Tank50us

Several members of my unit are reporting that the map is having serious issues when it comes to performance. They're reporting significant frame-rate drops, and in some cases even getting into slide-show levels of frame-rate. While I haven't had similar issues, namely because my computer is much more powerful, I still think some optimizations should be worth looking into, as the frame-rate drops my guys have experienced simply don't happen on maps like Syria.

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many that actually are interested in aircraft of that era. And while it's a crying shame, I can certainly understand why. Namely, the player base. We keep demanding all the clicky cockpits and such, and that adds to the work required to get a module out. I'm not saying we shouldn't have such features, but I think people need to understand that these aren't the sort of things that are easy to replicate if you lack a manual to understand what the switches do, and how they function, and what the procedures are. All of these are obviously in the manuals, but if we don't have them, it makes things a bit more difficult to properly model the aircraft. I imagine that someone could model the plane to the level of detail people expect in a few days if they pushed themselves, and could do a decent looking cockpit in about the same about of time. After that, they'd have to design the liveries, and the flight model, but without having to make a full fidelity cockpit, the time it took could be as little as a couple months depending on the team and if everything comes together correctly (which rarely happens anyway). But, without knowing the procedures, without knowing what all the switches do, and how they're supposed to work, and with limited access to the material needed to explain it, it will take longer. On top of that, after the BAE Hawk fiasco, ED is very wary about the SDK. This may change in the future, but don't hold your breath.

I'd be fine with either that, or something further to the South around the Aleutian Islands, especially given that these islands were the site of a couple minor WW2 skirmishes.

Improvise, Adapt, Overcome. Would you agree?

Maybe. Who knows. Either way, I still think it would be and interesting option to have, since the AMRAAM As basically operated like Baby Phoenixes, so tactically you'd use them the same way as you would a Phoenix, you'd just be firing at much shorter ranges than the Phoenix since the As had what? a 40mi max range under perfect conditions? That's uncomfortably close to the AMRAAMski range.

I meant operationally, and I'm talking specifically about the racks seen in the second picture there (which took a while to be modeled in game despite the load already being there). Those racks were never equipped to operational Tomcats, I'm sorry if I caused some confusion given that we all know that BombCats were very much a thing.

Well the F-14 was never equipped to carry the nearly two dozen Mk82s either, only one was ever tested with a set of experimental racks, and that was it. So it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to envision, and would further separate the A/Late and B from the Early A and Iranian Tomcats if those modified racks could be modeled and the functionality added. I'm not asking for the AIM120C5 that we have on the Hornets mind you, I'm just saying it would be interesting if the Tomcat we have in DCS could use the AMRAAM-As due to the fact that the aircraft (an A model no less) was used to test the AMRAAM in the first place. Like I said, the USN had the option, so the kits were likely built and ready to be sent to the fleet, but from what I understand, the idea was shelved. So at least as far as 'fictional' loads go, at least this one has some basis in reality.

exactly. It's just that the Navy never thought they'd need to have the Tomcats have AMRAAM capability when they had the Phoenix. The way I could see it in DCS however is that because the computer wouldn't know it's an AMRAAM without the modifications, it would likely treat it as a Phoenix, and therefor, if you had a 2-2-4 load, the computer would likely think it had 6 Phoenix missiles attached instead of the 4 it actually had.

You can technically reskin the F-16 to have the same paint job as an F2A Viper Zero, and if I understand correctly, the JASDF did talk to Grumman about the Tomcat, but were barred after Iran went sideways.... so ya got options if you're willing to shrug and use liveries.

That is a fairly good question, however given I asked about anti-ship weapons for the F-16, and the puritons came out of the woodworks to protest it, I doubt it would be added. That said, it would be kind of interesting to see the AIM120A added to DCS, since it was actually tested on the F-14 Tomcat, and if Heatblur could integrate it, that would be quite interesting. I'm aware that the USN never gave the Tomcat full AMRAAM capability, but the fact that the Tomcat was used as a testbed should speak volumes for the missile and the aircraft.

such a spawner could also make QRF quiet viable as well, without having to fill a whole munch of slots and use complex scripting, which itself could be saved for actually attacking your specific faction. But these QRF spawners could mean that you can assign certain types of aircraft to QRF, and they scramble under the conditions you set. For example if a patrol gets attacked, the QRF spawns (or is already spawned just needing to power up, taxi, and depart), gets airborne, and heads directly to the patrol. Along with that, you can set that the QRF take off in waves and move to support the other waves as needed. This is especially true for carriers, which typically have aircraft on ready alert any time they're in a combat zone.

And let's not forget that before too long, we'll have evolving weather patterns. Sure, the mission starts off as a bright sunny, but cold day.... but 90min later you're dealing with white-out conditions, snowflakes turned into tiny needles, and all kinds of fun things that will most certainly turn Tomcats into Harriers.

Or if the weather is too bad, the mission is scrubbed entirely. The campaign my group is doing is planning to have a typhoon hit the area as part of the story.... we ain't flying in that! (but we will have to protect the people leaving the area obviously)

See, this is something I have a hard time understanding... why is it that we have people who rant and rage over things that ED has outright stated they are working on? We know they're working to fix the AI, and most of us know that this is the sort of thing that can take a long time even at the best of times. It's not a case of File-> make competent AI, it's thousands of man hours worth of trial and error, with some of those errors forcing ED back to the drawing boards.

Yup. It's fine for something like a shooter, which is what Unreal is best for, but for a hard sim like DCS, it's not that viable.

All of these are on the 2021 Roadmap, with some planned to continue into 2022. - This will be possible with the new Vulcan API, as it will allow even lower end computers to render large scale operations - updated plane models are in the works, they just haven't released any WIP images yet. - The AI is being tweaked, the WW2 aircraft are basically serving as a test bed for the AI improvements (simpler planes and all) - Guides and tutorials are generally updated as needed anyway. - This is the only area that has any real issues. The problem with RedFor aircraft is that there's a lot of secrecy surrounding them. Even for aircraft that have found themselves in NATO hands, there's a lot that we civilians will simply not have access to compared to their western counterparts. Granted, there's a lot we simply won't ever know about these aircraft due to the nature of modern military hardware, but Russian and Chinese built aircraft seem to have it the worst. in short, the improvements are coming, it'll just take some time.

My only question is how would such a thing be incorporated?

During some landing practice yesterday in prep for a new campaign my group is running, I boltered twice (I'm a bit out of practice, don't judge). First time: "bo bo bo BOLTER!" Second Time: "Boeing. Boeing. BOLTER!" Third time: "Good news we're down, bad news it was a two wire." Me: "Alright Jester, you get your a$$ up here and fly then!"

As much as I agree, I have to say that while it would be nice to have multiple high fidelity red jets in DCS, the key problem is that Eagle Dynamics is a Russian Company, and therefor, has to abide by Russian Law. And given that these laws are usually enforced by Makorovs, that's not something you can just 'ignore'. If ED were an American company, they'd have no issues there. But then the problem comes from us. You see, we demand a 100% accurate sim (I know not everyone does, including myself, but the very vocal do), and to that end, if it's not a dead on representation, people will whine and moan about it, and yes, I have seen such comments, in this very forum of people complaining about things too small to really matter... but they do complain. Our best bet right now is the Su30 guys. Sure, it's a mod, but those guys are working to make a full flight model and bring it to as close to a proper module as they can without the SDK, if they were to get the SDK, and make it a paid aircraft, I think we'd all benefit from it. Bonus points if they can get Multicrew and 'Jester' in it

If it was set in the 50s, then sure. But anything set in the modern day, there'd be more objects just in the LA area than any of the maps we currently have combined.

As good as unreal is, one first has to remember that the engine DCS currently runs on is one that was made by Eagle Dynamics, so switching to Unreal would effectively be a slap in the face to literally dozens of years worth of work. There's other issues as well, one of which was brought out by Ace Combat 7: Unreal is really good for shooters, and 'small environment' games, but not much else beyond that. I think the best thing for ED to do when it comes to engine work is overhaul the current engine, and rebuild it for multi-core support. This will allow for the fine rendering we're used to, without some people running into the situation where their computers get hot enough to fry eggs on them. On top of that, if ED can get even more support from the community in the realm of quality of life improvements (much in the same way ArmA has benefited from its mod community), I think DCS will become a much better title as time goes on.

And even then it's dicey at best

And even if it was part of the game proper, if it's something that can be turned off by people who don't need it, there shouldn't be complaints... but as you can see any time these topics come up, there's always some super-elitist "Stop having fun!" guy that comes out of the wood-works that busts out the "Git Gud Scrub" comment. Either forgetting what it was like to be struggling with the subject, or can't understand what it's like for someone who's barely able to play the game as it is to perform these complex tasks. And let's face it, while it should be considered a major achievement to be able to pull off a flawless 3-wire carrier landing or a perfect AAR, most people are going to naturally be more interested in the Micheal Bay aspects of DCS... which let's face it.... is what many of us are here for.

tell that to my job and my clients. Which I'm fairly sure applies to most of us as jobs and clients are very much a thing we have to work around. Can we stay on topic? If ya want to offer proper critique I'm all ears, but if all you're going to do is spam any of these topics with "well, I can do it just fine with my $5,000 setup, why can't you?" comments, then please stop responding. If you're gonna comment, be constructive, or don't comment.

Actually given that such things are coming to real world aircraft anyway (for example the HMD for the F-35), it's not that much of a stretch to think that these assists would exist in real world aircraft. Sure, if you're talking about a P-51 vs a BF-109 those assists don't exist, because the tech of them didn't. But at the same time, you're much closer to your opponent in those instances, so the assists wouldn't be needed since you can't shoot at the other guy until after you've merged anyway. For more modern jets, those assists can be justified as many of them are still in service today receiving upgrades, with some getting HMDs that can do some of what those assists do anyway. On top of that, those people who merely treat those assists as training wheels to be kicked off eventually are ultimately better for it in the end, especially given that most of us play on flat monitors, and not wrap-around projections or VR. Gamifications are not a bad thing my dude, have you ever lined up on a catapult and been ever so slightly off? In the real world, you're off the cat, back arund, and try again. In DCS, the game goes "Eh, close enough", and lets you hook up. In DCS, there's no real penalty for having a poor approach to a carrier other than a bad score (if it scores you at all). In the real world, too many of such approaches, and you're back to CVQC, To many trips back there, and the Navy punts you like a football to the Army (ironically, that's sometimes where those guys end up!). That's why I say that these visual aids should be treated like training wheels, just something to get a person by until they are confident enough to move on to the next stage, which should be something that they determine, and no one else. No one told you when you had to run for the first time, you just did when you felt like it.