=BoB= David

See attachements below. Will be video somehow helpful as well? The video shows it well. flickering.trk dcs.log

Hello, I've noticed two issues with IR marker on TGP litening 1) IR marker flickering, it is know issue? Only MT, on "old" client it is without flickering 2) IR marker ignores masking by plane It is known issue? It is track needed? Thanks! Best regards

8 people here agree that API of 120s sucks, maybe ED might start considering looking at it again, and redoing it, because that API really sucks and rather it was a step backwards in some ways... I understand that the old API was simple, couldn't simulate many functions and so on, but in the end it turned out that 120s are a joke.. And ED stopped somewhere in the middle of the rework that could have resulted in the weapon being usable and actually being comparable to what it can do in reality, at least within the declassified information and in our simulator..

That is not true, depends on type of missile, if Fox 1 is guided by CW (like some types of Aim-7), it is possible to "lock up" target again and missile will guide correctly, because missile is guided by radar reflection from target, 27s using different principle of missile guiding.

Sorry for bashing, we discuss it via PMs. Thank you for notice and asking.

Still no response from ED, I'm "really surprised that" ED is ignoring this

Unfortunately ED has a habit of ignoring these important things, not just countermeasures, but also half-breed simulations of smarter weapons, sensor suites on modules etc.. And not only that, just for the curious, look at the years old bugs in for example BF109K-4.. and what about buggy supercarrier, effect of clouds on sensors etc., we can talk about these things for days, and the ED rarely ever responds to that.. I absolutely admire Gumidek persistence in pointing these things out, I've honestly given up.

Hi @SUNTSAG, I would love to download spitfire cocpit mod, but link is dead... Thank you in advance!

I would tell you why but then I get ban, so use your fantasy...

This is WIP, ED planing to add new intercept technology for bombs/missiles etc..

Problem is that AIM-120s are simulated for maybe 30% in terms of kinetics, functions and guidance in summary, ED have thousands of these tracks, but to be honest we can only hope it will change in future...

Totally agree, thank you for your input.

No, they dont. I am not speaking about markpoints..

And when did you change your approach to that? I thought ED (and other third parties) wanted to make complete machines (except for undeclared features for sure) By the way, OVFLY is a very practical feature what really SHOULD NOT missing. I'm rather disappointed that the way the A-10C for example is done / made is not reflected in other / newer modules regarding to that roadmap..

Hello, a lot of fuctions on HSI still missing / not simulated, like OVFLY, NAV CK, REF WP, VEC etc... For example OVFLY function on F-16 is simulated / working, however F/A-18C Hornet has been released for more than year earlier and still nothing. Thanks.

Please ED, make adjustable detents for cutoff/idle and afterburner in axis controls like in BMS Falcon for example. Thank you!

Dear ED, current status of AIM-120B/C5s is ridiculous, what is your plan / schedule with this weapon? About year ago, you promised us whitepaper, where you explain lot of things and roadmap of their developement as well. Where is it? This ridiculous / sad state of AMRAAMs is here for more than year. Where is the problem? I am not gonna send you tracks, you have to have thousands of tracks right now, that should be plenty of tracks to make things happen and do something with state of these weapons. Thanks for understanding, your beloved customer.

No HB and Razbam changes?

I speak about your " In fact I'm not even sure if it can go supersonic with more than a centerline on." That just isnt true, superhornet can go supersonic easily with load...

That is not true mate... yes, superbug is bigger and heavier, but at the same time superbug has around 20% more powerful engines and better aerodynamic drag coeficient than legacy one...

+1

"I work with professional simulations and we simulate things that don't exist all the time." So where is my TIE fighter? Jokes aside, simulators to simulate things what dont exists is something different than "Digital Combat Simulator".

I know about Ka-50-2 Erdogan, but it is completely different machine... Yes, DCS is sandbox, but "real simulator" aswell, so DCS should be without any fantasy machines or combination of 2 and more machines in one...

I hope there will be docs/photos of Ka-50 with 6 pylons

You missed the point, buddy.