Dragon1-1

Hardly "loads", especially when we're talking, say, the F-86D, which is long unclassified in every tiny detail.

Warthog pilots do train for air to air, though, and the systems for this are modeled in DCS. It's not an air superiority fighter, but neither is it an easy kill. It can also hunt helicopters and other slow movers, and is in fact better suited to it than the Eaglejet, for which helo hunting can be bit of a white knuckle affair. We get Sidewinders and the funnel gunsight, even including the training mode (check out the Iron Flag campaign to have some fun with it), so we should get bombs on the Eagle.

Only to a person who is so ignorant that he convinced himself that he is the one who understands economics. Dunning-Kruger is strong in that one. Honestly, it's one thing to not know about market saturation being a thing, and another thing entirely to openly deny it exists. Either that, or it's a massive cope because you happen to be on a DRIP (which, may I remind you, only cares how well your company is doing), and are imagining this applies to everyone.

Aircraft and core would be different devs from terrains. I imagine some asset devs might be busy with "Heavy Metal" stuff for modern era, and of course it's not like terrain devs don't have a lot on their plate, as well, but it's unlikely specialized graphics coders working on Vulkan would be of any use to the team making WWII Marianas. Those are completely different skill sets, and people who can do both are very rare.

Of course they did, including the concept of "market saturation" which you apparently had never heard of. Demand exceeding supply is a common situation in a dynamic market, but hardly the rule, especially in more static markets. Case in a point, do you remember buying toilet paper after the pandemic (you know, after an enormous economic anomaly had passed)? You probably don't, because shortages of common household goods are rare unless you're in some backwater like the UK. Except those "millions of people" you refer to do not get significant money from dividends. If you have a handful of NVIDIA shares from Robinson, you don't earn money when the company does, you "earn" it when the stock price goes up, which is mostly caused by an expectation of the company earning money in the future. FYI, when people talk about shareholders, they think of the handful of super-rich guys who have enough shares to sit on the company board and collect significant dividends from them. They are the ones this economy works for, not you. It seems I'm not the one who needs to educate myself on how economy works. Go and try it, you'll be less ignorant, likely more upset, but realizing you're being screwed without lube typically does that.

Demand is very much not infinite, just in this case, it's just higher than supply in this particular case, and part of that is NVIDIA creating an artificial scarcity situation. They could easily make more chips, but without valid competition, they have no incentive to do so. Instead, they trickle them onto the market, so that they can advertise a low MSRP while in practice, the prices are vastly higher. You know where you can stick your "trickle down economics". The only ones who benefit from a company padding the margin on their product are the shareholders. Most people benefit from healthy competition that forces companies to keep prices down and quality high. This is not the situation we're currently in, AMD is getting better, but it still lags behind in some areas. Not "every market", this is pretty much restricted to tech and software. Most products do not work like that. A bag of chips or a lawn chair will set you back more or less the same amount no matter if it was introduced this year or five years ago. Tech markets are a pathological case for many reasons, including this one.

You mean crypto miners and scalpers? I don't care who they are targeting, I care about how things look from a gaming standpoint. The GPUs will be sold out on launch because of insufficient supply at that point in time, not because the prices are not outrageous. Once enough of them trickles into the market to clear the waiting lists, the prices should stabilize. It's a cynical ploy to squeeze as much dough from the market as possible, and I hope AMD can finally provide some viable competition at the top end, because they wouldn't be getting away with it if they didn't pretty much own that part of the GPU market.

Well, he had to start his business career somewhere. Perhaps it was sales.

There you go, a US Eaglejet with bombs strapped on. Even if it's just for show. If nothing else, it proves that it fits. Also shows how good the Eagle's air to ground systems are - those guys never trained for air to ground, and yet were able to do a reasonably good job at it. Not really, you can have AG radar without actually being able to select bombs in the loadout tab. I suspect that's all this "no air to ground" is supposed to amount to. Radar would be modeled, but you wouldn't have an option to pick bombs, and bombing modes such as CCIP wouldn't be modeled. I do hope they change their mind on this, especially after actually working on the radar and finding out how much it can do for air to ground.

What is getting worse is affordability, and this is not an opinion, but rather a hard economic fact. Things are getting more expensive all over, particularly necessities like housing, heating and power, and many peoples' wages are not quite keeping up. That is documented well enough. So even if GPU prices, when adjusted for inflation, were perfectly steady or even improving, per unit of performance, people just have proportionally less money to spend on those things. In effect, the performance of cards that they can afford is getting worse. The sales pitch may make some people feel better about dropping down a tier, but the way I see it, they're essentially being tricked into paying to downgrade their PC. Yeah, that'd serve them right. Could also make their GPUs affordable again in this economy...

It'll be something between FF and FC3, I guess. A sort of "mid-fidelity" aircraft, with systems guesstimated from known information, and FM done with CFD software. After all, we do have quite a bit of aerodynamic modeling tools and the modern aircraft insulate the pilot from most complex behavior at the edges of the envelope with their complex (and all-powerful, no "Top Gun switch" in the F-35 AFAIK) FBW limiters. It might also open the door to the F-22, which would actually be appropriate to DCS timeline. It's just about as classified, but it's older, and maybe there's some docs out there. Also, depending on development constraints, I hope the module will be expanded to include B and C. VTOL is cool (and our only VTOL jet so far was made by a company that's currently in hot water), and the C can do carrier traps.

Well, it'll be easy to build a cockpit for, at any rate. Especially for VR. Just stick a giant pane of acrylic onto the console, add the ten or so switches and buttons on the side consoles, the gear handle, and there you go. That said, it would be nice if there was actually a way to somehow bind an IRL touchscreen to the one in the F-35. It'll be the first touchscreen aircraft in DCS.

The US Eaglejet also has the wiring in question, and all the software needed to use those bombs. The only thing preventing US Eagles from dropping bombs is pen pushers at the Pentagon not giving them any. We in DCS should be fully able to ignore the pen pushers and do so anyway. Remember the F-16 quad HARMs debacle. A typical US SEAD combat mission would not carry that many (with US Vipers you'd hardly see anything but bags on those inboards), but in some squadrons the pylons were wired for them. In this case, no US squadron uses the wiring in question, but that doesn't mean the wiring doesn't exist. I'll let people better versed in the jet to throw manual pages around, but someone from ED mentioned that it's more capable in air to ground than Su-27.

While our Eaglejet is USAF, we could want it to stand in for any number of foreign operators, including Israelis, who definitely did use it in that capacity. Again, if it is in the manual, it should be in DCS. Eaglejets were and still are wired for it, mostly because getting rid of that wiring would be a huge bother for no gain.

We have two maps that feature Israel. Even if it's not the Israeli version, we should still be able to fly the missions that they did, too. Also, I'm of the opinion that if it's in the manual, it should be put in, no matter what the doctrine says. I think air to ground is in the Eaglejet manual. Yeah, from RAZBAM. There's a little problem with that right now. The ED module, for instance, is quite more likely to be actually completed.

I just hope they reconsider air to ground capabilities (other than strafing with the gun, that is). APG-63 had good air to ground modes, and the F-15 was cleared to carry bombs, though it hardly ever did in US service.

I don't know if you're aware, but Lambo makes SUVs now, too (the Urus)... The Eaglejet actually had some pretty nice air to ground features for its time, it's just USAF specifically didn't use them very much. Israelis did, though. It should at least be able to carry some dumb bombs.

Well, there's that very prominent shot of one in the 2025 and beyond video... The Stinkbug is a bit of a one trick pony, but it's all right for 3rd party. I have relatively little interest in the flying iPad, but if a good enough campaign comes out for it, I'll probably buy it. Of course, I have to finish the ones I already have first. I'm more interested in the Eaglejet.

Or at the very least, actually read the description of what's being sold. In countries with functional customer protection, at least, if the seller ships something different than what he said he's selling, you can get your money back, especially when going through a platform of some sort. However, if you buy something that's openly stated to be a picture, spare cooler or whatever, you've got no one to blame but yourself. Turns out that reading, especially when paired with comprehension, is a useful skill to have. It's perfectly possible to get a good deal with some random gamer who is simply upgrading to the 50 series, but it requires some due diligence. I wouldn't mind if it was only scalper bots getting caught on this sort of thing, but the picture scam, at least, has a long history, maybe as long as online auction services. I remember that story being told about cars at one point long ago. It seems that every time there's something expensive that's in high demand, that sort of people come out of the woodwork.

This is the Harrier, and I don't think they had any problems tanking from Hercs IRL. It's just that its probe is located unusually far back, and DCS doesn't adjust for that. The calls are correct-ish for the Hornet, but the Harrier is in a very different position while tanking.

Just to make sure, the hats are short throw, like on almost any other stick, not Winwing-style long throw? They look like the standard 4/5-direction tact switch setup.

OSes are perpetually "in development", they actually charge full price for Windows, and yet release major updates, sometimes removing functionality (something few games in EA would have gotten away with). If OSes were released like games are, you'd never see something like scrubbing WMR from Windows, or any of the plethora of useless "features" they keep adding. Quite frankly, it'd have been better that way. The others are only constrained by the difficulty of making major updates to physical pieces of hardware. The "move fast and break things" philosophy from the software world is already increasingly being applied there, with similar results - a quickly thrown together base that is then developed around, resulting in fundamentally flawed designs. EA would have been a logical next step, if that pesky physical reality didn't intrude.

New textures would be nice, as would be correcting some cockpit geometry. The damage model will eventually be replaced entirely, they have the new DM working for WWII aircraft, and it will, at some point, come to modern jets.

It was present, though. As long as it's not actually classified, it should be eventually added, IMO. I'm fine with "low priority", but "not planned" implies the plan assumes leaving out some features of the real thing for no other reason than them being little used. One thing I like about the A-10 is how complete that module is. It has a lot of pages which IRL are hardly touched in flight, but are nonetheless nice to have in the one situation in which you'd want to mess with them.

Looks like we'll get some news about it in the 2025 and beyond video, on Jan 16th.