Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LaFleur

  • Birthday 03/05/1990

Personal Information

  • Location
    Athens, Greece

Recent Profile Visitors

557 profile views
  1. I get that there are some negative people, but they are a vocal minority. Most of us understand the straggle of developing an EA project. The only thing most of us need is progress updates, so we can know what to expect, and see how the development of the products we have pre-paid 4 years ago is going. That's really it. We don't need exact dates. When you see your favorite module, not having any updates for about 9 months and not knowing which features are being worked on, corrected, updated, cancelled, it is reasonable to be asking questions. And it is reasonable for customers to be increasingly suspicious and afraid of a potential abandonment of their module, in favor of newer and more profitable ones. All of these stuff are low priority, that even if they are not implemented nobody will really care. What makes the F-18 a beast is its MSI and D/L capabilities, which are not at all implemented.
  2. Couldn't have said it better myself. All I will say is that I come from a family of fighter pilots. One of them retired very recently from flying. While telling him about DCS World I was asking him about BVR tactics etc, which he refused to answer, I told him about notching and he laughed. He told me "No one will even think to try to notch an AMRAAM". He also told me that Kinematics, Jamming, and Towed Decoys are the only reliable countermeasures you have. Nothing more. So yeah, ED has many sources that go into detail about stuff like this. That's why my personal belief is that it is a balancing decision, not a "where is the proof" one.
  3. Honestly, this is one of the main reasons of why I lost interest and quit DCS for over 6 months now. Being that I love flying, and I've spent over 2k in modules and equipment, the constant changes in BVR (for the worse) and the continuous game breaking bugs in the Hornets A/A radar, doesn't make me feel like flying anymore. For me, my favorite things to do was BVR and SEAD/DEAD. I could live with having to support the 120 until pitbull, but when the changes to the chaff success rate and notching were made, BVR was over. Notching shouldn't be a "thing", especially on modern weapons. As other people have said before me, "notching should be a fluke, not the rule". A/A missiles are meant to be defeated kinematically, not by turning your jet 90degrees from the missile (regardless of the range or altitude). When I started doing BVR the best pilot always survived the BVR fight. People had to respect the MAR. People had to figure out the best way to defeat a missile kinematically and reengage as soon as possible. People had to have good SA to not be flanked. People with the highest altitude had the upper hand in the BVR fight, now it's the opposite. After the changes on chaff and notching were made, after watching countless tacviews of multiplayer matches, I rarely saw people going cold. I saw too many 2.5 Mach 120s missing on even hot bandits. People not caring about merging with flaking jets and just reacting with a notch to an incoming 8mile 120 shot and surviving easily. I can't even remember how many times I've shot 3 mile FOX3s only for them to miss with plenty of energy, 2+ mach. Basically, there is no BVR anymore. And I don't even know how things are since April, but from what I see people talking about everywhere, it's way worse than what I experienced. The very forgiving nature of the current Air Combat meta, doesn't help/force people to improve and be more tactical. I'm not sure if this is a "balancing" decision for ED (which to me it looks like that), but this casual approach on BVR doesn't make DCS feel like a sim at all.
  4. @Wags @BIGNEWY Let's hope ED sees this thread and reconsiders the incorrect "no evidence" tag.
  5. What is this "no evidence" tag? There is in the NATOPS manual. Also, I've seen many credible people here talk about this particular functionality, and it seems strange to me that ED is unaware about it.
  6. Indeed the F-16 feels draggier in BFM but that's not a major issue. I don't really do BFM since there is rarely a merge, and also merges should be avoided if possible. So yeah, it doesn't bother me that much. I believe there are more serious issues that need to be addressed first. But that's just my opinion.
  7. I couldn't agree more. People keep bringing up a quote from Mover, but forget that the Block 30 and the Block 50 perform much differently. Also, the F/A-18A and the F/A-18C Lot 20 are different planes with different engines... ED has done a good job, I believe, with the F-16s FM (although pylon damage and G stressing stores is not modeled yet), but there is still room for improvement. Let's be patient and enjoy the F-16 - that does 9G at 1.2m with external tanks, takes no stress damage, and its radar detects contacts from 80 miles away, while having the weakest radar IRL compared to almost all other modules - and stop complaining for some minor details that are in the works to be fixed.
  8. I got the same issue. Instructed 2 different time Jester to set waypoint to home base and DCS crashed instantly. Those are the only 2 crashes I had in DCS 2.7.
  9. Yeah. I'm ignorant about the technical aspect of the radars and their specs. Thought this would give me an approximate estimate of each radars' performance. Let's hope ED has the info and the means to implement realistic radar detection ranges for other modules as well, not only the F/A-18C...
  10. I understand that the photos might be tampered, but from my experience with sea, of which I have a lot, the color looks like exactly like the GoPro footage.
  11. To be honest, I don't know what you are talking about. Yesterday, I was able to soft lock an enemy, high aspect, F-16 with TWS from about 70Nm away. The F-16 is overwhelmingly overperforming according to the real world specs.
  12. That's interesting.. How about the rest of the values?
  13. From the little I fiddled around with settings, I didn't see any difference with High, Medium or Low in the water settings. I believe I have calibrated the gamma good enough so every surface and reflection looks realistic. Messing around gamma settings to counter the oil-like water look, isn't a fix to the problem, for me at least. Don't get me wrong, I like the new "texture" of the water, even though it lacks waves, but I found it to be unrealistically dark. If it had a little more blue in it, it would be good awesome.
  14. Thanks for the info! I hope ED sees this and implements this feature. It's so simple but yet incredibly convenient.
  • Create New...