like I'll return them anyway. 3) Steam - two clicks. ED - enter CC details and pay. 20 seconds vs 60 seconds. Brutal. 4) DRM via Steam. DRM via ED. Offline modes available via both. I'm not sure what the practical difference is for you, the user. 5) Since this is a personal opinion, and I have no need to switch languages, this is irrelevant to me. 6) See point 2 - I've never refunded, either with Steam or attempted to with ED. 7) I fly on specific servers, not with specific people. The value of this point will vary wildy from person to person, for me it's value is zero. 8 ) Valid. If ED dies, I'm not sure the Steam version will work, but I'll accept that. If anybody bought the Steam version of the Hawk, let me know if it still works please. 9) Yes, most have Steam, as do I. Even so, the ED launcher is so unobtrusive that calling it 'annoying' is stretching my imagination to breaking point, but fine - different people have different tolerance for these things. 10) The discounts from miles and specials via ED have more than satisfied my need for 'cheap', and if ED and it's 3rd part devs get more, I'm fine with that. I'm struggling to believe that modules are cheaper on Steam (despite their cut) in general, but that's my problem because I lack the data. 11) Again, click on 'run DCS', game updates if updates are needed, or I run the deliberate update. Despite Steams ease of use, I have never, ever, been frustrated at DCS's launcher. 12) Irrelevant in the case of only using the ED launcher. tl;dr - my personal opinion. Others may find themselves in the same situation. It's not a 'cult', it's just logical. And again, if Steam is taking a cut, then it's less for ED and associated developers, so it is ENTIRELY logical if they decide that they cannot accept that cut, and not offer discounts on that platform. 100% logic.

The B-17 and B-29 predate nuclear weapons. There is no comparing them. The B-52 is a post nuclear aircraft, and like just about everything in the USAF in the 50's it was built with nuclear weaponry in mind. This doesn't change the fact that it never delivered nuclear weapons in combat. This make the point about how many dogfights the F-15 has been in meaningless, it doesn't imply anything about its ability to dogfight. Factually the process began before the MiG-25 was even know to exist in the US. Curiously the F-15 was never required to reach Mach 3. We know the US knew how to get to that speed, however it was deemed less important than having maneuverability, especially since Vietnam was fresh in the Air Force's mind. The F-15 was created because militaries don't get complacent. The instant that F-4's were rolling off production lines is when someone started thinking about what would replace it. That doesn't mean that the MiG-25 wasn't an important influence on the design, but the F-15 was never meant to be a dedicated MiG-25 equivalent or counter. It didn't even have different weapons from the F-4 initially. There also weren't any planes that would "easily outmaneuver" the F-15. Everything in the 4th gen is fairly competitive with each other including the F-15, MiG-29, and Su-27. F-15 pilots were told to avoid dogfighting MiG's in the Gulf War not because the F-15 couldn't dogfight but because that was the one area where the MiG wasn't lagging behind, especially with R-73's. Partially right. The F-15 was designed to win at BVR to avoid dogfighting, but it's also designed to dogfight if the BVR win isn't achieved.

did a short test A/A mode, only Aim 120s (2x C, 4x B) -> switches automatically A-A_Mode_MRM_auto_switch.trk DGFT mode 2x C, 4x B-> switches automatically DGFT-Mode_MRM_auto_switch.trk DGFT mode all MSL types equipped -> 2x C, 2x B, 1x 9m, 1x 9x -> after firing the first 120s it switches to an aim-9, shooting this would make the jet switch to the second aim-9 automatically, not the other 2 Aim120s, those only come up if manually selected afterwards. -> question here is: should it instead switch to the next MRM type missile before going to the aim-9 or not? And shouldnt it select the remaining 120s as the only missiles left after all aim-9 have been used instead of just displaying 0 aim-9?DGFT-Mode_all_MSL-types.trk Per default when aim-9 are equipped, DGFT always selects aim-9. manually selecting aim-120c results to a switch to aim-9 once all aim-120c are used, aim-120b still on the jet. when shooting the first two 120C, the jet switches back to aim-9. MSL step long press lets you step through the weapons until you reach the other aim-120(b). shooting those however then also makes the jet change back to the already used 120C (0 120C) and does not automatically go for aim-9. this is wrongly implemented as the jet should skip depleted or otherwise not ready weapons DGFT-Mode_all_MSL-types-2.trk now since the last scenario sounds confusing; step by step: Loadout contains -> 2x 120C, 2x 120B, 1x 9m, 1x 9x 1. enter DGFT -> aim 9 is default 2. MSL step long press to get to 120C 3. Shoot all 120C -> jet automatically selects aim-9 4. MSL step long to get to the 120B 5. shoot all 120B -> jet changes back to 120C (??? why, they are already gone) -> this is wrongly implemented as the jet should skip depleted or otherwise not ready weapons according to the manual. 6. Manually step through (MSL Step long) to get to Aim-9m 7. Shoot aim 9M 8. Jet switches automatically to remaining 9x 9. use aim-9x 10. congrats youre down to guns

Comparing number of F-14 alone to number of whole USSR fighter fleet is like comparing 300 Su-27 in 1990 to 2,893 USAF fighters alone (without US Navy fighters) in 1990. BTW: You did include ONLY ONE SMALLER of two Soviet air forces - VVS. Soviet Union had also huge air defence fighter and rocket forces PVO with additional interceptors, better founded than tactical aviation you mentioned, but contrary to VVS, PVO pilots were trained to perform ground guided straight line interceptions, not trained to perform air combat: PVO had in 1990 additional: 500 Sukhoi Su-15 850 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 350 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 210 Sukhoi Su-27 (yes, Su-27 was in biggest part produced for Air Defence in Su-27P variant, not for tactical aviation) 360 Mikoyan MiG-31 Which gave USSR combined fleet of 3,545 fighters (1,275 fighters in VVS. And 2,315 interceptors in PVO) roughly 2/3 trained to perform interceptions in PVO and 1/3 to perform air combat in VVS for combine numbers: 50 MiG-21 500 Sukhoi Su-15 1445 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 350 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 300 Sukhoi Su-27 900 Mikoyan MiG-31 Overall USSR operated roughly 11,500 combat aircrafts in late Cold War plus roughly 2,500 in satellite states in Europe for combined 14,000 combat aircrafts in Warsaw Pact, compared to 12,000 combat aircrafts in NATO (Excluding Naval Aviation) (Additionally Warsaw Pact had 1253 Naval aviation combat aircrafts when NATO 4890 Naval aviation combat aircrafts) - not included it the chart below. For comparison today's Russia has 912 fighters and roughly 3,500 main battle tanks - 16 times less tanks than 1980s USSR which operated 54,300 deployed tanks in active units, and additional 15,000 in depot reserve.

Study up then. The first engagement the F-15 got kills with Sparrow, Sidewinder, and canon all in one mission. So the answer is more than 0. The F-15 was designed to be dominant in all phases of fighter combat. Why engage in WVR where risk is greater if you can kill them all BVR? The bubble canopy, low wing loading, conical camber, and 900+ rounds of canon ammo are all things that would hinder it if it was only meant to be a better interceptor than an F-4. BTW, the F-4 was faster than the F-15. Operation Skyburner gives an idea of what the F-4 would have been capable of if given J79-GE-19 motors.

New to DCS but 25 plus years in flight simulators. I fly a real warbird, do simulated dogfights, some formation flying. Wake turbulence in DCS is very realistic, it really impresses me, feels exactly as it feels in real life, definitely is not over modelled, I would say it is spot ON.

The map delivered on what was promised. So got what you paid for. What you want is for the map to be expanded, which is very different from saying it is unfinished against what was promised. And lots of people would like to see this expansion, myself included. Liable to be at a cost, if ever done.

It's obviously just a matter of one or the other trying at all costs to prove that the M2000 is "overpowered". It doesn't matter at all what a dev says and how he proves their results. He/they (Razbam) is/are wrong and the M2000C is "too good" because that is "well known"...

Trust me, I have tens of thousands hours in DCS if we count LOMAC as well. I used to spend whole weekends playing, and I still learn new things (and make mistakes) every day I'm looking forward to seeing your tracks, although I'm afraid that the verdict will be, at least partially, something along the lines of the AI doing AI things. That being said, I consider a PK of 40%-50% quite good in DCS. The Phoenix should be a bit lower than that.

let's not forget the bugs which got introduced over the updates. Just to name a few: - George not able to aim/fire canon anymore in MP - engine 2 stalling/shutting down during cold start - boresighting in VR is broken These things were fine before, but introduced with updates. The inability for Geroge to fire the canon in MP remains unadressed over the last 3 updates.....

Tacview-20230112-024101-DCS-F-14B BVR F-16C.zip.acmiTacview-20230112-023433-DCS-F-14B BVR F-16C.zip.acmi Tacview-20230112-030006-DCS-F-14B BVR F-16C.zip.acmiTacview-20221218-210516-DCS.zip.acmi My take into this Currently AI in DCS is amazingly (unrealistically?) good in notching ( talking ACE level here), and it will always see missile at 10 nm. Please don't tell me you use AIM54A (too bad vs fighters + it is per USN doctrine prior 1986), use 54C If you can see your lost track diverging from real track, cut missile support, fire another one. Lost 54C might find bandit on its own Fly high, fly fast. Keep those speeds and angels, dive ONLY in emergencies Due to this fact, you are limited in defensive maneuvers to basically horizontal plane, therefore know your MAR ranges, stick to them Fire from long range 60nm, PRIORITIZE high flying bandits. Higher they go (35k+, 40k+ very juicy kill for 54). AI on CAP mission will try to match your angels, use that and bait them high 40k+. After fire DONT dive, if you do, AI will follow matching your angels making life of your 54 much harder. Use ECM, especially vs FC3 Flankers, they will not fire until range is <29nm. REMEMBER TO SWITCH ECM OFF WHEN RANGE IS BELOW 29nm. Otherwise you turn their R27ERs into stealth Fire and Forget missiles After pitbull banzai, keep the pressure, you kill them with long range great, mission accomplished. Otherwise they are low and slow, you are high and fast. Scan low, STT, fire 54 20nm and less, Keep speed and angels! Keep the MAR (remember they fly from thick air!)! Abort if they are too close Tacview-20230112-015824-DCS-F-14B BVR Su27.zip.acmi Tacview-20221218-205259-DCS-F-14B BVR Su27.zip.acmi Tacview-20221218-205259-DCS-F-14B BVR Su27.zip.acmi Tacview-20221218-210516-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20221218-211218-DCS.zip.acmi

Oh man... Are you seriously a voice of Steam? Had I known that I am replying to such persona I would have put my ED cape and recharge my super powers. I don't agree with anything you said. But it is MY OPINION. Not Standalone users opinion, not a community voice. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and feelings. Works for you? Fine! Does the standalone work for me? Fine! Now, do RAZBAM choices work for them? Yes, apparently, so? Fine! You suck it up that it costs you more on Steam, I suck it up it costs me more via ED shop. Yes! It costs me more than it could have, had RAZBAM opted in to ED Miles program.

Great choice, I have read this book about 10 times over the years and never get tired of it. The only problem that I need to warn you before hand is the frustation you will get for not having a Gulf War map in DCS. You have been warned!

It's not close enough for me. Don't forget about the F-100D, which I'd want to fly out of the Hoas and Da Nang. Edit: Almost forgot about Phu Cat, the Spad and my two favourite chicks: Sandy and Misty.

Well explained and certainly describes my initial experience with purchasing DCS. Once I got the DCS bug I transitioned to standalone. It avoided adding a third party to the mix and any discrepancies with release dates or third party rules. I had no issue with purchasing in dollars. Plus I had read up about more money going to ED and had made the decision I wanted to support them for future development - as I considered them a key vendor for my hobby. I also dislike having loads of programs running as installers but found I had complete control over the DCS updater and when it ran and where it installed files. So was happy in this respect. I fully understand people using Steam - I am an IT guy so it should be simpler for me to work out. That said there are a bunch of aircraft systems I struggle to get my head around, DCS can be a pretty complex simulation to learn so for me at least setting it up and managing the installation seem the easy bit! However, getting people into DCS to catch the bug to find out all the stuff I did to move to standalone requires accessibility and IMHO Steam provides that. So I am surprised to see such big discrepancies with this module between the versions which haven't been forced upon the developers by Steam's own rules. I appreciate it is down to RB rather than ED but in my view seems an odd choice.

I'm pretty sure that even before all this drama, HB would already make a better job, after all, HB > Razbam, specially in terms of professionality.

This explains why I don't like the thing perfectly and comparing it with data from a test report. I do not think this can be argued with, it clearly shows how the controls should behave and how they are not behaving in the Gazelle. This said, the Gazelle is a fun little thing to fly and can be extremely rewarding as a scout. We have even used in a sort of wild weasel scenario with it zipping around a field and an Apache picking off the anti-air exposed by the gazelle flying around. She was untouched at the end and the pilot was all revved up. So, good fun in game. But calling it realistic or accurate is a bold statement, IMHO and in the opinion of this gentleman who made the video.

That is correct. The F-15E replaced the F-111 and the hardware added to make this so causes it to perform more poorly in areas that people on this forum apparently don't even think about - although someone's already mentioned the higher departure risk and that's one big part. Even without the CFTs, there are things that it can't match the F-15C at.

Stop selling via Steam because you don’t get to save $8? Maybe you should consult with the rest of the Stream players.

Maybe after they update PG lights for the third time;) Kidding aside- I sure hope this is happening..