Dragon1-1

It's not, complaining about it is nonsense, but you want your fighters to be OP IRL. That means you'll get to dominate the battlespace with them. DCS can definitely be competitive, just like things such as Exercise Gunsmoke can be. In any case, it will be very difficult to design a mission where the F-35 will face any sort of challenge, seeing as it'll be essentially invisible to all mid-2000s and earlier sensors. Sure, missions that are a walk in the park can be fun, and you can try to make fuel management challenging, or go with an escort mission, but the fact remains we can expect the F-35 to have very little trouble overcoming any opposition up to and including the SA-10 and the Eurofighter. It's simply a jet from a different era, just like one doesn't normally expect a MiG-15 to shoot down F-16s unsupported (yes, you can shoot down anything if you bushwhack it, but you need to find it first).

I don't think we're getting a fully fledged 3F, though. We'll probably have a frankenjet that is mostly a 2B with some 3F features.

I've had no problems with customs (other than being slapped with a tax I didn't expect), but I guess this varies by country. Yeah, Winwing sends everything in separate boxes, it makes sense, but I guess it's a bother if you have limits on how many boxes can be in the package. That said, this situation with customs is ridiculous. For how much they charge for shipping, UPS should do better than "oops, tried once, didn't go through, let's haul it all the way back to China". In general, ordering from China these days will be difficult in many countries, and if you're in the US... try to get a ticket out while you still can, I guess.

Yeah, and that's why you generally don't see MiG-15s and F-86s flying around where Fox 3 platforms are around. The only thing they could do in such an environment is act as bombers against undefended targets. A realistic F-35 will be to the MiG-29 what the MiG is to the F-86. I know, but this doesn't stop the F-35 from being OP. It is so IRL, but since we have no other 5th gen fighter, we end up with a plane that can basically eat everything in the unit list for breakfast. The only uses I see is either an F-35 on F-35 scenario, or an SP campaign tailored to provide some sort of challenge.

A US pilot in the '58 wouldn't see the cockpit of his brand new jet all scratched up, though. Aerges had hinted we aren't just getting the G.

No need to make the F-35 more OP, I think. It'll be bad enough trying to fight it without radar.

Actually, at one point I did, but I don't remember what it said, just that they weren't particularly open to releasing anything from the supplement. It was a while ago, at any rate, Iran's Tomcats were still flying then. I don't remember where, but I do recall the SAR mode being, at one point, singled out as a feature of AWG-71 that complicates its declassification.

Really looking forward to the Iowa. Would that be possible to include that particular ship in the core assets? It might not be fully correct for modern era, but it is the same ship that would later escort tankers during the Tanker War. Of course, ideally we'd get a modern Iowa based on the WWII model later on. There are problems in life that can't be solved by liberal application of 16" shells, but it's a short list.

Note that drones, if enough of them are used, could allow the F-35's stealth to be nullified. The radar energy that hits it doesn't disappear (except what is absorbed by the RAM coating), it just gets bounced in another direction. If you put radar receivers on drones spread around the airspace, you may catch a radar wave that's been reflected off the F-35. Since the drones would be datalinked anyway for control, using them as distributed radar receivers is a logical evolution. Combined with a missile that would use a visible light/near-IR camera combined with some sort of AI image recognition algorithm (possibly located on the launch platform), this could be a very effective way of handling stealth fighters.

If it's bluewater ops in otherwise unfriendly territory, then yes, you're boned. You would be IRL, too. You'd probably eject close to the boat and have a helo pick you up. This looks like a near-worst case scenario in carrier ops (worst case would be the boat actually getting sunk).

That's exactly what happened. It's as stupid as it sounds, and multiple people admitted that, but that's US government policy for you. A lot of F-14 material, including spare parts and potential museum exhibits, was destroyed rather than risk them possibly ending up in Iran. This particularly applies to anything related to F-14D. The lengths the US government went to prevent anything F-14 related from getting anywhere near Iran are downright comical. For instance, they removed the PTID and radar scope from an F-14 exhibit because they were "sensitive material" (despite the fact if Iran wanted a better display, they could've bought one on Aliexpress at that point). Some of that could be people in the government being butthurt about the USN's most iconic jet being flown by its sworn enemies, ones who hate the US largely because of CIA's meddling, to boot. Thankfully, this is a unique situation, other US foreign policy failures didn't end up with their enemies getting their hands on their most advanced combat jet. Breaking news: government policy is inconsistent, nonsensical and/or just plain stupid. Film at 11. I think the issue might actually by the SAR mode. Two F-14Ds can combine their radars to form a single, enormous antenna, and the range on that is huge. The whole point is to deny everyone (not just HB) the ability to guesstimate real capabilities of the AWG-71. Also note, the real problem is that this information will be in technical docs for the radar, which is also where you'd find all the other juicy details. Sure, the government could redact the docs and only give HB parts that are not sensitive... or they could just blanket-deny the whole thing. Guess what is easier to do for pen pushers at the DOD?

Luckily, HB is not ED, they had always had higher fidelity standards than ED did. We may not get the AWG-71, but we know that what we do get is premium quality. For what it's worth, the argument about Iranians is what the US government says to, or used to say to, anyone asking questions about the Tomcat. That said, AFAIK even the Iranians aren't flying the Tomcat anymore, so I don't know how it is now, but the Pentagon bureaucracy isn't exactly known for its responsiveness (though it might be worth shooting them some FOIA requests, just to see what they'll now say). That said, I think we've got another way around all the secrecy problems. Just get Musk hooked on DCS and soon we'll be swimming in formerly classified aircraft documentation. Either that, or he gets shot trying to muscle in on some secret squirrels. I can see no downside to this solution.

Easier than a real gun, at any rate. Honestly, if even pepper spray is banned (it's not in my country, at least), your best bet is probably to take up crossbow shooting for sport, and get a legitimate license for one. As lethal as a gun in the right hands (in fact, against body armor often more so), reasonably quiet (and most people can't recognize the sound of a crossbow shot, anyway), and you can reuse the quarrels. If nobody saw the guy come in, nobody will ask questions when they don't see him leave. Of course, that only works if people you're living with share your view of the matter. That said, what's currently happening in Scandinavia is very much atypical. In the UK, for instance, criminals rarely have guns, same with most of the EU. It's always best to hide, call the cops and not resist against an armed criminal. However, if that's not an option, it's best to strike first and kill him quickly. In this situation, being alive to deal with the paperwork counts as a victory. Also, the "survivability onion" we all know from military theory can be applied to home security as well. If the thieves think that you either have nothing to steal, or that your home will be too much effort to break into compared to others nearby, they'll leave you alone. Most street criminals are lazy and none too bright, and so can be deterred by a garden variety reinforced door with a decent lock, and some shatter-proof windows if you live on the ground floor. Those that do have a functioning brain and the equipment to defeat those tend to target businesses, not private homes, because the former tend to have way more things worth stealing. The really smart criminals usually just get into politics these days, and shooting at those tends to be frowned upon, however much they might deserve it.

I don't think that it means that HB can't make a 3D model and configs for the older weapons, just that the ED will control the code after that. Several modules have otherwise unique weapons, I don't think ED is making them, just maintaining them.

I know, but my point was that as long as ED gets the button pushing part right, campaign creators will give us the rest. Seriously, give campaigns a try. You might have plenty of experience flying real SIDs, STARs and working with real ATC, but how many times do you get to fly a legendary carrier fighter in a realistic military exercise? Speed and Angels is the RAG training, and then Zone 5 is essentially a TOPGUN course, both quite compressed (although in practice, you'll spend quite a bit of time practicing to pass each scenario), and only held back by some DCS AI quirks. In both cases, the guys voicing the instructors are played by people who were instructors IRL, and they know a thing or two about how things worked back then. While I guess you could do the same with the F-35, I'm afraid it'll simply leave all potential opponents in the dust. In the F-14, you have to work for your kills, and even winning a fight against AI feels good. The Phoenix is not an AMRAAM, but it's got some tricks up its sleeve, so you can beat more modern jets if your BVR game is good. The F-35 will just blow things out of the sky with little opportunity for them to fight back. I'm sure campaign creators will find some way to challenge the players, but it's a flying iPad, not the jet from Top Gun.

This is where tear gas guns can be useful. In countries with gun control, the invader is unlikely to be armed with a real one, and most people crap their hands when you point something that looks like one at them. And if they don't, you still have a reasonably effective, area of effect (important in high stress situations) weapon the use of which can be difficult to prove once it wears off. If the invader is armed, it's not too great, but still better than nothing (or even than an otherwise powerful weapon that you can't use effectively), and you're much more likely to survive against a blind gunman than against one who can see. Even in the restrictive jurisdictions, an attacker obviously armed with a deadly weapon would have a hard time winning the case.

If it's not a bug, it's inconsistent with the other switches and that's not a good thing. For evidence, jump into the Viper and try flipping that switch. You will get it wrong the first time.

The answer is far simpler than that. The Meteor is designed to be suspended from the top. The hardpoints are on the edges of the fuselage, not directly below it. If the missile wasn't tilted, the connection points wouldn't fit inside the fuselage. Now, why the hardpoints are there and not directly under the fuselage, it's probably a combination of aerodynamics, clearance (especially with the drop tank) and internal layout that makes this place the most suitable for them.

But you can do this. You can have ground radar talk to you in SP, you can have ATC, and you can use real charts and procedures appropriate for a given country in a given era. Again, try one of Reflected campaigns. He gives you range rules, departure procedures, realistic comms, what have you. DCS allows you to ignore this, indeed, it takes a lot of effort to set up a mission like this, but all the tools for this are available. ED provides the physics and the graphics, as well as some terrains and aircraft. They also provide ME, which allows you to set up the rest. ATC is scripted in Reflected's missions, but it only breaks if you fool around instead of following the instructions. FYI, there was a time when fighters were taken for what could only be described as joyrides. It was mostly WWII era shenanigans and it ended soon after, much to the pilots' displeasure. There's also a matter of unusual tactical circumstances. If your airbase is being bombed, you're not going to be looking at SIDs charts when you're taking off to stop this from happening. Indeed, if your aircraft is capable of that, you may be taking off from a taxiway, or even a road leading to the base (or, in case of the Harrier, vertially). DCS allows you to simulate all sorts of rare situations, and you can do what any real military pilot would in this case: chuck the book back into the locker, and adapt to the situation. The strength of DCS is that it allows you to set up such missions, as well as by the book operations.

The thing is, you might notice there are not very many instances where combat aircraft are being flown and employed, particularly across the full spectrum of their missions. This is a good thing, just about any realistic scenarios where combat aircraft get to do combat, is something we'd rather not see happen IRL. Besides, for multiple reasons, you can't just load up an ongoing war and fly a mission in it (you could do it with past wars, if we had the assets). A "high fidelity airspace" for a Boeing 737 is something that happens on a daily basis. For an F-16, depending on what your unit is doing, you may not even fly every day. So we need fantasy scenarios to properly explore just what those planes can do. An F-14 defending the fleet from a large scale airstrike is fun to fly, but you'd probably rather not see it play out IRL, seeing as this is the kind of thing that would precede a nuclear exchange. Of course, there's also the fact the F-14 isn't even flying anymore. Also worth noting, unlike civilian flights, pretty much every military flight worth simulating is different. There are many people on levels of planning involved, and the specific are, more often than not, completely unique. As such, any specific scenario being "fantasy" is not really a problem, because unless you use DCS to recreate a historical scenario exactly, you can simulate any of the possible missions in a given theater for a given set of aircraft and ground forces. Dynamic campaign will help with that part, too. Ground radar is poorly implemented in DCS, but we have AWACS, which had replaced ground based radar stations in many instances ever since it became a thing. IADS in general is something that does need improvement in DCS, you can currently simulate it, but it takes an awful lot of effort and scripting, which breaks on every other update for some strange reason. This is purely a technical issue, though. There's even a dedicated IADS script, but I haven't tried it. We have several realistic Red Flag campaigns aiming to recreate how those exercises run, and Reflected's campaigns pay a lot of attention to realism. They're both realistic and fun, and they actually teach you to be a better pilot. DCS is, ultimately a platform, for a realistic experience you need to (painstakingly) add all the logic and events that apply outside of just flying. Military procedures for specific airport and aircraft, or even specific exercises such as Red Flag, are typically not classified information, and though they can be hard to get. If you want to, say, fly a departure and arrival out of and back to Nellis AFB the same way Phantom jocks did them back in Vietnam era, you can (now we only need a Vietnam map...). Even procedures for standardized training sorties are available if you look for them. In fact, learning the real procedures is usually a good idea. There are improvements incoming, such as dynamic campaign, AI improvements and so on. Yes, DCS could do more, including tools to create a more realistic combat environment without having to resort to complex, brittle scripting. However, by properly using what is already in DCS, you can make stuff like Speed and Angels, for instance.

Symlinks are definitely a solution. Another is to upgrade your dedicated drive. 2TB will serve you well unless you're trying to run multiple installs, 4TB should set you up for the foreseeable future. My install is still under 1TB, though I don't have all the maps. When I do bust the 1TB barrier, I'll probably start looking into an upgrade.

Honestly, if loadout option is all it is, you can restrict it easily enough. I wouldn't bother unless there are more differences than that.

What basic stuff would that be? Sure, ATC is primitive (it follows a basic rendition of the Russian military procedure), but most people who flew those aircraft IRL are saying the avionics are pretty accurate. It's of course less than Level A, seeing as a three axis motion platform is already part of that requirement. For what it's worth, some people do fly with one, and the craziest rigs I've seen exceed Level D specs (I'm pretty sure at least one person made one that can fully invert). Making a physical cockpit replica is quite involved, but it's been done, we have a whole subforum for this. ED does have to accommodate rigs that are just a stick and a throttle on a desk, but if you build your physical controls to match the real aircraft (again, been done), you can get the right feel. While there are requirements for visuals, older pro-level flight sims can't hold a candle to DCS in that department. FYI, DCS does model ground effect, mach effects and some (not all) icing, which Level C excludes. Dynamics wise, public documentation like E-M charts is matched as closely as possible, because if they don't, people will look at the charts and complain that their favorite jet is getting shafted in MP dogfights. Sound is a bit of a weak point for DCS, especially 3rd parties, definitely not Level D frequency matched sounds (wish they gave this part more attention). Worth noting, the "meat and potatoes" of DCS is none of that, it's the combat systems, and this is the part that's most challenging to simulate. Documentation is required to make the switchology correct, particularly for MFD-heavy aircraft. For the F-35, it's possible ED already has that. It's also required to make the jet fly like its real counterpart. Unlike with earlier modules, ED does not have that data, because the F-35's actual performance is fairly closely guarded. This is what they're trying to divine with CFD and available public data.

I don't think so. Notice how significant graphical improvements have slowed down significantly as of late. So either ED fired their graphics team, or they're working on something big. Given that this "something big" seems to be holding up a significant batch of fixes and improvements, we might finally be closing on DCS 3.0. I know it's been talked about since forever, but it seems to be getting done. A few details of the implementation have been discussed. Interesting, I guess 2.7 came around after the time when those techs were at their peak. Pity that there isn't a way to combine two GPUs into one "virtual GPU", but I guess it's a more difficult problem than just alternating what one or the other rendered. Although, for VR specifically, why not render one eye with one GPU, and the other with another? They likely wouldn't even need the NVLink interface that way. This seems like something that Vulkan could, in principle, be capable of. Of course, actually coding that would probably be hard, but IMO, the idea of using two cheap cards instead of one massively expensive one is worth exploring. Plus, you'd get more VRAM than even a 5090 has (though split between GPUs).

I know, but wasn't there a way of forcing that in the driver, particularly for Vulkan? Or does it have to be specifically implemented? I know DCS isn't using Vulkan, but it's being worked on, and it's far more parallelized than DX11.