Dragon1-1

Ambient temperature, perhaps? NTTR is fairly hot, while Caucasus is more temperate. There might be less contrast in NTTR.

DLLs that are involved in authenticating something can be prone to false positives, since they listen to remote servers and do things on local machine based on the answer, and also involve anti-spoofing techniques to make sure you don't fool the authenticator with some simple hack. AVs use a rather convoluted set of criteria, and it's not hard to trip them by accident (particularly if you're connecting to internet), especially when it comes to niche software that isn't always immediately checked by every major AV maker.

In fact, a heater, particularly an early model, is more likely to go after a Phantom's big, flaming pair of motors rather than a MiG somewhere out in front. Even if the radar lock is good, if the seeker happens to catch sight of something else that's hot, it might go after that instead. It might be a flare, it might be an unlucky wingmate. Later models with actual ECCM would be less susceptible to this, but not immune.

Honestly, I don't know if self-lasing after loft was ever a thing in that era. Buddy lasing is probably the optimal way to operate in this case. Lofting LGBs and then lasing them is not an easy feat even in the Viper.

I doubt I wouldn't feel any difference, human senses are quite sensitive to angles, even 19mm of travel would be enough to feel rotation versus sliding. Besides, a single bar mechanism is actually simpler and more robust than sliders are. Force feedback is great for warbirds and for older jets, which had long pedal travel. For F-16 and F-18, though, I would prefer to have a realistic mechanism, complete with a force transducer (although since they do move, a geared Hall sensor could do just as fine).

Excellent, now explain why you can't apply the very same reasoning to F-4E, which is beaten in BVR by the Tomcat and anything with a Fox 3, and the Sparrows that it can carry can barely be considered a BVR missile. Outside of a restricted lobby, it's nothing more than a bomb truck (admittedly a good one, it hauls more Mk82s than even the Mudhen). You can't use it competitively. While you're at it, explain why it doesn't apply to MiG-19P, which, while not particularly popular (probably because RAZBAM is dragging their feet on finishing it), is nonetheless a thing. And no, it's not a "late" variant, it's actually earlier than the S. It has all the problems you mention, no CMs, and its RWR has a single warning lamp and only works from behind. People still fly it, though obviously not against F-16 and Hornets (except in guns only, where it can very much kick a Viper's tail if a fight goes one circle). FYI, the MiG-21F-13 came in 1960. On a server restricted to 60s aircraft, it'd be pretty much the top dog amongst day fighters, at least. Facing F-100s, F-8s, early F1s and the like, it'd easily dominate the sky. There was no BVR in that era (F1's Fox 1s don't have the range to be called that), and flares were uncommon, although with rear aspect missiles this wasn't as much of a problem as you might think.

Outclassed in what? MiG-21bis is much heavier, turns worse, and while it can carry the R-60, that missile's all aspect capabilities are mediocre at best. The F-4E can try to kill a MiG-19 in BVR (if the server isn't heaters only), but outside that, the -19 will run circles around it. Which is exactly what happened in Vietnam, VPAF didn't have many of those, but they made good use of ones they had. Face shots with Sidewinders that we have on the Phantom aren't reliable, either. While its range leaves something to be desired, the MiG-19 is phenomenally agile, surprisingly easy to fly, and it out-accelerates the F-4 in some regimes. At low skills level of both pilots, it's the Phantom that'll be a beautifully modeled ball of flames by the end of the fight. It's MiG-19S, BTW. Or, МиГ-19C. Write either Latin or Cyrillic, don't mix them. There's no such animal as a MiG-19C. NATO reporting name for the -19S is Farmer-C, but that's it. The aircraft used in Vietnam was actually J-6 (the Chinese version of MiG-19S), but the differences were relatively minor. Either way, it's actually a better day fighter than the -19P we have. For that matter, F-4B's primary disadvantage would be that it has no internal gun nor a proper gunsight, making use of gunpods difficult and pretty much forcing it to rely on Sidewinders. In hands of an average player, would likely lose to all the aircraft you mentioned due to its hard wing requiring a very different fighting style. Sure, it has Sparrows, but they can be dodged, and BVR in that era would often end in a WVR engagement, where older MiGs can wipe the floor with the Phantom unless the Phantom jock really knows what he's doing.

So would the F-4 (any version), seeing as the servers in questions are full of Fox 3 slingers that eat anything older for breakfast (this does annoy Redfor players who don't have an FF module with Fox 3). And yet, there's market for older aircraft. Those who just want to win will get an F-14, a Hornet or the Viper. BLC is a matter of hard/soft wing. Hard wing would definitely be an interesting aircraft to fly, even if that'd mean sacrificing some modern conveniences. Soft wing will work better (though not well) in turn and burn dogfights that people tend to get into, but hard wing is faster and accelerates better. Most Phantoms got upgraded with a soft wing, but there's a reason Japan didn't do it. They would each have a role they can play. Vietnam servers will exist when we have a map and more aircraft for the era. Right now, DCS seems to be doing best in a hypothetical 80s timeframe, but that doesn't mean earlier models aren't worth making.

MiG-19P has no countermeasures, either. Sure enough, it's not the most popular module, but I feel it has to do with it being a MiG and being a bit abandoned by RAZBAM. The -21bis does, if you load them. The bis is also notoriously outdated, and Mag3 is actively considering a new MiG-21 module (very likely a Vietnam variant). Just, you know, after the Corsair. Whenever they're going to finish that. If there are Vietnam servers, with period-accurate aircraft, people will use those modules there. Remember, on what is essentially a late 60s battlefield those missiles are not going to be game-breakers for guns only aircraft. AIM-9B is only a little better than guns, and if you restrict Phantom's use of Sparrows (besides the SAMs, the only worthwhile radar missile in that war), the MiG-19S is going to be scary, just like its other variant. In fact, early variants are better suited to a typical newbie's "turn and pull" fighting style than late models, which typically turn into energy fighters, even if the type didn't start as one.

Not quite, both MiG-19S (trades the rather lousy radar for a third gun) and MiG-21F-13 (lightweight and nimble dogfighter) have their own advantages. They are not inferior, MiG-19S has more guns, can carry more rockets and it remains an excellent dogfigter, while the F-13 would be easier to win dogfights in for the average player, particularly on a guns only server, where its inferior missiles won't hurt it too much. MiG-21bis is a late, heavyweight variant, while its engine upgrades kept up with the increasing weight, it has small wings, and as such, it doesn't really like slow speeds. The F-13, while much more primitive, would be more maneuverable in tight turns, and IMO, it'd actually be a superior aircraft in MP context. I think that many of the older airframes would have a lot of appeal. Some aircraft changed more, some less, but typically, the changes added weight and often drag, as well. A hard wing F-4 would fight very differently from the one we have, and some people might like it better. For what it's worth, it's 650km form Udon to Hanoi, and a square about 1500km from corner to corner would cover almost all of it. This is comparable to making the whole Afghanistan, so the new map tech can handle it. The catch, of course, is that not only all of that would have to be detailed area, but we're talking a lot of detail, seeing as Vietnam is heavily forested. ED had already stated they're going to make a Vietnam map, just that they'll do it when they're ready.

Electronic trim being rather coarse is a known issue that extends even to modern trim systems. Some aircraft provide analog controls that allow more precise trim, but IRL this is apparently something most pilots simply live with. I haven't flown the Phantom enough to have a landing technique that I could share, but trimming it roughly on AoA and then correcting with stick pressure might work. Do not try to relieve stick pressure completely, just keep it roughly in the center. You'll be constantly making corrective inputs, anyway, since pitch and power are linked.

I highly doubt it'll ever get there. DCS is too specific for a general purpose model to work, and there's not enough content to train a special purpose model. Also, DCS is an environment that's constantly changing as ED develops it. Humans can make use of documentation, changelogs and other descriptive sources, something which AI inherently can't do. It needs raw code that's 100% correct. AI, ultimately, does nothing more than regurgitate what people did, over the years. It learns from an astounding amount of data (more than any human could ever hope to use), but it's never going to go beyond it. This is the starkest indication that it's not actually thinking: a human could be told something like "try that again, but without racism". AI can't, it has no concept of fairness, racism, bias or anything like that. It can't critically assess past data and correct for known biases. GIGO still applies, and deciding what is garbage and what isn't is simply out of scope for the whole paradigm modern AI runs on. LLMs are good at pretending, and that'll be their primary niche, IMO: interactivity and presentation. There are several places (way too many, in fact) where acting like a human is enough, thinking not required. It's great in those roles.

Yup, Vulcan is one of the prettiest bombers ever built. Glad they're keeping one running, would love to see it in DCS, too.

Yeah, they don't respect the capabilities of their sensors. This is particularly bad with older modules. MiG-19 wingmen will report being painted by a SA-2 from the front, despite the RWR in that jet being a simple tail warning system, with no ability to identify the radar. ED needs to look into AI hyper-awareness of its surroundings, right now it's pretty much impossible to bushwack them.

I think the best idea would be a "tally switch", perhaps with the context button, which, in WWR, would essentially tell Jester "I see that guy, stop looking at him". That would shift him to monitoring airspeed and watching out for other bandits, particularly ones who might be setting up to sneak up on you. Another press would be the "where is he?" function, where he'd try to find the guy you were just tracking.

AGM-88 could work on the MiG in only one way, I think: no interaction with the aircraft at all. The MiG would see it as a dumb store (probably complete with displaying symbology for something else), and upon launch, it'd fly according to a preprogrammed profile. That's how GPS guided bombs likely work on the MiG-29A, too. No indications, no in-cockpit coordinate setting, just program on the ground and eyeball the parameters for release. As for an R-27ER, it works just like the R-27R. The only difference between those two is the motor.

That definitely sounds like a bug. I don't think the backlobe would be strong enough for that.

Yeah, Shrike is fairly dumb. It's basically a Sparrow tuned into known SAM radar frequencies instead of your own reflections. If a radiation source matches its seeker tuning, it will chase it. It's not particularly picky about where these radio waves come from, and being derived from the Sparrow, it certainly has the performance to hit airborne targets. The HARM incident was different, in that the pilot actually locked it onto the B-52's turret FCR, because he thought it was a hostile ground-based radar.

Are we ever going to see OBOGS BIT (it just turns a light on if everything is good), PFL startup faults (PFL items that come up on startup and need to be cleared once up and running), AAR door/NWS logic fix (with AAR door open on the ground, AR/NWS button operates the AAR disconnect, not NWS) and other such details? They're not super-important, but they do contribute to immersion.

Yeah, the good thing is, if it comes to it, the Phantom accelerates like a bat out of hell, and that makes heater range very short against it in a tail chase. That said, if you lose track of a MiG-21, it will be on your tail next time you look. Should that happen, the decision to extend has to be immediate.

BA is adjustable because IRL, these parameters are loaded from the DTC, which is itself set up before flight. If, for instance, you tell the chief to make a last minute adjustment to your bombs' BA while sitting in the cockpit, or you realize, while starting up, that you forget to change the DTC setting from your usual one, you probably won't have time to run back to the briefing room and update your DTC. In such cases, you'll need to do that from the cockpit. The jet doesn't magically know those settings IRL, and in DCS, it only does because we don't simulate the DTC yet.

They certainly were impressed, Tomcat was designed taking into consideration the lessons from Vietnam. Phantom's problems with employing both Sparrows and even more finicky Falcons in a dogfight during that war are well documented. Sidewinders were the missile of choice for a reason. Between the long settling time, poor maneuverability and complex switchology, Sparrow is not something you want to rely on in a turning engagement. Using the dogfight mode with it is possible, but it's something you want to use for a visual shot against non-maneuvering targets. Remember to respect the four second seeker settling time, if the Sparrows are going stupid, that's probably the reason. Other than that, make sure the radar is actually tracking. The training mission explains this quite well.

In any case, the meat and potatoes are the weapon systems. For a civilian sim, there's no need for them, while for DCS, that's where most of the time will be spent (although for a swing wing design like the Tonka, FM and flight controls are also quite complex). I don't believe a partnership would help all that much, though of course I wouldn't mind the two dev studios cooperating on research and so on.

You're not going to hit much in a dogfight when using a Sparrow like that. Even with a lock, it's not particularly suited to tight turning engagements. It was a common complaint in Vietnam, too, even the "Dogfight Sparrow" was dubious in WVR. They preferred Sidewinders for a reason. Try using the flood mode against bombers flying straight and level, you may score a hit.

They're called "lawyers" for short.