HalasKor

I am using an old laptop with a 1070 and a i7-7700HQ. For me, three threads seems to be my sweet spot. One thread is very bad eight threads are also bad. I am having poor performance when mapping large cities.

Apologies, I didn’t fully grasp the context of the reply. It was arrogant of me to assume a mistake.

Well, The engine in question is a F110 not a F100. Based on some quick double checks on my part it would appear that the F-14A+ (F-14B) used the F110 engine just like the block 50 viper. However, I am no expert. I am prone to making mistakes and there is a lot of misinformation on the internet.

At the time that was posted, the only available F-14 in the sim was the B. The A only recently became available.

Every decision has a pro and a con. Concerning creation, if one does not set an end state or goal it becomes easy to induce feature creep. Provided you have the money and time, open ended development can create amazing things. On the opposite end having a set finish line allows creators to organize and focus their efforts more easily. ED is in the business of making the most detailed simulation of combat aircraft. Some would argue that certain development decisions are a waste of time or a hassle. However, if you view ED’s decisions through the lens of realistic simulation a lot of choices make sense. ED cannot develop a viper tailored for everyone’s need. So they have made the logical choice in line with their design vision. A very specific viper helps both the customer to understand what they are getting and allows the developer to have an easily realized end state.

B49 should be the MK82 AIR bomb, the high drag 500lbs bomb with a ballute to slow it down. If I am going to use an unguided bomb to try and "accurately" hit targets, usually I will use Mk82. If I need to hit a high threat target, or a target in a high threat area, and I only have dumb bombs, I would likely use Mk82 snake eye. The high drag bombs are meant to be used in clusters and from low altitude and shallow dives or level flight. High drag bombs are very inaccurate.

Well sounds like it took some effort to get working. Glad you got some better hardware that improved your simming experience. I am looking forward to my next big upgrade.

While I agree that this discussion will likely never end, I don’t agree that this was the worst compromise. Perhaps the execution of this compromise was flawed, but I feel it’s the most “in the middle”. Granted what we know now, that people are upset that the 4/6 HARMS are not labeled as inoperable, it might seem like a bad compromise. Considering the two primary sides to this issue: smart weapons should vs. should not be operable from 4/6 I feel the intention was clear and well intended. Allowing the HARM to be carried on 4/6 was part of the compromise, but as you have pointed out, it would seem to cause unique issues. In the end it would seem appropriate to remove them from those stations. Having weapons that can be carried, but not employed, would seem to be inconsistent with other modules.

Not quite, the load for GBU’s are different. I think you can do dual mounts of the GBU-12 on the inward stations, I think you are stuck with one GBU-12 on the outward stations. GBU-16’s can be loaded single only. Though I do believe you can have 12 Mk-82’s. You should also be able to carry eight CBU-82/97 between the inward and outward stations. I’m not 100% on the loading of GBU-12’s but that’s how it worked if my memory serves.

I believe you can carry everything except the Mavericks and Harms (you can’t shoot the harms). I don’t have personal experience with the JDAM’s. I am not sure if JDAM’s or JSOW’s can be used on the inner pylons. The rockets are singles on the inner pylons, Mk-82’s can be triple mounted, CBU-87/97 can be double mounted.

Give it a few decades, maybe half a century.

I feel that this point seems to be forgotten anytime the wishlist is concerned. As was stated, ED is legally restricted in what they can do. Even something as simple as wanting to use the name “F-16 Fighting Falcon” has licensing considerations. The “Other sim” doesn’t have this problem (for the most part), because their sim is not for profit and does not require purchase.

I do believe that the clouds, either preset or dynamic weather, are intended to move with the wind. It’s hard to say if the clouds will always start in the same shape and same spot on mission start. It depends on how the clouds are created. The current implementation would imply that the clouds are not built dynamically, considering they are always the same shape. At the very least, we can expect that weather presets and dynamic weather will both have moving clouds. Creating a weather preset randomization would be neat, though it’s possible that the dynamic weather is meant to be the “randomizer”.

So a more efficient supersampling technology?

I have a hard time seeing the value add of any supersampling/upscaling. As was stated upscaling/downscaling results in a loss of information. If the end goal of this technology is to achieve a clearer picture, why not just get a display with a higher native resolution?

Hello, I am not new to DCS but I made a mistake repeatedly without realizing it. It took me many startups and references to the training, videos, and manual, to realize my mistake. Unsurprisingly my error was the flipping of an unnecessary switch. Armed with this knowledge I now have the power to screw up my navigation system if I want to. But to save others from this trouble I wish to share my knowledge. I don't have a perfect understanding but turning on the "AIRSPD SNSR TO DOPPLER" will effectively "invert" your navigation. If I had memorized the startup training I would not have made this mistake. Here is a picture of the left wall of the pilot seat:

The truth is, neither of us has the complete picture. We can only speculate why ED makes, or does not make, any one decision. My opinion concerning ED's development decisions stems from what they have told us, as vague as it can be, and what makes sense to me logically. I don't understand why you believe that GCI and ECM systems are not sensitive or controlled information. Both GCI and ECM/ECCM are considerable parts of air war and air defense. It makes no sense for any military to allow their civilian populace, or foreign citizens, to have any detailed understanding of these systems as they are used in warfare. ED worked hard to improve the simulation of the R-27. It seems to me that you are very jaded, considering you view these positive changes as a public relations stunt. I am sorry that you are not more happy about your favorite simulator. I can't help you fix that. We are at an impasse, and this conversation is no longer constructive. I have nothing further to contribute.

Yes, you are correct, I did misunderstand. However, ED still has the same challenges for what it can simulate. Nearly every aircraft, system, and weapon system that is simulated, especially those that are in active service, have limiting factors concerning their simulation fidelity. Sometimes these limitations could be local or international laws, or a lack of information. Whatever the case, some things will remain hidden from public consumption due to their sensitive nature. Things like ECM might never be fully fleshed out, nearly every country with combat aircraft have some ECM or ECCM capabilities. At the end of the day, the basic function of a military is to destroy its enemies and defend its country. The easier it is to understand the capabilities, doctrine, and readiness of a enemy military, the easier it is to defeat. What does this have to do with DCS? DCS is for fun, and national defense is a matter of life and death. If any military body decides it doesn't want a specific craft or system implemented, ED must respect their wishes or suffer the consequences. Concerning the Aim-7 and the R-27, ED have just finished Computational Fluid Dynamic tests on the R-27 missiles, here is a link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/medialibrary/bda/xnncgbqcdftgat1awbmcegln17yf2c8m/R-27_Missile_Family.pdf The R-27 should now be more accurate to real life, at least where aerodynamics and missile thrust is concerned. Concerning the R-27P, I'm sure ED would love to implement this missile, but they may lack the airframe or permission to do so. In my mind, the main factors concerning Bluefor vs Redfor development priorities probably comes down to information access and the user base. ED has a limited development staff and everything developed costs time and money. ED needs to think strategically when it comes to development decisions. So, if we assume they are intelligent, their short term development goals probably line up with the long term business strategy. So at the moment some things might be on the back burner. At the end of the day, I don't say these things to prove right or wrong. I only wish to temper our collective thoughts and desires within reality. In my opinion it is a little easer to deal with disappointment if one sees an issue from multiple sides.

Well, as far as I understand it, the Ka-50 had a fairly limited production, and not many were made. Perhaps the limited production of the Ka-50 had something to do with ED being allowed to simulate it. In any case I can only speculate why they could do a Ka-50 but not anything else from the time period. ED have the desire to simulate Russian aircraft. With that desire in mind the only reasons you could imagine something wouldn’t be simulated would be: Cost, lack of documentation, lack of subject matter experts, legalities, lack of interest or technology. The most significant reason I think, ED are a company based in Russia and are subject to Russian law. The Solution to F-16C’s and F-18’s in the same airspace as older types like the Mig-21 or MiG-29 could be as simple as restricting those newer aircraft types.

Yes, the new full fidelity Mig will be old. I’m confident ED would do something newer if they could.Though it seems to be very tough for ED to develop anything even vaguely modern from Russia. I imagine the Russian government does not see the value in allowing ED to simulate modern aircraft. I bet some would love to have older versions of the 15, 16, and 18.

Though it is not specifically a Mig-29K, I do believe a full fidelity Mig-29 is being developed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe it will be anything modern, though despite that, I’m sure people will still be happy to have a 29. Balance between factions on the other hand is a different issue. Considering the focus of DCS is to try and faithfully simulate aircraft as close to real life as possible. Developing aircraft with the intent of achieving balance in a competitive environment goes against the principles of realistic simulation. I have nothing against simulating early 2000’s era Russian aircraft, but balance should be left to the tournament hosts and players that want to play competitively, and not Eagle Dynamics. To do otherwise would result in a less authentic simulation. If ED were to produce tools that give the player base more flexibility in determining allowed aircraft, systems, and weapon systems in a multiplayer environment, that would be fine, so long as it does not impact the development of systems and craft that are faithful to reality.