Tank50us

Actually, despite what I said about the Strike Eagle, it is still very much capable of holding its own in a full AA load. It's got an even more capable radar, has the full range of AAMs available to it, has a better avionics suite... in many ways it's the ultimate Eagle. Sure, it's a bit heavier, and less maneuverable than a C, but given that you have more tools in your belt before the merge to ID the guy means you have an edge before he can pick you up visually. And let's not forget, that this aircraft does have a second seat, so if you're flying with someone else in the back seat you now have an extra set of eyes that can spot threats during a dogfight, or pick up missiles during other parts of the operation. And finally, don't forget that the mud moving, while not always exciting, is far more important to the ground mission then shooting down enemy planes. After all, in order for your guys to take the hill, the other guys troops have to be driven off the hill, and that's much easier for your guys to do when you've delivered a few parting gifts to the other guys.

The thing to remember is that ED isn't some big AAA Team akin to Gaijin or Wargaming. They have a lot of things on their plate right now as is, and they're working on what they can as fast as they can. The AH64 seems to be coming along very quickly, but that's likely due to the Mi24 model team switching to the AH64. The ground unit team is working on various things as well. When they decided to remodel the Leopard 2 for example, they made four different versions of the thing, and this will likely be the trend with the other ground units they're remodeling, including the Abrams, Challenger 2, and various other tanks that are on the to-do list.

I should clarify something... I didn't make this post to tell people to not want the F-4 Phantom. It was created because I've seen what feels like a million threads here and elsewhere of people demanding the F-4, and act as though it's the best aircraft to ever exist. Some act like the Phantom is better than many modern aircraft in just about everything. Sure, they're rare, but it is getting a bit ridiculous when ED Releases a trailer for something like the Mosquito, and in the comments someone has to go "Phantom?"

Now, I know that the moment you all read that title, you're going to be furiously slamming on the keyboard nasty things to me about how I dare insult the F-4. However, this post is about why the Phantom may not be the plane you think it is, and why I think it might be a bit over-rated. This is not a Phantom bashing post, this is just a way to explain to people that there is a reason that in the fighter role, better planes were introduced, and, most importantly, why the F-4 wasn't all it was cracked up to be. 1. Avionics Depending on which version of the F-4 you're sitting in, you're most likely going to be sitting in an aircraft cockpit that wouldn't look out of place in the late stages of WW2 or Korea. You don't have a HUD, you don't have any form of fly-by-wire or assistance avionics, it's all basic kit in there. Sure, the pilot has a rudimentary radar display up front, but that's about as good as it gets. The RIO gets some more stuff to mess with, but it would very much require that both the RIO and PIC be well in tune to make it all work. It was the 60s after all. 2. Not that great a fighter The combat record in the early days of the Vietnam war speaks for itself, the Phantom just wasn't that great a fighter. Missile technology of the time period was mostly miss, and you didn't have a gun to fall back on. You ran out of missiles, it was time to RTB. It took the pilots getting creative and the military realizing that guns were still needed for that to change, and even then, the Phantom still struggled against its opponents. Many of which were much more nimble than the Phantom, due to their smaller size. Yes, if the Phantom got a solid lock, and the machine spirit blessed the missile, you'd get a kill. But, that was unfortunately, not the case in most air to air engagements. 3. A flying brick Ask anyone who's flown the F-4 and transitioned to a newer, more capable aircraft, and they'll tell ya what the change felt like. While one or two might say they prefer the Phantom as an aircraft, you'd be hard pressed to find any combat pilot who would say they'd rather have it over the newer aircraft in a fight. Reasons vary, but some of the key ones revolve around its engine performance and its maneuverability. When you bled energy in a Phantom, it took a while to get it back, and issue rarely found in most fighters, even at the time it was introduced. This fact led to a lot of Phantom pilots who thought they were in the better plane being forced to take the HH-3 Express or spend the rest of the Vietnam War in the Hanoi Hilton. 4. It's hard to miss One key fact about the Phantom is that compared to many fighters of its era, the damn thing is huge for a fighter. Something not lost on Phantom pilots when they suddenly saw telephone poles coming up at them. Couple that with its weight, and lack of energy recovery, and in the dogfight against something smaller and more maneuverable, and you could find yourself in trouble really quick. 5. Good luck seeing out Pilots of the Tomcat can attest to this, but having that ring on the front of your canopy can be a major pain in the backside when trying to do... well... anything. This coupled with the fact that the canopy is covered in bars and it's a wonder that the flight crew could even see in the thing. This likely resulted in cases where Phantoms would be killed by something that a pilot in any other aircraft before or since would've been able to spot. 6. A true piece of its time The F-4 is a relic of the time it was built for. And while some air forces have upgraded their Phantoms to suit modern threats, it still took a lot of work that more recent aircraft wouldn't have to undergo. For example, on a modern jet, if you want a jammer to be fitted, you merely have to hook it up to a designated location, and flick a switch. The F-4 would have to specifically modified for the equipment to be fitted, and this meant doing a lot of work to get something fitted to the plane. Same happened with the gun pods. The first pods had no lead-computer like the later ones, and even that was more akin to the equipment used on the F-5 to aim the gun. 7. It was a bit over-hyped While it is true that most of the air to air kills were achieved in the F-4, it should be noted that the majority of F-4 Sorties flown were to deliver bombs and napalm, compared to aircraft that were dedicated to that role, the Phantom suffered. It wasn't as accurate with the bombs and rockets as the Intruder or Corsair, and that meant that it ran a heavy risk of hitting allied forces on the ground if it was required to get in close. And without a proper bomb site, many Phantoms had to fly low to make sure their bombs could hit their target, which exposed the aircraft to heavy ground fire, and likely resulted in many F-4 crews taking a trip to Hanoi on the bamboo express. But this is to be expected of a plane ultimately designed by people who don't know a thing about combat. So, while this post is fairly negative against the F-4, I should end by saying that if you're ok with all of this, then the F-4 is going to be an aircraft you'll want. However, this post is meant to show that maybe it isn't the be all end all fighter that people claim it to be. It's kind of like the Spitfire in that regard. A great aircraft in its own right, but over hyped. Phantoms for example weren't sent to Vietnam because they were the best fighter ever, they were sent because it's what we had at the time. And at the end of the war, F-14s were flying CAP over the South, and the F-15 was coming down the pipe, both aircraft worlds better than the Phantom. But at the end of the day, whoever ends up making the F-4, it's your money, so spend it however you please.

The thing is, these aren't tanks that can just be dropped like a normal drop tank. They're bolted on and plumbed directly into the main tanks, and you require special tools and kit to seal the tank back up again once the CFT is removed. This isn't something that's available to every field base, so it's not the sort of thing that can be expected. Heck, the whole point of CFTs is so that you don't have to worry about the extra drag a normal external tank would present, at the cost of being unable to dump the thing the moment a dogfight ensues. But, one thing to keep in mind is that the F-15E really isn't supposed to be the one doing the fighting anyway. Sure, it can do it if it has to, but the entire point of having an escort in the shape of an F-15C is that they are the ones turnin' and burnin' with the enemy, not you. Your weapons are there for the odd enemy fighter that slips through the net, not to tangle with all the migs. You're a bomb truck first and foremost, let the dedicated fighters do their job so you can do yours. So seriously, can you guys just for once listen to the devs on this? They seem to know a bit more about what they're doing then you guys do. Just be glad we're getting a HiFi F-15 at all, they didn't have to take up the project at all ya know.

Easy there, 2021 ain't over yet. I smell something big is brewing.

Thanks. The overlay I mentioned would be something that is an option if it were up to me, if ya don't want it on either because you don't need it, or because it's too distracting (which if you saw the concept, it may not be). However, the view I mentioned in this post is just the same as the one for the Super Carrier where someone can 'sit in the seat', and provide instructions to help the pilot trying to link up with their lineup.

So, now, after months of attempting, and failing to just link up with the tanker, I've finally managed to do it: (yes, that is my F-16, with me at the controls, as seen from one of my squadron mates who talked me into position). (my POV, as you can see the line-up lights are not very easy to see, which made things even more difficult then they should've been) How did I manage it? Well, simple, I had one of my Squadron mates use the games camera systems to position himself in the same view the 135s Boom Operator would have, and talk me in, and even then, it was a struggle. Now, before anyone says "Now you can stop griping", I will just say that this was done on a multiplayer server with someone who knew how to refuel much better than anyone else talking me in. Not everyone who plays DCS has this luxury because people want to treat them with the same attitude as the one character from the Simpsons. The UI elements I mentioned at the start of this thread would've helped immensely, especially since just before this, someone with a less capable PC than my own was having a hard time seeing the line-up lights on the tanker, and he only managed to pull it off because he was talked into the proper position. I would like to add that this view should be something made available for tankers, especially for this purpose. Would you guys agree?

Yeah it would be. However this thing, if I understand correctly, wasn't designed to be as mobile as other systems. To my knowledge, it can't fire on the move, and needs to remain stationary to fire. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't mind seeing some more BluFor anti-aircraft weapons in DCS.

yeah, I imagine something like that would work, with the lowest settings keeping it to just the most essential items on the map, such as buildings and the like.

Cleeeeeeeeeeeeeearly you guys need to create a FAQ... oh wait.... you have one.... Seriously people, freaking read the blasted thing, or better yet, try looking into the very reasons why Heatblur has said they won't be able to do it the way they want to.

Personally, I'm all for having more carriers, regardless of class. But that's just me and my attitude towards the game. I will not say no to new things being added, no matter how new or whacky it is.

So, while searching the area around Anderson AFB to see why people were having FPS issues, I noticed that I took some hits in the parking lots around the base. Now, to preface this, I do not mind the cars all being there, it does add to the map and gives us the feeling that people live and work on Guam. However, given how detailed these cars are, I have to wonder if it's the same for people on lower graphics settings, and I wonder if maybe this could be where some optimizations are made to help people on potato-powered PCs get some better performance. (although seriously.... who the heck parks like that?) Now, I'm not saying the cars should just be removed from the map all-together, but maybe if there were options available that minimized the number of cars in the parking lot like we can with civilian traffic, or at the very least, use very-low detail versions with smaller textures for those people who are running on computers with poorer performance. There's also a number of small objects like cones and rubbish that are scattered around Anderson AFB, and I imagine in other areas of the map as well. Don't get me wrong, they look great, but for people running on a potato PC, they're resource hogs.

I'd be more curious where you got all the Titanium needed, because there's a possibility that a solid chunk of the titanium used in the Tomcats, like that used in the SR71, may have come from Soviet mines XD

Yeah, funny thing about that, just because an aircraft isn't wining a beauty pageant in this life or the next doesn't mean it's not effective. Honestly, of all the aircraft of the Cold-War era, only the Phantom is going to have a chance of that when it's compared to the more modern jets, but again, that doesn't mean they weren't effective at what they were designed to do. (The Cutlass being an exception to that). My point to all of this, is that we're getting more Carrier Based Aircraft, it's just that it takes a long time to actually make them from scratch. This isn't FSX or FS2020 where you can just buy a model off of Turbosquid and throw it into the game and make money off of it. ED is very much against that practice, and pushes the 3rd Party Devs to make all of the assets from scratch. The only areas where they can 'borrow' from DCS are weapon coding, radar coding, and some, I repeat, some systems coding. Other than that, they give you a foundation from which to build, and it's up to you to build it. If you want these planes in, and you can form a team to build them, I highly suggest you do so. Because the only other way we're getting them all is in FC3 Style, and too many people whine and moan about that for ED to want to make more of FC3 style planes.

meanwhile someone like me will welcome just about any aircraft into DCS, regardless of the era it was built, or even if it was built at all in the real world. Why? Because I like diversity in my DCS, and I want DCS to have as much content available to the general public as possible so that there's something for everyone. Does someone like WW1? I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to buy the planes that will make them happy. Does someone like to fly around in armed-up X-Planes? I don't see a reason not to include such aircraft since many of them were based off of existing planes anyway, so adding systems and such would just be a matter of adapting it to the new aircraft. This is ultimately the great thing about DCS being such an open platform for development. ED doesn't have to do the balancing act of "Will it sell?" when it's not their time and dime on the line. And given how passionate the 3rd Party devs are about their projects, you can count on the aircraft or module in question being of top-notch quality. And to that end, I say this: If a team wants to make any of the aircraft listed here, and has the clearance needed to make them, then go right ahead. Do it right, and there will be someone who will throw money at you the moment it's announced, no matter what the aircraft is.

So, one of the things I came up with for a new training map is to incorporate a war-factory of sorts. Basically a building that will 'constantly' produce units until it's destroyed. The problem is that the only way I know how to do that is with the "When unit dies" command, and having a 'supply' of replacements, but once that supply is exhausted, that's it. What I want to have is a way around that supply issue, so that as units get destroyed, they keep getting replaced, over and over, until that structure is destroyed. Is it realistic? Not really. Is it a way to ensure pilots have a constant supply of fresh tanks to kill? Very much yes. Anyone know how to do that?

I would say go with platoon sized elements, as the platoon is the smallest unit on the battlefield that can be ordered to go do something important (Ex, go take that hill). And a platoon of tanks for example is anywhere from 4-6 tanks depending on type and country. Then it's just a matter of keeping track of which platoon is which for scripting purposes.

It was also designed to solve some of the Legacy hornets issues. But again, as awesome as it would be to have the Super Bug, it's just not feasible to model it 1-1 like we can with other aircraft. The information required just isn't there like it is for other planes. Ergo, as I've said before, either the militaries, governments or manufacturers release the data needed to make these planes, or, the player base is just going to have to accept that features will be missing from the plane and its capabilities.

I thought its name was 'Invader'? Still, yes please. These things flew around the world until their wings literally fell off

Hence why it might be better if this WW1 module were made by a 3rd party team. After all, who's gonna care about diverted resources at that point since it's not EDs resources being used here.

Alright, well, since we're all talking about it, how about this... let's assume a team is formed, and decides to make this a module, for a lack of a better name, we'll call it the "Great War Pack". Now, what aircraft do you think would fit into this pack, as a flyable plane, as an AI, and, most importantly, what ground assets would have to be modeled in, and which of those assets should be released to the general game spaces. I'm serious here, let's be constructive here, we lose nothing by tossing ideas around in a forum, so let's keep the positive energy going.

I think he's referring to the the autopilot functions. Which if I recall, the Apache does have a fairly complex autopilot that will keep it stable when you need to be blowing apart doors 4mi away without knocking, and then allow the chopper to fly like a fighter plane. I mean heck, the Apache is a very agile helicopter, and I get the feeling that much that is thanks to the computers on board.

As the title suggests, I'm looking for anyone who can offer serious tips for take off and landing. My take-offs tend to have everyone ducking for cover as the chopper spins like a top despite me giving counter torque, and my landings make my choppers crew chief very upset with my corpse. So, with all that said, does anyone have any useful tips for someone who isn't the best at airplanes with fidget spinners on top? I use a: Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Pedals (not the expensive ones), Logitech Throttle Quadrant (useful for the Harrier with the nozzles), and two MFD panels. Once I'm actually in the air and stable, I'm fine, but it's getting there and getting back from there that seems to trip me up the most.

Yeah, time to get @BIGNEWY or @NineLine in here and close this sucker down before it becomes a tornado with all this going around and around. I know I'm not exactly innocent here, but I did try to offer some advice of what the OP could do to make things better. But he's heck bent on being a German Model Railroad enthusiast bolt counter, so, that's on him at this point.