Dr_Pavelheer

Clearly you guys play SP exclusively so it doesn't affect you, but locking content behind a myriad of DLC's would mean the end of small communities that can't afford to force people to buy everything if they want more than a dozen of people to take part in an event, hell, some people seem to take issue with installing free mods required do join. If more money is needed to develop assets then ED should either raise the ED tax and increase the prices or encourage third parties to provide assets with their modules, either way joining server running mission using said new assets shouldn't require any more purchases other than the currently running map and aircraft module (or Combined Arms if mission allows it and you swing that way). Even EA realized that locking maps behind additional paywalls was a mistake and newer Battlefield games allow you to play all of them. Back in BF3 days servers running DLC maps were an extremely small minority, it was hard to find one with decent latency so everybody played base game maps even after EA started giving away DLC's for free(!) on a couple of occasions. Inb4 get a job, I've spent upwards of 300-400$ on this game. Prices aren't the issue, fragmentation of community is.

@SilentSparrow The purpose of this thread is sharing classified information discussing feasibility of Super Hornet in DCS, the fact that its development would delay modules that are more interesting and would bring more to the game than "Hornet, but a bit bigger" is most certainly a valid argument against making it a priority (if the necessary data to start development was even there of course), especially considering insane amounts of work that would have to be put into it to make it a reality. ED (or third party devs) should be able to hear opinions both for and against to be able to gauge community interest before making business decisions and threads like this are as good a place for sharing those opinions as any

@SilentSparrow To express his opinion that development time that would have to be spent on Super Hornet would be better used on something else?

Anything that further contributes to dividing the MP community is a bad idea, just like other people ITT I'd rather pay more for modules than repeat the WWII asset pack debacle. As somebody whose favorite way of enjoying DCS is "flying" as a part of virtual "squadron" I know that even getting people to buy Syria and PG is like pulling teeth, any paid asset pack would mean attendance falling through the floor. In fact I think ED should consider optional per server licenses for maps, appropriately priced of course, especially now that new and exciting maps are coming out

Below the INS knob there is a bunch of buttons, look for one called "CLDP", click it to power on targeting pod

Extremely high ping might have something to do with it. Tacview in its basic form is free, you can either download it from developers website or from Steam (doesn't matter if your game is standalone or Steam). You can either have it record locally (your point of view) or some servers record their own Tacview files (servers point of view). Keep in mind some servers either have 10 minute delay or have prohibited local recording altogether to prevent cheating. Either way analyzing replays like that should give you a clue where is the problem, maybe target just notched perfectly, maybe it got killed by somebody else and that's why you didn't get a kill message etc.

That it lost guidance or whatever

Start by installing Tacview, so you can see whether missile ran out of speed or went stupid

Are you within the 6-7nm or so? Maverick in Harrier locks automatically, when you click TDC it moves to velocity vector if I remember correctly

Go to mission editor, spawn JF-17, select Combined Joint Task Force Blue or Red as country, go to loadout and you can check out all liveries there. If you have any that you like in particular you can edit their description.lua to remove country limitations, it doesn't break IC

I'm not sure how useful that is in DCS, but I can imagine this feature helping get a lock faster IRL if you know where the target is, you can get multiple quick sweeps which increases likelihood you'll get enough good returns to generate a track

Instead of current scan azimuth as long as you keep the TDC pressed you get a very narrow and very fast scan pattern, F16 has something similar

Nah, it's still absolute. Axis 100%= max zoom (in given range) or radar max up, axis 0%= min zoom or radar max down, just like in F16 except in F16 you have separate radar and TGP zoom axes, so make sure you bind it to something that doesn't return to center (like F18-esque antena elevation)

Shaking is a bug since the MT patch. There are two zoom levels, each can be zoomed in further using radar elevation knob. AG radar apparently doesn't work for some people since the MT patch, I personally haven't noticed anything other than sometimes last frame being preserved

@Hobo 1-1 If you're EU or US you might be interested in joining https://discord.gg/MpZC4VZQa8 Most full fidelity modules are available, including Jeff, Viggen, Mirage 2000 and even Hind

Auto lasing was way too early from day 1, AFAIK nothing has changed in that regard, audio drop cue is also way too early. If you can lase you do for maximum precision, GPS only means you don't have to and unlike GBU-12 bomb won't go stupid if you stop lasing mid flight

There is no HMD because PAF didn't buy them for Mk1 JF-17. If they do and there is enough data it will likely be implemented

That green shader over color image makes it look like some old documentary or something, pretty cool

Razbam has already implemented something similar in M2000, and their another project, Mig-23, will have Lazur. Would be nice if there was a possibility of some kind of collaboration or if ED included that in the base game as API

Cool, I didn't know those prototypes were advanced enough to be flown

SA-11 are quite durable in DCS, they eat 23mm for breakfast

Doesn't the fact that RCS is just a static value give you a pause? Current modelling doesn't even take stores into account, let alone aspect or band radar is operating in. And it's not that big of a deal either, there are so many things I would rather ED implemented or reworked before they start working on minor stuff like more complex RCS simulation

It's not like it was a completely new design that never went into production, they were modifying already existing aircrafts. Their flight parameters were unchanged, maybe slightly moved center of gravity but that's it. It's more like putting AMRAAMs on F14 than making F111B or F16XL module

Considering the current tensions between US and China Peace Pearl J-8 is a very fitting and historically relevant choice

If we want to have anything red equivalent or newer than Flogger we're going to have to accept some concessions, that's for sure. While J-8 PP definitely pushes it with the whole never being build thing, there is also the "what if nothing didn't happen in 1989" aspect. What is more, later versions kinda achieved the same results as Peace Pearl, just with Russian/indigenous/probably Israeli derived avionics. While I'll personally most likely buy this module I'm not surprised some people find it too fictional, I don't want to see DCS go down that road as well