Dragon1-1

They likely will. Do not expect Afghanistan to be light on computer resources. Unless they have some spiffy new way to optimize it, expect it to be heavy even as it is. It really doesn't need to get any bigger for a marginal benefit. Performance doesn't care about flight time, BTW. Performance cares about number of pixels per meter. At the pixel density that this map uses, that'd be a lot of pixels. On a map that's already going to be pushing it. Do the friggin' maths already, it adds up, all right. Stop thinking in real world terms and start thinking in computer graphics terms, because the latter is what determines performance.

Maybe, but a real fix would be to correct the AI. I think that, especially in light of ground unit spotting and accuracy being looked at, this is where the effort should be focused. AI should be able to get jumped from a blindspot, lose tally, and maneuver to regain it in a realistic way (and extend if it can't do it for a while). LOS and scanning simulation is already in for George and Jester, this should be extended to aircraft AI. That said, I haven't experienced this mattering much in a real dogfight. If both you and the bandit do your jobs, then the game comes down to kinematics. The opponent will generally be close enough to see without much difficulty. The period when it transitions from the dot to the model tends to, at least with my LOD settings, to happen outside the typical WVR range. It's plenty visible when you get to the point you can start thinking about shooting a heater.

Yes it is. That's the point. Read my post again. The "beside the point" part referred to map objects that, in a detailed area, would have to populate it. However, we're not talking objects, we're talking extending the map area itself. Even a perfectly flat plane going to the coast line would possibly have a big performance impact. In fact, it would have the same impact as if this area was fully detailed, but missing objects such as buildings and trees. That's how textures work (DDS ones, at least, which is what matters), the memory footprint only cares for how big a texture is, not what's on it.

TBH, the black dot shows up at a point when you probably shouldn't be able to see the aircraft in first place. Spotting is hard. In fact, it was a quite well known effect with the F-5, when it'd turn to pure pursuit, thus stopping its motion across the sky and presenting you with its razor-thin frontal profile. Many a pilot lost tally at that point, they said the F-5 "hit the disappear switch". In DCS it's not perfect, but I wonder if people aren't expecting too much.

Except that isn't true. PG is not a large map, relatively speaking, and the flat areas are ugly, but they could have been more detailed, without much performance loss, had the map not been declared completed. What I said remains true, the map is simply not exhausting its potential under the old system, and the only thing the "blank" areas on the texture save is developer effort. It's quite possible the highly detailed Dubai is bumping into some other limits regarding map objects, too, but that's beside the point.

I'm running a Reverb G2 at the native resolution, and for some reason have huge black dots that make spotting trivial at way beyond visual range. They turn into white spots at a certain distance, which is better (admittedly, that was a very shiny MiG-15, so maybe that was supposed to be a sun glint), but still meh. I can see a bogey from 30km away, even if I don't know it's there. Same with vehicles. So I don't know what's the problem with spotting, perhaps it's something in my settings, but I really hate the black dots.

Yes, which is why it's not really a problem, but people should not be expecting miracles, or the performance of a much more advanced radar from our F-16 (or the Hornet, for that matter), which compensates for the small antenna by having fancy electronics. Neither Viper nor Hornet were particularly renowned for their radars at the time of introduction, so to speak. MiG-29 wasn't, either. At the same time, they shouldn't be expecting a primitive piece of crap. This is still a modern PD radar, not unlike on Mirage 2000, just not as new as some other sets we have.

In DCS module terms that's not long ago.

Compared to the F-15 and F-14, which were the benchmarks of fighter radar tech at the time.

Hardly, the Apache was not so long ago, and it had a working preorder on Steam. I bought it there. The Viper debacle was back when I was still flying the other sim.

I got it literally on the last day it was on sale (having been out at sea for most of it), I think it was corrected by then. Besides, it's the principle of the thing. They made every effort to make it right for Steam users, to avoid them feeling like second class customers. I respect that. What I don't respect is devs going "no preorder for you, lol, go pay dollars in our shop if you want it", like ED is doing now. HB's way of handling the issue was right, even if someone had fat fingers in the end. ED's is wrong.

It did, for a week long period when it first went on Steam, the Phantom was discounted to a lower value than on the e-shop. That's what I'm asking for. This was a sort of "introductory offer" specific to Steam, done because preorders were not possible. I got it at -30%, just like promised. If this is not done, I'll wait until a campaign on that terrain that I want is released and discounted. Campaigns take a while to make (not to mention to complete, I have a massive backlog of Reflected's portfolio alone), so that's not going to bother me very much, as an SP flyer.

In VR, there's nothing more natural than an offset Revi. That's how a collimating sight works, you see it with only one eye. In 2D, it feels less natural, unfortunately.

It's not the same radar as in MiG-23ML, or even a particularly close derivative. The N019 is a proper PD radar, while it has a small antenna, it should not be inferior to F-16A radar (itself rather dodgy, but again, small nose with a small antenna). The one with MTI filter was on the MiG-23.

All I'm asking is that they follow HB's lead. I barely made it back from sea and the first thing I did was I buy the Phantom. A one week "introductory offer" to compensate for lack of preorder would have been fair.

This is not possible IRL, either. Shrike is essentially a Sparrow with the seeker retuned to seek a specific kind of radar. Later variants had some flexibility, but it was for most part hardwired. Even if it could track Patriot radar emissions (I'm not sure if it can), a corresponding head was never designed, because why would it be? Even if we're considering Iran, Shrike was long out of service by the time Patriot came around, and it doesn't really have the kinematic performance to hit it from outside its range.

Well, Heatblur could. Next time I have to choose between two modules, I know which one I'll get. Steam users shouldn't get shafted because preorders on Steam don't work now for some reason (and they used to, I preordered Apache just fine). Couldn't you make it possible to transfer Eshop preorder to Steam, or something? Either that, or add regional pricing to it.

Couldn't you make it 30% for a week or so? Steam users should get a chance for the preorder discount, too. Heatblur did exactly that for the Phantom and it worked out for them.

People are expensive whether they sit in cockpit or not. Automated systems, such as MWS, autopilot and so on are the way militaries are going towards right now. Optionally piloted aircraft mean that the pilot doesn't have to be piloting all the time, and can do WSO's job instead when needed, while still being on hand to control the aircraft.

Show me one video that shows it doing this "clearly", as opposed to simply approaching from behind. No, modern heatseekers take the shape of the whole aircraft into account, not only to reject flares, but also to avoid being fooled by having engines far apart (which is not why Russians do it, BTW, and it would not work even against missiles that do home on the jetpipe, because of the blast radius). Look up any unclassified docs on how their seekers work, and you'll understand why it's the only way they can work.

He's a USAF jock, so he's not nearly as well-mannered as USN aviators. Then again, when we get a carrier Phantom we'll also get ones from USMC... That said, to think of it, I mostly heard F-word variations as the pilots' profanities of choice. While I don't think they'd shy away from religious ones these days, perhaps in the 80s people took those things more seriously.

Well, when to use which maneuver is kind of obvious - you use the regular "combat turn" when they're shooting at you from the ground, as to minimize the time you're flying straight. The "loft" one is a classic pop-up attack, used if you're able to terrain mask, and the half loop technique is for low threat situations - it overflies the target going fast, and then pops up into an attack. It's accurate and lets you inspect the target, but it also exposes you to enemy fire, particularly to MANPADS. It would've been nice if some more time was spent on tactics, but these attack types themselves are fairly basic building blocks. I admit, this campaign could use some more theory, but ED probably thought it'd come from elsewhere, this is just the practical part.

Honestly, it's not like this particular weapon looks like something that MiG-29A will be able to carry, anyway. This thing looks like it has a widebody motor, a much larger seeker and overall only the fins resemble the R-27ER. It's not like the Shrike, if it was just an ER tuned into AWACS radars instead of MiG's own, it would've been a simple matter. This is obviously a new weapon, and thus, probably only compatible with new versions of the MiG-29. We don't even know how exactly is it cued onto a specific radar signal.

Turns out, it's still wrong if you reference the N1, but a bit less so. If you set the power the briefing wants you to, you'll get too slow. I think this needs to be adjusted, especially since it's in the briefing, so no issues with voicing.

I think it's less of a matter of available resources (although Soviet air had proportionally less funding allocated to it), and more a matter of doctrine. Soviets had dedicated fighters with secondary bombing role, and hence they could focus on making them good fighters. MiG-29 is an excellent fighter and it can carry a few bombs, which is enough for tactical "frontline" aviation, where it was meant to fight. It doesn't have to be a good bomber or attack aircraft, because those are not its primary roles. Accordingly, its pilots have to be good at flying a fighter, not necessarily at bombing things (although they have to be competent at it). In fact, the F-16 was a bit of an oddball even on the US side (though with precedent in F-4 Phantom, which grew into multirole aircraft organically). It was designed as a cheap fighter for NATO air forces, many of which are much smaller than USAF. Hence, one fighter that could do fighter jobs and be a bomb truck made sense. If anything, rich nations have more specialization than smaller ones, because they can afford to have separate aircraft for different roles.