Skuva

As of today (10th june 2025) I'm not making my custom folder available anymore for the following reasons: - I need space on my personal drives (cloud and physical). By this point I believe anyone who had interest in checking my work would/should have done so already. - I don't care about DCS near as much I used to when I wrote this essay. Because in addition to all the problems and drama around the game, HB hasn't done anything about this issue yet, and even though they took some good measures regarding the F-4E it still has much of the same problems. - ED is making the life of livery makers harder and harder. Even though I've been only messing with textures from older aircraft that are not being restricted like the newer ones, I feel like it is not productive to invest my time learning to do things in this game when there is a high probability of it being wasted in the future.

On the 2.9.14.8222 update they claimed to have "Corrected flight dynamics and motor of SAM Hawk MIM-23 missile" but from my tests the bug is still there, and not only that, now the thing just refuses to launch at any target not flying directly towards it. I managed to make the AI fly 13km from it and not a single missile was fired, the TR unit tracked it through the whole flight. Track: Hawk_speed_bug_2.trk EDIT: The missile is now a little bit faster (0.2 mach faster), and the sustained phase seems more realistic, with it initially losing a bit of speed then gaining speed again as the missile gets lighter (or propellant burn faster). But it is still doing well bellow specs. The system also for some reason can't shoot targets flying directly above it at 14km+ altitude.

Would anyone have reference pictures from inside on the tinted version? Because I found pictures with very different tones, and some as strong as this I'm curious if this is for sun shading, front rcs reduction, the museum putting a yellow film to look cool, or just severe degradation.

The workaround I think would be to change the Default files on the main directory (Not Saved Games) at DCSWorld\Mods\aircraft\Su-27\Liveries\Cockpit_J-11A\default

The F-5 FC, F-86 FC and MiG-15 FC have pilot bodies. The F-5 FC kneedboard is functional.

If by "visible when looking right or left" you mean like an HMD, you might have the Mini HUD option enabled in the Gameplay settings.

And with this reasoning we can conclude DCS has never had an oversight in its development history.

For me the logic seems to apply upwards too. There are numerous FC2024 owners out there, there can be a significant portion of them who would look at a discounted F-5, F-86 or MiG-15 and go "hmmmm, I never thought about acquiring these, but this is a good opportunity". And doesn't matter if they buy by impulse and never even learn to fly it, ED can make revenue from that with the correct sale strategy. EDIT: Even if ED would give a discount on the same value as the FC2024 upgrade, in the end they would still be using assets from a dead project brought to DCS basically for free to convince a non-zero amount of people to buy modules they most probably would never buy. EDIT2: As an example of sale strategy I just thought using the F-15C and its upcoming FF. They could release the FF as any other module without a discount. Then, after all the people who really really wanted, and could, bought it, they could start giving discounts for the FC owners to push whoever was over the fence.

Well then, if you don't think it is up for comparison, then nothing is and nothing should ever be done about it. Again, I believe if ED really wanted to make some easy money, they could well offer discount for owners of the FF version, there are numerous FF Tiger owners out there, wouldn't surprise me to know a fraction of them wished to either collect the FC version or just use it to play with the simplified systems, and a discount would motivate some of them to buy it. Now how much of a discount ED would need to accomplish a positive return from this tactic, only they can know that, I don't have their internal financial report here.

It really concerns me how people in a supposedly highly dedicated community take one random user's word as gospel a jump into conclusions so easily. Unless ED comes out and show data on how their customers behave, it makes no sense to treat it as a binary possibility of how much players like FC or FF, instead of treating it as a unknown spectrum. In most cases these modules don't have "very different characteristics", and even in the cases where it has significant differences, like the F-5 lacking some functionality and weapons, it still doesn't compare to the difference in modules upgrades, like A-10C and Ka-50, both of which offer discounts to old owners. So if I who bought the Ka-50 for essentially U$7.57 in a discounted bundle, got a generous discount on the upgrade, why wouldn't it make sense to give someone who for example bought the FC Sabre, get a discount upgrading to the FF one, or even for those who owned other modules just like I owned a very cheaply acquired Ka-50 for so long. This is common practice across the software world, they offer users that already pay for their products an apparently exclusive discount and this push a lot of people on that unknown spectrum to spend more. And even treating the problem based on a unbased assumption, you still felt the need to invoke a straw man about radars. That's very much your opinion and not a fact. I definitely wouldn't be able to enjoy this game as much with only one module, but you do you I guess.

By now it is clear that releasing FC versions of F-5, F-86 and MiG-15 in DCS was not the intended plan. They did because those were made for the MAC project which didn't go well and had to be scrubbed. The thing that bothers me with the presence of both FC and FF versions of the same aircraft is how it is not being handled with an upgrade program in mind like other modules. Every owner of an FC module should be offered, even if small, a discount on the FF version, because it feels a really bad purchase decision when you buy one of these aircraft and suddenly you feel like you need to pay for an entire new module just to click buttons so it is better to just stay with the FC version, and this feeling could end up cannibalizing ED's sales of the more expensive FF versions. And most threads on the Su-25 subforum are about the T variant. So it is even worse than it seems.

You can answer it just by looking at the amount of reviews each plane has on Steam and guesstimating how much it sells. F-15C: 369 reviews Su-33: 203 reviews MiG-29: 140 reviews A-10A: 120 reviews Su-27: 92 reviews Su-25A: 22 reviews So in all of these 12 years selling on Steam, the Su-25A sold basically nothing as a standalone module. And you can bet it is also not convincing enough people to buy the whole FC for it. So handing it for free alongside its fancier brother Su-25T has close to zero impact on ED's bottom-line, while positively affecting the perception of new players trying the game for free. Now, why they are also giving it a rework? I don't know. I would assume it would be in their interest to at least have a initial capitalization on this work. Or maybe this rework will be accompanied of a Su-25T rework too that they just didn't feel like announcing yet. But I also think adding just a worse version of the already free aircraft has very little impact on the freeware experience. And they should either offer the Su-27, giving new players a taste of air-to-air combat, although this could impact Su-33 and MiG-29 sales. Or offer the A-10A, giving a bluefor CAS experience, although this could impact A-10C sales. EDIT: To clarify, I don't believe adding Su-27 and A-10A into the free package would be remotely beneficial economically in the current state of the game. As offering more experiences to new player would strip from the desire of experiencing more with a paid module. Because this would accelerate that process most of us go through, of trying most of what the game has to offer and start to notice how the core of the product has problems and is lacking in important areas. So a significant portion of potential buyers could be swayed way too early. This might have sound like bad business practice, but every free sample should taste good, while also leaving most to the imagination of what else there is to the product.

A few years ago I attempted to fix the problems with this campaign. If you are interested in trying it here is the link https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3316283/ I can't promise it will still work 100%. If you try it and find problems feel free to criticize, I've been taking notes and might one day make another fixing pass. EDIT: Another thing related to what you posted on another thread about tips on finishing the missions. The original intent was for you to just go to the objective, make a single strike pass with unguided rockets and RTB. I tried to enforce this giving the proper default payload, but you can change it and try using guided weapons on multiple strikes, tho the AI is set to make a single pass and head out.

I know of a famous big developer studio on the combat flight game genre, which also claim they develop vehicles based on non publicly available (but legal) documentation, and in their case it has been proven to be just an excuse to model it however they like. I hope this isn't the case for ED.

You don't need to know how off the angle was. You can see at 00:18 how the antenna position indicator starts wiggling because it is trying to regain lock, and it does that for about 2 seconds before going back to vertical mode. And it does that as soon as the target goes below the nose as the pilot has only IRST active.