Skysurfer

Try and set up your own CV mission with controlled parameters and see how that goes. Normally you'd see speeds around 125 and even 120 if light for the Tomcat for "on speed". And remember, speed and AOA is decoupled. But with the current WIP state of the flight model and all that I wouldn't be surprised if this changes again.

Same. Apart from the HB stuff and the RB Mig-23 the F-8J and F4U are my most awaited planes.

The flight model did change with the 2.7 update (with some new issues too) but I still find it easy to fly on speed tbh. Just remember that any power change and DLC input will now influence the nose and thus AOA.

No I obviously agree, I mean we know eachother. That 1% or 5% or whatever is what is the vocal minority always complaining. I guess it's the Countersrike/Call of Duty crowd that gets into DCS wih this sort of mindset or simply Slavaboos who think Russian technology is always superiour and ED is intentioanally degrading it. Also depends on how you define "competitiveness" in DCS - do you accept the shortcomings, flaws and tools etc. of DCS or are you dead set to create some sort of sterile, controlled environment?

I don't think that's neccessarily what people meant by it. What was mentioned is competitive PvP where there is some peer-adversary and parity on both sides making it on paper a "fair matchup". Think the same guns/loadous or whatever in COD. Like, I'm the last person to shit on PvP in DCS but there is also quite a bit of elitism and lunacy, even ignoring all the current bugs with missiles, radar chaff etc. that sort of make PvP silly at times.

Yeah agreed. I'd sure be open for SC-like features later on but right now I just want the thing finally released after like a one year delay at the very least.

Yup, that's what I have mine set to as well. Really need to get the gear lever panel next.

It's gonna have feature-parity with the current Stennis. No animated crew per se, 4 spawns afaik (unless you land a bunch of aircraft on it) and every aircraft that can land on it can technically rearm refuel.

I mean, it really comes down to mission creation. I have seen missions where someone has put serious thought in and did just that, creating an early 90's late 80's timeframe and it worked out rather well - obviously these kinds of missions usually won't be as popular with the broad masses of DCS users who want to use all the shiny toys at any given time. Let me say this, a Lot 20 C Hornet without JHMCS, 9X, AMRAAM, GPS and MSI is pretty damn close to a 90's C or A model. Yes we have the big engines but it really comes down to how specific and nit-picky you wanna get with all of this stuff. You can very easily downgrade its capabilities and combat effectiveness to the levels of a 90's jet even though it technically isn't one per se. Same can apply to the Viper as well. It also wasn't uncommon to see Tomcats in the 80's fly CAP with Sparrows only. And if you lets say wanted something along the lines of a dynamic campaign you'd also need to take economics, budget and weapons and equipment stocks into account - but that is pretty far removed from what we currently have anyway.

Well, you have to remember that the Hornet didn't come with the SC. The SC is a seperate full price module (albeit with discount). Personally I still maintain that the SC should have been free or at least had way more features to justify it being a paid module. Like, why can't we choose spawn locations? Why is the launch crew always present at every catapult and only runs away as you enter the groove? It is so very limiting for mission building without some elaborate workarounds and tricks. Let alone night ops or the light transition bug. I personally would much rather prefer the Forrestal if I can choose 4 spawn locations, have a properly calibrated FLOLS and working ACLS as well as no launch crew just always standing there no matter what. Some aspects of the SC are obviously good but most are simply unrealistic and not very good (wrong comms at times, lack of certain frequencies and the lack of any dynamic deck marshalling to the cats). Overall having a free, high fidelity Forrestal and Saratoga for everyone in DCS is an awesome thing and really fits the time period of most dcs jets quite well.

Then create your missions accordingly? You can certainly limit the types of weapons and make it pretty era specific as it is right now. Because what you get now is 90% of these claims being about "nerf this" and "buff that" often times with no base in reality. We are all reasonable (presumably) and know that we won't see anything past 2000's in terms of redfor from ED. Even the 9.12 alone was fairly common up until the early 2000's as a red adversary in various countries. So was the 27S/P in some. The problem (thus far) lies with ED wanting to always model the most modern bluefor variant they can like we see in the Hornet and Viper, former of which has some 2013+ features like the JHMCS MIDS feed etc. However this doesn't mean mission creators can't simply disable a JHMCS, dont give them 9X and 120C etc. to make it a lot more 90's. But to think soviet or even chinese technology resembled any form of parity in the 80's to 90's making it an even match is simply laughable to say the least for someone who knows the history and both cultures. The "gap" wasn't as big as what we can currently get in DCS but it was notable nontheless. I also think in roughly two years we might see some more era-specific aircraft arrive to DCS like the 23MLA, F-4 of some sort, A-7, F-8 and obviously the FF 29A. I don't think any developer in DCS has balance in mind even in the slightest when deciding to develop an aircraft - if someone is passionate about an aircraft they will try to model it to the best of their ability making it as real as the game or their skill level and available resources allow. Surely no one thinks "what would be an even or close match for X aircraft" or "doing this jet would be unfair against a Mig-21". If the more popular PvP servers or whatever just plop every aircraft in DCS into their mission with little to no restrictions it's entirely their choice.

Wouldn't really call it a major problem to be honest. I'm sure a 3rd party could easily implement such a system into their module if they wanted to. It's no different from Jester AI for that matter. We'll see if Razbam does anything in the MLA. And well, the Indians still have contractual obligations and parts support from Russia. You don't see any of their docs online for a reason and if you did you might lose said support. Part of the reason the MKI's are usually pretty guarded at Red Flag. There is and should be no balance in DCS, period. The moment you even bring that up you pretty much admit you don't want a sim but some competitive shooter or a call of duty.

The 29 didn't actually have Lazur but a different system - slightly more advanced. But I don't know how you would properly implement it in DCS without a more complex AI controlling it or some sort of commander slot. I could technically see it being AI controlled guiding you to the closest/highest threat target. And the 29K is far from the ideal striker/ground pounder without a2a tanking. Also only some 89 planes were ever built and 45 operated by India right now. The 20 russian ones are barely noteworthy. Let alone the classification issues with a K model to begin with when it comes to DCS. Personally the 9.12 (A) is probably the most widely used and best looking version with good T/W and at least a good punchers chance in BFM with the Archer.

We should get the Saratoga fairly soon after the Forrestal as well since those two are fairly similar. Independence and Ranger differ quite a bit in terms of islands and masts needing more work. We already have most of the proper squadrons by default with VF-103 and 74 for Saratoga (could even use it for the Reforger campaign) and VF-11 14A + potentially a VF-31 one as well for the Forrestal.

This is true, but with either a keybind of axis this should not be a concern.

Again, follow the manual. Take off normally, rotate by your computed takeoff speed, on liftoff and with a positive rate raise the gear and raise the flaps passing 180kts. There really isn't much to it and in the two years flying the Tomcat in DCS I have not managed to jam them on a shore takeoff, ever. My assumption is you just keep them down for too long and bust Vfe.

It's the FLAP handle full down, nothing more. The AUX FLAPS only have two positions anyway.

Again, I don't know who on earth pulled the idea out of their butt that FULL AUX FLAP takeoffs aren't a thing ashore. Ask any SME or literally reference the A/B/D NATOPS. Based on weight and conditions you can do a flaps UP, MANEUVER FLAP or FULL FLAP takeoff.

Yup, tons of QOL stuff and requests still missing (which are essential to carrier ops and not just messing about with ready rooms and the bridge) - let alone no word on the Stennis (CVN-74) which we were supposed to get either. I do think ED need to come out of the woodwork and give us an update and roadmap on when to expect these SC additions as most customers have been more than patient with it already for more than a year.

WOW, one year in and not even a simple feature request like this can be properly implemented. Hats off to ED...

It really all comes down to this.

Not true at all. It was absolutely done, especially with any noteable payload on the jet. Just one example:

You can use full flaps for takeoff no problem, just make sure to get them moving when passing 180kts. When flying the B - mil. power takeoff only.

Super excited for the Corsair! Hopefully the flight model and engine physics will surpass the warbirds we have seen thus far in DCS.