Dragon1-1

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.

That's exactly why I'm asking. Frame-gen is a cheap way to inflate FPS numbers, but in VR, it'd just add too much latency, and even in 2D it doesn't always work well. Rasterization performance is where it's at. Honestly, given the size of that cooler, the sheer amount of copper and aluminum in there probably accounts for a chunk of that price. My 3090 already comes with a stand, and it doesn't look like weight and bulk had gotten any better. Speaking of which, had anyone actually tried running two 3090s using NVLink? It's be an absolutely massive power hog and good luck finding a case for it, but given that 3090s are relatively easy to get by at this point, and they do retain the connector, could that be the way to upgrade from an existing 3090-based rig without spending a ton? Then again, I do recall that tech being problematic in practice, not sure if DCS would benefit.

Are both of those numbers with or without framegen? Because if half of that 70% is fake frames, it'd look a lot less impressive. For what it's worth, DCS doesn't even support frame generation.

How exactly will that help, when the reason for not updating is that ST version has been removed? It'd just waste space on a nonfunctional install. Reading the OP before responding tends to be a good idea.

Let's just wait for the Chinese to make an AI that'll run on a potato laptop card, or on an AMD GPU. Hopefully that'll alleviate some demand. Honestly, I'm sticking to my 3090 for the foreseeable future. Might update the 5800X3D one day, but since sockets seem to change every two generations, I'm currently waiting for the next new one.

The "second one" was just the first Ka-50 ported to DCS World, in case you don't remember (or weren't around that long), the original Black Shark module could not fly alongside the A-10C in MP, which was the first module built on what would become DCS World. The "third" Ka-50 is just ED deciding to give a new coat of paint to their old product, with a bunch of even more speculative features, and a realistic INS. The latter part, I suspect, they left off initially because they thought people won't want to wait for alignment, early DCS was still not fully committed to being the hardcore sim we know it as now (see existence of "game" avionics and FM, for instance). And yeah, the movie was quite well known, so I'd say Kamov's marketing strategy was a success, and I'd love to see Sukhoi to consider that maybe, they could earn themselves some publicity that way, too. Still, if we were looking for a helo that was actually used for something, we'd want a Ka-52. We only got the Ka-50 because of Kamov's marketing ploy. Or maybe, you assume too much. TBH, you can call it secrecy, you can call it something else, the excuse the bureaucratic drone gives you for the reason he refuses to put a stamp on the paper (or fifteen) you need stamped to claim your module is legal to make, it doesn't really matter. What matters is, no paper, no module, and if you try anyway, you'll get in some sort of trouble, all because some other piece of paper says that you need a paper. For all we know, the real reason could be the drone in question being too lazy to swing the stamp. And if you haven't ever run into a bureaucratic wall, particularly in Russia, you're either extremely lucky or extremely unimportant. No, I'm not fond of ossified bureaucracies staffed by old codgers. You also need a "paper" (usually digital these days, at least) to make a Western aircraft, BTW. Only, US companies seem to be somewhat less set against free advertising. Dassault being a notable exception, infamously using IP laws to come down on a Rafale mod for another sim. Well, it'll soon be ran by China, which, while pretty ruthless, is at least sane-ish... You also have Europe, which is a pretty nice gig, as long as you avoid that loony bin island just off the coast (remember to visit as a tourist before they sink it into the Atlantic).

This was a special case, ED worked closely with Kamov on that one, and in fact, I think it was the Kamov people who came to them with the proposal, not the other way around. Consider that they made the Ka-50, of all things, a largely experimental, little used helo (less than 20 airframes produced). It's far from typical ED fare, do you think they'd have considered working on this one otherwise? It wouldn't even be the first time Kamov did something like this, BTW. The name "Black Shark", actually comes from a movie title in which the Ka-50 starred practically as its own character. I think someone at the company was trying to come up with novel ideas to sell helicopters. Unfortunately, it's now clear that you never set foot in a post-Soviet country, nor talked to anyone who'd been living there. If you consider my knowledge (and my family's life experience) "questionable beliefs", I have no choice but to consider you an ignoramus.

High value, not high price. Meaning, the F-15C and Su-27 are what sells the FC3 pack, those are the aircraft people buy the whole thing for. Basically, FC3 can be said to be "buy F-15C and Su-27 in a bundle, get MiG-29, Su-25 and A-10A free" kind of deal.

Yeah, but for them to care that much, you have to tick them off in a very public way (like exposing their corruption or opposing the government politically), so that Putin himself takes notice. And besides, the West is now wise to Russia's tricks, so they're increasingly less likely to be successful in that. Yeah, because Russia is known to be so much more lenient with its security-related laws than the US is. After all, one is a nest of rampant poverty and violence ran by a corrupt strongman with his oligarch cronies, and the other is, well, Russia. Also, the only reason he was released was that they knew he wasn't trying to get anything considered seriously sensitive, like F-22 or F-35 docs, or classified parts of the documentation. For what it's worth, he was interested in collecting physical manuals, which is why scanning wasn't an option (everything he tried to get is on the internet already). The reason nobody was arrested for that specific thing in Russia is that it's well known that unlike the US, they're not particularly interested in giving people a fair trial, and hence it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to anything they might possibly consider sensitive information.

I did, way back when this forum was better organized and didn't yet succumb to the Invision disease. Sadly, the FC3 has been out of active dev for even longer, so my request went unheeded. We need air to ground in the Eaglejet because in the real thing, it's there and it works.

The difference is, of course, that the French don't really need to buy any more Rafales. Both of those fighters are way too expensive to buy very many of. The point is to make use of existing arsenal, that is, 4th and 4th+ gen fighters, and enhance their capabilities by throwing a few 5th gens into the mix. The Rafale might not be quite as capable as the F-35, but it can hold its own, especially with sensor capabilities of the F-35 being able to be shared with other fighters via datalink. It can carry the same or better missiles (Meteor) and shoot them at datalinked contacts. Carriers could probably use an all F-35 wing because they're quite limited in number of aircraft that can be up at a time, but for land bases, mixing in stealth with older fighters is going to remain an economical solution for quite a while.

RAZBAM has cited "so-called secrecy" for the reason why they made the AV-8B and not the British version, too. A lot of old UK stuff is, in fact, still classified. As for the French equipment, it's not secrecy as such, as Dassault being particularly aggressive protecting its IP. Look up the drama around the Rafale mod for a civilian sim (this was a while ago) if you don't believe me. Mind you, that was a small time mod without anything combat-related. While Dassault can't get anyone thrown in jail, it can serve them a C&D and prevent them from selling your product in both US and EU. ED in general focuses mostly on modern aircraft. This would mean that besides another Mirage, the Rafale would probably be the best, but Dassault would be a problem with that. I suspect the fact they speak Russian and English, not French, contributes. The only British thing ED would be remotely interested in would be the Harrier, and that's already here. No, but there was plenty of people arrested for "espionage", for equally flimsy reasons. Being connected to what is essentially a Western company doesn't help. How about you come to Russia to test that "stereotypical beliefs" for yourself? Or at least do some research on who got thrown into jail in Russia lately. You do not want to step over the line with those people. In fact, in case your memory is that short, an ED dev was arrested on exactly this charge by the US. In fact, abducted from Georgia for that. Long story short, should that happen in Russia, getting cleared of the charges would not have been as easy (read: the only hope would be to try to outlive Putin and count on the successor subscribing to "an enemy of the last regime is my friend" line of thinking). Highly unlikely. The F-35 was probably the most requested aircraft to add to DCS. Chances of a similar exception for something less popular are slim.

More that they're too obscure for ED to take a stab at them. That said, Dassault is said to be notoriously difficult to work with (though RAZBAM apparently figured things out with them), and as for the Brits, they keep a lot of things classified, even stuff like the old Harrier radar. The only dev working on their stuff was... RAZBAM again. But hey, the Eurofighter is coming. Yeah, and Russian authorities don't need to prove that you actually used any sensitive docs if they think you did. Besides, the F-35 is likely to be a one time exception. My point exactly. Su-30SM was not a thing before 2011, and the Su-30MKI, nice as it was, was sold to India. Russia's export customers got better gear than their own air force during mid-2000s, and the country was in a lamentable state. Lest we forget, they elected Putin for a reason, that reason being named Boris "buy me a drink" Yeltsin. It took them over a decade to shake off that hangover.

LGBs would actually be fine, I suspect, but you'd have to drop on a JTAC's laser or have a buddy in another jet, like in the F-5. LGBs are just like dumb bombs, only with guidance. We definitely need air to ground loadouts for our F-15C. Even if USAF didn't use them, they had the wiring and all the switches, so a properly simulated USAF F-15C would actually have them.

Anyone who doesn't live in Russia is free to make a Russian jet without much fuss, as long as they have the docs to do it. Unfortunately, plenty of ED employees do, in fact, live in Russia. Russian laws only matter if they can get their hands on you. That said, docs for mid-2000s Russian jets are lacking, and either way, the only worthwhile jet they operated in that time period was Su-27SM2. All the good stuff went for export, mid-2000s were not a good time for Russia, and they were, for most part, stuck with Soviet era hardware. They began to get new tech in 2010s, but docs for that are fairly well guarded. In military operations during mid-2000s involving Russia, you'd most likely see 80s era hardware with minor updates, and maybe a small handful of newer stuff. In Georgia, for example, it was mostly Soviet gear against Soviet gear (causing quite a few friendly fire incidents on the Russian side).