Dragon1-1

It's more that we're already running into limitations concerning the curvature of the Earth. South Atlantic is already too big for the flat Earth that DCS uses, the map is geographically inaccurate. It's saved only by the fact Falklands and the mainland are separated by so much water that it's not immediately obvious their relative placement is fudged. Not such recourse with Vietnam, which is not only enormous, but is also a long strip of land, which makes it impossible to get the real shape right on a flat map. ED is developing tech to allow a round Earth model, but it's still ways away.

Bugs are one thing, but redesigns, that's what I really like to see. Many devs, when confronted with the reality of their design just not working well for players, act as if reality is wrong and the design is fine. DCS team reacts to what the community actually wants and needs, as opposed to following some "artistic vision", so to speak, cooked up at the beginning of the project. That's why DCS adapts to community's needs so well. Oh, and also, a shout out for properly used the Saved Games folder on Windows to store DCS stuff. It's been over a decade since it's been added and some game devs still stuff the saves in My Documents. Small thing, but I like it when things are in their proper places.

What I think is best about DCS is that it's constantly improving. Nothing is set in stone, and the devs acknowledge that many parts of the sim could be done better, it's just a matter of when they get to actually redoing it. It's not just DCS code that is being updated, but also its design, which is rare. Too many devs have a history of not acknowledging complaints about their bad design, even if the entire community is shouting at them about it.

I'm still waiting for my Steam preorder. I guess this will happen when they nail the date down.

I mostly use it with the ratchet engaged for precision, but the ability to unlock is a must for me. It's a shame that so few manufacturers have that feature, I used a Logitech G500 for a long time, but a fiddly plug for the side buttons broke during a microswitch repair attempt. Hence I got a Razer, which doesn't have a cable (meaning no need to open it up to replace it) and in which the internals are far easier to replace. In fact, IMO it's fully worth checking out the repair videos on YouTube before buying a mouse. Cables tend to wear out after a while, depending on desk layout, and even if that doesn't happen, microswitches do.

It's surprisingly good for AI, but the messed up small text gives it away. If you look closely, you'll spot other nonsensical details. It looks like the AI took a mishmash of century series aircraft and just squashed them together. It almost looks like it could be some obscure prototype/competing design that didn't make the cut.

It does what it needs to, and there's precious few better ways to do it. It's annoying and has trouble whenever you need to enter numbers, but it allows you to give commands reasonably fast. Phantom's implementation adds some streamlining that can help minimize its use. Myself, I prefer to have Jester fully scripted, like in Reforger II or most Reflected's campaigns. So that he gives commands to me, just like it would usually work in a real Tomcat. In fact, with scripting, you can even have him launch missiles. That said, this is strictly SP-only, and in practice restricted to top quality campaigns due to effort it takes to build and debug a mission like that.

What we need is a comms menu that is easily bound to voice commands without fiddling with VAICOM, which is notorious for breaking campaigns and only exists because of ED's misbegotten approach to comms. The menu is badly designed, seemingly originally made with easy comms in mind first.

Yeah, by all indications, Ron Zambrano is pretty much why they're in the fix they're in. As I said in the other thread, Elon Musk sized ego with none of his influence and a fraction of his money. If it wasn't for him, this legal dispute would probably be long resolved.

This does show Dassault had hopefully finally got on with the times, though. Given that they have a reputation of being a PITA to work with as far as flightsims go, this might indicate some steps in the right direction. Not necessarily Rafale, but if they were willing to support more sim devs for DCS, we could see classics such as Super Etendard or Mystere IV. And of course, the Jag and Alphajet would be nice to see as well.

There's actually one feature that's really handy to have in a sim: free spinning scroll wheel. Great for quickly turning dials. You won't find that in most gaming mice, though. I use a Razer Basilisk because it's the only non-Logitech mouse that combines free scroll with wireless. This makes for a mouse that's very handy in a sim. It was expensive, but not excessively so. So I say, get any mouse that has an unlockable scroll wheel. Useful for work, too (scrolling through a large document, for instance).

That might be because quite a few notable assets still look like they came from LOMAC (because they did). It's being worked on, at least, I'm really glad the S-3D got new visuals. DCS is a wonderful sim, but consistent it's not. That said, if you set up your missions with new stuff only, on one of the latest maps, it does look properly stunning, and replacements for the old stuff are trickling in.

While I like the idea of a low key comms menu, the current one we have in DCS is grossly inadequate. It's inconsistent even within a mission (that is to say, "dynamic") and in dire need of an update, not visually, but rather in terms of functionality. That said, looks like the other sim is taking a cue from HB, which isn't the worst thing in the world... for VR users. In VR, it does make a certain amount of sense to have such an option, it's reasonably quick to interact with using just the PTT button and head movements, which is a vast improvement over fiddling with F keys. Of course, ideally the number keys would still be there, so you could use VA to punch in an appropriate key sequence.

It seems that they're essentially doing the East German MiGs as they were pre-unification (Polish skins notwithstanding). Also, Germans didn't really modify their MiGs all that much when they came into NATO, the most drastic alteration came in Polish service.

Sounds like an abandoned cheat code originally meant for developers. It's not in any official documentation. It does sound useful for testing AI stuff, but I think even ED might have forgotten about it at this point.

I think you can implement that as a script if you really want. ED is quite explicitly not interested in magic AAR, though. Maybe HB could add it to the Phantom, basically a "let Jester drive" option. FWIW, it was sometimes done that way IRL, since the backseater has a better view of the boom. That'd be aircraft-specific, though, and ED doesn't usually port HB features to their aircraft.

Not doable, AI FM is different from the player, and the engine probably isn't set up to support swapping FMs in real time. You might have noticed, for instance, that HB implemented Iceman as a relatively simple AI autopilot, as opposed to him being able to dogfight and do all the other stuff like DCS AI. That's because Iceman has to fly the jet just like you do, with full physics and subtleties of the model. The AI FMs are simplified to the point of inadequacy, which is why ED is now developing a more complex solution (GFM), which will still not be the same thing the player uses, but it should look similar. Older sims never did that. That's why several other titles do have a fully fledged "autopilot" which can fly the player's plane like any other AI. Their FMs were simple enough that both AI and player used the same one.

Unlikely. This feature would just be too complex to implement. Yes, it's hard (especially with low end hardware), but learning to fly proper formation first helps a lot.

This was because before Vulkan, the only option for Xplane 11 was OpenGL. So obviously you'd see a major benefit in this case, because they moved to an API that isn't ancient. DCS will likely not see anything nearly that dramatic, however, due to the way VR is implemented in DX11, we'll possibly see a performance increase, possibly a major one, for VR users specifically.

Yeah, it came at the end of the Cold War, but it is a Cold War aircraft. It went into service with the Soviets in '83 and changed little from 9.12 to 9.12A. Yes, most of its service wasn't during Cold War, but its avionics and performance are representative of the era. It represents the last batch of truly Cold War era designs. It is an 80s aircraft at the core. Also, the Cold War ended in 1991. What started in 1989 could have ended very differently if it wasn't Gorby leading the USSR. Indeed, that transition period is quite a fertile source of alt historical timelines when the USSR wasn't accommodating of its satellites revolting as it was IRL, so to speak.

The 9.12A is very much a Cold War aircraft, a contemporary of our F-14 variants. That it didn't change much into post-CW era is another matter, but in a mid-2000s Fox 3 fight, it's outclassed, even if the R-27ER can give it a surprising bite against sloppy NATO jet drivers.

A "useful aspect" that makes the radar able to see anything but the inside of your own nosecone. What is the main reason for zero doppler filter, then, in your opinion? Yes, the radome is mostly transparent to radar, but not perfectly, and it's close, so the return is fairly strong. BTW, in most proper formations (and all you'd want to be in when in combat), you'd never see the rest of the division on radar, except in trail, where you often want to have the lead on the scope (though if flying radar trail, you want to lock onto him anyway).

Worth noting, that's not the main reason for the zero closure filter. It's there so you're not getting returns from your own radome. That is also why it can't be turned off, the radar would be quite useless without it. All it'd see would be parts of your own aircraft, which quite obviously have zero closure (if they don't, you have bigger problems, so to speak ).

I think that a control on the throttle would've been clunky, plus it would have complicated things a lot. For instance, you'd probably need a motorized nozzle lever, like with Tomcat's wing sweep handle. Also, the STO stop is an important part of safely operating the Harrier, and implementing it on the throttle (or digitally) could also be complicated. Seeing as the control configuration worked just fine, this would have introduced unnecessary costs and complexity, all for a relatively minor convenience. The Harrier doesn't have a full HOTAS like Hornet or Viper do, in any case.

Because you want them separate, nozzle angle and throttle are two different controls. How would coupling them work, anyway? For VTOL, you want the throttle set fairly high, but nozzles full down. For a short landing, you need the nozzles angled, but a low-ish throttle. Not to mention VIFFing, which relies on independent nozzle control. Without a separate control, you wouldn't be able to control the jet properly. Also, remember that the Harrier family started out in late 60s. It has spiffy color MFDs, but it's not an FBW jet. Its HOTAS is rather more limited than in a Hornet, despite looking broadly similar. Trying to have a computer of the era control the nozzles likely wouldn't be very safe.