Dragon1-1

MiG-29S was produced in tiny numbers. Su-30MKI went to India. Su-30MKK went to China. MiG-29K went, again, to India. China is on the "red" team, but India isn't really (undisputed masters of fencesitting is what they are). None of those were in service in Russia until after 2010. They made better fighters for export than they had for themselves. Fox 3 came to the Viper before 2000s, so my statement is true of any post-90s Viper. Sure, MiG-29A could throw down with any heaters only Viper, but with the -29S being canceled, it couldn't keep up during the era DCS is set in. The F-14, while it was designed, first of all, for fleet defense, is very much not just a flying SAM site. For one, it is fully capable of engaging fighters in BFM, which MiG-31 can't do. Also, it can't carry a lot of bombs, while F-14 was designed for that role from the start (yes, even the A, they planned to pitch it to the USMC). MiG-31 is limited to interception, unless we consider the recent modification which can also launch the Kinzhal.

Yes, it can intercept fighters, too. That doesn't put it on par with US aircraft as far as overall capability is concerned, and it's definitely not most people who want modern red air are asking for. It's a flying SA-10 site more than an F-14 equivalent. The point is, the most advanced fighter in widespread service in Russia in the early to mid-2000s was the Su-27S. You will not find a direct counterpart to F-16C in "red" air forces until well into 2010s.

MiG-31 is a 1980s aircraft that ceased production in 1994. So no, aside from the radar it did not match US planes in technology.

The 9.41 that India got was developed from 9.31 prototypes, though. Russians restarted the program because India was buying a carrier from them, and they wanted planes to go with it. The Indian version was produced from 2005, and it was a Russian aircraft, just not used by actual Russian air force. And yes, the modern MiG-29KR is a different beast, newer than anything we have in DCS.

IMO, for parts that break not as the customer's fault, they should be eating that shipping cost. I get that they likely don't have a large volume contract like Aliexpress does, but in such case, they should simply pay for shipping themselves, out of pocket. Would be great for incentivizing getting it right the first time, too. I didn't feel like paying for replacement springs when they failed, either, fortunately it was something I managed to fix myself.

TBH, if we take "modern" as "mid-2000s", like DCS does, then Su-27S would pretty much be as close as it gets, and it's been mentioned as a "maybe". Also remember that in that time period, neither Russia nor China had anything that could match US fighters, except very limited numbers of Su-27SM. MiG-29K was made in Russia and then sold to India (sadly, they're no more open to sharing their data than Russia is). Even in 2012, only half of Russia's Su-27 fleet had been modernized. Any peer opponents for the US aircraft that we have are all very new, at least by military aircraft standards. I'll be happy if they manage to make Su-27S and Su-33 (same avionics, just with a few carrier-oriented features). While not quite as flexible as, say, a Viper or a Hornet, they're on a similar level when it comes to air combat, and they're not bad bomb trucks, either.

These look like something related to game avionics mode.

Since we do not have a proper NAS in DCS, I was thinking about scenarios like Reflected's Speed and Angels, where Nellis is turned into one. Presumably, the lens would be towed to it and a box temporarily painted on the runway. Both can be handled using DCS objects. The point is to allow DCS players to do FCLP, even on airbases where it's not usually done. Of course, ideally we'd have NAS Miramar and/or Lemoore (I have a fondness for the latter due to it being in an ancient Super Hornet sim). Yes, USAF arresting gear does shut down the runway for a while, especially since aircraft using it is typically in no shape to taxi back. It should do that in DCS, too, particularly in DC, where this would impact the strategic picture. Still better than losing an aircraft. Ground crew running around unhooking and hitching the aircraft, then stowing the gear would be icing on the cake, maybe after Supercarrier crew gets finished we'll start getting things like that.

HB is making the A-6. Tornado is being made by someone else (forgot the name), I don't know if HB is helping with that one.

Well, the lens is a mobile unit (see the wheels on the trailer?), so in theory, they could set it up for FCLP purposes just about anywhere. I agree about using the arresting gear for short field landings, but OTOH, emergencies are not exactly unknown in DCS. While the DM is still a bit too basic, you can eat a flak round and have some systems knocked out, which could require cables or even nets on the runway.

She's German (it's a German helo after all), that's their default facial expression.

And in the very next post I corrected myself, which you would have known if you bothered reading and comprehending what I said. I stated the point multiple times. To reiterate, it is that due to fixed multiplier and general lack of OC options, Ryzen X3D series is not susceptible to similar degradation to Intel. Yes, that is the point. You're fixating on a minor misuse of a single term, because that's the only thing that you did get right, while choosing to ignore the real point even after I served it to you on a platter. I have one of those CPUs myself, and yes, I did tune it. I've been doing this for a while, too, albeit on Intels, because everyone used Intels before Ryzen came along. If you think you have some mystical OC knowledge that I do not... well, you really don't. In the context of how Intel versus AMD are at risk of hardware wear, undervolting is not a relevant OC technique. That is the point, and it is so because any undervolting decreases the wear as opposed to increasing it. Please address the bolded part, instead of latching onto a minor terminology slip.

Only after you tell me how you are overvolting your CPU and getting better temps that on stock settings. So yeah, lmao. If you're trying to tell me you're cheating thermodynamics, pull the other one. Next you'll tell me it runs on cold fusion for cheap power. You're undervolting the CPU. That's the only way anything you said makes sense. You may also be increasing the boost clock manually (note that this is not something AMD says you should be able to do), which can let you squeeze it for a bit more, but it's not on the same level as what you can do with a multiplier-unlocked CPU. I don't bother with that because the increase is marginal in real applications. And I can't help but notice that all this time, you failed to address my core claim: any undervolted configuration is going to be less demanding on CPU when it comes to wear than defaults, even if boost clock is increased. It's simply not the kind of overclocking we're talking about when it comes to Intels. People most affected by the degradation crank up voltage and use it to run up the multiplier, giving a considerable increase in clock speed, at expense of power consumption and heat. Since Intel had the bright idea to do more or less that out of the box already, it's easy to reach the point at which silicon simply can't keep up for very long. X3D series Ryzens do not have this problem, as the tuning they usually get is undervolting.

You're describing undervolting, I do that, too. It helps with X3Ds' tendency to run hot. Naturally, better thermals will usually result in higher average clock speeds. Also, undervolting doesn't kill your CPU, quite the opposite, in fact, so the underlying point still stands. I admit, it's not quite a fixed clock (which hasn't really been a thing since a long time ago), but they do have a locked multiplier. Either way, the "classic" overclocking done by combining an oversized cooler with an overvolted CPU and looking how far you can take the die is not really a thing with the X3Ds.

One thing about the Cobra, rarely noted but explained by GS in one of his videos, is the effect it has on the control zone in a guns-only fight. Basically, it shifts the control zone further behind the aircraft that can perform the maneuver, because if you get too close, a Cobra can make you overshoot, so you have to hang out further back. Why does it matter? Because landing a gunshot from that zone is much more tricky. In that way, the capability to do a Cobra already protects you to some extent, even if you never actually do it. Of course, that's assuming heaters are not in play. In general, like other high AoA maneuvers, it's a great tool for turning your opponent's excessive closure into an overshoot. Tactically, it has to be weighed against other options, but if he's bearing down on you and closing for guns, the possibility of exposing yourself to his wingman later is offset by averting the near certainty of eating cannon rounds right now. It can be a replacement for guns-D in some situations, too, but you have to make it messy and gain altitude during it. This will result in great loss of forward speed combined with upwards movement that's very hard to follow, unless you misjudged the distance, in which case it just makes you a huge target. You don't really need the capability to do a full Cobra for this, a Hornet can also "stand on its tail" to pull one over an opponent who can't go as slow, but Cobra gets you there faster.

Someone could link this thread up in a comment to that FB post, if that's not done already. Of course there's interest in HB-quality F-16A.

Here you go. Considering that "Average" stands for "average for a naval aviator", I feel like a badass. Some of those were reflown, once or twice, and the night CV qual is the last trap, not the first. That said, I did fly 10 day and 6 night traps. Funnily enough, I feel like night traps were easier, either because I got in my practice when doing day qual, or because of the long run in and more opportunities to look at instruments. I have to say, the hardest part was probably not going into over-G in a dogfight. I got dinged quite a few times for pushing the plane too far. I suppose if I could feel the Gs, it wouldn't have been a problem. Of course, winning a dogfight while sticking to that limit and doing it fast enough to satisfy the instructor is another thing entirely. Either way, that was fun, now for the real deployment... and then, Zone 5.

You can, but not nearly as much as you can a CPU without 3D cache, and it's generally not recommended. So, you won't get extreme margin pushing on multiple stages like you do with Intel chips. If AMD doesn't do anything stupid, they should not undergo undue degradation.

I do, and the X3D series does run hot, but it's manageable, especially since the X3Ds also have fixed clock speeds due to the needs of their L3 cache. I'm pretty sure even the latest Ryzens aren't quite on the edge the way Intels are, and when undervolted, I'm sure my 5800X3D will last me a while. When the rig is due for an upgrade, it'll be to another X3D Ryzen variant.

I'm so glad I made the jump to AMD. It looks like my next PC, whenever that comes, will also be a Ryzen machine.

He's trying not to break the helicopter. Exceeding the limits is not good for either the airframe or the engines. Even if you don't notice immediate effects from running hot, that doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not sure if they're modeled right now, but they might be in the future, and being in the red too much might result in an increased probability of having a failure, or at least logistical problems in DC (I hope they do model maintenance).

It seems we're about to get some news, maybe tomorrow. Take a look at the roadmap thread.

This bombing mode actually predates the Viper a fair bit. I think the A-7, which had the same HUD as early Vipers, already had that, not to mention the F-14 was already equipped with similar functionality.

Again, the huge explosions we see in DCS are an engine limitation, this is the only way DCS has of showing a damage that counts as a kill. Most of the time, you know a tank is dead when it stops moving, shooting or whatever. If the crew is still alive, they'll bail, and if you're staring at it through the TGP you should see them open the hatches, climb out and run for the hills. This is, essentially, what a "mission kill" entails. A mission killed tank might not even be immobilized, but it's no good in a fight. This doesn't happen in DCS, though a heavily damaged tank might move very slowly. What should be happening is that the bomblet hits the tank, and the tank is no longer capable of performing its intended task. If mobile, it might try to drive off, or the crew might abandon it if not. The point is, the tank is no good to anyone at that point, except perhaps to try to tow it away and fix it. CBU-105's bomblets are more than capable of inducing that state. Few tanks have any sort of decent protection from the top, though Russians started putting ERA tiles up there some time ago. In DCS timeframe, however, it would absolutely butcher an armored column. That's what it's for.

It doesn't. AIM-7M is new enough that the delay had been practically eliminated. It's got digital electronics and a new seeker, which went a long way towards making it not suck.